Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-28-17 Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Peterson called the Monday, February 27, 2017 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at Dublin City Hall. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Peterson, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay. [Vice Mayor Reiner was absent (excused).] Form 6101 Staff members present were Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Readler, Mr. Hartmann, Mr. Foegler, Ms. Mumma, Ms. Goss, Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Haines, Mr. Papsidero, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Stiffler, Ms. Richison, Mr. O'Brien, Ms. Burness, Ms. Willis, Ms. Wawszkiewicz and Mr. Plouck. Mr. Daniels of Squire Patton Boggs was also present. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Peterson moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of the purchase of property for public purposes; for conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action; and for preparing for, conducting, or reviewing negotiations or bargaining sessions with public employees concerning their compensation or other terms and conditions of their employment. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7:08 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Keenan led the Pledge of Allegiance. CITIZEN COMMENTS For the benefit of the residents present who had signed in to speak to Council regarding the library, Mayor Peterson asked Mr. McDaniel to outline the process for upcoming public hearings on this matter. Mr. McDaniel noted that: 1. The development agreement (Ordinance 57 -16) before Council has with it subsequent operating agreements and addresses the operational aspects of the future library building and operations of the future parking garage. 2. An additional ongoing process began when Council referred the architecture review of the future buildings to the Architecture Review Board for informal hearings regarding the basic plan. The Architectural Review Board has taken testimony and Council will receive the feedback from that as the basic plan comes before Council. 3. On March 6, a Council work session will take place that will provide Council an opportunity to discuss and interact with the library and consultants. Typically, work sessions are not live streamed over the internet, however because this is likely to be a more detailed discussion among Council, the library and the consultants, this session will be live- streamed for the benefit of the interested public. He added that typically, Council does not take public comment at work sessions. Council can choose to do so if desired, but the intention is for Council to receive the information from the library and consultants. The public will have two opportunities to provide feedback and comment on the library matter — first at the March 13 Council meeting and again at the March 20 Council meeting. Council can choose to have as many meetings and receive as much input from the public as they want, depending upon how the review process continues. Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. McDaniel for this summary of upcoming meetings and reiterated Council's commitment to hearing public comment regarding the library at the March 13 and March 20 Council meetings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 18 Meeting Form 6101 Tom Holton, 5957 Roundstone Place, Dublin, came forward to bring perspective about Historic Dublin as a former ARB member and a member of the Dublin Historical Society. Historic Dublin has been described as the "jewel" of the City. He understands the word "jewel" to mean something of beauty and value that is worthy of care and attention. For years, the Historical Society has demonstrated this care for Historic Dublin. Perhaps the implication of the word "jewel" was that it was to be modernized or developed, and therefore he is trying to develop a different paradigm. He recalled a comment by a City staff member when he was at a meeting regarding Brand Road: "Councils have done a lot for years to protect historic properties, and they don't have a commitment to protect them forever." The Historic District was always defined by the Indian Run cemetery to the north, the Dublin cemetery on the west, the east bank of the river and the Karrer barn to the south. The boundaries have shifted and there is now something called the "historic core." The City is fully aligned to meet the Bridge Street goals. The library and garage designs are not consistent with the City's own guidelines for new structures in the Historic District. He also noted that the Biddie "s Project is not consistent in design mass and scale. The structures at 30 and 32 S. High Street are examples of an apparent lack of urgency as they continue to have safety issues. The vacant building at 143 S. High was approved for demolition a year ago and is still standing. One cannot build an historic building or recreate some of Dublin's unique sites. Once Rock Cress Parkway is built, what is now enjoyed is gone forever -- like losing a work of art. If Council does see the Historic District as a jewel to be developed, then Council should put this on the record. People who come forward to speak and question details about applications regarding the district. Or, does Council see the Historic District as a jewel to be valued for its unique charm, character and historical significance. He questioned where Council stood on the issue. Steve Rudy, 129 South Riverview Street, Dublin, stated that he, too, attended the ARB meeting last week. The way the ARB meeting proceeded heightened his concerns regarding the library. The process as it was rolled out for Biddie's seemed to indicate that public comment had been "put in a can," which was not usual ARB practice. He stated they were continually told by staff and the applicant that the scale and character matched that of the Historic District. However, it does not. They were told the public comment period was over. The general trend of concern is that the wave is breaking. The City takes great pride in having public input, but it does not alter the course. The ARB setting and other settings are showing staff to be advocates of infill density levels. The Council is the last line of defense if staff is pushing on ARB a plastic set of guidelines that can be adjusted. When BriHi was built, it was stated that the intent was to violate the scale and character of the district. The same thing is happening with the library, one project after another, without regard for public comment. He asked for Council's vision of Historic District. He heard that Biddie's will be the template for infill and his characterization is that it is an excessively tall structure, in the face of existing residents, with the natural scope of the district eliminated. He has seen no evidence of restraint in vision and Historic District guidelines. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that because both previous speakers asked where Council stands, it requires an answer. She looks forward to seeing the ARB minutes. She wants to go on record and state that it is worth preserving. There is value. Council hears from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau that a lot of visitors and tours come Dublin to experience the historic gore of the community. She shares some of Mr. Holton's and Mr. Rudy's concerns. It is important to preserve the Historic District. It is important that we preserve the integrity and that they drive a stake into the ground and say, "We are going to respect our past." It is important to have a reflective moment in that space because it reflects who we are and who we are becoming. Mayor Peterson stated that he agrees that the Historic District is of value and that once it is gone, it is gone forever. He has not seen the Biddie's project, so he cannot comment. One of the great things about Dublin is that no matter how big it becomes, it still feels like a small town. He reiterated his commitment to preserving Historic Dublin. He RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_ Dublin City Council February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 18 Meeting Form 6101 believes that Council has shown significant commitment to preserving Historic Dublin and that Council will continue to do their best with each project proposed. Ms. AlutPto