Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Me ~n October 20, 2008 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, October 20, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Chief Epperson, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Combs, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Harding, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Thurman and Ms. Adkins, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of September 15, 2008 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of September 15, 2008. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain. • Regular Meeting of October 6, 2008 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of October 6, 2008. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Issue 76 (a combined 7 9-mill operating lew and $50 million no new millage bond issue).- Dublin City Schools - Dr. Axner, Superintendent and Stephen Osborne, Treasurer Dr. Axner noted that: • A recurring question during the campaign is in regard to the slowing of real estate and new construction, and if that will translate to decreased enrollment numbers. However, the enrollment in October is 65 students over this year's projection, reflecting a growing enrollment for Dublin Schools. Thus, classrooms are needed to be built and operating funds will be needed. • Regarding the bond issue portion, a critical item is the elementary school in the northwest part of the district. The need for the building is greater than anticipated. There are also two additions to middle schools and an addition to Dublin Coffman related to safety and security. • Dublin Schools are fairly unique in the way they are funded. There is a division between the capital projects and the operating funds. Eighty-nine percent of the operating budget relates to salaries and benefits. • In response to the question of what will occur if the Issue does not pass, some operating costs would have to be used to pay for critical maintenance items, thus reducing the amount of operating funds available. Stephen Osborne, Treasurer noted that: • Issue 76 is a combined one, with a bond and operating levy, similar to the one approved in 2004. The vote is one for both or against both issues -they are not separate. • The bond issue is again a "no new millage" issue, as has been done since 1994. The bonds will be sold for the $50 million project over 17 years and not raise the current bond millage the residents of the school district currently pay. This is possible because of the growth in the district. Therefore, the bond millage will not raise the tax burden. • The operating levy is 7.9 mills -the same amount requested in 2004 -which amounts to $242 for each $100,000 in appraised value. This is an additional tax. He emphasized that collections would not begin until January of 2010. • They will continue to work to maintain revenues in the district and control expenditures. State funding cuts have occurred, as well as personal property tax, which begins to be phased out. In addition, it remains undetermined how much of a cap there will be on the commercial activity tax. They have reduced over $500 million from the general fund budget over the last year, and those reductions will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City-Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 2 Held 2p remain in place. Expenses of health care, bus fuel, and utilities continue to be a challenge to maintain. He offered to respond to any questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked them for providing this information, and added that Dublin is very aware of the need for and benefits of a strong educational system to the City. • Dublin Irish Festival Awards Mr. Campbell, Immediate Past President, Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau Board announced that the City has recently received several awards. The Community Relations staff received 11 awards, including bronze, silver and gold, at the International Festival and Events Association conference held in September. Many relate to the celebration of the Festival's 20th anniversary in 2007. He reviewed the list of awards received by staff for the Irish Festival. In addition, the City received two awards for Spooktacular. The Dublin Irish Festival was awarded the prestigious IFEA Silver Grand Pinnacle Award, recognizing it as one of the best events in the world. The Dublin Irish Festival also has been recognized by the American Bus Association as a Top 100 2009 event. He presented the plaque to the City on behalf of the DCVB. • City of Dublin Designation as one of Five Best Hometowns in Ohio -Ohio Magazine Mr. Dring, Executive Director, DCVB announced this designation, noting that the editors have selected Dublin in recognition of their outstanding community life, and excellence in commerce, education, recreation and historical preservation. The November edition will feature this story. • 2009 Dublin Area Art League Calendar -Cindy Bryden and Bev Goldie Cindy Bryden, President of DAAL presented the 4th annual Dublin calendar - "Life is Good in Dublin." The calendar promotes artists in the Central Ohio area, as well as 12 organizations who each sponsor a month. She thanked Council for their support of this venture, especially the Mayor who has participated in the awards ceremony each year. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority of new D5A Liquor Permit for Hardage Hotels I LLC, dba Chase Suite Hotel, 4130 Tuller Road There was no objection to the issuance of this permit. CITIZEN COMMENTS Gary Rossner. Outreach Specialist for the Neil Kennedy Recovery Clinic stated: • They are snot-for-profit substance abuse treatment center in Dublin. He noted that the clinic has been in Dublin for two years, although it was founded in the Youngstown area in 1946. • Neil Kennedy was closely affiliated with the founders of the 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program. The organization grew from one building to three other facilities, and has a large footprint in the northeastern portion of Ohio. The Clinic saw the opportunity in the Dublin area for a treatment center. • In 1999, the clinic merged with the Gateway Rehab Organization in western Pennsylvania. Currently, between two states, they have 14 treatment facilities, three of which are in-patient. They hope to grow in the Franklin County area in the future. • They are involved in many Dublin organizations and support education throughout the area, sponsoring programs held quarterly at the Rec Center. They also have a strong relationship with Dublin City Schools, in particular, with the three Drug Free counselors. • He has left materials which include bios of the clinicians, history of the organization, maps, and other information. He thanked Council for this opportunity and invited anyone to stop in their facility. Ms. Salay commented that it is important for people to be aware of this treatment facility, which is available in Dublin. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that he missed the last Council meeting but watched a televised replay. He was impressed with the presentation made to the Law RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of DdbGn~itTC~uncil Mee ink October 20, 2008 Page 3 Held 20 Director, which seemed equivalent to an Oscar in the legal profession. It struck him that the Council meeting recognition of Mr. Smith occurred two years to the day on which Mr. Smith advised Council regarding a motion to ban citizens from comment on a particular issue. The question in 2006 was whether Council's Rules of Order could replace the First Amendment right of guaranteed free speech. He asked if Mr. Smith has ever felt inclined to level with the Council that his advice given at that time was "radically lunatic," and wrong. Mr. Smith responded that he did not advise Council that they could ignore the First Amendment. He advised them regarding his interpretation of the law about limits of time, place and manner of presentation from podiums in public meetings. Secondly, he is always truthful with clients. Mr. Maurer stated that the time, place and manner of free speech was not covered by the observations that he made. This was a straight, textbook case of a violation of the First Amendment. It is interesting that no Council Member has ever had any qualms about this or interest in this matter. What he has said stands. He wants his freedom of speech restored in this Chamber. POSTPONED ITEMS Resolution 70-08 Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 39.08, More or Less, Acres from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. (Jackson Reynolds III, Agent for Petitioner Celtic Capital LLC) Ms. Grigsby stated that this resolution was postponed at the last meeting, based on issues regarding provision of fire and EMS services. Mr. Gunderman will review the general issues and details about the annexation. Mr. Smith will then review the legal issues. There is an additional packet of information with regard to this legislation distributed on the dais tonight. Mr. Gunderman stated that a modification has been made to the text of the resolution. He reviewed the information regarding this Regular annexation petition, as conveyed in the memo and at the first reading. 1. He noted that the annexation contains 39.08 acres, of which 30.6 acres is the Celtic Capital LLC property. The balance consists of the road right-of-way. The City Engineer and Union County Engineer have worked to facilitate this project to bringing the right-of-way into the City of Dublin. This annexation would place virtually all of the right-of-way along Hyland-Croy down to Post Road in the City of Dublin. 2. This area is within the negotiated water and sewer contract area with Columbus, and this is the second parcel proposed for annexation within the negotiated area. All other annexations have been within the exclusive Dublin service area for water and sewer service. The City of Columbus has given permission for Dublin to serve this proposed annexation area, as required within the agreement. 3. The remaining issue relates to fire and EMS services. Because this is a Regular annexation petition, the City has the ability to adjust the township boundaries after annexation, if desired. The understanding that the City has operated under is that properties to the west of Hyland-Croy would remain in Jerome Township. Council does have the ability to leave this in Jerome or change it to Washington Township, if desired, following annexation. 4. Tonight's action is simply adoption of a statement of services - it does not accept the annexation. It is a communication required from the City for the hearing at the County Commissioners regarding this petition. Once the hearing is completed and the hearing transcript sent to the City, there would be a period of 60 days during which Council action cannot be taken on the annexation. This provides, at a minimum, 80 days from this point in time to resolve the issues related to fire and EMS service. He offered to respond to questions, and noted that Mr. Smith can review the legal issues. Mr. Reiner asked why the City would want to take over responsibility of this narrow strip of right-of-way. What benefit would that be to the City or another party? It borders the Glacier Ridge park. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in discussion with the Union County Engineer, it was determined that the City is best suited to maintain that section of Hyland-Croy Road. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_ L~uf~lin City-.YOUncil Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 4 City has made the improvements in this area related to turn lanes with Tartan West, Park Place, and the roundabout at Glacier Ridge Boulevard. Recognizing the roadway serves predominantly Dublin residents, staff felt it was in the best interests of the City to maintain it. The City would likely maintain it to a higher standard than would the county. Mr. Reiner asked if this was a City initiative, or the annexation applicant's initiative. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff initiated the discussion, and the Union County Engineer concurred. Mr. Keenan pointed out that a situation could occur that one side of the road was in the City of Dublin and the other side in Union County, which would be problematic for jurisdictional purposes. Mr. Hammersmith agreed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is a plan to bring the entire Hyland-Croy roadway into the City all the way down to Post Road. Mr. Gunderman stated that if an annexation petition is filed for the area further to the south, the City would try to facilitate bringing in the additional roadway. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes Council is in agreement with bringing in the roadway, as Mr. Hammersmith has discussed. The issue with this annexation seems to be with the fire and EMS service. He asked staff to explain the reasons for deviating from the current policy regarding services for areas west of Hyland-Croy, and to clarify exactly what the policy is at the present time. Mr. Smith stated the following in regard to the history of this matter: 1. Prior to the time the annexation law changed in 2002, and prior to significant growth of the City into Union County, the City's policy was that all of its residents would be served with Washington Township fire and EMS. In fact, the City went to the Ohio Supreme Court for a decision, which allowed the City to adjust township lines over county borders. With the anticipated growth into Union County, and in discussion regarding the annexation policy with Council several years ago, it was decided that those properties to the west of Hyland-Croy would not be brought into Washington Township, but would be served by Jerome Township fire and EMS. Washington Township would serve properties to the east of Hyland-Croy. He noted that a Community Authority was authorized by City Council for one property in this negotiated service area. 2. In regard to the subject annexation, the City asked the applicant to file a Regular annexation petition instead of an expedited annexation. The City desired to contact the property owners along the roadway in order to bring that portion into the City as part of this annexation petition. 