Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2002 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '~Q"m'hQmQ_~h~m~mh~==mQm_~!El!!~~~Q,~Lm__~mm_'~~~m~=m=_~_m--_=m~_D~JJJioj:;jlY_~Q,un~jLQ~hmmm'mmmh"m~_~=~__mmQm~=h___m_"M~~~[=m~"~h"~=' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO lO14B July 22, 2002 Helrl 19 Mayor McCash called the Dublin City Council meeting of July 22, 2002 to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call ,,--..., Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner, and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher. Mr. Kranstuber arrived at 7: 15 p.m. Ms. Salay was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Price, Ms. Crandall, Interim Chief Epperson, and Ms. Puskarcik. Approval of Minutes June 7.2002 Special Meetinq Mrs. Boring moved approval. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. June 8. 2002 Special Meetinq Mr. Reiner moved approval. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. June 14. 2002 Special Meeting Mayor McCash moved approval. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. June 17. 2002 Re!=lular Meetinq Mayor McCash moved approval. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. July 1. 2002 Special Meeting Mayor McCash moved approval. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. At this point, Mr. Kranstuber arrived. July 2.2002 Special Meeting Mayor McCash moved approval. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, abstain; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. July 8. 2002 Special Meetinq ,.-., Mayor McCash moved approval. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Correspondence The Clerk reported that no correspondence had been sent requiring Council action. Citizen Comments Joe Ryan. 48-year resident of Dublin. 8267 Riverside Drive noted that they have been involved in two rear-end collisions on Riverside Drive in the past 8 months while turning left into their driveway. Both accidents resulted in extensive damage. While speed is a factor, negligence on the part of drivers is a factor as well. Reducing the speed limit to 40 mph would help, as would additional patrolling during rush hours. Discussion followed about the speed study performed in conjunction with the Wyandotte I i .il:: ! I: . H" I I : , ". ji.l~ ~;K'f.nW1!;rrw,lI'i:l:t'IU!Hli Il!"hl"H"'tII, J!' f" HI\'\II,'I', '~'lf"'VII." I tl!PH+Ul HWli,.jif;i!iJi} Ii, I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _mh=_h~,,~h_=m=hm=~__= Minutes. o1_=m~m=__h~__m_=m=m'm_m~,nubJjrLCji>LmC.QJJncjL_=Q~m_'~._m__hm~,_,=~mm,Eg~~m2.,m.m~}J~,~t~nK"m~=__,= DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 Helrl July 22, 2002 19 Woods development that indicated a speed limit reduction was not warranted. The 40 mph speed at the Emerald Parkway intersection area was mandated by ODOT due to geometric requirements. Interim Chief Epperson noted that this area is one of the top five accident locations in the --- City. More enforcement is currently being implemented. In both cases described by the resident, failure to keep assured clear distance was a factor. Other factors include the speed limit change from 40 to 50 mph in this vicinity, and the variety of vehicles that use this roadway. Staff will continue to monitor the situation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested as a safer alternative that the residents travel farther north and turn into Wedgewood, then use the light to enter Riverside Drive, and proceed south to turn right into their driveways. While not convenient, this may be a safer alternative. Mayor McCash suggested that perhaps signage could be added to indicate that this area is a high accident zone. Wallace Maurer. 7351 Dublin Road commented: 1. In regard to the firing of the City Engineer, he understands that negotiations are ongoing between attorneys representing the parties. He asked if this is accurate. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff is working to resolve the issues. Mr. Maurer indicated that regardless of the results of negotiations, he would make further comment when the negotiations are concluded. 2. Asked about the specific reasons for adjournment to executive session on June 17. Mr. Smith responded that the executive session was called for land acquisition and legal matters, as noted on page 10 of the minutes. 3. While watching the U.S. Open, being played on Bethpage - a municipal golf course, he noted that Tiger Woods characterized this as the toughest course he has ever played. This brought to mind Dublin's golf course and the contracts entered into with a private entity for construction and operation. The City has effectively lost control of the course. The greens fees for the Bethpage course are $35. His proposal for the City of Dublin is that the City regains control of the golf course and charges a greens fee of $25. The response would be overwhelming and the revenue would be substantial. Scott Harinq. 3280 Lilly-Mar Court thanked Council for moving forward with the petition for traffic calming measures on Martin Road. The study has been completed and the results indicate that Martin Road, a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph is being used as a cut-through for motorists traveling at average speeds in excess of 40 mph. He asked when the project to install the speed bumps would be initiated. Ms. Grigsby stated that six speed humps at a cost of $60,000 could be installed as part of the 2002 street maintenance program, with the understanding that additional future appropriations may be needed for the street maintenance program. Mrs. Boring moved to direct staff to proceed with installation of speed humps at a cost of $60,000, with the understanding that additional appropriations may be necessary at a later date. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is aware that speeds are excessive on this road, but he was disappointed with the recommendation to install six speed humps. Apparently, other options were considered, but not recommended. Mr. Hammersmith responded that a lack of curb and gutter along this roadway makes other traffic calming devices difficult and costly to implement. Mr. Lecklider commented that he does not envision speed humps as a solution for speeding problems and cut-through traffic throughout the City. The measures implemented ~. on Avery Road are not aesthetically pleasing. He asked what type of speed humps would be installed on Martin Road. Mr. Hammersmith responded that these would be similar to those installed in Waterford - an elongated, flat top - versus the shorter, raised crosswalk used in other locations. Mr. Lecklider noted that he believes that the right-in, right-out turn restrictions at the Martin Road/Riverside Drive intersection should also be explored. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff would do so. The next step in this process is to ensure that the residents are in agreement with installation of the speed humps. Mr. Haring commented that the residents' concerns relate primarily to speed, not volume of traffic. He believes they will be supportive of installation of traffic calming devices, assuming they are similar to what has been installed on Monterey Drive. Mrs. Boring reiterated her motion to include the installation of speed humps on Martin Drive in the 2002 street maintenance program, with the understanding that additional appropriations may be necessary at a later date. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the policy requires that the residents' concurrence must be I I i I fJliL: HHi!i.iHI:1iI !II. l!i~i II I i ' T ;' V'l",,,,"""'I':!<"l"'.',,,','n'l'1';lI""""""IlTH'<'IW [i',"'}f l'IW.1"~'Il,:,'~',WJftliW":;!q",:'-,;tfl,l'-,,1:,j,f,jili,t Y'I' I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,_~~=,=,~m,m=m_"NQm_,!1in,:! tes~,2!___m=_=_~~Q=m__h~~m=NQP,D.uhUnJ~i1~_CollnclL"NQ~~=mmp,~mm=mmhmNQ'=m~_=~,Eas;L~;L3m'm..mp~"~m<:.~!!~g_~NQ_m~m_~'hmm'^ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 obtained prior to installation. Staff will proceed to obtain this. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. ~ Chief Woo, Washinqton Township Fire Chief reported to Council on EMS billing issues as they relate to Washington Township Fire Department and the City of Dublin. There has been a lot of press recently about Columbus and various other communities' intents to charge for EMS services in the future. He clarified that Washington Township does not intend to bill for their EMS services, as there is no need at this time. They will take every step necessary to ensure that the citizens of Washington Township, City of Dublin do not receive a bill for any call originating within the township or the City. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked whether a resident of Dublin who has experienced a situation where Columbus is called in to assist will then be billed for the Columbus portion of services rendered. Chief Woo responded tha~ as presently proposed, the Dublin resident would be billed for a mutual aid service rendered by Columbus. This is an issue to be addressed with Columbus by the township. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she received a questionnaire from Mayor Coleman's office on this matter, and if Council is in agreement, she will respond that the City of Dublin would not want residents of Dublin billed for any assistance provided by Columbus EMS. Mayor McCash agreed that this makes sense in terms of the present mutual aid imbalance between Columbus and Dublin. Chief Woo noted that it is not fair for Dublin's citizens to be charged for Columbus mutual aid when mutual aid is provided tenfold by Washington Township to Columbus. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Dublin would be reimbursed for their services if Dublin were called to a Columbus situation where Columbus bills the insurance provider. Chief Woo responded that for Medicare or Medicaid, only the community doing the .- transport can bill them for services. This would preclude Washington Township from billing . , for EMS services. I DeeAnn Goebel. 