stated that past Councils have shown support for preserving Historic Dublin. It is a critical piece of Dublin. Following the standards of 20 years ago may not work because Dublin is not the same City as it was 20 years ago. Looking at the Historic District and seeing how it fits in with the City as a whole is important. She will not make a blanket statement that no project will move forward if it is different. She will take each as it comes forward for consideration. Blanket statements such as "shown zero effort" do not correctly categorize what has happened. Ms. Salay agrees with Isis. Amorose Groomes, but would challenge us as a community to remember that years ago, there were two gas stations on the corners of Bridge and High Street that were ugly structures despite being part of the history. She will never apologize that the City decided to replace those gas stations with new buildings that are in the character of being historic structures, but not authentically historic. She is curious about Biddie's and what happened at ARB. She assumes that ARB will do what they have always done, hold the line, and achieve the City's expectations. In regard to the structures that were mentioned by Mr. Holton, Council had talked about preservation efforts of historic buildings and the cost of restoring and preserving them. If the owner or no one else takes the time, effort and money to maintain a building of that age, then there comes a point where it is no longer economically feasible to restore an historic building. In regard to the historic buildings that remain, it was her understanding that a study would be planned at some point to investigate what other cities do and what tools they use to preserve historic structures. She would like an update and hear staff's views on the remaining historic buildings in the Historic District. She recalled one specific building that previously housed a tattoo business, where the owner of the building, out of love for the building and not economic reasons, chose to restore the building. She reiterated that a plan must be developed for those other historic structures or there will be no choice in the matter due to the decline of the buildings. She has heard of some possible safety issues related to some of the historic structures. She reiterated that she would be interested in staff's views on the remaining buildings. She concluded her statement with the fact that she has never heard anything from staff that was anti - preservation or anti - Historic District. Mr. Lecklider stated that during the time he has served on Council, he has a demonstrated record of voting in support of investing millions of dollars in the Historic District. He values the unique character of the Historic District. He has not seen the Biddie "s proposal, so he cannot comment specifically on that without more information. He would be happy to talk to anyone who would like to have a conversation about that or other projects. Mayor Peterson inquired about the status of the inventory of historic structures. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Papsidero to update Council on the status. Mr. Papsidero stated that the Planning Division is working with a consultant and is in the process of completing an inventory of all properties in the City that meet historic criteria. The next piece of the contract is to look at strategies to encourage preservation of the structures that have been identified as historic. In response to Mayor Peterson's question regarding the inventory being shared with Council, staff's plan was to take the report to ARB at their workshop in April, providing it could be accommodated within their agenda. He would be happy to bring it back to Council as well. Mr. McDaniel inquired about the Biddie's project and whether or not another proposal has been received. Mr. Papsidero described the sequence of events. When the Planning Division was contacted regarding this property, the developer brought forward a three -story building. Staff recommended that they take that proposal to ARB for an informal review. When it was taken to ARB, there was a reaction by the neighborhood that triggered a process to update the Code as it affects the south side of the Historic District. That work is still RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 1 underway and there have been several public workshops. The recommendations that speak to breaking up buildings and having them scaled down will be coming to the ARB in March at a work session before the Code is finalized and the public process commences. At the same time this work on the Code was being done, the developer for the Biddie "s site is on his third or fourth iteration of the project that now includes a 2.5- story structure. A conflict arose when the Code allows 2.5 stories, but the guidelines allow only two. The developer is now making additional changes and is expected to move forward. Mr. McDaniel stated that as a result of the iterative process between the public and the City was the notion of the review of the Code to address, within the context of the Code, that area south of S.R. 161. He takes exception to the remark about lack of engagement or not hearing public comment. It was through this process that a review of infill development and what that should look like came to be. There will be additional input opportunities for the public. He felt it was good to get ahead of this and talk about the area south of S.R. 161 and the scale of development. Mr. Papsidero added that in addition to height and density, they are also looking at restricting uses. There have been some concerns raised that some uses may intrude into the neighborhood. In response to Ms. Salay regarding the Biddie's building and the development occurring behind the building, Mr. Papsidero stated that the developer has begun a process of adaptive reuse of the interior of the building and will market it for office uses. A restaurant use for the building would not be possible due to parking requirements. [As. Salay asked how Biddie "s operated as a restaurant all those years with the parking available to them. Mr. Papsidero responded that they utilized a gravel lot for parking behind it. The new addition has been shrinking -- not only in height, but square footage as well. Dr. Claire Wolfe, 5521 Indian Hill Road, Dublin commented that she likes the library concept. The library is at the northern edge of the Historic District and the current library building is not historic in character. Across the street from where the library is to be built is not historic, and the library design will fit very nicely with what is being developed across the street. The existing buildings on the east side of the street are not historic and are not attractive. She is supportive of the library design. Kurt Schmitt 97 South Riverview, Dublin commented about the library proposal. Architecture is aesthetic and each has his or her own views. Dublin has gone through many changes, but whatever Council does in the next few meetings will have a lasting impact on what Dublin will be. He has had a fair amount of experience with historic structures. He was involved in one at Denison University where NBB] planned a wonderful building at Denison. People went to the City Council and said it didn't fit in. The building was changed due to the fact that it makes a lasting impact. He was surprised at the proposed design of the library and is asking Council to take a long look and think of the future impact. Steve Metzler, 8873 Glasgow Court North, Dublin stated that he is passionate about Dublin and its development and the Historic District. He believes he is not alone in his views. Since the new library design has been released and in gauging the pulse of the City, the majority is against the proposed new design. It is something he is hopeful that the Council takes seriously. He knows the project is down the road a little in terms of its development, but he is hopeful that it's not too late to reconsider. There has been a great deal of comment on social media, and 90 percent of them are opposed. He urged Council to take to heart the comments and opposition to the design. He questioned Council on what they would do with so many of their constituents in opposition. Will Council seek a hybrid design or let the structure "stick out like a sore thumb." CONSENT AGENDA Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about Resolution No. 12 -17 - the wayfinding system phase 1A and 1B. In the last paragraph of the summary, it states that there are four historic RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 18 Form 6101 Dublin entry signs, which she believes involves replacing the four stone columns at present; 27 street name sign replacements, and a new sign has been selected for the area; and 86 wayfinding signs and an additional 26 wayfinding faces for future use, which totals 112 wayfinding signs. She is concerned that it seems like a large number of signs in such a small area. Ms. Willis stated that this project involves a much larger area than just phase 1A, which would be only the area around the Bridge Park East Project. The 1B project, which heads to the west toward Coffman Park, up Riverside Drive and over to Sawmill Parkway, is also included in the total 86 signs stated in the memo. The street name signs are all in the Historic District. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there are two phases listed, phases 1A and B that are both Bridge Street. Ms. Willis clarified that phase 1A encompasses only Bridge Park East and a portion of the phase 1B project is also in Bridge Street. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the map included with the memo indicates a phase 2 A, B, C and D. Ms. Willis stated that those are future phases. Mr. McDaniel pointed out that the future phase area on the map provided to Council was denoted by a dashed line. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes regarding how many wayfinding signs will be installed in the Historic District, Ms. Willis stated that the 27 street name signs are all within the Historic District. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarification — are those all replacement signs and not new signs? Ms. Willis stated that is correct. She added that staff does not have the exact number of new wayfinding signs that will be going up in the Historic District, but can provide that information for Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that would like to have that information. Ms. Salay stated that at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, she saw a wayfinding sign that would be located at Riverside Drive and Emerald Parkway on the southwest corner or perhaps Dublin Road and Emerald Parkway. Has there been further consideration given to that? Mr. Papsidero stated that the sign being referred to was very conceptual work done by Kolar Design for the next phase of gateway wayfinding. These are different than the details outlined by Ms. Willis. At this time, staff has not moved forward on that work due to other priorities. Ms. Salay asked for confirmation that if and when the gateway signage project moves forward, the recommendations will come back to PZC and to Council. Mr. Papsidero stated that was correct. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Resolution 12 -17 must be acted upon now or could it be delayed. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff would discuss and possibly have a response to her questions before the end of the meeting. Perhaps Council can remove this item from the Consent Agenda and consider it at the end of tonight's meeting. Mayor Peterson agreed to remove Resolution No. 12 -17 from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification regarding what specific information was being requested. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she is asking about the location of the additional wayfinding signage in the Historic District because she believes there are too many signs for a small area. Mayor Peterson moved approval of the remaining seven items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 6 of 18 • Approval of Minutes of Regular Council meeting of February 13, 2017 Form 6101 • Notice to Legislative Authority re. Transfer of D5 and D6 liquor permits from Cobalt Dog LLC, dba Donerick's Pub, 6711 Dublin Center Drive & Patio, Dublin, OH 43017, to JMJR Enterprises LLC, dba Corporate Caterers, 6665 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017 • Notice to Legislative Authority re Transfer of D5 and D6 liquor permits from Dublin Kabuki LLC, dba Kabuki Korean Restaurant /Sushi Bar to Kabuki HK Inc., dba Kabuki Korean Restaurant and Sushi Bar, 6395 Perimeter Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017 • Notice to Legislative Authority re Transfer of D5A and D6 liquor permits from Aimbridge Concessions, Inc., dba Embassy Suites Dublin to One OH Columbus ES Management LLC, dba Embassy Suites Dublin, 5100 Upper Metro Place, Dublin, Ohio 43017 • Notice to Legislative Authority re New D5A liquor permit for One OH Columbus ES Management LLC, dba Embassy Suites Dublin, 5100 Upper Metro Place, Dublin, Ohio 43017 • Resolution 07 -17 (Introduction /public hearing /vote) Demonstrating the City of Dublin's Cooperation with The Ohio Department of Transportation for the Resurfacing of US -33 from Post Road to just west of Avery Road in Dublin, as well as the Ramps at Post Road and a Section of SR -161 (ODOT PID Number 94145) • North Riverview Street and North High Street Dedication - Preliminary and Final Plat (Case 16- 111PP /FP) POSTPONED ITEMS — ORDINANCES Ordinance 57 -16 (Amended) Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Development Agreement and Other Necessary Documents with the Columbus Metropolitan Library ( "CML ") to Facilitate the Building of a Parking Garage, Library and Adjacent Streets on the Current Library Site in the Historic District, Mr. Foegler stated that in November, Council had a first reading of this Ordinance along with a companion ordinance that laid out all the real estate aspects and the agreements required between the City, the Dublin City School District and the Columbus Metropolitan Library. The ordinance authorizing the agreement with the School District was approved on the second reading by City Council in December, and that agreement will be acted upon by the School Board at their February 27 meeting. The library wanted to advance discussion about operational aspects a little more before their agreement with the City was acted upon, and those discussions have taken place over the last two months. The basic terms of this agreement lays out the obligations of the City and the library with regard to this joint development. It provides that: 1. The library will build a new building of about 42,000 square feet. 2. The City will build an adjacent parking structure and will almost implement the grid road network around these buildings. 3. The library will provide to the City its interest in the real estate needed to complete this, which reduces the library's current property from 3.5 acres down to about 1.1 acre. The School District had some residual interest in the land, which is why an agreement was needed for that as well. All those issues have been worked out and are embedded in the agreements. 4. The operational terms of the easement agreement have been advanced and it is an attachment to the development agreement. Mr. Foegler stated that what is before Council in Ordinance 57 -16 is the development agreement itself between the two entities (the City and the Columbus Metropolitan Library) and the attachment is the easement agreement that has been worked on for the last several months dealing with various operational issues. The version that Council received on the dais tonight reflects the removal of a number from Section 2.04. The figure was established for the purpose of a deferred contribution by the library toward long -term maintenance. Upon closer examination, it is believed that the number will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting _ g BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held February 27, 2017 Page 7 of 18 less, so the Library does not desire to include that number into the agreement yet. The number will be included and brought back before Council before that agreement is executed. Mayor Peterson asked for clarification that there will be 200 parking spaces for exclusive use by the library only during their hours of operation. Mr. Foegler responded that the library wanted to ensure that those 200 spaces were available for use by their patrons during operating hours. To the extent that if they are not used, there are provisions in the agreement for use by the public should it be determined over time that the 200 