3. The annexation petition was filed, and two days prior to the October 6 Council meeting, Legal staff received a call from the attorney for Jerome Township. He indicated there was a problem related to their fire district, and that they would not be serving property to the west of Hyland-Croy following incorporation into Dublin. Subsequently, staff has been working to resolve the issue. 4. Staff was told they would be provided with a map of the Jerome Township fire district. However, Jerome Township did not have such a map. They had a fire department resolution approved, but it did not conform exactly to the statute. The language indicated the fire district would run coterminous with their levy. Their levy that was passed excluded property in the City. It was done with the Plain City issue in mind, and the desire not to have double taxation, as Plain City has its own fire department. 5. Legal counsel from Jerome Township indicated they have no ability to place the fire levy on the incorporated property, because the levy language regarding the fire district covered only unincorporated areas of Jerome Township. 6. Staff has been in discussion with the county prosecutor, who represents both Union County and at times, Jerome Township trustees. 7. Regardless of how Council decides to handle this issue with respect to the statement of services, Council will need to give further consideration to its annexation policy with respect to Jerome Township and Washington Township fire and EMS services. Unless Jerome changes their levy or their fire district, this would be the first of many problems which could occur in the future. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 5 Held 20 8. The matter could be addressed by the City requesting Washington Township to extend their services into that area, but at a certain point, this extension would result in additional costs for Washington Township. 9. The second issue is whether the City wants to address it by means of a Community Authority. 10. In order to be able to adjust the township boundary, annexations petitions must be filed as regular annexation petitions -not expedited. The Commissioners have much more latitude in decisions regarding regular petitions versus expedited petitions. That may affect the City's ability to grow into Union County. 11. Therefore, there is a need to revisit the policies with respect to Union County and who will provide fire and EMS services to annexations from Jerome Township in the future. In regard to the statement of services before Council tonight, staff's position is that Council has two options: 1. Approve an amended statement of services, which was provided on the dais tonight. The language now indicates that Washington Township Fire Department currently provides fire protection and EMS services to Dublin residents; that Dublin will ensure that this area in Dublin is provided with fire protection and EMS services at the same or similar level now being provided to other areas of the City by either Washington Township or a comparable fire and EMS department, pending annexation. This conveys to the County Commissioners that if the land is annexed to Dublin, Dublin will either adjust the boundaries or make an arrangement for Jerome Township to serve it with a voluntary assessment that the Stavroff entity would have to agree to. 2. If the City does not pass a statement of services, the annexation will lapse and the entire process must be redone. This would involve securing the signatures of the property owners involved with the right-of--way portion of the annexation petition. The Union County prosecutor was asked to continue the case and therefore adjust the timetable for the annexation, including the timeframe for provision of the services statement. However, Mr. Smith was informed today by the chief counsel for Union County that he would not provide a definitive response until tomorrow. If the Commissioners decide not to continue the case at tomorrow's hearing, and if Council does not approve a resolution tonight, the entire process would have to be done over. Mr. Lecklider asked why this timing was not implicated with the advice received in the packets, which suggested it could be tabled. Mr. Smith responded that he was aware of the 20-day requirement for the service statement at the last hearing, but staff believed that the issues could be worked out over the past two weeks. If Council approves this resolution tonight and it is faxed to Union County Commissioners tonight, it meets the 20-day requirement. The reason staff recommended table this item in the packet memo was they did not want Council in the position of having to decide a policy issue tonight. Representatives of the various entities involved discussed the matter at length today. They asked that Council vote on this matter tonight, as there is nothing ready to be developed on the property, which is residential. They indicated that the group has worked for over two years, upon Dublin's request, to bring in the roadway, so they asked for an opportunity to have this go forward. He also thought he would be able to persuade the Union County prosecutor to agree to postpone the hearing, but that was not possible within the required timeframe. Mr. Lecklider asked, hypothetically, if Jerome Township does not give any direction on this matter within the next 60 days, what are the City's options? Mr. Smith responded that the option at that point, if Council desires to accept this Regular annexation, is to adjust the boundary and have Washington Township serve the area. Their levies would then apply to this area. With any future expedited annexation petition, however, the land would remain in Jerome Township, as the statute precludes adjustment of the township boundaries. At that point, Dublin would have to determine how to provide fire and EMS services for annexed land in Jerome Township. That option is not applicable to this situation, as it is a regular annexation petition and the township boundary line can be adjusted, placing this land in Washington Township. Mr. Lecklider summarized that there is a need for Council to examine their policies going forward. He noted that the documents provided tonight also indicate that apre-annexation agreement would have to be executed to address reparations, which the applicants RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 6 Held 20 agreed to. This pre-annexation agreement, then, would address reparations only and make no mention of land use, correct? Mr. Smith responded that it would address reparations only. Council would need to have that agreement executed prior to voting on the annexation. Mr. Lecklider recalled that Council was approached on a previous occasion in the context of apre-annexation agreement regarding the future land use. Mr. Smith responded that staffs position has been and remains that land use is not addressed in apre-annexation agreement. Vice Mayor Boring noted that at the time Council approved the policy to adjust the township boundaries for annexations accepted outside of Washington Township, it was done for health and safety reasons, in order that all Dublin residents would have the same level of fire and EMS services. The case related to the Concord Township portion of Dublin. Wasn't the more recent policy modification in regard to future annexations into the areas northwest of the city generated by the fear expressed by Jerome Township about the township boundary changes? If Jerome Township wanted the City to change its policy regarding annexations from Jerome Township, how would they not have been aware of their issues with serving it? Mr. Smith responded that another factor leading to Council's policy change was the new annexation law and the desire to minimize conflicts over township boundaries in the future. In terms of why Jerome Township did not discuss or bring this matter up, he does not know. Obviously, Jerome Township desires that land remain in their township versus being placed in Washington Township. Ms. Salay clarified that what she has heard tonight is that the policy in place cannot be applied going forward. She assumes that no discussion has taken place with Washington Township about the need for this policy change. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. There is a need for a discussion with Washington Township about this and future annexations in Jerome, due to the impact on their services. Mr. Reiner asked about the possibility of Jerome Township changing their policy in regard to serving the areas annexed to Dublin. Mr. Smith responded it is not their policy which must be changed, but the language regarding the fire district and levy. There is also an issue with the Union County Auditor in regard to collecting funds from the annexed areas. Again, with this annexation, there is the ability to adjust the boundaries. If Council chooses not to go forward with the statement of services, the applicant will need to start over and will likely bring in only their land, and not the right-of-way. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Reynolds, attorney for the applicant to acknowledge that they understand that, although the statement of services may be approved tonight, the issues described tonight must be worked out prior to the time the annexation is brought back to Council for a vote. Jack Reynolds. Smith & Hale noted he is accompanied tonight by Matt Stavroff. There have been many discussions over the past two weeks regarding the issues. He reiterated that the applicant acknowledges tonight's action is adoption of a service resolution only, and that it does not bind Council in any fashion. Once and if the County Commissioners approve the annexation and it comes back to Council for acceptance, Council will make a determination at that time, based on the continued work with staff and other entities to resolve the service issues. The Stavroffs desire that the property is fully served by fire and EMS. Mr. Reiner asked if this is planned for residential use. Mr. Reynolds responded that there have been preliminary discussions regarding residential use. Vote on the Resolution as amended: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Resolution 71-08 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 7 Held 20 Waiving Competitive Bidding Requirements for the Purpose of Replacing a Tunnel under Memorial Drive. Mr. Smith and Mr. Gerber recused themselves from the discussion, due to their membership in the Country Club at Muirfield. Ms. Grigsby stated that this resolution was postponed so that staff could obtain more information in regard to questions raised. The tunnel being discussed tonight for replacement is the one under Memorial Drive, as depicted on the slide. As previously discussed, the three tunnels are under the control of the Country Club at Muirfield Village and are separate from the Muirfield Association 12 tunnels. The 12 Muirfield tunnels were part of the agreement between the City and the Muirfield Association in 1996, whereby the City handles the maintenance. There were several items requested from staff at the last hearing: 1. Staff made a field inspection of how the tunnels are connected to the pedestrian paths and how the tunnels are used. Based on the physical inspection of the tunnels and connecting paths, as well as discussion with Michael Graney, General Manager of the Club, the two tunnels under Glick Road do serve the pedestrian paths, which are similar to the 12 tunnels the City took maintenance responsibilities over from the Muirfield Association in 1996. The one under Memorial Drive is different, in that it serves only the golf course. Ms. Salay asked for clarification -the tunnels on Glick Road are not cart paths? Ms. Grigsby responded that these tunnels also serve the pedestrian paths, while the tunnel on Memorial serves only the golf course. Mr. Lecklider asked if it is fair to say that they are primarily golf cart paths and that pedestrian use is ancillary. Ms. Grigsby responded that is possible, but they serve both uses. 2. Staff also discussed the need for the Memorial Drive tunnel replacement with Mr. Graney. He agreed with the need, based upon observation of the tunnels as well as the report from Burgess & Niple, which was included in the packet. An item that arose in the discussion is that the Club would consider filling in or closing the tunnel and having an at grade crossing. His preference, as well as the City's, is for the tunnel, based on the conflicts created between motorists and golf carts by the at grade crossing. There would also be traffic movement impacts, due to the starts and stops created by a crossing on Memorial Drive. 