5527 Avery Road and neighbor, Bud Buker, 6236 Rings Road addressed Council. She noted that this group of residents present tonight is experiencing no water to low water pressure. Thanks to staff for a prompt response, but staff's hands are tied in terms of finding a solution. Staff has asked for two weeks to study the situation and find out who is responsible, but she is not certain how long they are asking the residents to wait for the money to replace their wells. She is requesting that Council allocate the funds to the residents to replace their wells and to pay for costs incurred to date by the residents. Most of the residents cannot afford to replace their wells, so if it constitutes a legal matter between the City and the golf course developer, the money to solve the problem should be fronted by the City. Ms. Grigsby stated that many residents have contacted the City and Mr. Herkskowitz has responded to them. The City is ensuring that the residents have a source of water. The City has also retained a consultant to investigate the cause of the well problems. The golf course and Ballantrae Park have been pumping from wells, and the dry summer has been a factor. Staff's goal is to provide long-term solutions versus stopgap measures to address this situation. If the City is determined to be responsible for the well problems, based upon projects completed during the past year or so, the City will meet its obligation and reimburse the residents for the costs associated with their well problems. Ms. Goebel stated that trucking in water is not a viable solution; her option is to drill a new well. The City should step up and fund the project, whether it is the park or the golf course r--. wells causing the problem. Mr. Kranstuber asked when st?ff became aware of this problem. Ms. Grigsby responded that the majority of calls began in July, and Ms. Salay has been contacted by several of the residents. A memo was included in the packet about the issue and a study is underway to address the problem. Ms. Goebel added that there is frustration on the part of residents who were assured that any well problems associated with the golf course development would be addressed by the City. Ms. Grigsby stated that it is important to have the results of the study to determine a long- term solution - drilling a well not deep enough will not solve the problem. In response to Mr. Kranstuber, Ms. Grigsby indicated that the area is bordered by Avery on the east; Cosgray on the west; Rings Road on the south; and Shier-Rings on the north. There have been a number of significant well users added in this general area - Cramer's Crossing, the Crossings at Avery, the golf course, and the park. Ms. Grigsby added that a couple of the residents have access to City water lines and were ! . I I Ii : I Hili ili "'"I! HI!'W I ! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "h~~hw_h~~~m~'~QQ"_"_~QMhQm~E!}.E1~m2,t~~~~_~m_'~hmmm=_~Q=__"QD.uhUnQCjt~d~o.unciL~"Q"m"Q"'''~'~hQ~Q_hm''___QmQ_h'''QE~g~'Q~."mQ"mM~~~ti,~[m_'_Q_~~' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 already planning to tap into the lines in September. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the contract with The Edwards Company includes language about this issue. Ms. Grigsby responded that in the development agreement with Edwards, a commitment -- was made by both the City and the Edwards Company to work with the residents on properties abutting the golf course who experience future problems with their wells. Jay Liqqett. 5800 Cosqray Road noted that he lost water supply around July 1 st. He spoke with Mr. Herskowitz, the Edwards Company, and with the well drillers. There are three wells drilled on the golf course - one went dry, so they drilled a second at 300 plus feet. This did not pump enough water, so they then drilled a third well. Between the two wells, the well driller indicates they are pumping 700 gallons a minute and it is still not adequate to irrigate the golf course. The area wells went dry when the third well was drilled at the golf course. Mrs. Boring noted that similar concerns have been brought forward for areas such as Campden Lakes where a lake was filled quickly and the area wells were impacted. Has there been a limit set for the rate at which the lakes are filled? Ms. Grigsby stated that, currently, there is no limit. The study results will identify what is needed long-term. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe for the study and recommendation. Ms. Grigsby stated that the study will be completed and results available two weeks from today. Mr. Hammersmith added that they are looking at other areas which may impact these wells - Tuttle Mall, Sterling Commerce, and the Crossings at Avery. The hydrogeologist will review all of this information prior to making short-term recommendations to fix the wells in the area. r-. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher expressed concern about the immediate issue for those without , \ water or with poor quality water and who would not have planned financially for this I problem. The memo suggests potential reimbursement only. Ms. Grigsby stated that it appears that the golf course and park wells have impacted the area wells. However, until definitive information is obtained, staff believes that City dollars should not be expended. Ms. Goebel stated that the residents would be willing to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City if the City is determined not to be responsible. Mayor McCash asked if the report would indicate the depth of well needed to obtain water. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the report will include an in-depth review. In terms of remediation, staff wants to identify the appropriate solution for each resident. Mayor McCash asked what can be done temporarily to provide water supply. Discussion followed. Bud Buker. 6236 Rinqs Road stated that he has been without water for one week. To obtain a temporary water supply, the supplier required $300 up front. He contacted ODNR to find out where the aquifers are located, and asked how deep the well would need to be. They recommended a depth of 170 feet in limestone. There was a separate issue related to finding a well driller available to do the work. If the City eventually brings water lines to this area, would his well then have to be shut down? They are on a fixed income and cannot afford to waste resources. Dublin staff indicated that the financial responsibility would be decided after the study is completed. The well drilling company stated that it is ,.--.. highly unusual for 15-18 wells to go dry because of old, aged wells. In the late 80's, there was a serious drought, but his,well continued to pump adequate water. He has lowered his pump to the limits of his existing well. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the study would also look at the cost and timing of installing city water lines to serve these homes. Ms. Grigsby stated that the study does not include this; however, staff has begun to look at the availability of lines and distance/cost to bring lines down Avery Road. Mayor McCash stated that at least 3 of the properties are in the township and cannot be served by the City. Mr. Reiner asked about the depth of Mr. Buker's well. Mr. Buker responded that his well is approximately 49 feet deep and was drilled in the 60's. He provided details about its operation over the years. Mr. Reiner asked the Engineer about the depth of the remainder of the wells. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they range from 38 to 149 feet in depth; the vast majority I I. i I .j. i.iBI .". .11i~';! I I , ~'1.""".I',J1"'11",T~~i1'fl t4Jl1'H ~ '11.1'Il1~'1' 1"l!'I"lj~\'I!'I*;R;+'ltb::'~Jj+'\r;~&:'f Ii 1', I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 'mbffi_'~_m"~_"~""m_==m=m_lV!~m~,~L=,~______==m~m~_____~~,Q,llbJjnmCjl~CJ:)J.1ncIL"_'~m=~~m~_mmm=__=_,,E9g~m,~Lm"= M<<:~'!!~[hmhmm'mm'_m DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 1014~ HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 are shallow wells of 60 feet average. Robert Redett. 7034 Rinqs Road. Amlin stated that he lives in the township and his well went dry on July 9th. His neighbor's well failed yesterday. He learned from a drilling ".-. company that two others reported dry Wells this morning. He would guess that more than 30 residents have lost wells, and some are as far west as Houchard Road. His well is over 100 feet deep. Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates staff's cautious approach. However, if citizens are having problems and the City is a partner with the golf course, the City should immediately take action by banning watering, for the short term. Ms. Goebel commented that shutting off the golf course and park wells at this point will likely not fix the problem; it will only kill the grass. Ms. Grigsby commented that the City would continue to ensure a supply of temporary water and wait two weeks for the results of the study. Council could choose to advance the funds to the residents and enter into agreements for payback, if it is determined not to be a City responsibility. There is a risk, however, in collecting those funds which may require an assessment process. There is concern with setting precedent, and if other wells in the City fail for whatever reason, the City could be deemed responsible. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he agrees with Mrs. Boring that the City should come to the table on this matter and advance the funds on behalf of the affected residents. If legal agreements are required, this should be done. Mayor McCash asked about the possibility of watering bans - should the City work with the golf course to reduce their watering? Mr. Smith responded that for a project like this, much of the investment is with the turf. He r-- is not certain that reducing the watering will solve the problem. The City has the power to i I issue an order restricting watering. If if is Council's desire to advance funds for this purpose, the Legal Department can draft agreements for payback, if necessary. Mr. Lecklider suggested the possibility of a no interest loan to address the immediate financial hurdles for the residents until the study is completed. Mr. Reiner stated that his concern is with identifying what depth is adequate for new wells to be drilled, absent the results of the study. Ms. Goebel responded that two hydrogeologists have advised that if the resident drills into the limestone, it will be adequate. Some residents may find limestone at 180 feet, while others may have to drill 300 feet. Mr. Kranstuber suggested a no interest loan, with no payment for a period of 3-6 months, or at least until the study results are determined, and including a provision that any amount the City or Edwards Company is liable for will be forgiven. Mr. Buker noted that he has a list of wells in the areas experiencing problems, including some new ones that the City may not be aware of. An elderly neighbor not present tonight had a problem and a well company lowered her pump depth and charged her excessively to do so. Others experiencing problems may not be aware of the situation and may incur excessive bills to lower their pumps, efforts which may not cure their problem. He has been working with a hydrogeologist to determine how deep his well should be. ~ Mr. Ciarochi proposed that the City guarantee the temporary water supply, working with the supplier so that the residents qon't have to front any costs. When the study results come back in two weeks, if there's a clear indication that it is a City problem, a decision can be made about a pro-rated responsibility. Staff will work with the residents on the balance of the situation. Implementing a no interest loan program for wells to be drilled deeper than necessary, or lowering a pump which may not work would not be the best course of action. He suggests guaranteeing the temporary supply of water until the study is completed. From there, staff will work with the residents to determine a solution for individual wells and keep Council advised of the tally and the City's responsibility. If there is a need for loans, that can be factored in and legal staff can prepare those documents. Mr. Reiner asked if the City could guarantee the residents a water supply on a temporary basis. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the City could work with suppliers and guarantee payment for .1 !I i' ,'i i '.IU!.!Jldil I "10,,""<"'0"'.""""1:1 '''''''''T;'':I'f~1'!'f!';l'::''rp''lI .,( 1. ~ '.;.. !I:I'11Wi!'..TI;It?a:~ 11'" l'i1ffl'lt"klfl";'~*l!"_~" .,.~~tV~. ~ 'Ii- . I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "_"h"__"__mhh"h~_'h~"_'mQ~=~!!2~,!~s~2,L~h_~hhm=m'~~_~=,=~'~_mw".n.ubJlo""wCjt~j:;.QlJnclL_hw~_'_'~~'_'hh__m"_mh~m~hh1?~,Q.eji"h".~~~,~~~i!2[.~~'~hmh=hh'~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. I-'ORM NO. 1014C;1 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 I the temporary water. The City does need to step up in this temporary situation until the study results are complete. If the studY shows that the problem is the responsibility of the City, the City will take the necessary measures to fix the wells. ,,--..., Mrs. Boring suggested that staff proceed with implementing a guaranteed temporary water supply at this time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to directstaff to do so. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification that this temporary measure is for the affected residents of Dublin, given the fact that testimony has indicated that the affected wells lie in areas outside of Dublin as well - areas for which the City is not legally responsible. Mayor McCash noted that some of those who have testified tonight live within Amlin - Washington Township, not within the City of Dublin. Mr. Ciarochi clarified that if they are within the sphere of influence of the golf course wells or that immediate area, some of which are outside the corporate boundaries, these would be included. Obviously, this sphere of influence would not extend to the south side of Plain City or wherever - the hydrogeologist will be' able to clarify this. The map provided shows a reasonable relationship to the wells at the golf course, park, Cramer's Crossing, etc. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the motion should be clarified to specify the exact boundaries in order to avoid later disagreement. Leon Hoover. 6166 Rinqs Road testified that he lost water supply on July 2nd, and his understanding is that everyone present lost water within a week to ten days. When the study is completed, he believes it will all be due to one factor. They have never had a problem with water supply through drought situations and whatever. His pump has been lowered as far as possible. ..- Ms. Grigsby noted that all of the affected properties are currently within Shier Rings on the i , ! north, Avery on the east, Rings Road on the south, and Cosgray on the west. Mayor McCash summarized that the motion will include the properties within these boundaries. Mr. Ciarochi stated that the City can accommodate the properties that have reported problems with their wells to date. He asked that staff be given the discretion to accommodate others who have a reasonable relationship to the well problems in this identified area. Until the study is completed, similar temporary measures will be available to them. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher amended her motion to include the specified area, plus any properties within a reasonable sphere of influence. Mrs. Boring seconded the amended motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that Council's next meeting is on August 12. At that point, the study should be completed and a formal recommendation prepared that Council can act upon that evening. Staff agreed. Mr. Buker asked about a contact person for the residents. Mr. Ciarochi responded that they should contact Mr. Herskowitz or Mr. Hammersmith. - Staff Comments Ms. Griqsby reported: 1. The City received notification from the Clean Ohio Fund that the City was not awarded a grant. However, the City is on the contingency list and staff will follow up. 2. A memo was included in the packet in regard to the renewal of the depository agreement with Bank One. Staff's recommendation is not to enter into an RFP process, based upon research with other entities. It is in the City's best interest to renew the agreement with Bank One. Staff will bring legislation to Council to renew the depository agreement with Bank One, unless there are objections from Council. 3. She received a request today from Kevin Foley, President of the Lowell Trace Civic Association to waive the City's portion of the tap fee for water to install an irrigation system at their entry, and for the City to pay for the cost of the water and electric service associated with the irrigation system. She indicated to Mr. Foley that a ! I I ]1 · "i' ,rry IJ'''''.'':diIHIi\.!inl!l:llllti 11'I.j.1 : .. , I'" I, 'f) 'T:nl'Y;:'''-'r.'V~t';IHIIl'!n''' Rl'JII~':::":5lel"II,,,I'~f!Il'n'I,'n'i~'_Hi.il1,{,;jffii;\} lrl., I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "'_"hh....whh~mh_'_"~~=_~w_:ty.riE~~,~~2L~_____~______~__~"wwDllbJh,Cjt}L,wCQ.uncjl=~mwhhhh~mhh_'-="_'~_hhhh,==_wmm~Egg.~LLhhhh~!vf~et!~~=~=m'=__~~hW DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 waiver was granted one time previously for a subdivision with a small number of homeowners, based upon a hardship. Staff would therefore not give a positive recommendation to this waiver.request. Mr. Lecklider stated that he spoke briefly with Mr. Foley today, but Mr. Foley did not ~ indicate they were requesting payment of utility bills. Mr. Foley did comment that such an irrigation system would be of benefit to both the subdivision and to the City in view of the prominent location of the entryway. Mayor McCash asked if this entryway is owned by the City or by the homeowners association. Ms. Grigsby stated that her assumption is that the City owns the land and the homeowners association is required by dedication of plat to maintain theentryway. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this arrangement is similar throughout subdivisions in the City. Ms. Grigsby agreed. Mr. Reiner added that waiving the tap fee would set a precedent. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in Donegal Cliffs, the Association was required to pay these costs. Ms. Grigsby clarified that the Dublin fee for a water tap is $1,500. There are some newer subdivisions where the developer installed an irrigation system at the entryway, but there have been several occasions where the homeowners association has paid the cost of this installation. Mr. Lecklider stated that Planning & Zoning Commission has brought this issue up at the development stage in recent years, suggesting that the developer be required to provide this. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he could support waiving the tap fee, but not paying for the utility charges. Beautification of entryways is a desirable goal. Mr. Lecklider stated that to the extent that it creates a precedent, he is not concerned. For older subdivisions without a forced association, these are significant expenses. -- Mayor McCash stated that Council canwaive only the Dublin portion of fees - the larger portion is the Columbus fee of $1 ,800. Ms. Grigsby stated that there are 121 homes in Lowell Trace. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if this waiver is approved, Council must recognize that all associations will be requesting similar waivers or refunds of fees already paid to the City. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that P&Z require that the tap fee be paid up front by the developer and stubbed in. It would then be available if the homeowners association desires to use it. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council has been addressing a similar issue with tap-in fees for water and sewer where it has been arbitrarily decided who is forgiven charges and who is reimbursed. As a practical matter, he does not envision a lot of subdivisions coming forward for reimbursement. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher disagreed. Once they learn this has been paid for another subdivision, they will likely request the same treatment or a refund. The City beautification awards program prompted many subdivisions to improve their entryways. The Lowell Trace entrance is no more significant than other entryways throughout the City. Mr. Reiner commented that citizens should be willing to subsidize improvements of their entryways as they add value to individual properties. He does support P&Z requiring taps to be installed at the development phase. Mr. Kranstuber moved to waive the Dublin portion of water tap fees for an irrigation system at the Lowell Trace entry. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. - Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor McCash, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes. (Motion failed) Mr. Smith reported that the Governor has signed the new right-of-way legislation for municipalities. In conjunction with that, the State of Ohio has dismissed their appeal. On August 6, the Governor has scheduled a ceremonial photo opportunity and has asked the City of Dublin to participate. The date and time will be provided to Council and Mr. McDaniel will represent staff. There are three items for executive session discussion tonight - legal, land and personnel matters. Mr. Hammersmith reported: 1. He attended a meeting of ODOT District 6 officials regarding the proposed 1-270 noise barrier walls. This was a neighborhood meeting for three affected areas in I I I ' , "lr'lt!f. .,.' iHilLilldl,i Ui'iB111 I : ." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS w~'~m'===__~m==~_Mi~~i~~m=_~__hmm_==___~ff_,__,OubJinJ:~iL}LC.QJ.lncil__Qh__Q__"=m_Q__.=__=w_~==m_.E,aglftlL=mh_~=~~l~~"mm=w~Q~mmmm DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 1014e HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 Dublin to present the results of the study and solicit neighborhood input. A questionnaire was distributed to residents to be returned to ODOr. The results are to be tabulated by the end of the month, and he will report back to Council. 