spaces is more supply than is needed. The signage and wayfinding will reinforce that those spaces are to be used only by the patrons of the library during library hours. Ms. Salay asked how the $44,000 annual operating and maintenance expenses that the library is to give the City differs from the capital repair and how the figure was determined. Mr. Foegler stated that the basic framework of the agreement with the library regarding the garage is that it would cost them the same amount as it would have if they would have had to build 200 surface parking spaces. It worked out to be a little over $5,000 per space. In this parking structure, the library is contributing just over a million dollars. Likewise, the library agreed to pay operating and maintenance at the same cost that it would cost them to maintain a surface parking lot. Walker Parking Consultants was retained to do the analysis for the City. The library did a similar analysis independent of the City's and that $44,000 figure emerged out from those studies. The parking structure has a longer life than would surface parking. Therefore, a capital reserve is being built to allow for replacement of that structure at the end of its useful life, which is believed to be around 50 years. To completely rebuild the structure would not be at the same cost, as there will be aspects of the project that will not need to be redone. Staff, the library and the consultants are refining that number and should know what the cost of a rebuild in the future would be within the next few weeks. Ms. Salay shared a recent experience with parking at Easton Town Center. There are green lights where there are vacant parking spaces. Will the City's garage have that technology? Mr. Foegler stated that he met with the Easton Town Center representatives to talk about the parking and technology. The technology is still struggling and is changing rapidly. Therefore, he would recommend waiting to see how the supply and demand of these spaces works. One thing that is being done in the project is running conduit for wiring and technology for future use as it is less costly to install the conduit when building versus installing later. They are trying to build in as much adaptability and flexibility as possible at the outset without marrying one specific technology. Ms. Salay inquired about existing valet stands and how they will work with this new parking structure. Mr. Foegler stated that as with any valet parking, it would be pushed to the most remote location. In the case of the parking structure, it would be the top floor. For the surface parking in the Historic District, the Planning staff is working with Nelson Nygaard on a management plan and strategies, and valets are definitely a piece of that moving forward. The goal would be to get the valet to put the cars in the non -prime spaces. Ms. Amorose Groomes sought clarification on section 2A of the statement of agreement, specifically the language that reads: This input may include the architectural compatibility with the exterior of the Library. The final design of the Garage must ultimately be approved by the City's required reviewing body through the City's applicable development review regulations. CML shall have the right to approve the final design of the Garage, to be submitted to the City's required reviewing body as such design relates to the location and designation of CML parking spaces, ingress /egress for level one of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 8 of 18 Form 6101 Garage, the location and entrances and exits for the Garage face adjacent to the Library and the location and design of the Pedestrian Walkway (as defined in Exhibit "C') to the Library. As she reads this section, it is unclear who has the final design authority on the garage. Mr. Foegler responded that at the end of the day, the City's development review process will dictate the design of the buildings. The library wanted to achieve consensus with the City before the City makes formal application to begin that discretionary review process, basically ensuring that everything is aligned. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she will accept the City's legal advice, but as a layperson reading the section in question, it seems there would be two different bodies that have the final approval. Ms. Amorose Groomes has two additional questions regarding Section 3 (CML to Design and Construct the Library), C, item 2 that reads: Confirmation by CML that budget for the Library and final design for the Library as approved by the City pursuant to the Citys development review regulations are satisfactory to CML. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the same language is repeated in item 6. Mr. Foegler stated that those items are contingencies, so that the library has the right not to build this building if the City requires the building and budget to result in such an increase that it doesn't work for them as previous agreed upon. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about language in section 5 (Miscellaneous), E, (Administrative Actions) that reads: ... the City Manager and will not require legislative action of a City Council beyond the legislative actions authorizing this Agreement, and (ii) the City Manager, on behalf of the City, is authorized to make all approvals and consents that are contemplated by this Agreement, without the separate approval by the City Council, including reviews, approvals, and consents (including but not limited to, such actions with respect to the City Contingencies)... She asked for clarification on a threshold that needs to be met for those items to kick in. She acknowledged that this is likely boilerplate language and that CML makes the same commitment in the next paragraph of the agreement. She stated she has 100 percent confidence in the City Manager's ability, but there is no successor named and this entire portion of the agreement is dependent upon one person. Therefore, it gives her pause that there is no estate planning' built into this agreement. Mr. Foegler stated that this language is standard in agreements. What it does is allow the City Manager to do the numerous small items that are outside of this agreement that has been authorized by Council. City Council approves all budgets and awards during the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that there is no "plan B" if `plan A" doesn't work out. Mr. Foegler stated that in any circumstance, there would be an acting City Manager with all the same authority. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that it could say, "or their designee." Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that her final concern with this document is Exhibit E regarding the remaining library property. Council has heard from residents this evening about the library not fitting into the District. Once it is voted upon, the parcels and dimensions are locked in. What would happen if the library was not granted their three - story waiver and needed more real estate to meet the 42,000 square feet requirement? Mr. Foegler stated that they looked at capacity studies and determined that it would be easy to build a two -story building on that site and still have plaza space. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked whether or not the parking spaces would be adjusted if the library chose to drop the square footage of the building to 38,000. Mr. Foegler responded that the parking spaces would be negotiated. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she noticed the number of parking spaces went down from 500 to 475. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held Dublin City Council February 27, 2017 Page 9 of 18 Meeting Form 6101 Mr. Foegler stated that the initial agreement was 450, but due to certain efficiencies, staff believes there may be 550. More information regarding that number will be shared on Monday at the work session. Ms. Amorose Groomes appreciates the attention to detail and stated the importance of remembering the City's interest in this project is just as much as the library's if not greater. She wants to ensure that the City is making the most of its partnership with the library. Mr. McDaniel stated that this has been a partnership between the schools, the City and the library from the 1960's. Regardless of architecture, this speaks to the partnership in setting the conditions for these facilities to work together where the library brings forward something more than it is today for the community and the City responds to a long -term parking issue for the merchants and visitors in the Historic District. He thanked the library system and the Schools for their cooperation on this amenity for the community. There are more steps to come, but this is a great first step. Rich Taylor, 48 S. High Street, Dublin thanked Mayor Peterson for meeting with him recently. He urged the City Council members to vote "no"' on this project. In addition to the inappropriateness in the design of the library and parking garage, two other important principles are threatened: the validity of the old Dublin design guidelines and the legitimacy of the Architectural Review Board itself. The threat is a 2014 ordinance that removed the guidelines and the ARB from their traditional role of the review process for some projects in the historic district neighborhood. That threat is triggered when a development agreement, such as the one under consideration this evening, is put in place. The 2014 ordinance relegates the ARB to an informal, non - binding, non - voting role at the beginning of the process and substitutes Council instead. City Council review does not provide the same specialized review as does ARB. ARB is required to use old Dublin design guidelines, but Council is not required to do so. City Council is not required to apply Section 153.174, The Standards of Review for the Historic District. All who are privileged enough to live or work in the Historic District everyday have agreed to live by the guidelines and decisions of ARB. They agreed to do so because they were assured that the rules applied equally to everyone. He asked City Council to require the CML and the City to submit their projects to the ARB review process as residents in the Historic District must do. Prior to the 2014 ordinance, these projects would have been submitted to ARB, the public would testify and the ARB would vote. The public would be disappointed if it would have been approved under that scenario, but would have accepted it. None of this discussion would be necessary if the library and the City shared the goals of enhancing and respecting the character and integrity of Dublin's unique Historic District neighborhood. He urged City Council to reject this agreement and send the basic plan review back to ARB. Ms. Alutto stated for clarification that Council has not yet established the required reviewing body and this agreement does not establish the required reviewing body. Ms. Readler responded that Ms. Alutto is correct. She stated that Council has the basic plan review and legislation related to the agreement. However, once Council has that basic plan review completed, they can determine if ARB or Council will consider the subsequent development and site plans. Ms. Alutto clarified that Council still has that decision - making ability regardless of what is decided on the development agreement. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out the Basic Plan Review that will be done by Council outlines many of the details of the building. Council can still determine who the reviewing body will be after that -- ARB or ART or Council, but there are a significant number of decisions that will be made at the Basic Plan Review that cannot be undone irrespective of who the designated reviewing body is. Mr. Lecklider stated that the memo states that: One amendment clarifies a recognition among the parties, as requested by Council, that the final design of the library is subject RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO "a I fforA February 27, 2017 Page 10 of 18 Form 6101 to the review and approval processes as established within the City s applicable development regulations. Mr. Lecklider believes that this addresses how the review process would proceed. Mr. Foegler responded that the City is as big of an investor as the library is in this project. As the Code is drafted today, the Council approves the development plan hand - in -hand with consideration of those business and economic terms because the City is investing at this level. Council at that level of Basic Plan Review then makes a decision with regard to who the appropriate reviewing body is for the final stages of development review. Mr. Taylor stated that the purpose of a Basic Plan Review is to outline the scope, character and nature of the proposed development. If Council then sends it to the ARB for a development plan review, the development plan review requirements indicate that the purpose is to, "ensure that the street network and block network meets the Code; ensure that the street types meet the Code; ensure that the open spaces and building types meet the Code; make sure that the development meets the requirements of the City with respect to infrastructure, transportation, and environmental considerations; and ensure that the proposed development creates signature places consistent with the Bridge Street Plan in terms of long -term phasing plans, transitional development conditions and planned place making elements." There is nothing in these requirements about changing the character of the building. If Council sends it to a site plan review, "the purpose of the site plan review is to confirm that the proposed development of an individual site building and /or open spaces is consistent with the BSD District regulations." It is a "done deal" if Council does the Basic Plan Review, and there will be no historic review board input. Mr. Keenan shared his frustration with this discussion. He would have preferred that the library not be built on this site. Several other sites were identified, but ultimately, the library had to go on this site. This design comes to City Council from the library, not the City. However, the parking garage will serve the Historic District as well as the library. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that when Council does the Basic Plan Review, they should listen to the community at that point. She agrees with Mr. Taylor that the character of the building will have been cast. Mr. Keenan stated that he looks forward to receiving public input over the next few weeks because there are many who are in support of this design. It would not be fair to either side to listen to a few speakers at this meeting and assume that represents the whole community. Ms. Alutto stated that there are voices that have not been heard and she would like to have more public input sessions. She believes it is really important to look at the Basic Plan and listen to everyone. If it is true that a majority of the general public is not in favor of the design, the City should not go forward with it. At this point, Council has not heard enough voices to make a decision. Mr. Keenan stated that there was tremendous resistance to the BriHi buildings initially, but the community has embraced them. Ms. Alutto stated that she would like to stay focused on this topic. She has always been supportive of the Bridge Street District, but she is struggling from a design standpoint to hear what the larger voice in the community is saying. Her personal feeling is that the proposed design is a beautiful building, but she doesn't feel she has enough data to make a concrete decision. This is a situation where they cannot rake, everyone happy, but at least everyone will have their voice heard. Vote on Ordinance 57 -16 (Amendedh. Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 11 of 18 Form 8101 SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 12 -17 Rezoning an Approximately .67 -Acre Parcel Located at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Summit View Road and Sawmill Road, from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (Case 16 -100Z) Mr. Stang stated that the Ordinance was introduced on February 13 and at that time, there were items for which Council requested additional information. There were three main topics for clarification: • The developable area of the site (illustrated in Exhibit A of the agenda packet); • Potential access points that could service the property (illustrated in Exhibit B of the agenda packet); and • Public sewer extension and onsite treatment feasibility (illustrated in Exhibit C of the agenda packet). Mr. Stang noted that the final Exhibit in the packet is reference materials provided by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) for designing an onsite treatment facility. The applicant would need to work with OEPA to evaluate the site against OEPA's requirements and determine if it is something that could be pursued. Staff recommended that a condition be added to this rezoning to require that any future development on this site shall connect to public utilities at the earliest possible time based on the completion of this extension and at such time should forfeit the use of any onsite treatment system. The applicant has been made aware of this recommended condition. Ms. Alutto inquired if it is feasible for the applicant to have an onsite treatment facility. Mr. Stang stated that the applicant would have to work with the OEPA. Without reviewing the proposal, it cannot yet be determined if an onsite treatment facility would be feasible or not. Ms. Alutto stated that they had heard complaints about parking issues and wanted to know how many parking spaces are being contemplated. Mr. Stang said that is dependent upon the size of the structure. Mr. Keenan stated that it seems ironic that Council is working to extend water and sewer lines to eliminate septic systems, yet now there is a project before them that anticipates use of a septic system. Mayor Peterson stated that it fits within the area plan previously approved. However, there is a large section of that area plan that has detached from Dublin into Perry Township. It may be time to revisit the area plan, given the City's plans for extensions of utilities throughout the City. Ms. Alutto stated that, according to PZC minutes, revisiting that area plan would be two years in the future. She agrees, however, that revisiting the area plan would be more appropriate to do now. It would be an unfair expectation to make decisions on an area plan that has changed to such an extent. Akhil Patel, the applicant, stated that as soon as the utilities become available, they agree to connect to City services. But until the City services become available, it is not his fault that they are not available. He is hopeful they will be available before 2024. Although things have changed with respect to some of the land nearby, this is still a corridor of Dublin. He stated that Council has asked about what he plans to build, but he was informed by the City that rezoning is required before addressing other things. He desires to build an office building on this site and locate his law office in the building as well as other tenants. He would like to have as large a building as is permissible on the site. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO Held_ February 27, 2017 Page 12 of 18 Ms. Salay inquired about the process going forward if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Stang responded that the process is as follows: • Applicant would work with architect to prepare a site layout; • Contact OEPA regarding requirements for onsite sewage treatment; • Move forward to secure access from Sawmill Road or establish a cross access easement on the adjacent residential property; and • File for building permits with the City of Dublin. Form 6101 In response to Ms. Salay regarding the development code for appearance, landscaping and signage, Mr. Stang stated that the applicant is locked into the Code. He then illustrated on a map the nearby area of land that detached from Dublin. It totals about 46 acres and now lies in Perry Township. Ms. Salay stated that this is a gateway site. From a land use standpoint, what would be more desirable than having an office building on this site? There has been a shift in expectations and what can be planned on. If there is a nice office building developed, it will set the tone for the future development that will be in the City. For what can be controlled at this point, this land use does not seem problematic. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that, typically, when development occurs in the City and a parcel doesn't have utilities available, it is incumbent upon the developer to bring utilities to the site. She asked why this would not be the requirement for this landowner as it is for other developers who wish to develop a site. Mr. McDaniel stated that he shared the same concern, but felt the condition recommended by staff about connection when utilities are extended to the site was a good compromise. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that if that were standard practice, there would be holding tanks and septic systems throughout the City. She asked about the motivation behind deviating from the normal course of action. Mr. McDaniel stated that he believed from a legal perspective that the City could not necessarily prevent the development. However, staff wanted to make sure that the agreement to connect to available utilities was secured via the condition. Ms. Readler stated that most developers would not want an onsite treatment system and it is likely that the OEPA would be leery to grant such a permit, so realistically this is usually not an issue. The condition provides some concession. Ms. Alutto inquired what the applicant would do if he secures the rezoning, but the OEPA does not grant the permit for a septic system. Mr. Patel stated that he would wait to develop, although he views that as unfair. Property taxes are being paid on this land and he would like to use it. Staff and PZC have recommended approval, this is consistent with the future use plan, and therefore he believes that Council should approve the rezoning. It is currently zoned R -1. Nothing is preventing him from building a house on the site and installing a septic system. However, the better option for the City is an office building. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council's preference would be for a combination of parcels to address issues, not the least of which is the curb cut issue, and that something more comprehensive is accomplished. He recognizes that it is not entirely within the applicant's power to accomplish all these issues. He recalled the comments of the Law Director at the last meeting, and doesn't believe Council can legally deny this application. Ms. Readler stated that the current Community Plan provides for this use as a future land use, but as noted, there has been a substantial change in this area recently. Council could give staff direction to study this special area in the Community Plan to make sure it is still consistent with the City's vision, due to the recent changes in the area. Mr. Lecklider stated that from the applicant's perspective, there is a timing and fairness issue. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 13 of 18 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would be willing to table this application until a study could be completed. Ms. Alutto stated that she would also be supportive of that. Mayor Peterson addressed the applicant, noting it is being suggested that Council postpone this item so other questions can be answered. The other option is for Council to vote on the ordinance at this time. Form 6101 Mr. Patel inquired as to the timeframe for a postponement. Mr. Papsidero stated that staff can commit to an analysis of land use and what is appropriate in terms of the current condition, but staff does not have the capacity to do an updated area plan with public input this year. Mr. Keenan stated that not much can be done in the Perry Township area. He is questioning what a study would accomplish. Ms. Salay stated that for her it is a fairness issue. The big picture for zoning and land use is to do no harm. She doesn't believe having an office building on this corner would do anyone harm, assuming the applicant can obtain the proper approvals from the OEPA. Mr. Patel stated that he started his own law practice and purchased this land so he could build an office building. He would like Council to vote tonight and not postpone the ordinance. He agrees that he doesn't know what a study would do. It is better to have an office building on this site than a house. Vote on Ordinance 12 -17 with condition: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 13 -17 Amending Section 153.065(H) of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Amend the Bridge Street District Sign Regulations. (Case 16- 107ADMC) Vote on Ordinance 13 -17: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ordinance 14- 17(Amended) Amending