3. Mr. Hammersmith did some additional research regarding what other entities have done in terms of golf course tunnels. For New Albany, the golf course tunnels were constructed by the golf course developer, are maintained by the developer for 25 years, and are then turned over to the Village to maintain. In Delaware County, the tunnels were constructed and are maintained by the golf courses. Ms. Grigsby noted that both the City and the Country Club have a desire to maintain the tunnels for the purpose of safety of the motorists, elimination of the conflict with motorists, and more safety for the golfers using a tunnel versus crossing a roadway. Based upon that, staff indicated that a 50/50 cost sharing on the tunnel replacement could be considered, with the possibility of the Club paying their share over a period of time. Mr. Graney was open to that, and planned to discuss it with the Board at their meeting tonight. At this time, based upon the report from Burgess & Niple that the tunnel is in need of replacement for safety reason, staff recommends: (1) that the legislation be adopted, allowing construction and replacement of the tunnel to proceed; (2) that staff be directed to pursue an agreement with the Country Club for a cost sharing of 50/50 for the project; and (3) to address in a formal agreement the ongoing maintenance for the three tunnels. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in the September 19 memo from Engineering, it indicated that in 2007, the Country Club contacted Mr. Hammersmith and staff in regard to the tunnel. When they contacted the City, under what premise did they assume that they needed to do so? Mr. Hammersmith responded that everyone believed that the tunnels were part of the group accepted by the City in 1996, absent reviewing the documentation itself. When staff was preparing for the work to be done, the documentation was retrieved and staff realized that these three tunnels were not part of the 1996 agreement. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that because they were not included, was there recognition in recent discussions with the Club that the tunnels were actually 100 percent their responsibility? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 8 Held 20 Ms. Grigsby responded that Mr. Graney agreed that all three tunnels are currently under the control of the Club. With the Memorial Drive tunnel, they were willing to fill in and close the tunnel. They felt it would be relatively inexpensive. However, there was more expense than anticipated, due to slope and drainage issues, and the reconnection of existing bikepaths. Instead of spending $40-50,000 to close the tunnel, it was suggested the monies be applied to a cost sharing arrangement with the City, so that the tunnel would remain open for the safety of the golfers and motorists on Memorial Drive. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it seems that the Club should be asking the City to participate in the repair of the tunnel, versus the City asking the Club to do so. It is under the jurisdiction of the Club, not the City. Ms. Grigsby stated that is true, but the issue is one of safety and the fact that the road is: dependent upon the structural integrity of the tunnel underneath it. Mr. Lecklider stated that the integrity of the roadway is obviously important, but the debate relates to who should bear the financial burden of the tunnel repair. In reviewing the examples provided, what is proposed seems contrary. In every other instance, the clubs have the sole responsibility for maintaining the golf cart tunnels. Ms. Grigsby responded that is true for the ones in Delaware County; for New Albany, after 25 years the tunnels are to be turned over to the City. In this case, the tunnel was constructed in the 1979-1980 timeframe, which would be beyond a 25-year period. Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumes the New Albany tunnels would be in better condition in 25 years than the Country Club tunnels are today. Ms. Grigsby stated that is possible, due to the different type of construction materials used now versus in 1979-1980. Mr. Lecklider asked about the cost of filling in the tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the difficulty relates to the pedestrian path along the south side and a retaining wall along that section. Regrading would be needed, the drainage would have to be reworked, and the cart path would have to be reconnected in either that location or another one at grade with the roadway. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the question remains one of cost. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff estimates it would be $40-50,000 or half of the cost of the replacement. The tunnel itself actually would have to be removed. Mr. Reiner stated that golf carts would then be crossing Memorial Drive. Mr. Lecklider stated that he does not understand why Glick Road tunnels are being discussed tonight. In reading the Engineer's report, it indicates that one of those tunnels has a useful life of 20 years. He is struggling philosophically with the City spending money to benefit a private club. Ms. Grigsby responded that the reason the Glick Road tunnels were brought up tonight is because of the need to address all three tunnels. In addition, the City is looking at bikepath connections along Glick Road in the future. Funds are programmed for the bikepath design in 2012. When that occurs, there will be work needed in relation to the tunnels to determine how the bikepath will be connected. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is an existing private path system within Muirfield. But for the City to extend its own path along Glick Road, there will be a need to navigate these existing tunnels, due to the limited area available for another path. It would be desirable to sort out the maintenance responsibilities at this time for these three tunnels and who will take care of them in the future, looking toward the bikepath design in 2012. Ms. Salay asked if the City elects not to assume any responsibility for the Glick Road tunnels and notifies the club of the need for the club to maintain their tunnels in the future, how will that change the way the City approaches the bikepath construction? Mr. Hammersmith responded it is dependent upon whether the City will be extending those tunnels in order to bring the bikepath through that area. Ms. Grigsby added that the golf course tunnels would not actually be used as part of the bikepath; it relates to extending the tunnels from where they currently terminate outside the road, and how that will impact the construction of the bikepath along the south side of Glick Road. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this will be considered as part of the design of the bikepath. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 9 Held Vice Mayor Boring stated that it seems premature to make decisions now, based on an unknown design in the future. She noted that it was clearly stated in the 1996 information that the country club tunnels were not included in the agreement, as the club was a separate entity. In the resolution, it states that, "The City clearly recognizes the value of the maintenance and repairs of the various public improvements provided by the Muirfield Association." Her recollection was that the Muirfield Association provided other services for the benefit of the City, such as mowing, so there was a "give and take" in the arrangement. That is not the case with the entity that controls these three tunnels. In addition, she is concerned with taking action tonight, as the country club board has not met to discuss this prior to tonight. She would like a commitment from them about the repair. Mr. Keenan stated that the focus tonight should be on the health, safety and welfare of the residents in relation to the roadway over this tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the structural integrity of the tunnel has failed, and there is movement of the tunnel. Mr. Keenan stated that he would not want the roadway to collapse due to this structural issue, resulting in possibly serious injuries to motorists. He understands from the report that staff recommends this repair be done quickly, especially in view of the asphalt plants closing down for winter. Mr. Lecklider stated that Ms. Salay asked about the safety of the tunnel at the last meeting. If the condition is that serious, perhaps the road should be closed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff continues to monitor the road. Ms. Salay stated that if there is imminent danger, she would expect the roadway would be closed. Mr. Lecklider noted that if the tunnel needs to be replaced for these reasons, the City should do the repair and send an invoice to the country club. Mr. Hammersmith noted that with the upcoming freeze/thaw cycle, the roadway is impacted. With approval tonight, staff could complete the repairs within the estimated three-week construction period. In another two weeks, it may not be possible to do the repair over the winter, and the roadway may have to be closed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that is why she asked the question about who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the tunnel. Based on tonight's discussion, the responsibility is the country club's. If they are not in a position to have the work done as quickly as recommended by the Engineering staff and Burgess & Niple, then she would recommend that Council consider having the work completed, with reimbursement to be done by the country club to the City. The City does have a responsibility to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and the City has assisted other entities in having work completed, with reimbursement provided to the City by those entities. The agreement for repayment can be worked out. Vice Mayor Boring asked about the legal aspects of this. If necessary, could the City place a lien on the property to secure repayment? Ms. Grigsby stated that legal staff will have to follow up. There have been occasions in the past when a project has been completed based on health and safety issues, and reimbursement obtained at a later date. Staff would do this for the tunnel, based on the current recommendation. If Council is not comfortable with that course of action, the City can pursue additional cost sharing or 100 percent reimbursement from the country club. Staff felt it was reasonable to offer a 50/50 cost sharing arrangement for this particular tunnel. Mr. Keenan asked if there is written documentation in the files about the tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff has not located such documentation in the files. Ms. Salay pointed out that this matter was discussed in 1995 as part of the tunnel maintenance discussion with the Muirfield Association. In the minutes from past meetings, there was a debate about assuming maintenance responsibilities for the Muirtield Association tunnels. The minutes indicated that the Country Club-owned tunnels were to be excluded from the agreement, as the Muirtield Association did not have control over them. It was clear that Council excluded these three tunnels for the reason that they were owned by a private club. The issue for her is not with filling in or replacing the tunnels, but RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meet'ng October 20, 2008 Page 10 Held 20 who will pay for the work and who is ultimately responsible for them. It is not the residents of the City that need the tunnel; it is the club members. -She received some compelling e- mails in regard to this issue. She is also uncomfortable in view of the fact that the Country Club board is meeting tonight regarding an agreement that has not been discussed with Council. If it is a health and safety issue, and staff believes it needs to be done immediately, she would consider that. It is not appropriate, however, to have the taxpayers at large pay for the improvement -whether filling it in, replacing the tunnel, or providing an at grade crossing. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that because Council has received a report from B&N about the condition of the tunnel, she believes the City has an obligation to ensure the safety of those driving over the tunnel. The residents are ultimately impacted by the tunnel underneath the roadway. She believes that because the City has the information that the City requested about the tunnel, it now has an obligation to address it. It is unfortunate that the Country Club board is reviewing a recommendation that was not approved by Council, because at this point, Council believes that the club is 100 percent responsible for the maintenance of the tunnel. For purposes of moving the discussion forward, she moved that the City proceed with having the work done, invoicing the Country Club at Muirfield for 100 percent of the work to be done, in order to ensure the health and safety of all driving on the roadway which is impacted by the tunnel. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner asked if the club made any mention of their ability to pay for this repair. Ms. Grigsby stated that they did not. However, part of the discussion was that the City would be willing to consider payment over time. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she also has concerns with the process. It seems that research should have been done about the tunnels prior to initiating this project. Ms. Grigsby responded that this is due, in part, to the fact that Engineering staff believed these tunnels were part of the group covered in the agreement. Mr. Hammersmith added that there were actually two tunnels on Memorial Drive, which added to the confusion. Vice Mayor Boring expressed disappointment in the fact that this crisis situation now exists, and Council has few options. Ms. Grigsby agreed that it is a difficult situation, and the records should have been researched earlier in the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that Council has appropriately focused on the key issue of the health, welfare and safety of the City. He assumes that there is a critical situation, in view of the truck traffic over this tunnel. Initially, when the Country Club golf course was built, the tunnels were intended for golf carts only. Are citizens now using the tunnels as well? Ms. Salay responded that the Memorial Drive tunnel is used for golf carts only, not by pedestrians. There is a private path system throughout Muirfield. The tunnels on Glick Road serve golf carts and connect into the Muirfield path system. The ones on Glick have a dual purpose. Mr. Maurer stated that the golf course was built years ago, with the assumption that they could maintain and operate it into the future. It is their absolute responsibility to maintain the tunnels or to pay the City for performing maintenance. In the memo, it states that it is further recommended that Council consider directing staff to work with the Country Club at Muirfield Village to formalize the terms of future maintenance of these tunnels. That seems to indicate moving away from a 50/50 arrangement of responsibility to the club having total responsibility. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that is correct, and the motion on the floor includes the club being 100 percent responsible for reimbursement of the costs of repair. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the motion is to have the tunnel on Memorial Drive repaired, and invoice the Country Club for reimbursement of 100 percent of the costs. This does contemplate an arrangement for paying this over time, if needed. Mr. Keenan asked if there is legal standing to submit such an invoice to them RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 11 Held 20 Ms. Grigsby responded that, based upon the fact that the tunnels are under control of the golf course, there is the legal ability to pursue that. Mr. Keenan noted that the information indicates a lack of documentation in the files. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this entity would be considered a "guest" in the City's right-of-way, as any other utility would be viewed. It is their responsibility to correct any deficiencies identified by the City. Ms. Salay asked that legal counsel provide a memo regarding this matter in the next packet. Ms. Grigsby agreed to do so. Staff will also follow up in the morning with the General Manager of the Country Club regarding Council's discussion tonight. Staff had offered a 50/50 arrangement to the club, but made it clear that it was subject to Council's review and approval. The Manager was made aware that staff could not make such a commitment. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council now must vote on the actual resolution, waiving competitive bidding to complete the repair. Mr. Keenan stated that the club may want the option of doing the work, perhaps at a lower cost, versus paying for the City to have the work performed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the club approached the City staff a year ago, requesting that the City analyze the condition and execute any repairs needed. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the persuasive issue for the vote was the immediate concerns about health, safety and welfare. She is not willing to postpone the repair, . based on the analysis. Mr. Reiner stated that he, too, shares Mr. Keenan's concern about doing the work and then submitting an invoice to the club. They may want to review other options. Mr. Lecklider stated that his interest is in ensuring the integrity of the road. He assumes the conversation with the club will allow them the option of filling in the tunnel and having an at grade crossing, or a relining of the structure. He asked what the $94,000 cost includes. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it includes replacement of the existing corrugated pipe tunnel with a concrete pipe, attempting to reuse the existing headwalls, and possibly reconstructing new headwalls. Staff would not disagree with giving the club the option of securing their own contractor to do the work, but staff would want to have strict oversight of the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked whether approving the waiving of the competitive bid process would preclude giving the club the option of doing the work. She assumes that the club could still do the work on their own, assuming it can be done in a timely manner. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct. Mr. Keenan stated that he would be comfortable, assuming this offer is made to them. A time parameter must be provided for completion. Ms. Salay stated that the work must be done to the standards of the Engineering department as well. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff would not allow corrugated metal to be installed again; it would have to be concrete pipe. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to amend the resolution to include language that waiving the competitive bidding will occur only if the City is executing the reconstruction. Language should be added that City staff will offer the option to the Club to secure their own construction company, under the guidance and supervision of the City engineering staff and others as required by the City. Mr. Keenan seconded the amended resolution. Vote on the Resolution as amended Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 1 ~ Held 20 Ordinance 75-08 Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2008. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is no additional information to add. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Ordinance 76-08 Amending Section 153.170 -153.189 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Operations of the Architectural Review Board. (Case No. 07- 096ADM) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a complete revision to the ARB Chapter of the Code, although most sections reflect the existing language, the existing practice, or the standards that have been set through the adopted guidelines. Some definitions have been added; organizational items have been consolidated; the duties and responsibilities of the Board have been specified; hearing requirements for ARB have been included; application requirements specified; administrative modifications are allowed for some projects; and review criteria added for ARB decisions. The Council packet includes a color-coded version of the proposed Code revisions. This ordinance was reviewed by ARB, who approved it with some modifications. It was then reviewed and recommended by Planning & Zoning Commission. Planning staff recommends approval at this time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there are several typographical errors and misspellings in the document, and they should be corrected prior to finalization of the documents. She asked that he review the administrative modifications proposed, beginning on page 11 of the color-coded version. She is concerned with what is defined and then ultimately implemented as "minor" modifications occurring after lengthy review by the Board. Mr. Gunderman responded that this is part of a process encountered many times in the past. The listing of minor items begins at 4(b) on page 11. Sometimes, at the building permit process stage, there is a need for a modification to the lot line, and it makes little or no impact on all the things discussed during the project. It is this type of situation being accommodated. A similar situation could occur with a minor adjustment in layout of parking lots. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in 4(b)(iii), it indicates minor adjustments in building footprints up to 10 percent in total floor area of the originally approved building, building height, or floor plans, that do not alter the character or intensity of the use. How does this change not alter these? Mr. Gunderman responded there are some cases where it is not appropriate, such as when historic preservation issues exist. , Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who is notified of this administrative modification, when it occurs. Mr. Gunderman responded that because it is a minor modification, it would take place after the Board has taken action. Staff would likely take these up as the building permit for the structure comes in. Staff reviews these for zoning compliance with the ARB action. It is not unusual for the review staff to find that it does not match the plans submitted at the Board meeting, but the changes are insignificant. That is likely the process that would take place. Mr. Gerber stated that in a similar manner, minor modifications were discussed with the Planning & Zoning Commission. It appears the same thing applies in this situation, that the Director determines it is a minor modification and advises the board or commission. What would happen if there is a Director in place who does not follow this process, or if the ARB disagrees with the decision? Mr. Gunderman stated that if the ARB disagrees, it cannot be corrected. However, staff is then aware that this should not occur in the future. Mr. Gerber noted that if this occurs in an important project, the City bears the consequences. Mr. Gunderman agreed that is a possibility. Mr. Gerber stated that there should be a mechanism in place to address this. Originally, when a minor modification was identified, it was brought to the Commission and the Commission voted upon whether they agreed it constituted a minor modification, based RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 13 Held 20 upon the recommendation of the Director. He felt that process provided a good check and balance. Mr. Gunderman commented that it is more plausible to do this in the PUD process, where it involves larger plans and projects that have a longer review period in the Building department. There is also more opportunity to have minor modifications brought to the P&Z Commission, as they meet twice each month. In the case of the ARB, staff is frequently working with an individual property owner on a tighter timeline, and there is potentially only one meeting per month to address it. Mr. Gerber stated that by the same token, Council entrusts the ARB to make good decisions. If the City had a Planning Director, theoretically, who did not support what the ARB did, this person could tweak the plans as they desired, and there would be nothing the City could do. Mr. Gunderman stated that for a particular project, this point is well taken. These situations do not arise more than three or four times per year. Staff will hear about such issues that are not appropriately handled. Mr. Gerber pointed out that it would take only one project to impact an area, the aesthetic consistency of the neighborhood, etc. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that what staff is indicating is that an emergency meeting would not necessarily address these issues, as they are not identified until the building permit process stage. Mr. Gunderman agreed. The applicant frequently must complete details on the building plans that were not necessarily submitted for the ARB review. The architect and contractor will have to complete the detailed type of plans needed by the Building Department to ensure compliance with the Building Code. At that time, some minor changes are sometimes needed. Vice Mayor Boring noted concern with 4(b)(iv) and (vi) regarding landscaping materials. There have been occasions when new staff members have requested different materials, when the desire was actually for consistency. If ARB has a vision for the project and landscaping changes are made by staff, it may not result in what ARB had contemplated was approved. The changes in building materials or colors is also problematic. The last item (4(b)(x) provides a blanket authorization for minor modifications. This is too broad, as drafted. Mr. Gerber stated in regard to the review process for P&Z, that the Director of Planning would advise the Commission of minor modifications. P&Z Commission had a choice: to accept the modifications, or disagree that the modifications are minor and the applicant would have to return to P&Z. This item would be reviewed by P&Z in an expedited manner. Mr. Reiner asked about Section 4(b)(vi) and what would constitute an example of "redesigning and/or relocating landscaping, provided that the same level and quality of screening is maintained." Mr. Gunderman stated that he cannot recall an example, but out of this entire list, this is the one most likely to occur. Sometimes, it is a matter of preference of the project's landscape architect. Other times, some of the material is not available, and a substitute is needed. Mr. Reiner asked how the City ensures that there is an equal or better product in a substitution. Who reviews this? Mr. Gunderman responded that it is reviewed by the City's landscape architects. These individuals often have a clear understanding of the intent of the original plan. Ms. Salay stated that she is trying to view this from an applicant's standpoint. They may want to do something slightly different, but are told that they must wait an entire month due to the timing of meetings. The process could potentially impact an applicant. This may be an attempt to strike a balance. She believes that a Dublin Planning Director would understand the standards of the P&Z, Council and ARB, and that any minor modifications would be approved very judiciously. The City Manager would have an even clearer understanding of the expectations. Mr. Lecklider asked what feedback was provided by ARB on this subject. