Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Held 20 Mayor McCash called the Dublin City Council meeting of Monday, June 23 to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Salay and Mr. Reiner. Mr. Kranstuber was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigaum, Mr. Smith, Ms. Gibson, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Heal. Approval of Minutes of June 9, 2003 Regular Meeting Mayor McCash noted a correction to Page 17 - first line. It should state, "Community Development Committee of Council" instead of Community Services Advisory Commission. Mr. Reiner moved approval of the minutes as amended. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Correspondence The Clerk reported that there was no correspondence requiring action from Council. Special Recognition Mayor McCash presented a proclamation to the Dublin Scioto High School Boys Lacrosse Team, in recognition of their recent state championship. Assistant Coach, AJ Auld; Jeff Schneider, Senior; and Adam Milnor, Junior accepted the proclamation on the team's behalf. They thanked Council and the community for the support and involvement in their season. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road addressed Council regarding a problem that is endemic to Dublin and to other cities across the country. He questioned the short-term wisdom of an ordinance approved by Council in May that allows enforcement of the parking restrictions in Historic Dublin. The subject is traffic, and there seems always to be a catch up, knee jerk reaction to the problem. The two symptoms of the traffic problems are parking and speeding, and a more organic solution may be needed. In the last 10 years, he has never personally had difficulty in finding a parking spot anywhere in the Columbus area, even at the busiest times of day. He drives close to his destination, sometimes on the outskirts of the area, and then walks the remainder of the way. He avoids the center part of the parking areas in the shopping centers and downtown as well. He is not certain how this can be translated into an ordinance, but perhaps Council can consider a way to make parking more than an exacerbating search for a spot. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES ZONING Ordinance 09-03 Providing for a Change in Zoning for 22.462 Acres Located on the Southeast Corner of Metatec Boulevard and Post Road, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 02-137Z- Perimeter Center Subarea N - Homestead Revision) Mayor McCash noted that the applicant has requested that this be tabled. He asked if the request is to table until a date certain. Nick Cavalaris. Smith & Hale, representing the applicant stated that Mr. Hale faxed a letter of request to table the ordinance. If possible, they are requesting it be tabled indefinitely due to business problems of the company. Time is needed to work out these matters. Mayor McCash noted that if it is tabled indefinitely, there must be a motion at a future meeting to remove it from the table and to set a new hearing date. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to table Ordinance 09-03 indefinitely. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23,2003 Page 2 Held 20 ANNUAL TAX BUDGET Ordinance 60-03 Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that emergency passage is needed in order to comply with the timeframes set by the state. Ms. Salay moved for emergency passage. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. ZONING Ordinance 61-03 Providing for a Change in Zoning for 6.4 Acres Located on the South Side of Rings Road, Approximately 750 Feet East of Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway, from: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District and R-1A, Restricted Suburban Residential District (Washington Township Zoning Classification), to: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (Case No. 03-052Z - Stonehenge on Rings Road) Mr. Gunderman stated that he has slides available, if Council requests a presentation. This property was involved in the land swap recently authorized by Council. The ordinance would rezone the entirety of the area to be developed - both the City's land and the developer's land - to the SO district. Planning & Zoning Commission approved the rezoning on June 5 with four conditions as listed in the Record of Action from P&z. In response to Mrs. Boring, Mr. Gunderman indicated that there are four conditions recommended by P&Z for the rezoning - the cover memo contained a typo. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. LAND PURCHASE Ordinance 62-03 Authorizing the Purchase of a 3.563 Acre, More or Less, Tract of Land Located at 5800 Post Road, City of Dublin from Betty Jane Nyrop, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that emergency passage is needed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved for emergency passage. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Ordinance 69-03 Adopting the 2004-2008 Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that discussion is needed regarding the schedule of hearings on the CIP. There has been a suggestion of moving the dates. After the workshops, a second hearing/public hearing will be scheduled. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she has a conflict with the scheduled dates of July 2 and 9, and asked if Council would consider adjusting them. Following brief discussion about various Members' schedules, it was determined to reschedule the CIP workshops to Monday, August 4 and Wednesday, August 6 at 6:30 p.m. Mayor McCash asked that in follow-up to the workshops, any revisions or additional information needed for the CIP be included in the August 14 packet so that the public hearing/second reading can proceed on August 18. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK lNC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 3 Held 20 BIDS - ENGINEERING Ordinance 70-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Southwest Area Traffic Calming Project -Phase 4 Improvements, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that a favorable bid was submitted by Columbus Asphalt Paving. Mr. Hammersmith is available for questions. Emergency action is requested at this time. Mrs. Boring noted that Council had previously indicated that at each phase, staff should come back and report on the traffic situation and the need for future phases. She asked for a status report on the traffic situation. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in June of 2002, Parsons Transportation performed analysis that indicated traffic volumes have been significantly reduced. It has not been studied since that time, as the Phase 3 improvements will not be completed for a few weeks. He was not aware of that direction from Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if maintenance of these neighborhood entrance features would be the responsibility of the neighborhood associations or the City. Mr. Hammersmith responded that anything in the right-of-way to be acquired will be the City's responsibility to maintain, and any improvements within the reserve area that was previously maintained by the association would continue to be their responsibility. Most of the improvements are all within new right-of-way acquired by the City. Mrs. Boring asked why the City is adding neighborhood entryways to be maintained by the City. Older neighborhoods feel if they had waited a few years and requested an entryway, that the City may have maintained their entryways. Ms. Salay asked what the entrance features consist of. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they consist mostly of landscaping to define the neighborhoods, as recommended by the Task Force, plus some stonewalls. Ms. Salay stated that these actually are located in existing City parkland as shown on the drawings. Mrs. Boring asked if lighting or irrigation systems are included. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they are not. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for details about the costs associated with any necessary acquisition of right-of-way for the project. Mr. Smith responded that the City has cleared all of the right-of-way. There is one right of entry that allows the project to proceed, although the acquisition is not settled at this time. This is with a company owned by Mr. Edwards. There are engineering issues with the new turn and other items which staff continues to negotiate. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked when it is stated that the bid is $31,000 lower than the engineer's estimate, does that $31,000 in essence pay for the land acquisition? What is the total cost of the calming plan? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the bid includes only construction costs. There is a separate line account for the land acquisition and he is not aware of those totals. The right-of-way costs have not been settled. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that all of the costs for a project, including legal and land acquisition be provided. Council has also requested previously that a future estimate of maintenance costs be provided as well. Mr. Hammersmith stated that his understanding is that maintenance costs are to be presented in conjunction with CIP requests. Mr. Reiner asked if the majority of landscaping is within the traffic circles. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. There is also landscaping on the perimeter along the connecting roads. Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Hammersmith about his opinion of whether the project should be done. Mr. Hammersmith stated that if the goal is to complete the traffic-calming program, then it should be done. Mr. Reiner noted that the goal was to calm traffic - has that been accomplished prior to this phase? Mr. Hammersmith responded that traffic volumes have been reduced significantly in the area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK !NC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 Ms. Salay pointed out that in view of the annexation activity in the area, and the decision to perhaps postpone the construction of the Tuttle extension, there is a continued need to complete this project. Much development is yet to be completed in the area, including retail and office along Emerald Parkway. There is a huge amount of traffic that will be generated with that development, and the goal is to keep it out of the neighborhoods. Mayor McCash added that he recalls that the goals of the plan were to deter cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods, to reduce speeds, and to add visual separation between the major traffic thoroughfares and the residential neighborhoods. Mrs. Boring stated that she believed that each phase would be considered separately to gauge whether each was still needed. With so many no outlet roads in the area, there is little cut-through traffic. What was needed in the area has been done, and further evaluation should be given within the entire CIP budget. Mayor McCash asked if further traffic analysis is underway. Mr. Hammersmith responded that analysis has not been done at this time, because the previous phase is not completed. Mr. Lecklider stated that when he considers the future development planned within the Thomas-Kohler rezoning area as well as outside of Dublin's boundaries, he has concern that the plan may never be done if not done at this time. Mrs. Boring suggested that the traffic study be updated to assess the impacts of the previous phases. Mr. Reiner asked about the length of time needed for a traffic study and the cost. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the previous study cost $5,500 and required six weeks for completion. He cautioned that if a study is commissioned at this time, however, the project couldn't then be done this year due to the paving and concrete work included. Ms. Salay pointed out that Council has already approved acquisition of the right-of-way for this project from several property owners. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that Council had asked for evaluations after each phase of the traffic-calming project in order to see the results. There has not been an opportunity to evaluate the previous phase, if it is only now being completed. From personal experience of driving in the area recently, there is hardly a car on the roadway, other than on Emerald Parkway at rush hour. It is not possible to go north on Wilcox from Tuttle Crossing to other areas of Dublin - instead, a driver must go south on Wilcox to Hayden Run to Avery and then north. She is hoping that neighborhoods are not being isolated at the expense of others who also would like to see the community or travel home a different way. Tonight's phase does not close off roadways, but it does raise the concern about a phased project and the need to reassess after each phase is completed to see the progress toward the result that is to be achieved. The development has slowed due to the economy, and maybe some reassessment is warranted. Mr. Hammersmith stated that, in his opinion, the most logical point of another study would be after this phase. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked how many phases are in the project. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there are six phases in total. Mayor McCash noted that he agrees that after this phase is completed, it would be appropriate to reevaluate the impacts. Mr. Lecklider stated that as property was being acquired at Rings and Wilcox, it was with the assumption of placing traffic circles in these locations. Secondly, in regard to the cui de sacs, he has always felt that this is something to be done as a last resort. He was similarly frustrated initially, and is still confused - wasn't it Council who approved the plan to cui de sac Wilcox Road? Mrs. Boring clarified that it was voted for by a majority of Council. However, the concept was that there were several phases, and in view of another $750,000 for this phase, it would be prudent to revisit the status. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 Ms. Salay stated that there was a large volume of cut-through traffic on Wilcox Road that has now been eliminated with the cui de sacing. She lives in this area and travels the roads frequently. Those who used Wilcox in the past now use Woerner-Temple and Emerald Parkway. It is not difficult to traverse the area for the residents. This plan was not just about traffic calming. It was also designed to reconstruct the neighborhoods and bring them up to the standards held today regarding setbacks and through roads. Mr. Reiner asked how much of the project's budget related to land acquisition. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the bid before Council tonight is for construction only, but he can obtain the information on land acquisition costs for all of the phases. Mr. Reiner agreed with Ms. Salay that the government allowed the southwest development to occur without meeting Dublin's standards. He voted for the southwest traffic-calming project because of the recognition of government's role in this. However, he wonders if the cui de sacing of Wilcox has resolved the problems. Without a study, it is not possible to determine this. Mayor McCash provided background on the Wilcox Road issue. Some of the traffic studies and long range plans anticipated a volume of 17,000 cars per day on north/south Wilcox. For some unknown reasons, Trinity Park was approved with 25-foot setbacks on Rings Road. Apparently, it was approved with the understanding that Wilcox was to be terminated farther to the north and the vacated right-of-way was to increase the size of yards for Heather Glen properties. Until the Rings Road components of the plan were completed, there was no safe way to cross Rings between the parks. After the houses were built, the City changed its plan of terminating Wilcox Road, and the houses were left with a 25-foot setback on a busy roadway. Mr. Lecklider asked what is included in phases 5 and 6 of the project and the costs. Mr. Hammersmith responded that these phases include improvements along Wilcox Road and additional entry features in the area north of Woerner Temple. He does not have the specifics with him tonight. He can provide a summary of the costs to date and costs projected for the next two phases. Mr. Reiner asked if he is recommending this phase. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of maintaining a consistent character of the roadway and creating a neighborhood environment, this is a good solution. It will not likely make a significant impact on traffic at the present time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is important, however, to recognize that this project is being done for these reasons and that it will likely be less costly to do now than later. It is not being done because it is critical to the traffic movement which presently exists, but toward planning for the future. She will vote in favor of this phase, with the condition that a traffic study is done following completion of the implementation of this phase. In addition, in the near future, she would like information about the total costs of construction, right-of-way acquisition, and legal and other costs to implement this plan in the near future. At some point, the City cannot continue to invest monies in addressing problems created years ago - the southwest traffic calming plan is well underway, the golf course development is completed, all of which have greatly improved the aesthetics of the southwest area. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the completion date of this project is estimated as October 24. He suggests that a traffic study be done next spring, prior to any work on the next phase being initiated. Mr. Lecklider agreed that there is a relative value of doing the project now versus 4-5 years later. Discussion followed about total costs of the entire traffic-calming plan. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 6 Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to complete a traffic study of this area following implementation of Phase 4 and to bring the results to Council in 2004 prior to any work being done on the next phase of the plan. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 71-03 Accepting Lowest/Best Bid for the Aryshire Drive Culvert Replacement, and Declaring an Emergency. Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that federal grant monies are being used toward this project, and the bids were favorable. Mr. Lecklider asked what portion of the project would be funded with the grant. Mr. Hammersmith responded that approximately $400,000 has been received from the Ohio Public Works Commission in the form of a 1 O-year interest free loan. There is a small portion that is grant money - it is predominately a loan. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. CODE AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO STA TE CODE CHANGES Ordinance 72-03 Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances to Reduce the Prohibited Per Se Concentrations of Alcohol in a Person's Blood, Breath, or Urine for Purposes of OMVI Law and Adding Prohibition of Physical Control of Vehicle While Under the Influence Code Section, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that a new state law would be effective on June 30 that lowers the OMVI level from .10 to .08. This legislation amends Dublin's Code to confirm with the new state law. Brief discussion followed about adding the physical control provision to the Dublin Code. Mr. Lecklider moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. BID - ENGINEERING Ordinance 74-03 Accepting Lowest/Best Bid for Rings Road/Atrium Parkway/Ashland Chemical Drive Intersection Improvements, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith clarified in regard to the earlier southwest traffic calming discussion that the total cost for the traffic calming for 2003 is $838,000; for 2004 - $810,000; and for 2005 - $122,000. So phases 5 and 6 will cost $932,000 in total, including land acquisition. Mr. Hammersmith stated that an exhibit is attached to the ordinance that defines the improvements. The project is being done in cooperation with Ashland Chemical, as approved previously by Council. An agreement is forthcoming with Ashland's approval. The project provides for a signalized intersection at Atrium Parkway and a new driveway, including a three-sided concrete arched culvert over the Cramer Ditch leading to Ashland Chemical. Mayor McCash asked if the signal would be operational in the daytime only in view of its close proximity to the Blazer Parkway signal. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it will be operated as other signals in the City and will be on a flash sequence at night. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 7 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification of the comments in the cover memo regarding a "mostly favorable experience" with the contractor. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there were some concerns regarding the contractor's past performance, in particular with Emerald Parkway Phase 7. The discussions have been very positive. Complete General has committed in a letter to a completion date with this project and some adjustments to how the project is managed. The concerns related to closing out projects, not with the quality of the work. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there was any consideration of including penalties in the contract if it is not completed by the date established. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the contract does not include such a clause. Staff is reviewing future contract documents, however, with the Legal Department in regard to penalties aside from liquidated damages and incentives for early completion of a project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing and to treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CODE AMENDMENTS - DEVELOPMENT Ordinance 75-03 Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Sections 153.050 through 153.058 - Planned District Regulations, and Section 153.234 - Procedure Regulations. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that prior to referral to Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr. Gunderman would present a report regarding the recommendations included in the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman noted that three Council Members, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner served on the Task Force, together with two members of Planning & Zoning Commission, representatives of the commercial and residential development community, and two citizen at large representatives. The group held seven meetings, at three-week intervals, and worked together very effectively. He proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation. 