the International Property Maintenance Code and Relocating the Nuisance and Health /Safety Related Sections of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin to Section 153.076, Public Nuisance Regulations. (CASE 16- 036ADMC) Mr. Stang stated that at the first reading on February 13, Council had concerns regarding the addition of attached garage space for home occupational use. Council also requested statistics regarding home occupation permits that had been approved. Mr. Stang provided a table illustrating to Council the number of home occupations permits, both issued and renewed, since 2004. Home occupation permits are issued for two years and can be renewed in subsequent two -year periods. Currently there are six active home occupation permits, however there is the potential of many home occupations that have either not obtained a permit or residents who work from home and are not required to obtain a permit. Council raised concerns about the impacts that using an attached garage space could have on the residential character of both the home and the neighborhood. Staff recommended amending the text to read as follows: "(d) The space devoted for use of the home occupation must be within the main dwelling or basement. Accessory buildings such RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held_. February 27, 2017 Page 14 of 18 as detached garages or sheds shall not be used for home occupations." The proposed revision removes attached garage space as a permitted location for home occupation use. Form 6101 Mr. Lecklider inquired as to the accuracy of the numbers of home occupation permits. The numbers seem extremely Iowa Mr. Stang stated that there is a high likelihood that many home occupations have not obtained a permit. The Code is written to protect the integrity of the neighborhood as a residential area. If the home occupation is following the Code, then it is likely it would go unnoticed. Mr. Lecklider inquired as to the purpose of the home occupation permit in the Code if it is not being administered and captured. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that this is an amendment to an existing ordinance to provide that a homeowner can't make the garage part of the occupied space. Mr. Papsidero stated that the most important reason to have this in the Code is to prevent a nuisance situation for a neighborhood. This Code gives a means of enforcement. Ms. Salay stated that the City's concern would be ensuring that a resident is not infringing upon the neighborhood with their home occupation. Mr. McDaniel stated that a survey was done when he was in Economic Development and found a business cluster of medical. Most of these were sales people working out of their homes. This is a big trend and will continue into the future. Mr. Lecklider reiterated that he simply wondered if there is a different way of addressing this, technically speaking. The City expects people to register their home business, but they are not doing so, based upon the statistics provided. Mr. Papsidero stated that, administratively, it is a challenge to try to monitor this activity within the City. Ms. Salay inquired about the expectation when registering a home occupation. What is the criteria for a home occupation versus working from home? Mr. Stang responded that it is partially related to the services rendered in the home and having clients come to the home. It is a fine line between a home occupation versus working from home. Vote on Ordinance 14 -17 (Amended): Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 15 -17 Updating the Non -Union Compensation Plan for the City of Dublin and Repealing Ordinance No. 73 -06 ( "Compensation Plan"') and All Amendments Thereto. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Mr. Rogers stated that this replacement ordinance for the non -union compensation plan accomplishes the following: • Updates the pay ranges that are in the pay table for non -union personnel; • Consolidates the 20 plus amendments made to the Compensation Plan since 2006; • Brings a level of consistency between the City's non -union workers and its unionized workers; and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council I Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 15 of 18 • Brings compliance with the current Federal and State law and governmental policies. Form 6101 Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired how the pay range increases are determined. It appears that employees at the 5.1 range and below see less of an increase and the employees at the 4.3 and above range see more of an increase. Mr. Rogers responded that this was done through a consultant study in 2016. What is represented are the salary ranges, not salary increases. The increases are done every year and an analysis is done across the board to determine what each employee receives. The consultant reviewed all the compensation ranges for similar types of positions throughout central Ohio. This is how the increases within the levels were determined. There have been smaller increases in the lower ranges while the increases in the higher ranges have been more significant. What is before Council now, is reflective of the market. Ms. Alutto stated that there is also a philosophy behind how pay is structured and developed. The lower pay ranges will typically receive a smaller percentage than the higher ones. Some of that helps to prevent pay range compression where everyone is paid the same amount all the time. This also provides opportunity for employees to 'move up the ladder" so to speak. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is a tenfold difference, and she wanted to understand the reasons for that. Mr. Rogers stated that the Target midpoint is 10% above the market average, then plus or minus 5% is how you get to the bottom and top of the pay range. In response to Ms. Alutto regarding the City's overall philosophy when hiring, Mr. Rogers stated that it depends upon the experience and what the employee brings to the table. Most people will initially be in the Market range with the goal to get them to them to the Target range in three to five years. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that she is not questioning methodology, but if there is a 4% increase across the City, it warrants a discussion. Ms. Alutto noted there is a typo in section 16. The word "on" is missing. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the March 13 Council meeting. Ordinance 16 -17 Adopting and Enacting a Supplement (S -41) to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Dublin, Ohio. Mr. Lecklider introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Readler stated that American Legal Publishing is the City's Codifier and they have prepared the latest supplement that incorporates the local legislation passed by City Council as of December 5, 2016 as well as state legislation as of November 1, 2016. This is a housekeeping measure to keep the City Code as up to date and accurate as possible. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the March 13 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING /VOTE — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 12 -17 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for a Comprehensive Wayfinding System Project, Phase 1A and 1B. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Willis provided a presentation of the different types of signs, where they are to be used and the number of wayfinding signs to be placed in the Historic District. There are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 16 of 18 Form 6101 eight obelisks existing on Bridge Street and on High Street. The eight will be removed as part of the project and will be replaced with four on the entry side only into the Historic District. In response to Mr. Keenan's question regarding the material used for the signs, Ms. Willis stated that it is a metal sign. It is layered so the City sign shop can maintain them. Mr. Keenan stated that the sign does not match his vision for appropriate signage in Historic Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Ms. Willis stated that this sign is consistent with what was shown to Council at the work sessions in 2015. Mr. Keenan would like to revisit that particular part of the sign package. Mr. McDaniel stated that any part of the signage can be revisited. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification from Mr. Keenan about his objection to the sign as not being appropriate for the entry into historic Dublin. Mr. Keenan stated that he envisioned something more permanent such as stone. Ms. Willis stated that these standard style wayfinding signs would be placed throughout the City, the signs specifically to the Historic District would have finials at the top. Seven will be placed in the Historic District. She referred to the standards wayfinding sign with the standard disc at the top. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that there are 86 signs. Ms. Willis confirmed that there are 86 signs for phase 1A and 1B and illustrated with a map of the phase 1A and 1B signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for confirmation that the consultant indicated all 86 of these signs were necessary to direct people to where they want to go. Ms. Willis confirmed that statement. In response to Ms. Salay, Ms. Willis stated that the signs could be moved if necessary as the area evolves. Mr. Keenan asked whether or not the City makes the signs in the sign shop. Mr. McDaniel stated that these will not be made in the City sign shop. In June of 2015, there was a comprehensive wayfinding study done. The sign types were reviewed at that time, and staff has moved forward based on the feedback. If these do not meet Council's vision, staff could nonperform some aspects of the contract so Council could revisit it. Staff believed it was more important to be consistent in the signage. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that her main concern is the appearance of the sign. She did not envision a sign with stickers on it. She envisioned something more three - dimensional with some depth. The sign should be appropriate for a high quality built environment. Mr. McDaniel stated that examples were brought in to show that these are not typical signs. He suggested staff bring forward the examples again. Mayor Peterson stated his does remember the mock up that Ms. Willis brought in previously for this proposal. His only concern was with the obelisk markers. Mr. Keenan stated that he supported the ones mocked up previously. Ms. Salay asked if there was a mockup of the Historic Dublin sign available. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Win? February 27, 2017 Page 17 of 18 Meeting Ms. Willis stated that there is not a specific mockup of the Historic Dublin sign, but it is the same methodology. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff was trying to determine with the wayfinding consultant what exactly was a gateway entrance and an Historic District entrance. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would be comfortable with staff's assurance that the sign is of high quality. Mr. McDaniel stated he would prefer to bring in a mock up for Council to review. Form 6101 Mr. Keenan moved approval of Resolution 12 -17 with the exception of the four historic markers. Mayor Peterson seconded the motion. Vote on Resolution 12 -17: Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. AI utto, yes; Mr. Leckl ider, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. McDaniel offered congratulations to Doug Austin, Vice President of IGS Energy, for being chosen by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce as the Business Person of the Year. He will be acknowledged at the March 14 Business After Hours. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Keenan, Administrative Committee Chair: Board and Commission Interviews will be held on Wednesday, March 8 beginning at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Keenan, Finance Committee: The quarterly meeting has been rescheduled to April 24 at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Peterson, Council liaison to Washington Township: Mayor Peterson reported that he and Mr. McDaniel met with Ms. Ott and Trustee Denise Franz King to discuss partnership issues. They will formalize their schedule of quarterly meetings. This partnership is an extremely important one. A joint meeting may be on the horizon if needed in the future. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Amorose Groomes: 1. Thanked staff for the memo regarding the Riverside Drive southbound bypass. She found it informative, but she remains disappointed. The City preserved that bypass because the community loved it. The City has now compromised that pleasure of driving through the underpass by installing an unsightly concrete wall. She understands and appreciates the attention to safety. She thinks of the 1270/33 interchange where safety is of great importance, but is aesthetically pleasing with the concrete work and staining of the concrete and the Celtic knots. She would like staff to look into options. Mayor Peterson agreed. Ms. Alutto agreed and shared some comments she had received about the wall and underpass. Mr. Keenan asked whether or not the City could do an Art in Public Places project, working with the Dublin Arts Council. Mr. McDaniel stated that there are a number of things that staff can review to address this concern. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested facing it in stone as one option. Ms. Salay suggested that when the river park is named and completed, that would be a good time to think about how that bikepath will interface with the park and how the wall could tie into that with a nice sculptural piece or something similar. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she doesn't disagree with that in theory, but she doesn't want to wait for this to happen. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Held February 27, 2017 Page 18 of 18 Mr. McDaniel stated that staff will bring back some feasible options and a suggested process. Form 6101 2. Stated that she appreciated the memo regarding the Auditor of State financial health indicator. Did the City have cautionary outlooks last year? Ms. Mumma responded that this is the first year of the report. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she hopes next year the City will have better information and the timing won't be off. Ms. Mumma stated that for the two cautionary outlooks received, in category 2 for example, any decline in General Fund balance would prompt this. Mr. Keenan stated that the City's General Fund balance decline is certainly acceptable. The balance is still very high. Ms. Mumma stated that this resulted from advances from the General Fund that were paid back over time. Each community is very different and it is difficult to compare cities in that way. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that section 1 is the one she found compelling. Will this be an annual process for the City? Ms. Mumma confirmed it will be. Ms. Salay asked if this report is politically motivated. Ms. Mumma stated that she cannot speak to the motivation behind the report. Ms. Salay stated that she is not overly concerned. She believes she has a deep level of understanding of the City's finances and has a comfort level with how the City operates. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she will take the information at face value. Ms. Mumma stated that the intent is to make sure that taxpayer funds are protected. 3. Mentioned three recent events that were outstanding: the February 15 Welcome Warehouse Cabaret dinner; the Dublin Women's Philanthropic Club Snowflake event; and the invitation to participate in the Deer Run fourth grade class on community politics. Ms. Salay inquired about two design aspects of the 270 interchange: the eastbound 161 to northbound 270 and, similarly, the westbound 161/33 to southbound 270. The curves on those ramps are blind and feel unsafe. A driver cannot see what is around the corner and there is no separation between the two, which brings prospects for crossover crashes. Mr. Hammersmith stated he would follow up, but there are advisory speeds posted of 45 mph that meets sight distance requirements. At the 55 -60 mph speed, a driver would not be meeting the sight distance requirement. Mr. McDaniel stated that the specific response to Ms. Salay's questions should come from ODOT, since they designed the overpass. Mayor Peterson stated that h participated in the Bright Star Academy kindergarten class "Read Across America" ev , which was very enjoyable. JOURNMENT e meeting was aq�oornedAt 10:00 p.m. ayor — Presio(ng Officer I � Clerk of Council