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 14 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman responded that once the particulars were discussed and examples provided, they realized that to a large extent, it was for the type of things where there was already some flexibility. In a recent example, the ARB specified a certain type of shingle, leaving the discretion to staff to ensure it was implemented. The architect dropped off some samples which he felt were similar to what was requested. A discussion followed, and staff determined this would not conform to what the ARB had required. When any of these issues arise, staff meets as a group to review them, although the Director ultimately makes the decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how the ARB is notified of administrative modifications. Mr. Gunderman responded that it would be included as an item in an administrative report at the outset of a meeting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the ARB were opposed to any modification reported, would they then direct staff that this should not occur in the future? Mr. Gunderman responded that is correct. Mr. Lecklider asked if this changes Mr. Gerber's opinion, although he does understand his logic. Mr. Gunderman responded that there were many discussions at P&Z about this, and generally, staff makes a good decision and it helps to expedite the process. There remains a need for a check and balance system. He recalled that there was an example where the Director advised P&Z of minor modifications, most of which the Commission agreed with. However, there were a couple items where the Commission took a vote, and the modification was brought back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Boring asked if he could suggest an amendment to address this. Mr. Gerber suggested that the Director of Planning would advise ARB of the intent to adopt a minor modification, and ARB would decide whether or not it constitutes a minor modification. If it is deemed minor, the Director proceeds with the modification. If not, there is further consideration of the modification by ARB. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the consideration could be done on the same night. Mr. Gerber acknowledged that there may need to be a mechanism for a special ARB meeting, if the modification is time sensitive. ARB has done that in the past on more than one occasion. Vice Mayor Boring supports this recommendation. The modification can be addressed the same evening that it is reported. It would provide a good check and balance, as has occurred at P&Z. Mr. Lecklider asked if there is value in asking ARB to revisit this ordinance. He understands that ARB has reviewed the ordinance and made some changes. Mr. Gerber responded that he believes it would be desirable to have their input again. If the ARB is aware of Council's concerns as expressed tonight, they will want to have an opportunity to discuss them. They may identify a different solution to the issue. Mr. Reiner stated that their willingness to meet is a big component of this process, so it is a good idea for ARB to review this once again to gain their input. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, asking that the minutes be provided to ARB for their reference. Ms. Salay added that ARB should also understand the consequences of this change, and that it may require an extra meeting in order not to negatively impact an applicant. It is important to be sensitive to the applicant's timeline as well. Vice Mayor Boring pointed out that it is the applicant who is requesting the modification. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it is the City's responsibility, however, to move the process forward in a reasonable timeframe. Mr. Smith commented that if ARB is reviewing this again, it may be desirable to have P&Z review it as well. Mr. Gerber concurred. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 15 The consensus of Council was to have both bodies review it again. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that there are some errors in the document which should be clarified. On page two, the second sentence of the second bullet point should read, "The provision declaring Land Use and Long Range Planning as the listed office of "secretary" was removed." On page five, third segment, there is a typo in the word "register." Vice Mayor Boring asked that reference be made in the organizational review to Article VII of the Revised Charter. In particular, that a vacancy should be filled within 60 days and the language regarding public meetings. The appropriate Charter sections should be referenced. Mr. Gerber moved to refer this ordinance to ARB and to P&Z to review the respective minor modification practice and look to the feasibility of amending the provision where the Director merely reports approved minor modifications, giving consideration to a practice whereby the Director advises the respective Board; the Board determines whether it is a minor modification or not; if not, then the applicant is required to return with an application to address the issue. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Boring suggested that at the time the Director reports the minor modification, the application should be brought forward so it can be addressed in one meeting. Mr. Gerber clarified that his intent is that if the ARB does not agree it is a minor modification, the proposed change must be heard by the Board. Mr. Gerber moved to add this clarification to his motion. Ms. Salay asked if the intent is that any deviation from the approved plan be brought back to ARB. Mr. Gerber responded affirmatively. Mr. Gunderman noted that all the potential minor modifications on the list would be reviewed at some type of meeting, either special or regular, and if the Board believes the modifications warrant more review, it is possible that yet another meeting review would take place. Mr. Gerber stated that it is also possible that the Director advises the Board and the Board concurs that the changes are indeed minor, and no hearing is needed. That will likely occur most of the time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the original discussion centered on sending the ordinance back to ARB and P&Z to reconsider as it is written, and they could either support this or make changes. Is Mr. Gerber now suggesting the language is not acceptable, and that they must change it? After brief discussion, Mr. Gerber withdrew his motion and moved to refer the ordinance to ARB and P&Z to revisit the issue, consistent with the Council discussion as reflected in the minutes. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that this still reserves for Council the prerogative to maintain the position Mr. Gerber has expressed tonight. Mr. Gerber stated that ARB or P&Z may propose yet another alternative. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 77-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Health Services with the Franklin County Board of Health for 2009. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is an annual contract with the Franklin Board of Health to provide health services for the entire City of Dublin, including the areas of Dublin in Delaware and Union counties. The contract is attached and reflects an increase in the per RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 16 Held 20 capita fee. A good portion of it relates to the 27th pay in 2009, similar to what the City will experience. Vice Mayor Boring asked for a record of activities of the Board. She was surprised with the percentage of increase, in view of the number of people who have well and septic systems. She had understood that inspections of these were to take place, but has not seen any report to date. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff will follow up on this with the Board of Health. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 3 Council meeting. Ordinance 78-08 Appropriating a 0.054 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.049 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a 0.446 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from 7001 Post Road LLC, Said Acreage Located on Post Road, West of State Route 33, City of Dublin, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith requested that Council postpone this ordinance to the November 3 meeting. Mr. Gerber moved to postpone the ordinance to November 3. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 79-08 ' Appropriating a 0.008 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.131 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a 0.129 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from 6969 Industrial Parkway, LLC, Said Acreage Located North of State Route 161 and West of Industrial Parkway, City of Dublin, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated this is in follow up to a resolution of intent to appropriate previously approved by Council. This provides authority to file the appropriation case. It is related to the interchange project along US 33. Mr. Hammersmith noted that this is the 28th of 29 appropriation cases related to the interchange. Mr. Keenan moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that it is surprising that such a small portion of land is appraised at $335,000. Mr. Smith responded that land takes can sometimes result in damage to residuals, and the City cannot set such a price. Instead, professional and independent appraisers set the price, based upon sales in the area and comparables. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 78-08 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Avery Park Phase III Renovation Project. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that this project was included in the CIP. Four bids were received, and staff is recommending award of the bid to At Grade, Inc. In response to Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Hahn stated that Stottlemeyer has split their operation among family members. The City's previous experience was with the company known as Stottlemeyer, and this is an offshoot of that company. Ms. Salay asked if this will complete the renovations at Avery Park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meting October 20, 2008 Page 17 Held 20 Mr. Hahn responded that the five-year plan includes a final phase with a basketball court, and potentially a combination inline skate rink/basketbatl court. Further information will be forthcoming on the final phase. Ms. Salay asked about the timeframe for completion of this phase. Mr. Hahn responded that the contract calls for completion in May of 2009. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. OTHER • RFI for Downtown Master Plan Design Competition - P&Z Commission Ms. Grigsby noted that staff would like to provide some updated information with regard to this project. At the meeting last Monday evening, a good discussion occurred regarding lessons learned in Greenville and how they can be incorporated into Dublin's current and future development projects. In follow-up discussion with various Planning staff members, staff believes it is important to provide Council an update on some of the ongoing efforts that relate to the Historic District and how they might tie in with the vision discussed last Monday evening. Mr. Combs is present tonight to provide this update. Mr. Combs provided a brief overview of Planning projects undertaken over the past 5-10 years in the District, including what is currently in process in the District. In 2004, following the task force work done by Council, the Commission, and a variety of stakeholders in the District, the City Manager asked staff to take a fresh look at the District. Twenty staff members across various City divisions assembled a report with recommendations to Council about what staff would recommend occur in the district in terms of a long-term plan for revitalization. As part of that Plan, some recommendations were brought forward to Council in early 2005. These recommendations were reviewed in a public process at the ARB, and a recommendation resulted. The P&Z review coincided with the initiation of the Community Plan review process. Due to some timing issues and the many meetings already scheduled, this review was folded into the area plan process for the District as part of the Community Plan. Out of all the various area plans, this particular area of the City received the most attention in all of the meetings -probably more so than all the other area plans combined. Some initial visioning sessions were held that built on the Historic Dublin Revitalization Plan, as well as summits and open houses. As part of the Historic Dublin Area Plan, 30 specific design points were identified that accompanied the concept plan that was adopted as part of the Community Plan. Of those, there were some larger, specific overriding design issues that were discussed. 1. Establishing a central focal point in the District and to revisit gateways. 2. To look at enhancing the streetscape environments, making the district more pedestrian oriented, ensuring people can cross Bridge Street to travel from both sides of the district. 3. Maintaining safe vehicular and pedestrian choice, providing points where the streets can be crossed safely. 4. Looking at shared parking. The south portion of the district was the area where the issues of parking efficiency were addressed. 5. Looking at how people could way find and better locate public parking throughout the District. 6. Looking at the District as a whole and trying to provide a broader mix of retail and office use. Important in this is looking at both civic buildings and civic spaces throughout the District that could facilitate different activities. Also looking at the ability to get a substantial component of housing in the District. 