1. For Planned Districts, there are currently four districts that are utilized - PLR, PIP, PCD, and PUD. An additional four districts currently exist in the Code, but are not used. Presently, each district has a different set of procedures, although some are similar. It is very confusing to everyone involved. The Planned Districts regulations provide the framework for how the process will be completed - they are not design regulations, simply process related. 2. A major policy discussion involved how many districts to include in the new Code, which of the current districts should be included, and what process should be used in the new district, and what steps will be included in the process. 3. The ordinance as drafted retains the designation for the four districts currently in use in the City. The remaining four of current districts are dropped from the Code. They are no longer referred to in the Code. The goal is to have one process to be used in all the zones. The four current districts are used only for zonings in existence at this time. No new districts would use those old designations. 4. The new revised ordinance includes a purpose and application section, a status section for previously approved PD districts, establishment of new planned districts, procedures which apply to all districts, submission requirements, criteria for plan approval, definitions, and procedure for amendments. 5. The new code permits all previously approved planned projects to continue with unchanged expectations. The fundamental items that were in their approved text remain. The new code requires all projects, both new and old, to follow the same procedures. 6. A procedure is utilized that is similar to the current PUD zone. The process involves a preliminary plan, text, final development plan, and platting as needed. A plan review and plat can be combined. These must be approved before any building improvements can be taken up by the City. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK lNC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 8 Held 20 7. The concept plan process is currently required in the PUD zone, but not in some of the others. The proposed Code requires a concept plan in one process, but for smaller projects which comply with the Community Plan, there is no requirement for concept plan review beyond the staff. If the applicant desires, however, they can request a concept plan review with P&Z and Council. 8. There is no minimum size for the new zone. 9. Regarding minor changes after the final plan has been approved, these are defined in the Code. It requires a report by the Planning Director to the Commission. 10. Timeline for processing applications generated a lengthy discussion. For new applications, once deemed complete and everything is submitted, they are required to be scheduled with the P&Z Commission within 90 days unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Presently, virtually all applications request a time extension due to issues to be resolved in the submittal. There is no language in the current code addressing this, but this is the practice in place. It does specify in the Code that the applicant is required to agree to such an extension; if not, the application will be heard within 90 days. 11. The Code provides P&Z the ability to table an application if there is a need for additional information. There is also a provision for a 60-day rehearing - this avoids a situation where an application is tabled indefinitely. 12. A major change in the code is that in the text submitted with a rezoning, there will be two categories. The first will include critical elements such as density, central uses, etc. Once approved, anything in this category to be changed would require a rezoning process. In the second category of less critical items, P&Z would have the discretion to substitute things that achieve the same standard. If the Commission finds that the proposal meets the standards defined in the text as well or better, they can approve it. This addresses the concern about the fact that minor changes currently trigger the need for a rezoning process. 13. The most difficult issue the Task Force dealt with was the appeal process. There was not consensus on this issue. The option currently included in the draft code is the same as that in the current PUD process - if P&Z disapproves the final development plan, the only means of appeal is to the courts. The additional options that were considered were appeal to City Council. An offshoot of that is an appeal to City Council where Council would have the discretion of hearing an appeal. There was no clear consensus. 14. Another issue discussed was the role of potential consultants that the City might utilize. This would involve City staff retaining consultants to review a unique aspect of a project. The concept of having architectural consultants to review on a regular basis was an option not recommended. 15. Conditional uses. The Task Force recommends retaining these in the Code. 16. Expiration of zoning. An expiration is built into the Code for a project that does not progress after preliminary approvals, or in cases where construction does not begin after final development plan approval. The City has the ability to rezone the property in these cases, if it desires to do so. An automatic reversion of the rezoning to the previous rezoning was rejected by the Task Force. Mayor McCash expressed concern about a project where only one segment is built and not the remainder. How could the City rezone part of a parcel? Mr. Gunderman responded that a portion of a parcel could be rezoned. These types of issues are why the language as drafted is "may" rezone instead of "shall" rezone. The applicant is also encouraged to include in the text at the outset if there is a long-term timeframe for completion of the project. 