2. The installation of the raised cr()sswalk or speed hump on Dublinshire, adjacent to ,......, the municipal pool, as approved on January 7 by Council, will proceed as part of this year's street maintenance program. It is on the schedule of items to be completed. Staff will determine what type of speed control device will be installed. Mr. Lecklider asked that staff keep him informed of the status of this. In response to Mayor McCash, Mr. Hammersmith stated that most of the residents attending the noise barrier meeting were Columbus residents living along 1-270 east of Sawmill Road. There was little interest in having a sound barrier wall. LEGISLATION INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 94-02 - An Ordinance Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Union County, Ohio for a Change of Township Lines of Jerome Township for that Portion Which Now Lies Within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this relates to adjusting the boundaries of Washington Township, as outlined in the memo. Council has adjusted township boundaries as a follow-up to annexations since the early 90's when the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in Dublin's favor on this matter. Mr. Lecklider asked if discussion has taken place with township trustees of Jerome and Washington to ensure that they agree with the City's policy. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City's goal is to ensure a consistent level of fire and EMS services for Dublin residents, and adjusting the township boundary was determined to be the most effective way to do this. Jerome Township is likely not supportive of this action. r--, Mr. Smith added that upon annexation of township areas in Union and Delaware counties, ! I the City automatically petitions for boundary adjustment. There is currently a delay in approval of the petition by Union County Commissioners due to an issue raised by the Union County Prosecutor. The Law Department anticipates this will be resolved in the near future. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would advocate communication with the township officials to reduce any tension resulting from the City's action in this regard. Mrs. Boring stated that assuring equal levels of service was the factor which prompted Council to petition for boundary adjustments. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 95-02 - An Ordinance Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Ohio for a Change of Township Lines of Jerome Township for that Portion Which Now Lies Within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is the companion legislation requesting approval from Franklin - County for the boundary adjustment. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 96-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Contract with the Board of County Commissioners, Franklin County, Ohio on Behalf of the City of Dublin for a Community Developmel'!t Block Grant and Home Programs and Provide Acquisition Services Therewith, and Declaring an Emergency. Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. I I 11 i' i.l iii"illlll ,...",1.1 I : .. 'r,'.':'~1t1'Fir't:;rttl':~"Vli ' 'I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS wm='m'~~~=_b~~~_="'='=m=~i~E~~L-_u_mm_m~~m_Mh_m_~_~~b~~Q~'Qnuplin."Cji}L,~CourlciL._m'=h~~m~u~__~_~.__~J;:,ag.eJL~Mb~"~~,~in!Lw~mm,~_"'~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 Helrl July 22, 2002 19 Ms. Grigsby stated that this legislation is brought before Council every three years. It allows Franklin County and eligible residents to receive the maximum funds available for block grants and home programs. Staff is requesting emergency action to comply with Franklin County's timeframes. - Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Ordinance 97-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Rock Salt, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Procurement of Said Commodity. Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that a detailed memo was provided by staff regarding the process and recommended bid from Cargill. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 12 Council meeting. Ordinance 98-02 - An Ordinance to Accept the Lowest/Best Bid for the Avery Road Water Tank Exterior Roof Coating Replacement, and Declaring an Emergency. Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending approval of the bid from American Suncraft and is requesting emergency action. This item was discussed at a previous Council meeting. Mayor McCash asked for clarification of why the American Suncraft bid was so much lower than the other two bids. I"'"- Mr. Herskowitz stated that American Suncraft currently has other contracts in the area and ! is mobilized in the City. They worked with the City previously and their work has been , I satisfactory. Mrs. Boring moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 99-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Stormwater Improvements 2001 Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby explained that this contract will provide for stormwater improvement projects on Martin Road and Shawan Falls. The project was bid earlier in the year, and the bids exceeded the budget. At that time, the project also included Aryshire Drive. The Aryshire portion will now be done as part of next year's stormwater projects. Staff is recommending acceptqnce of the bid from Complete General. Mayor McCash moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici- ........ Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 100-02 - An Ordinance to Change the Name of Mitchell-Dewitt Road to Brand Road Between the Franklin County/Union County Line and Hyland-Croy Road in the City of Dublin. Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that a memo from staff explains that this is being requested for safety purposes as well as to eliminate some confusion. The ordinance changes the name of Mitchell-Dewitt to Brand Road within the City limits. The area west of Hyland Croy would remain as Mitchell-Dewitt. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 12 Council meeting. I i I j . ii iii. i:jti:iiJI1111 T ! ' I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "h~.__"_"mm~,,__,,m,,=_m~M.!E=~te~mJ?Lm=#~__m~~_~_m___,".#",.nublIn"Clt)L"C.QunciL_~~_",,~'=~'_#m~,_,_=,,_,Eagf'L1Q,,_mm~'~~t!n~'_=Q_""'#='" DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Helrl July 22, 2002 19 Ordinance 101-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Conduit Use Agreement with Amperion, Inc. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mayor McCash stated that this is a lengthy agreement for such a temporary item. - Mr. McDaniel responded that this permits Amperion to access some of the City's DubLink conduit which the City does not intend to use in the near future. Amperion plans to beta test the concept of providing bandwidth over the existing electric service lines. In exchange, they will provide the City with some personal computers at the 5800 Building, and the City will be able to participate in the test. There are a number of partners involved in this venture, as outlined in the report. It is fairly "cutting edge" - and Dublin is the only city in the country where this will be tested. Mayor McCash stated that there have been ongoing concerns with brownouts in the City, especially in the summer months. Will this affect the electrical transmission in the City or use up the capacity in the pipe? Mr. McDaniel stated that the testing area is narrow to avoid interruption of service to customers. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 12 Council meeting. Ordinance 102-02 - An Ordinance Regulating Future Access to the Northern End of Trails End Drive, and Repealing Ordinance No. 86-02(Amended). Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that Legal staff has .identified a more effective way to protect Trails End from a future connection. This will be recorded under miscellaneous filings at the courthouse, and will not require vacation or deeding of property. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 12 Council meeting. Ordinance 103-02 - An Ordinance Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31,2002. -- Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. i I Ms. Grigsby stated that a memo is attached explaining the various requests for additional I I appropriations. The majority relate to increased costs of medical claims. There is also a request for additional legal services in the amount of $160,000 related to the DCRC lawsuit. Also included are additional costs related to debt service and over sizing of the sanitary sewer for Cramer's Crossing. She noted that staff is reviewing some options for reducing the costs related to medical claims. Currently, predictions are that medical costs will increase by 20 percent next year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing. Mayor McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 104-02 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for Approximately 33.665 Acres Located on the East Side of Riverside Drive, Just North of Hard Road, from R-1, Restricted. Suburban Residential District, to PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. (Case No. 02-075Z - Riverside Village - Formerly Scioto View Baitstore - 7650 Riverside Drive) (Applicant: David C. Ruma, Virginia Homes, Ltd., 1152 Goodale Boulevard, Columbus, OH 43212, representing owner A.C. Strip, Receiver for Assets of Carol Finkes) Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. She noted that it was her understanding that the - residents had requested that the application be amended prior to P&Z review. Ms. Clarke responded that most rezoning applications are amended between the time of first reading and public hearing before Council. Mrs. Boring moved referral of the ordinance to Planning & Zoning Commission. Mayor McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Mrs. Boring noted that Mr. Roth had sent an e-mail suggesting that Council consider a separate action related to this rezoning. She asked about a timeframe for this. Ms. Grigsby responded that Ms. Clarke has had some discussions with the developer and is working on the matter. Mrs. Boring moved to waive the Rules of Order to consider Ordinances 105-02 through 108-02 as a group. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. . I il i '.i:iY~!!'r ,,,,,All Uf,;>'f II I : i < ,. .".." . ,< ""'.,. ,.....,..,." '~.,c,,"'"'... '~'"'''''l'''''''.'~w.''' ,.. J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 'Mh"mm=M=mm,_=m__,,~,_!'!1!!~te2=~of _M"hm=~=_"_hm~=__m~___"_M.D.ublli1,Gii}LCj),um:;ll,_~,_,"_"~"mm"Mm"'~~_"~m-P~e~JJM=.