7. Parks and greenways. There are a significant number of existing natural resources around the District, and the Plan looked to ensure those were emphasized as much as possible and linked into the regional bikepath systems. 8. Most important, the City heard from the public that there is a need to have something implemented. That was the stepping off point from the Community Plan that staff has been working on over the last 1-1/2 years. 9. The specific goal for the Historic Dublin area is to look at how the district can be revitalized to provide the broadest mix of uses that would make it a vibrant and active place. It is also important to provide as much of a housing opportunity and a core establishment of residences in the area that would facilitate a walkable environment for all the different age groups. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ Minutes of Dublin City Council Meting October 20, 2008 Page 18 Held 20 10. In the area plan, staff also looked at some general concepts for what civic uses and parking resources could look like. He shared an illustration of a general concept for the idea of mixed uses being integrated into a parking structure, anchored by civic uses. Another illustration shown depicted what Bridge Street could look like in the long term. That was a key issue which arose throughout the process -trying to make Bridge Street more pedestrian oriented and providing a link between the two halves of the District. In terms of implementation, there are quite a few projects already underway at the current time, as listed on the PowerPoint slide. He offered to provide more detail, if Council desires that tonight. Vice Mayor Boring asked about the wayfinding project. Is this the group that provided demographics that the City was already aware of? What is the status of this project and what is being spent on it? She is frustrated with the amount of funding involved and the lack of progress. Mr. Combs responded that she is referring to the market assessment performed by Camoin & Associates. They analyzed the district to determine what would fit in the District and provided a list of recommendations about how the City can go about encouraging the types of uses desired in the District to make it successful long term. He believes the findings were reported to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the wayfinding project has also been ongoing for a significant period of time, although it was the number one priority in terms of locating places and identifying access to public parking. This has apparently not been finalized. Mr. Combs stated it is in process. The consultant convened the initial public input meetings and provided initial concepts. However, based on some staffing issues in the City Manager's office, the project has not been completed. The intent is to move forward with this project very shortly. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that in discussing this item with Ms. Ott, she indicated that one of the problems was that the consultant did not understand the City's goals in terms of what was to be achieved with the project. She indicated that the project was sent back to the consultant, primarily because the recommendations focused on landscaping as opposed to true wayfinding. Again, it is a project with no finalization known at this point, nor when it could be implemented in the District. Mr. Combs stated that there were some issues with the scope of services, and staff is working through them at this time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the timeframe for completion of it and ultimately for implementation. Mr. Combs responded that he is not directly involved with this project and does not have this information. Ms. Salay reminded Council that some things were outside of the control of the individuals working on this project, including a serious car accident which resulted in an employee being out of the office for several weeks and another serious accident involving an employee in the City Manager's office. These absences have impacted many projects, even though there has been a good effort put forth. At this point, it is not an issue of blame, but one of focusing on moving forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her focus was on the timeframe and implementation, not on any issue of blame. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for information about the southeast quad parking study for the District. Mr. Combs responded that one of the issues identified in the Community Plan was looking in particular at portions of the south end of the district which include many small parcels, and looking at parking efficiency and how space can be maximized to the optimum, in view of perceived parking shortages in certain areas of the District. It is one of the issues that staff talked at length with Council about, working with individual property owners, coming up with ways to consolidate parking in view of the City's design requirements. It would involve consolidating parcels under a common parking scenario. This would result in more parking in the same square footage, and would help serve the businesses. This would also tie into the long-term topic of a parking authority or municipal parking facilities. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council M et'n October 20, 2008 Page 19 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this is an internal analysis being done. Mr. Combs responded that some preliminary concepts have been done throughout the Community Plan process, but this is slated to begin in the next few months with the next budget year. It will be done internally to start, and proposals can then be put together that would facilitate public review. Mr. Combs reported that the other major study ongoing at this time is the Bridge Street Corridor Study. It was identified in the budget for 2008. Planning staff is working through an RFP process at this time, negotiating the actual scope. As outlined in a memo to Council in September, this study would look at Bridge Street from I-270 to Dale Drive as one cohesive corridor, with a mixture of land uses, with a more detailed design to address all of the specifics of the larger corridor. A design firm has been selected for this study, and the final parameters of the scope of the project are currently being done. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she was surprised to hear of this from staff, as no one at the joint meeting mentioned this study. It encompasses the areas involved in last week's discussion. She asked him to explain what all is contained in the Bridge Street Corridor Study. Mr. Combs responded that, generally, it looks at the corridor of Bridge Street itself and surrounding land uses, and what was contemplated in the Community Plan. It takes this to the next level of detail. It would involve what would be looked at in the implementation of general streetscape elements, as well as what the general character of the surrounding area should be. It takes the concepts in the Community Plan and provides more detail to begin implementation of a cohesive design from the larger area around I-270 to Riverside Drive. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the specific geographic area included. Mr. Combs responded there is not a specific width from north to south, but generally it includes I-270 to Riverside Drive and the adjacent areas north and south of Bridge Street. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification: is this simply the landscaping/streetscape along 161, or is it inclusive of the river, up to Emerald Parkway, and down to Rings Road? Mr. Combs responded that, in general, this looks at the Bridge Street corridor from I-270 to Riverside Drive, looking at not only the streetscape elements or design of the street itself and right-of-way, but also the surrounding building character, circulation and access. Potentially, it could include issues such as parking, whether that could be facilitated through Bridge Street, and looking at the adjacent street patterns and how that might facilitate some of the design solutions for the Bridge Street corridor itself. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how the findings of the Greenville workshop will influence this RFP and the study. She had understood that was the intent of the trip to Greenville, but there was no discussion either prior to or while in Greenville about how the findings would be used toward what was being assimilated for an RFP. Mr. Langworthy responded that some of this information was prepared for the joint work session, but the direction of the discussion was different than what staff anticipated. Staff therefore did not have a chance to make this presentation. Staff did include some of the materials in the recap of the workshop, which spoke to how what was learned in Greenville could apply to this corridor. Staff does intend to incorporate some of the things that were looked at in Greenville. Another part of this is trying to incorporate some of the plans of OCLC and elements of their master plan, and how that might interact with what the City is doing as well. In addition, Planning staff is working with Engineering on some major road improvements, how to correct the FrantrJPost/161 area intersection, how to transition from that improvement into the downtown area, and how the transition is made from a high speed, high traffic roadway to a downtown setting. Staff is also integrating across the river, looking at a roundabout for the Riverside/161 connection, and how that integrates with the Stratford proposal and the potential relocation of Riverside Drive. All of those are being connected into this. What was observed in Greenville was the way they have taken advantage of their riverside park, and how that might be incorporated as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she read carefully the summary of the Greenville workshop and findings. That was the initial step in the discussion, as Council has not yet weighed in on what they would like to see incorporated into development in the area, and no dialogue with staff has taken place. It is somewhat confusing to her that a contract would be considered prior to the consultant hearing this dialogue. She is not clear what the RFP that was sent out incorporated in terms of the intent of the product. From what RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Me ' October 20, 2008 Page 20 Held 20 has been stated tonight, it appears that the contract is for a master plan. Last week, there was discussion among Council Members about looking at the corridor from the Dublin Village Center over to the COIC -the entire length visually. Is that what this RFP incorporates? Mr. Langworthy responded that they have not yet determined this in the discussions with the consultant, because there has not been an opportunity for the dialogue with Council. Staff did not want to expand the scope of services without having discussion with Council. Certainly, staff would like to look at the center "spine" of the City as the major focus of what is being undertaken. The Bridge Street character study RFP was initiated prior to the time there was any plan of going to Greenville. The process was moving along, and now the question is one of backtracking a bit to incorporate what has been learned and have that considered by the consultant as well as the staff. Vice Mayor Boring expressed frustration in that this discussion is about the Bridge Street corridor and streetscape. What she heard from the P&Z Commission was about an entirely different way of looking at the area, creating a visual connection between more than one area. The RFP for the corridor focuses on streetscape and the way the buildings front on 161. The ideas generated at the joint workshop involved the total concept and reorientation toward a different view. She was excited to hear about something different and new, and feels it may be possible to generate an interest and partnership in creating this vision. In hearing about the RFP in process, however, it sounds like an exact reflection of what is included in the Community Plan. She had understood the Community Plan to be conceptual. She was hopeful that this area could be totally different and unique, and could incorporate some of the process used by those in Greenville. Mr. Langworthy clarified that the RFP process is currently on hold. It has been halted, and no further discussions have occurred. Staff is seeking further direction from Council before proceeding. Ms. Salay stated that to be fair, the follow-up discussion from the Greenville workshop - a workshop that not everyone participated in -did take place. She was also excited about some different ideas she heard of, but recognized that there was no input from staff about the ideas. Subsequently, she learned that there was a meeting with OCLC and that no one from the Planning staff was included in that meeting. She was surprised at the joint workshop to hear about ideas she was unprepared to respond to, and then found that the staff was also surprised with the information. She relies heavily upon the professional planning staff to provide their expertise and input, and there has not been an opportunity for that dialogue. Instead, Council and Planning Commission spent the workshop time discussing a potential design competition and the concepts observed that would change the focus that Vice Mayor Boring spoke about. She believes that everyone is at a disadvantage, especially staff, in trying to have an intelligent discussion about the findings from the mobile workshop and focusing instead on a new tangent. Personally, she would like to take a step back and learn about staff's ideas in light of Greenville, what was learned in Greenville, and how everything might be "tied up." The point was well taken that Council, P&Z, staff, consultants and stakeholders in the area spent a great deal of time on the Historic Dublin master plan and it was rolled into the Community Plan. Because it was so comprehensive, it was felt there was not a need for an additional area plan. She would like more information from staff about their ideas, given their expertise about the road network, and their input about the idea of going east from the Historic District to the Dublin Village Center. It is an intriguing idea, and is not one discussed in the Community Plan. She does not think Council is ready to make decisions about this proposal from Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she has heard mention previously of the time spent on the master plan, but nothing she has seen previously has excited her. She is concerned that some may think that nothing else can be considered, and that any proposal must conform with the Community Plan concepts. Ms. Salay stated that her point is that the excitement should be tempered with understanding the big picture -all of the other projects in process. These projects were identified and agreed to by Council in regard to the Historic District, prior to the Greenville trip. The findings from the Greenville workshop can now be incorporated with what is already underway, and there are new ideas brought forward by the Planning Commission as well. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 21 Held 20 Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is interested in pursuing the new ideas, as they are something she is really excited about. Some of the projects on the list are not moving forward, and with excitement about new ideas, perhaps a new partnership could be developed and more progress could be made. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would appreciate beginning with a presentation from the professional Planning staff, which is what he anticipated would occur at the joint study session last week. He would not describe last Monday's workshop as a dialogue involving City Council. Council is the body ultimately held accountable for any expenditures, both past and future. That is not to say that Council could not deviate from what is in the Community Plan as a result of the findings of the Greenville workshop. But he does not think that all of the work put into the course of formulating the Community Plan insofar as it speaks to the Historic District and beyond is something he is willing to disregard and make an initial expenditure of $500,000, which could grow to $1-1.5 million. He believes there is a need to slow down and have the paid professional staff and City Council involved in this dialogue. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified some items in the a-mail circulated today by Mr. Lecklider. • In terms of who is driving the train, the community is ultimately the one who drives the train and is highly engaged in whatever projects the City is going to do. A recent example is the Community Plan. She believes the Plan is a snapshot in time, with avision -- some portions more fleshed out than others. • Historically, Council, staff and the community endorse continuing to educate themselves regarding opportunities. For this reason, staff suggested the trip to Greenville. Staff had visited Greenville and found it exciting and motivating, and felt that the elected body would view the Dublin historic area and riverfront differently after seeing these options. • She presumes that when that dialogue is completed, Council and staff will share the ideas they have taken away from the workshop. • During the visit, there was discussion at dinner about various ideas. She asked Rich Taylor, a professional architect, how one goes about developing a master plan for the area, such as took place in Greenville. He indicated that he would ask people in his profession about this. He followed up with another architect, and the architect responded with an offer to initiate a design competition. • The staff was aware of the vision prepared by the Planning Commission, as the Commission talked of their findings at a work session in October. When she learned of Mr. Taylor's plan to share the drawings with the Commission, she contacted Mr. Langworthy to learn about the agenda timing and she then attended. There were several Planning staff members present at this workshop, and they were aware of the Commission's proposal and that the Commission wanted to bring this together as a body and present it to Council at the joint workshop. • There were three groups on the mobile workshop trip: Planning Commission, , Council and the staff. Each body would have different perspectives on what they took away from the trip. The goal would be to develop a common vision, one which could be implemented. • The projects described by staff may all be in the budget, but Council has not been updated about their status, in terms of the Greenville trip and how they would align. Personally, it would have been helpful to have kept these in mind when visiting Greenville. • It appears that the RFP is well underway for the Corridor Study, with a description and scope of work that Council was not apprised of. There is now a need to go back and review what has been learned in Greenville, in reviewing the scope of this RFP. • In regard to OCLC, the staff had already met with them and were well aware of OCLC's plan and vision. It was not a matter of excluding staff and was not a matter of her having a meeting with OCLC that the staff was not apprised of. OCLC contacted her as a member of Council to meet with them and for them to share their new focus and how they could be incorporated into the future City plans, especially in view of OCLC's growth plans. Every Council Member has a right to respond as they wish when a request is made for a meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 20, 2008 Page 22 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that what is needed at this point is an environment in which dialogue can take place about what was learned in Greenville and how these findings can be incorporated into the RFP already issued. Mr. Gerber stated that he was not able to attend the Greenville workshop, although he has visited the city previously. What he heard at the joint meeting was impressive. Even more impressive was that the Commission members have taken it upon themselves to come up with some new and fresh ideas. He wants to both harness and encourage that passion. However, he does not want to abandon the recently adopted Community Plan. He pointed out that the City has always had team protocol and engages in due diligence. The City is not afraid to do creative and new things in a short timeframe. He has read this proposal from P&Z, which is wonderful. However, there is a professional staff who has not been involved in this proposal, and there has not been much dialogue between the P&Z Commission and staff to date. He believes it would make sense for P&Z Commission and Planning staff to meet and review the proposal presented to Council, and to review the other projects underway, reporting back to Council in a timely fashion. For him, there is not enough comfort in the proposal to authorize the expenditure of $50,000 without having input from all of the groups. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that everyone is in agreement with this. However, she wants Council to be a participant in all of that dialogue. Ms. Salay clarified that she believes Mr. Gerber is suggesting that everyone participate in the dialogue, including all of Council. She believes she knows where the "disconnect" is. As a Council Member, she was aware of all of these projects and studies in process, through update memos or presentations from staff, etc. Perhaps the Planning Commission does not have the benefit of this information, resulting in this disconnect. Mr. Gerber stated that could be true to some extent, but the Commission has proposed a fantastic idea. However, Dublin staff is the best in Ohio, if not the country, and in his opinion, they work hard and have a lot of passion for Dublin. He suggests putting these two bodies together, capturing the passion they both have, which will result in a fantastic project. His one frustration is that many of the projects have existed for quite a while. There is a need for energy that can result from both of these bodies working together. Mr. Lecktider stated that his comments should not be intended as suggesting that the City may not end up where the Planning Commission has proposed that the City go. But there has not been adequate involvement or dialogue of all of the interested parties. In regard to the Community Plan, he entirely agrees and no one has advocated for it being fluid more so than he has - whether as a P&Z Commissioner or Council Member. However, he agrees with Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher in regard to the usefulness of an update on what staff is working on. Nevertheless, he did not go to Greenville with the anticipation that the result would be abandoning what is contained within the Community Plan entirely, but that they would look for ways to incorporate the best aspects of what was observed in Greenville. Mr. Keenan stated that he missed the first part of the joint workshop last week. However, it seems that Council gives direction regarding RFPs, and the RFPs are developed by staff. In reviewing this, he is trying to recall a precedent from the past of when an RFP was drafted by a board or commission. Vice Mayor Boring responded that no one would disagree with this statement. However, the discussion tonight does not involve this matter. The question is what should be covered in the RFP regarding the Bridge Street corridor study. Mr. Keenan agreed that there is a lot of merit in the work the Planning Commission has done on this proposal. However, it is a matter of doing this in the proper steps. , Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she reviewed the Historic Dublin portion of the Community Plan over the last few days. She believes that the dialogue and what the P&Z Commission was sharing was very consistent with what is written in the Plan in terms of values and goals of the historic area. She did not view it as any kind of departure from that. It fleshed it out and gave it a different life than was visually understood at that point RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 23 Held 20 in time, as no one had brought forward a different vision. Others may bring forward other visions as well. She is concerned now with how to proceed appropriately to capture the energy, passion and knowledge and timing, in view of the RFP that staff is prepared to execute. Ms. Grigsby noted that as Mr. Langworthy has reported, the RFP is on hold. She had a discussion today, based on the joint workshop input, about having the consultant come in to receive the feedback from Council and P&Z prior to beginning their work. This would provide an understanding of some of the things being considered. In regard to Greenville and the benefits, a main area of focus was the park and how they developed the park, using the pedestrian walkway and the river. That was of great benefit to be able to see how that could be used with the river and the proposed Stratford project, including the relocation of Riverside Drive. At some point, perhaps a design competition could be undertaken for the development of that park. There was a similar process done for Ballantrae Park by Mr. Edwards. The positive side of this is the current developments and opportunities where there is an ability to take advantage of all that has been learned. She would suggest a meeting be scheduled for input and feedback regarding the corridor study. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she is very interested in the design competition for the entire area, as it would bring fresh ideas forward. She wants to explore how that can be done in view of the RFP process currently underway. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in terms of process, perhaps a meeting of P&Z, Council and staff would be advisable prior to talking with the consultant. The available meeting dates on the calendar appear to be October 29 and November 10. She ' suggested Council consider these dates. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she will be traveling to NLC on November 10. Mr. Lecklider noted that a concern of P&Z as well as Council is that the Stratford proposal is pending. There is much concern on the part of everyone about what will occur with this development, and whether it will limit what the City can do in the future -- particularly in regard to the riverfront, if the City should desire to incorporate what was observed in Greenville. The question would be what it would connect to, and whether it is a shared vision of Council and the community as well. Mr. Gerber asked if it would make sense to have Planning staff and P&Z hrst meet in a workshop format and discuss how this competitive design process would work, identifying some of the hurdles to be overcome. Perhaps some developers could be identified who would have an interest in this. He is supportive of the idea, but is not certain of the need for moving it forward within a couple of weeks as has been suggested. An initial meeting of these two bodies would be worthwhile, with a joint meeting scheduled with Council later in November. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she is not opposed to this, but is not certain what would be gained by not involving Council in the dialogue. There is the big issue of Stratford, the realignment of Riverside Drive and Tuller, which will impact what will happen in the future. The City has been purchasing riverfront land for purposes of parkland, and one developer has purchased land along the river in Historic Dublin as well. She does not understand how the proposal from P&Z for a design competition relates to what was observed in Greenville for purposes of doing more exploration for incorporation into a master plan. The other key question is the geographical area of the master plan. Mr. Gerber responded that the P&Z Commission and staff are not having a dialogue at this time, and he believes it is important that they do. Once the proposal is reviewed by them, Council can become involved. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she believes Council needs to be involved in the discussion from the outset. In the long run, it will save time. Mr. Gerber noted this is why Council delegates responsibilities to a professional staff and to a capable P&Z. They can do some preliminary work before Council is brought in to make the necessary decisions to move forward. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 24 Ms. Salay responded that she agrees with Mr. Gerber in theory, but in practice, six of the seven Council Members formerly served on P&Z and they cannot refrain from being involved. She would like to be present for the discussions and would like a seat at the table. Potentially, this is a substantial outlay of money for the City. Mr. Reiner noted that one item not discussed is the huge budget for the items the City wants to do -realigning Riverside Drive, the infrastructure for the Stratford project, etc. The exciting portion of the P&Z proposal was the locking in and filling out of blocks of development by interested developers. He is supportive of all of the meetings, including the preliminary ones of Planning Commission and staff. He is interested in seeing plans executed. Following brief review of the calendar, it was determined that a joint meeting of Council, Planning Commission and staff would be scheduled for Monday, October 27. Staff can determine the details of location and time, and notices should be sent out to the Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that he reviewed the meeting materials for tonight. In reading the two pages from the packet, he had a totally different impression of the matter which is being discussed tonight. It appeared to him that it was a "from the ground up" investigation of what should be done in the center of the city. The impression he received was an invitation to think about what should be the cultural/civic center of this city. He got the impression that Dublin should try to make it like the centers of Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland all rolled into one. But none of this discussion tonight came to mind. In light of what has been said, he will need to do some more thinking about the matter. Flite Freimann. P&Z Commissioner stated that he would like to correct the record. • The Planning & Zoning Commission notified the Planning staff that they wanted to talk about the City of Greenville trip at a meeting on October 2. The Planning Director and the vast majority of the Planning staff did not attend the meeting. No one from the Planning staff offered any comments to the Commission about their lessons learned in Greenville. • The Planning Commission met again as a body on October 9, again discussing the fact they would make a presentation to Council on October 13. Again, the Planning staff did not offer any input or suggestions. • On the night of October 13 when Council and P&Z met, Mr. Lecklider asked staff if they had any comments regarding the proposal and none were forthcoming. Therefore, he feels that the Planning Commission, recognizing an absence of leadership, stepped forward to fill that void to make sure that the lessons learned in Greenville were not lost. He feels the need to correct the impression that the Planning Commission somehow usurped a role. Instead, Planning Commission stepped in to fill a void. In regard to the proposal, Ms. Salay requested a flow chart, and he was unable to have it prepared in time for the packet distribution of the Request for Information. He distributed copies of the timeframe and noted that he can review this with Council. He noted that the list of projects staff has reviewed with Council tonight consists of "trees," while P&Z is talking of a "forest." They are not talking of removing or shelving any projects listed, but about an overarching umbrella -making sure that all of the items listed are part of a cohesive plan. The list presented by staff included five studies and three Code violations. The Planning Commission is talking of "action" -not more recommendations or studies. The first part of that action is a Request for Information. It is the first step of a three-step proposal, and is simply a request for information. At the point Council would approve the RFI, P&Z will send it out and will gather information. They will then have a sense of the level of interest in the project, the scope of the project, what the City's commitment would be in time and money, and what the City really wants. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 25 Held 20 • Once all of this is put together, an RFP will be developed and submitted. This is the second step. There is no usurping of roles and no exclusion of anyone. It is a matter of finding out what is out there. • The cost of the first step is minimal -that of producing an RFI, sending it out, and making sure there is a point of contact within the Planning staff who is willing and available to address the issue with interested persons. At that point, the City will have to agree it wants to send out requests for proposals. This would involve expenditures, as it would require selection of a firm to handle the design competition. That would come back to Council for another decision, and another opportunity to weigh in. Only at that point would the City move to the third and final step, the design development. What is being proposed is the very first step in this process. The master plan and the desire to develop a master plan is not in replace of or in lieu of the Community Plan but an addition to it. It takes the Community Plan from where it is today and moves it forward into an actionable plan that designers, developers, architects, planners and financiers can actually use and implement. What is planned for the downtown area now is a disjointed list of parking studies, of corridor developments, without the appropriate level of connectivity. The only way to achieve the downtown that Council and the Planning Commission want is if all of those are brought into an overarching scheme. Respectfully, he suggests that another meeting is not needed with the Planning staff. Planning Commission welcomes the opportunity for staff, P&Z and Council to meet. There is momentum behind this proposal, and if halted now, it will be lost. Many things are already underway, as seen on the list tonight. The Grounds of Remembrance is underway, the Waterford Commons development is coming, Bri-Hi Square is under construction. It is necessary to "strike while the iron is hot." P&Z Commission respectfully requests an opportunity to put together an overarching plan. All they are requesting tonight is to gather information so that everyone can move forward as a group. Every step in this process will involve the Council, the P&Z Commission, Planning staff, , and the citizens. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the reason Council believes there is a need to have a meeting of the three bodies is because of the RFP corridor study already issued. She asked that staff provide a copy of the RFP to Council. Some of the RFI data gathering must have been included in the scope of this contract, but this can be discussed at a joint meeting. Council, too, shares the sense of urgency that the Commission has, as demonstrated by scheduling a meeting in one week. To clarify, commissions and boards do not issue RFPs; the elected body has that responsibility ultimately. When speaking of "we" in regard to this project, it refers to a collective staff, Council and Planning Commission. STAFF COMMENTS • PRAC Motion re Darree Fields/Houchard Road Access Ms. Grigsby stated that PRAC approved a motion at their last meeting in regard to the roadway connection between Darree Fields and Houchard Road, to provide some relief to the traffic issues at Darree Fields. The information Mr. Hahn has provided indicates this project is in the current five-year plan, and is programmed for construction in 2009. Mr. Hahn stated that the project requires a permit from the Franklin County Engineer, as the Houchard Road right-of-way is under the Engineer's control. To secure that permit, plans are required to be submitted. PRAC's motion also indicated the need to complete this project by April, and it is not feasible. Staff acknowledges this is an important and necessary change to the park design and wanted to assure Council it will be handled as such. Mr. Keenan suggested that an update be provided to PRAC regarding Council's expectations of when this project will be completed. Mr. Lecklider added that Council has had an interest in having this egress from the park for several years, and it has been programmed now for construction in 2009. Tim May. Chair, PRAC noted that the Commission was interested in having staff make this project a priority, in view of the safety issues at the park. On September 14, there was a RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin October 20, 2008 Page 26 Held Tournament underway at the park when the storm associated with Hurricane Ike hit. It required 10-15 minutes to exit the park due to the traffic, and the intense wind impacted the trees and soccer goals. Having only one egress constituted a dangerous situation. The motion was to affirm to Council the desire to have this project completed by April, as there is a large tournament scheduled for the second week of April. There was also a letter from Mr. Muir about this need. If there is an injury at the park, it is difficult for medical personnel to access the park as well, absent the Houchard Road access. Mr. Keenan responded that the construction process and weather will dictate the completion date for this project to a large extent. Mr. Hahn stated that staff will make every effort to expedite this as much as possible. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff draft a memo for PRAC, outlining the timeframe estimated for the project. • Parks & Recreation Master Plan Ms. Grigsby stated that the final draft was provided in the packet. Staff is seeking direction on Council's preference for next steps in the review. The review could be scheduled at a regular Council meeting, or a separate meeting could be scheduled if Council believes substantial changes are needed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked the preference of Council. It was the consensus of Council to make a decision about the next steps at the November 3 Council meeting. ' • Appointment of Acting Clerk of Council for October 23-24 Ms. Salay moved to appoint Ms. Beal as Acting Clerk of Council for this time period while the Clerk is attending training out of town. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby noted that the packet includes the EPA Director's Orders. Discussion can be held at the budget workshop, which will be prior to the November 17 Council meeting when this legislation will be considered. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Keenan stated: 1. Kudos to Ms. Puskarcik and staff for the Spooktacular event. It was a flawless event and very well attended. 2. The US 33 Corridor meeting is scheduled for October 27 at 8 a.m. Ms. Salay reported: 1. Mr. Guion, Executive Director of Dublin Arts Council sent a memo regarding the budget for the marketing of the Dublin public art collection. He asked that she share this memo with all of .Council. It includes the DAC suggestions for marketing, in follow up to the April study session with the DAC. She asked that feedback be provided regarding the memo at an upcoming Council meeting and she will share that with the DAC Board. 2. She visited the dog park over the weekend and it was well utilized. It is apparently very popular, and there may be a desire for future expansion, based on what she observed. Mr. Lecklider noted: 1. He has not yet visited the dog park, as his dog has a torn ACL! 2. He had a conflict on the night of Spooktacular, and thanked others who attended the event and represented Council. Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Noted that the Administrative Committee is trying to identify a workable date for continued review of the campaign finance matters. 2. Stated that the applications have been submitted for the P&Z appointment. She suggested that Council meet in executive session at 6:30 p.m. on October 27 to determine which candidates will be interviewed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council October 20, 2008 Page 27 Council concurred. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there has been any feedback received regarding Mr. Hammersmith's response to the Hilliard Schools' request for school zone improvements at Washington Elementary. Ms. Grigsby stated that there has not been a response to date. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:35 p.m. for discussion of land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes or for the sale of property at competitive bidding). Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council