=~~et,~n~"",,=_,,,,,,_, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10146 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Mrs. Boring introduced Ordinances 105-02 through 108-02 and moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. - Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 105-02 - An Ordinance to Establish Dublin Zoning for Five Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 140 Acres, as Annexed from Jerome Township in 2001, Generally Located East ofHyland-Croy Road, 2,200 Feet North of Mitchell- Dewitt Road, as R, Rural District. (Case No. 02-067Z) (Applicant: City of Dublin) 106-02 - An Ordinance to Establish Dublin Zoning for Approximately 42.387 Acres, as Annexed from Concord Township in 2002, Generally Located East of Dublin Road, Approximately 700 Feet South of Glick Road, as R, Rural District. (Case No. 02-068Z) (Applicant: City of Dublin) Ordinance 107-02 - An Ordinance to Establish Dublin Zoning for 27 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 36.29 Acres, as Annexed from Washington Township in 2001-2002, on the East and West Sides of Dublin Road, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 02-069Z) (Applicant: City of Dublin) Ordinance 108-02 - An Ordinance to. Establish Dublin Zoning for Three Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 28.4 Acres, as Annexed from Washington Township in 2001, on the West Side of Cosgray Road, Approximately 975 Feet North of Rings Road, as R, Rural District. (Case No. 02-070Z) (Applicant: City of Dublin) Ordinance 109-02 - An Ordinance Amending the 1997 Community Plan. (Case No. 02-065 - ADM - Revision of Map 8 - Future Land Use) Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. ".......... Ms. Grigsby stated that Ms. Clarke included a memo explaining the revisions proposed in ! i this ordinance. Planning & Zoning Commission has already reviewed the map. ! Mrs. Boring asked why this would not be referred to P&Z. Ms. Clarke stated that Council is required to refer rezonings to P&Z, but this relates to a plan amendment, the content of which has already been reviewed by P&Z. If Council desires, the ordinance can be referred to P&Z. In response to Mayor McCash, she noted that the map reflects the land use change for the area north of Brand Road and west of Wellington, the overall boundary change for Dublin as a result of recent annexations, and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park Master Plan. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation of any changes for residential areas. Ms. Clarke responded that the only residential areas shifted from one classification to another was the area along Brand Road near Coffman - moved from a high density residential to a medium density residential. This was done in response to Council's direction. Mrs. Boring asked about the change in the Ballantrae area. Ms. Clarke responded that Ballantrae had the same land use previously. The map reflects the densities indicated in the adopted Ballantrae plan. The overall density still falls within 1- 2 units per acre. Council can choose to reflect this site by site, or as an overall density of 1-2 units per acre. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 12 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION & PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Mr. Smith indicated that the next five resolutions relate to the Muirfield/Glick ...- intersection. Mayor McCash moved to waive the Rules of Order and to have the Clerk read into the record the property names only for Resolutions 27-02 through 31-02, and to introduce the five resolutions. .' Resolution 27-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate A 0.085 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Martin and Deborah Connaughton, Located South of Glick Road and West of Muirfield Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. (Muirfield/Glickll1tersection) Resolution 28-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a Combined 0.030 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Deloris J. Godfrey, Located North of Glick Roa~and West of c:onc.ord Drive,. City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. (Muirfield/Glick Intersection) Resolution 29-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.013 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Masoud and Flor Rafiee, ! I I il i . iili..!!!'! il:H:;IJ.i!.Hilll ! I ! . - ',..,,,...,.,....,,,"',..,,.,,.....',.,,,,,',.,"...."...,"1'.'..',,'T',")"''''' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "=""m~~~w,_~w_~"_",,m,._~i~tes of ~=~-,=-=~---_,=M6__wwUubljn.Q"Cjly,.CJljJn,QjL~",_"~_""~_,w.~_Q~_",,,,,_Eg~~_Jh~L~~~~in.[w,,_w_m_~m DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 1014~ July 22, 2002 HeIrl 19 I Located North of Glick Road and W~st of Concord Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. (Muirfield/Glick Intersection) Resolution 30-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate A 0.036 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Richard E. Scheetz, Jr. and ~ Cynthia R. Scheetz, Located North of Glick Road and West of Concord Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State Of Ohio. (Muirfield/Glick Intersection) Resolution 31-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.021 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest and a 0.082 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Jeffrey L. Wilden, Located South of Glick Road and West of Muirfield Drive, City of Oublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. (Muirfield/Glick Intersection) . Mr. Smith stated that all of the properties are described in the map accompanying the resolutions. The funds for acquisition of the easements are part of the budget for the Muirfield/Glick intersection. Mayor McCash had asked if the City desires to own the property on which the landscaping will be located. It is currently owned by the Muirfield Association. This will be discussed further with the Association. As he understands, the City will be taking care of the maintenance of the landscaping. In terms of the necessity, there is a considerable lowering of the intersection to be done and easements are needed. Mayor McCash asked how much the intersection would have to be lowered. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he does not have the exact figures, but curb and gutter will be provided at the intersection. This alone will require 6-9 inches of lowering. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked what benefit there would be in the City owning this property. Mr. Smith responded that he is not certain that the City would want to own the - property. There are benefits and drawbacks. But if the City is to take care of the I , maintenance of public improvements on private property, the City may want to own ! it. This will need further review. Mayor McCash stated that he had assumed that all of the work would be done in the public right-of-way, and was surprised to see the extent of Muirfield Association reserves on the maps. Will that land be dedicated to the City? There has been debate in the past about the City spending public dollars to improve private property. Mr. Smith stated that staff would provide a memo prior to the next Council meeting. Staff will begin negotiations with the affected property owners on the north side - notices have been sent. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification of who in particular is having discussions about whether or not the City should own the property. Mr. Smith responded that Mayor McCash had raised this issue with staff, and staff plans to review the pros and cons and provide that to Council. Staff will also talk with the Muirfield Association about their willingness to deed the property to the City. Mr. Lecklider asked who would maintain the improvements, if the City does not own the property. r--- Mr. Smith responded that he understands the arrangement to be that the City will maintain the improvements. Ms. Grigsby stated that discussion was held last year with the Muirfield Association. An issue was raised about the City assuming responsibility for maintenance of the improvements, in view of the fact that the landscaping is more elaborate than what currently exists. She believes it is the Association's understanding that the City will assume that responsibility. There is no formal agreement in place at this time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the discussion was held at the staff level with the Association; Council did not engage in that discussion, nor did Council approve of those expenditures. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council was briefed on this discussion last June/July, but there was no formal action taken by Council. ! I T II i iT H',,,.,II : i i - .' r ,i.L;~. .'lJ ""H"'~"""'J"""~~".;"" '11l1fWJ' I' I , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '_"mh~~__'_h~,=,~==m=mQ___,_Minl.!,!!_~_9.L~~,~~=~m~_~_--~--~-~Hh",J1ubJjn.CH~J~.QJJD.QU'HhHhHh'__'HhHh_~__._~<~_~_~E~!le,J~Hh_~et2D']:='_=~Hh_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her preference as a Council Member is that staff not engage in that discussion until COllncil has determined whether they have an interest in assuming that responsibility. Staff should not imply a commitment that has not been made. ;r--: Mrs. Boring asked if other properties would be affected outside of the easements being requested tonight. Mr. Smith stated that these are the only five properties affected. The plans are furnished by Engineering, the legal descriptions are done, and then appraisals are ordered prior to sending out the notices to property owners. Mrs. Boring noted that on the north side of Glick Road, Council had previously requested that the sidewalk not be installed. Why is this land then needed? Mr. Hammersmith stated that in order tb install curb and gutter in the area, it was necessary. Because it was necessary to acquire some property there, sufficient area was acquired for a future bikepath. It will not be done as part of this project. Mayor McCash asked for confirmation that the reason additional right-of-way is needed from Wildon is for the grading. Why is there a permanent easement needed? Mr. Hammersmith confirmed this, adding that the permanent easement is related to the roadway improvements and also provides for the possibility of a future extension of the bikepath. Mrs. Boring questioned the need for a permanent easement in view of the fact that Council had directed staff not to do so. Discussion continued. Mr. Ciarochi offered that this could be removed, if that is Council's desire. Staff was -- merely providing for a future bikepath extension. There was no further Council discussion. Mayor McCash asked if there is an objection to voting on the five resolutions at one time. There was no objection. Vote on Resolutions 27-02 throuqh 31-02: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Resolution 32-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.154 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest and a Combined 0.018 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Charles F. and Lisa C. Adams, Located West Of Wilcox Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio (Southwest Traffic Calming - Phase 3). Mayor McCash introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated that these relate to the traffic calming project in the southwest. A map has been provided, and negotiations are underway with the property owners. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Resolution 33-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.008 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, from Faith Evangelical Free Church, Located East of Wilcox Road, City of Oublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio ~ (Southwest Traffic Calming - Phase 3). Mayor McCash introduced the resolution. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER Report from Camp. Dresser & McKee Reqardinq Clover Court Stormwater Issues Mr. Ciarochi noted that in February, several residents addressed Council regarding their concerns about stormwater drainage in the Clover Court area. Council directed staff to investigate potential improvements to alleviate these concerns. Camp Dresser & McKee was retained to assist in this effort. They conducted a series of meetings with the residents, seeking their input, and sharing analysis and potential solutions. At this time, CDM is bringing back their recommendations to Council. He then introduced Rusty Neff and Julie McGill from CDM to make a brief presentation regarding their findings, possible solutions, their recommendation, and I II :11+HH!l'Ii' Ii it :;r:, ! : .: 11.Tllw"':n'<"'II"':nt:WI":I"Ur.'UI:'~' ."<tie::';; f .1" .1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "~__ff~=~'~~~_4~'m~~41Y1m!E~~~~~J?i~m'~_4~'__===~~~~~h_"m~=.~,JJJJ~UIJ.~,Ctl~J~QY.n~i!h'~"h~='~_~m_H___~,~~=..e9gsL11~m_~~~l12~~_m_Q~__ DAYrON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 July 22, 2002 HeIrl 19 the neighborhood's desires. A meeting was held last week with the neighborhood, and additional analysis was done by CDM after that meeting. Primarily, the alternatives have been narrowed to three: channelization improvements to the existing channel within the existing easements and two variations of a storm sewer - connection down Clover Court - one connecting into an existing storm sewer on Stonefence Lane, and the second taking it down to the cui de sac, past the homes, and connecting into the existing culvert. Ms. McGill noted the following: . A meeting was held in March with the residents to hear their concerns about flooding, erosion, debris and safety issues. . A surveyor obtained cross-sections of each home and the lowest structural opening of the home. . Field visits were performed during wet weather events to observe the channel. . A computer model was then used to evaluate the watershed and look at different alternatives. . Recently, two public meetings were held to share findings and alternatives with the residents, and feedback was obtained from the residents. . The Monterey Creek watershed includes 200 acres, south of Bridge Street inside of 1-270. There are 9 detention basins located in the newest areas of development in Metro Center. . CDM updated the computer model which was done as part of the Stormwater Master Plan. It now includes a more detailed analysis of the detention for recent development. It also is recalibrated to several recent events, including a heavy rain in May. She showed graphs demonstrating the model. . They found that there is a 30-foot easement along the back of the property ,..-.... line on Clover Court. The stream channel is in the middle of this easement. . They investigated complaints of debris. There did not appear to be any particular point of origination - it is general debris that collects in the stream and washes down to the homes. City crews are monitoring this situation. . They investigated erosion complaints at particular locations. Most were localized at bends in the stream, or at constricted points in the stream where there is no erosion protection. . The most important issue to be addressed is the risk of structural flooding which occurs for events as frequent as the two-year storm; for the 100-year storm, there are five homes at risk on the street. . A big question in the study is where is the stormwater coming from. Fifty- eight percent of the watershed area is at Metro Lakes, and there are a number of detention basins there which result in 19 percent of the peak flow at Clover Court. The detention basins are functioning properly. . The largest impact comes from the Corbins Mill area with the Kroger shopping center, multi-family deVelopment, commercial and retail development. This area is highly impervious and was developed prior to the City's current stormwater regulations. There is no detention in this area and there is a large peak which shows up almost immediately after a rain. They looked at six different scenarios for alternatives: (1 ) Detention in the park, in the area upstream of Clover Court; (2) Increased detention at the Metro Lakes where detention is already in place; '~ (3) Diverting flow north to the south fork of Indian Run which is the watershed I to the north of Bridge Street; (4) Channel improvements along Clover Court; (5) Storm sewer under the channel behind the homes on Clover Court; (6) Several variations of the storm sewer down Clover Court that would bypass the back yards. Two alternatives were abandoned as they did not achieve the goal in terms of mitigating the basement flooding for the 1 OO-year flood or they had feasibility issues. She noted that Alternative 1 would require taking some of the parkland, excavating it, and would also require additional channel improvements behind the homes at risk. Alternative 3 would require diverting the entire watershed upstream of Corbin's Mill to have enough impact to prevent basement flooding. This would include building a storm sewer on Corbins Mill that would intercept the flow and take it i ,I r--Ili. 'i iii' ! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~'~--===_"'~~~__'~m Minu ~~L_u~-=h_~==~__u~~h___MQ~hD..uPJjnuu,Cj1~~CQ111).Qjl~@_'m'M=_mhU_=.=~@~_,.___~=E519fLl(i.h..~~,~!!,~g..~=u~=m..M' DA'r'TON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO, 10148 July 22, 2002 Helrl 19 north to the south fork of Indian Run. There are issues with crossing a major roadway and utility lines. It would also have a major impact on the south fork of Indian Run which is already experiencing erosion. Alternative 4 would include increasing the depth and width of the channel -. behind the homes at risk of basement flooding. It would prevent the risk of ! structural flooding for a 50-year flood, but three homes would still be at risk for a 1 OO-year design storm as there would be back up from the StonefEmce Lane culvert downstream. The City's landscape architect put together some drawings for landscaping along a stone-lined channel to improve the aesthetics and consistency of the channel area. They looked at a couple of variations of installing storm sewers - both include a storm sewer down the Court and outfalling in the existing channel. The water could then be taken through the existing sanitary easement. It would still be quite difficult and would impact mature trees. This is not considered a preferable alternative. Another variation is a storm sewer down Clover Court, where the flow is conveyed under Stonefence Lane by an enlarged storm sewer next to the existing one. This prevents risk of structural flooding and there is room in the existing storm easement to parallel the storm sewer. A third scenario is not to parallel Stonefence Lane culvert and to instead build the storm sewer down Clover Court. But this alternative would not prevent structural flooding for every home for the 1 OO-year storm event; two homes would still be at risk. The last alternative is to build a storm sewer down Clover Court with a detention basin in the park upstream. The issue with this alternative is the impact on the park. To summarize, seven alternatives ranging in cost from $246,000 to $625,000 (updated figures from what was submitted in the packet) are identified. --- . Alternative 1 (detention in the park with channel improvements) is $554,000. . Alternative 3 (divert to South Fork Indian Run at Corbins Mill Drive) is $566,000. . Alternative 4 (channel improvements between the existing channel and the property line) is $246,000. The cost has increased due to extending the improvements upstream to Monterey Drive to include all of the homes that have reported concerns with erosion and flooding, and because additional landscaping was added. The remaining alternatives are quite different from what was included in the packet: . Alternative 6a was for a storm sewer on Clover Court that would be routed through the sanitary easement at a cost of $409,000. . Alternative 6b was for a storm sewer on Clover Court with a parallel culvert in the storm easement at a cost of $396,000. . Alternative 6c is for a storm sewer on Clover Court at an estimated cost of $298,000. . Alternative 6(d) is a storm sewer with detention basin at $625,000. Mr. Reiner asked if the recommendation is Alternative 4(a) because of the least amount of negatives with the most benefit. Ms. McGill responded that this is correct. After reviewing the alternatives, obtaining feedback from residents, pnd consulting with City staff, this is the -. preferred alternative. A primary advantage is that it is the least expensive, and it impacts only those who have raised concerns. It thereby avoids objections from others not impacted by the existing problems, as it uses the existing easement. Mr. Kranstuber asked where the engineering firm ranks this stormwater problem in comparison to others in the City. Mr. Neff, CDM responded that it relates instead to the stormwater policies adopted by the City. At the time th~se developments were built, they met the City's stormwater policies. There is no established flood plain for this stream, so this now becomes a policy decision for Council. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in order to make such a decision, Council must understand how this ranks in terms of other problems with stormwater in the ! I I II : ,f .ii, .;i,l. I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~"mm=#~~=~Qb_~~,~~~_~m_J~:1inu~tes ~~__~#m#mh~Q~'_#m_m_~m_~#__~,~,~#J2!Jj;)Jju~jly~~QQ,Yncil#,~#_'~'~~~~-~'-~~_~~~~~'mE,g~~J 6'~)\!~~h!!~[='_~~_'~=~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 1014t1 July 22, 2002 Helrl 19 City, Le., Brand Road, Riverside Drive, etc. Is there an objective way to make this judgment? Mr. Neff responded that the goal is to protect a home against the 100-year storm event, and that is the basis for this evaluation. ~ Mr. Kranstuber stated that if there are 20 areas of the City with stormwater issues, how would this be ranked - severe or moderate? Mr. Ciarochi stated that this is beyond the scope of what the consultant was asked to investigate. CDM previously worked on the comprehensive stormwater study for the City, and that is an area where the issues can be ranked. Mr. Kranstuber stated that for budgeting purposes in the CIP, however, he wants to look at this in relation to other issues throughout the City. It is not appropriate to view this in a "vacuum." Mr. Ciarochi stated that the results of this study should be factored into something that would relate to a CIP study session for Council for further discussion and ranking. This is beyond the scope of what they were asked to do. Council gave staff direction in February to investigate the Clover Court drainage situation. All of the alternatives proposed go beyond the policies currently in place. The problems being experienced on Clover Court relate to the Corbins Mill area where development preceded any stormwater detention requirements. There are likely an additional 15-20 similar areas throughout the City. Mr. Kranstuber emphasized that he had envisioned a $60-80,000 solution, but with a cost of nearly half a million, Council must give this careful consideration in relation to other areas of the City. The report indicates that the stormwater -- problems in the Clover Court area originated from the older areas developed prior to stormwater regulations being adopted. If, in fact, the problems result from development of 20 years ago, why have the problems increased during the past few years? Mr. Ciarochi stated that there is no easy answer to this. Flow meters were used to obtain current readings in order to validate the models. To some extent, there are conditions in the area which aggravate the situation: some of the walls cause erosion problems, restrict flow of stormwater, and bottlenecks cause a back up of stormwater. Mayor McCash asked for clarification regarding the cost of Alternative 4(b). Ms. McGill responded that this alternative was not revised with an adjusted cost because it involves using the entire 30-foot easement which would require regrading, removing existing landscaping, patios and decks which encroach upon the existing easement. Mayor McCash asked how much of the flow restriction results from property owner improvements. Ms. McGill pointed out the various areas where flow is restricted as shown on the slides. These include the Stonefence Lane culvert that goes under the road, and there are two narrow points in the channel where the channel has been made rectangular by the homeowners. Removing these restrictions would not lower the water surface elevation adequately. The channel improvements .,......, would include making it a foot deeper and widening the side of the channel next to the cemetery, away from the homes. Mayor McCash asked if the openings include walkout basements or windows. Ms. McGill stated that these five properties have lower level or basement walkouts. Mr. Reiner asked if the restrictive barriers which narrow the channel are located on the homeowners' properties. What was the intent of these items? Ms. McGill responded that they are on the homeowners' properties, but are within the City's 30-foot drainage easement. The intent of the homeowners who installed these barriers was most likely to obtain their desired backyard in terms of lawn, erosion protection or landscaping appearance. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the consultant has spoken with all nine homeowners, and whether there was a variance of opinion on the severity of the problem. I T :ill'.' "! ,,,,,., , T : : ,- "",OI!."y~'~.tI:!jl~;n'~~':)1'N11*:tHt,jrtn1jtWI' t i ""Ht'rtil_~'i;"iU'iNIt'" I'WI!'t'f1Iti:LUE'iHfilr + 111 ; I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ..~J:lublla...Cji~LC,QJJO.cjLMQm_'m_~_~M_._'=m~~eg~sLl1_,m'~~~~!'~~WQ~M~#mM~m' =.w""__"''''''''''''''''''=W~~''ff''''''''''_''''~~"""",,,,,,_~__,,,,,,,,,,,,",~~,,,hW/,w,,,,,,,~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 HeM July 22, 2002 19 Ms. McGill responded that they have not heard from everyone. There was a variance of opinions. Some are concerned with primarily structural flooding; others are concerned with the amount of flow and safety issues related to debris and erosion. -. Bill Walker. 223 Clover Court stated that his house is at the end of the court at the right angle cut. He does not have a walkout basement, and the bank is 6-8 feet high along his property. He does not have a problem with 100-year flooding. He does not want anything done on his property. He believes the City should do something to help, but does not want to lose more of his property in this effort. Ms. McGill noted that none of the improvements discussed involve channel modifications to Mr. Walker's property. They involve only the upstream property owners. His property would be impacted by alternatives including a storm sewer on Clover Court that would pass through the stormwater easement. Mayor McCash noted that a 30-foot easement was established at the time the subdivision was platted. Do any of the homes have their footprint within the easement? Ms. McGill responded that one home is very close to the edge of the easement, and three decks encroach upon the easement. Mayor McCash noted that, typically, with a stream there is a 1 OO-year floodway and flood plain. Was that same type of calculation or determination made for these drainage easements? Ms. McGill responded that at the time this was developed, the City did not have regulations about sizing culverts for the 1 OO-year storm as is done today. That --- is one reason that the Stonefence Lane culvert would back up in a 100-year storm event. The channel is not a regulated FEMA flood plain. Mayor McCash noted that. five residents have signed in to testify. Bill Brantley. 246 Clover Court indicated that Steve Thomas would testify first. Steve Thomas. 238 Clover Court noted that the deck existed at the time he purchased his property. He is troubled that Council is asking how this situation rates in relation to other stormwater issues in the community. He came to Council in February, and now another summer has been lost toward a solution while studies continue. The true key is diversion of the water. Routing the runoff from 200 acres through someone's backyard will have an impact. Residents built channelization to stop the erosion. He is amazed that the figures provided on July 17 by CDM have increased dramatically since that time. Doing nothing is "frightening," but the streambed widening was done previously and did not work. The Development Director and the City Engineer previously assured him that if there were a problem, it would be fixed. This is an ongoing problem, remains a safety issue, affects property values, and the study results have been completed. The residents have waited, paid for improvements from their own funds, and want this project considered for the CIP. The problem won't heal itself and will not go away. - Mr. Kranstuber noted that citizens would not want a Council Member to react to a problem without knowing the whole picture. Perhaps the cost of fixing this is $400,000, and there are limited funds available for this. He is simply asking how severe is the problem, how expensive is this to fix, and how many other similar issues exist in the community. The capital budget is reviewed each year to list all of the projects proposed and the funding available. He needs to have all of the information available to make a responsible decision. Dennis Muchnicki. 270 Clover Court stated that the problem has existed for 25 years. The developer was allowed to construct a drainage ditch in the back yards instead of being required to install a storm sewer. This study does not address the erosion problems created with the drainage ditch. The study looked only at peak flow. There has been no examination in the study of the total flow being routed through the backyards which contributes to erosion. Therefore, there are problems with the model. The proposed solution recommended is the i I I !I , HiH'TiF d. I w""'.".. '-I'..".';:'F..'T'I:';:'),I'".'XU1]n;n.'~lfl,,'[Jj.:':'.lT'l'flI"r7':II.>'W11":.!rft!WIl<~"UU':!IIIlJ:.'.1.:j1illf'~ r.-I- . I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _m_=d_,_~_,.O,JJ.hJjnj:~ii.~_CdQUIlC1L"d"ddm__""'~~_mddm_m=~_Egfl~d1~L,= Mee~!!!~_,~m_,,=_. ",?ggMM""g""""M""""'MW_""MW/H.7""""g""",g"""""""?m-MV",,,,?_,,,,?g~"""""'__""""h'__"''''',,,,,*,,,'''_M DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 HeIrl July 22, 2002 19 most distressing and it is not an acceptable option. There are four residents who will not allow the City on their properties to do the proposed improvement. The improvement calls for cutting out a 12-foot wide channel, two feet deep, and lining it with stone. This constitutes a third of his back yard, as these are % acre ,...-.., lots. The City has no right to do this under the existing e.asement In terms of obstructions, most of the neighbors have installed these to attempt to control the erosion - these are not the cause of the problem. The problems were caused by the City Council who approved the drainage ditch 25 years ago. The appropriate solution is a storm sewer installed down the middle of Clover Court, and taking the flow out of the backyards. Some variation of a storm sewer installation should be considered, as the stream originally was located in the middle of Monterey Court. Mr. Kranstuber asked if any residents would oppose the elimination of the stream in the back yards. Mr. Muchnicki responded that of the seven residents along the north side of Clover Court, everyone prefers the storm sewer down the middle of the street. Bill Brantley. 246 Clover Court stated that due to the lateness of the hour, he would provide brief comments. This is a 25-year old problem. Divided by 25 years, the annual cost is not astronomical. In 1990, he came to Council about this issue. The problems were anticipated. The residents find it insulting that this is called a "creek" - the original creek went up Clover Court, but that was redirected. He and his wife find it incomprehensible that water from 200 acres is routed through residents' back yards. In 1997, he spent $9,000 to create a paved arroyo on their property. They want nothing done to their yard, and the Tordoffs, Martins, and Muchnickis also do not want this channel built. They have a power of attorney from AI and Joy Mueller who do not want the channel. ,--. The right thing to do is to install a storm sewer under Clover Court. If Council decides to do the channel widening, the five residents will have a serious problem with this. The model fails in the initial conditions and the boundary conditions. In the model, the initial surge of the water is not correctly predicted - his residence survived the 1992 tOO-year storm. The creek came up about halfway in their yards and filled the channel with rocks. If necessary, they will flood proof their property along with the Tordoffs. Mr. Kranstuber asked for clarification about the power of attorney from the Muellers. Mr. Brantley responded that he was not serious about having a power of attorney - they indicated to him that they want nothing done behind their house. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the Muellers would support eliminating the creek, as discussed, by installing a storm sewer under the street. Mr. Brantley stated that they are in support of this as well. Mr. Thomas added that the Mueller'S are not present tonight. Over a 20-year period, Mr. Mueller has constructed a stone wall with the approval and concurrence of the prior Engineering staff. He is not responsible for water backing up, and he does not want the wall altered or the bridge removed. Douq Martin. 262 Clover Court stated that he agrees with Mr. Brantley and Mr. Muchnicki. He does not support widening of the channel. Taking the storm sewer under Clover Court with a 48-inch line will cost $100,000 more. - Constructing a channel, however, will devalue their properties by $30-35,000 each. Bill Walker. Clover Court asked the engineers if any studies have been done regarding the downstream impacts of installing a 48-inch pipe. While it may solve some residents' problems, what will it do to other properties? Has discussion taken place with the downstream residents? Ms. McGill responded that residents on the east side of the stream channel have not been involved in the public meetings. They left it up to the residents to invite the neighbors they felt should be involved. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the 42-inch. pipe drains into another similarly sized pipe. Ms. McGill responded that it would be an outfall or headwall. There will be a need for some erosion protection at that point. Discussion followed. i 'I I. j;II"Hn.,,,,,,,,,,, 1;;;,;;:[ ! ! ' ".~ "I-"~. 'I "'W'.T.'1""I'" !'!I"IT'1:"r~I)l" -ll-~'" .RI'ftJl~'I'.-r._'.Il':i'I'I:IH<I'~~Wft + 'Ut'.'nl '. "1 I , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '''~=-Mm='=m='_=, MiEEJ~!J2,L~_m_~@_=-~h_~~___'-h"hQubJinJ;~it}LCQJJ,m,;jL,<m,_,M='~"mm_'m~~m#m=_h~mE51ge.J,3t_'=m M~m~!inJim>>_m_>>m~, DAYrON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 July 22, 2002 Helrl 19 Mr. Neff noted that they considered taking a pipe under the existing channel, but the problem is with the outfall of the pipe. The elevations did not allow this. Mr. Kranstuber asked for clarification of where the water is routed from the end of the street if a 42-inch pipe is installed. ~ Ms. McGill responded that it would come out to the existing stream channel where the City has done some erosion control. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the channel could handle the 42-inch pipe. Ms. McGill responded that the channel does have the capacity. Mr. Ciarochi added that it would back up because of the restrictions on the Stonefence Lane 42-inch pipe. It would have a similar effect as the channelization improvement - two or three structures would still be subject to the 1 OO-year flood event. Mayor McCash asked about the size of the Stonefence Lane pipe. Ms. McGill responded that the storm sewer pipe is 42 inches; the sanitary pipe is 24 inches. To address the 1 OO-year design storm, it would require a 48-inch storm sewer pipe. She noted that if the storm sewer were installed on Clover Court, there would be a slight impact on water surface downstream of Stonefence Lane. Mayor McCash suggested replacing the Stonefence Lane 42-inch pipe with a 48-inch pipe. Would this address the situation upstream? Ms. McGill stated that replacing that culvert alone does not eliminate the risk of basement flooding. There would still be significant flow in the channel behind the homes. It requires a combination of bypassing the channel and the new culvert at Stonefence Lane to eliminate that risk. Discussion continued. Mr. Kranstuber asked where the water is routed after Stonefence Lane. Ms. McGill responded that it is conveyed into culverts under Waterford Drive, into a pond, and then under Dublin Road to the river. ,-- Mr. Kranstuber noted that his concern is with the impact this improvement would have on other downstream properties. Mr. Walker commented that he would want to know more about how this will affect his property and those downstream. His situation is stable at this point. Mr. Neff responded that there would be increased velocity at that point. There are two ways to address that: installing another manhole, forcing the water to make a right turn; or installing an energy dissipater at the end of the channel and reinforcing the other side of the streambed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer the matter to Public Services Committee for further review with staff and consultants; that a broader audience of impacted residents be invited; and that the Committee bring a recommendation to Council to be decided upon for inclusion in the CIP budget review in August. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor McCash stated that the Committee would schedule a meeting to take place prior to the CIP review. Notification can be provided to the residents tomorrow. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification regarding what further information should be obtained from CDM. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that one issue is that the recommendations ~............ brought to Council tonight differ from those provided in the packet; another is that the residents' recommendation is different from that of the consultant; and a broader audience of affected residents should be invited. They should be apprised of this meeting so that they can choose whether or not to attend. Request for Waiver of Sidewalk Requirement - Meiier's Store Outlot Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of the sidewalk waiver as requested. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, abstain; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes, Update re American Public Works Association (APWA) Accreditation Mr. McDaniel stated that the materials were provided to Council in the packet and he asked that Council contact him if they have further questions. The process is going well and he will keep Council apprised of the status. ! I I r !i .'.' ".''''''!''!ltl'IIH:i 1IlJi'I18l11iii 'I ! I - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 'm=mm'~,~~_'_mm=~b$~_~$~,Mil}~ t~~~m2i=m~_mhP~"m~__#h#_H~b_m~"_b;.~_~nJJbUn~'clt~LCCluDcjL_=~h~"~"--=-_H_m#E$ag~H2.Q'~mm' l'4~~~~!~g_~'_Q_"Hmm DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 1014B ,. July 22, 2002 HeIrl 19 Council Round Table/Committee Reports Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented: . She attended the groundbreaking for Dublin Jerome High School and a brick was _. presented to Council as recognition of the City's partnership and financial participation in the project. . She asked for clarification of the number of riders of the Nationwide shuttle. Ms. Grigsby responded that the correct number was 73. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this translates to a cost of $148 per rider. She added that she was opposed to this arrangement from the outset. Mr. Kranstuber commented: . In regard to the memo of July 9 regarding revenue/refund comparisons, why did the net profits decrease by half? Ms. Grigsby explained that in the first six months of 2001, the City received several net profit payments from a couple of corporations. There were no such payments received this year. And in fact, much of what was received in 2001 was refunded in 2002. So this affected the net profits number in the report. . In regard to the Bob Sumeral Tire signage issue, he appreciates the fact that P&Z has held the line in adhering to the development text. He was surprised that the vote at P&Z was 5-2. Mr. Lecklider noted: . The BZA agenda includes a variance for signage at Big Lots. They are apparently requesting a second wall sign as a shopping center tenant. . There are broken tunnel lights at Avery Road. Mr. Hahn responded that replacements have been ordered. These were vandalized and a ~ new model is being ordered. I There is work being done on the Avery Road ditch - is it being piped and enclosed? . Mr. Herskowitz stated that perhaps this'would be done in the future. It is not being done at this time. · A complaint was forwarded to Council about Tartan Golf Club providing discounts to their members to play at the Golf Club of Dublin. Ms. Grigsby explained that staff has learned that a discount is being provided to their membership to play the Dublin club due to the fact that the LPGA is being played this week at Tartan Fields. Mr. Lecklider asked if this is addressed in the agreement with Tartan. Mr. Smith responded that he has not reviewed the e-mail, but he assumes that the agreement does not prohibit this. The City is a sponsor of the LPGA as well, and perhaps this was an accommodation offered to the members. Mayor McCash added that Dublin residents would still have priority in obtaining tee times. . In regard to the Indian Run water and sewer petition, what is the status? Mr. Ciarochi noted that this was referred to Public Services Committee sometime ago. Mr. Lecklider stated that another meeting would be set for this topic in the near future. Mrs. Borinq: . Noted that she assumes the AEP proposal for the new transmission line does not include burying the lines. Will they have to take land for towers? Mr. McDaniel stated that AEP officials met with him and Mr. Hammersmith and discussed routing. Staff has proposed some additional suggestions for their consideration. AEP is planning to upgrade existing poles, and because the route is.in residential areas, it would '~ be desirable to have them underground. Dublin has made a large investment in purchasing right-of-way along Emerald Parkway and other roadways to accommodate this. Mayor McCash asked if maps are available for the proposed routing. Mr. McDaniel responded that they are not available at this time. . Congratulated Ms. Puskarcik on the awardnorriinations her division has recently received. Mayor McCash commended Mr. Hahn for his division's work on tree trimming at 6375 Riverside Drive as reported by Tom Turner. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition, personnel and legal matters. He noted that the meeting would not be reconvened following the session. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. I i 1,1 !.f I : i " """., ;>" ,,~..,.-:,. 'U11ll'J;' l'''HHFtIH;''lt',!~4h,~tdJf.,i'A.'tl<::ifll~;:'i:j;~ti';ili ,I; , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "~M~~<m~_m~_'_~_$-~~ut~~~Lmm_'_~_~__~h~mmmhm,_~_"_DublIu~Cit~.c.Q.uncll"M,~.m"Mh_~__._mh__=._m_=~,E..Q~fL2,1_,,,_.!!~et~P[~m_'_~=<__ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 1014~ I July 22, 2002 HeIrl 19 Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. o xecutive session at 11 :25 p.m. -. ~CL~ Clerk of Council .- .- I ' .