17. Unless specified otherwise in the text, there is an automatic default to the regular Code provisions. 18. Language was proposed for requiring that developments meet the improved City standards where practical. It is difficult to demand in uniform language in the Code that a project, once initiated, will be able to meet the new standard. In cases where it is determined there would be no undue hardship and where the issue is not dealt with in the Code, the applicant is expected to meet those new standards in the later phases of the project. This becomes an issue for projects that are completed over a long period of time, during which the City's standards may change. In planned districts, the text may control and there is a limit to the City's discretion once an application is approved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 9 Held 20 Mayor McCash commented that it might be preferable to keep the text in the planned districts more general in nature referring to the zoning code provisions. The zoning code provisions would then control this. If the bikepath standards would change, the applicant would be required to meet the current Code requirements. On the other hand, the residents who were involved in a negotiation may not want the standards changed at a later date. There is no perfect solution. 19. The last item in the recommendations is that the first reading of all changes to the zoning code does not take place until after the Planning & Zoning Commission action takes place. There was a lot of discussion about the public notice provided for a rezoning item. To address this issue, the packet includes a sample of information that is published in the paper and included on the web site that consists of all items to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Code language would provide that first and second readings at Council would be held after the Commission's review. He noted that the Task Force is scheduled to reconvene in the fall to review subdivision reg u lations. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Gunderman did a great job with the Task Force and with preparation. There was a good dialogue throughout the meetings, and everyone maintained an open mind and positive attitude. Mayor McCash asked if the Charter requires referral of a zoning matter to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gunderman stated that Mr. Banchefsky had indicated that the document as drafted does not conflict with the Charter. Mr. Smith concurred. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that this ordinance be referred to Planning & Zoning Commission for review. She suggested that Council set a timeline for return of a recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Boring suggested that the timeline be set in consideration of the heavy workload of the Commission at the present time. Mayor McCash noted that the Task Force would begin review of subdivision regulations in the fall. Mr. Gunderman stated that work could proceed on that portion prior to the P&Z recommendation on the first portion. Mayor McCash suggested October or November. Following brief discussion about the caseload with Mr. Saneholtz, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Gunderman, it was the consensus of Council to set the timeframe for receipt of a recommendation by November 1. Mr. Reiner pointed out that two P&Z members have served on the Task Force and should be able to guide the Commission in this matter. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer this Ordinance to Planning & Zoning Commission, with the request for a recommendation by November 1,2003. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 76-03 Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Section 153.002 - Definitions, to Define Minor Plan Modification. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this ordinance attempts to define "minor plan modifications," and is based upon the Council and Planning Commission's discussion at their joint meeting. Staff has drafted this ordinance and suggests it be referred to Planning & Zoning Commission. This legislation would amend the current Code and is not tied to the previous Ordinance 75-03 referred to the Commission. Ms. Salay moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION & PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS AGREEMENT Resolution 30-03 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23,2003 Page 10 Held 20 Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter Into a Reciprocal Agreement for the Enforcement of the Ordinances Pertaining to the Regulation of Noise of the City of Dublin and the Village of Shawnee Hills. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this matter was discussed at a previous Council meeting after a citizen raised the issue of an agreement with Shawnee Hills regarding regulation of noise. The Law Director prepared a memo regarding the issue that has been provided to Council. Staff is recommending that it would be necessary for Dublin to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Village of Shawnee Hills in order to have reciprocal enforcement of noise ordinances. She indicated that she has attempted to contact the Mayor of Shawnee Hills, but has been unable to make contact as of this date. Staff is hopeful that Shawnee Hills will be interested in such an agreement that would benefit both Dublin and Shawnee Hills. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in both paragraphs on page 1 of the agreement, in "A", it states, "the boundaries of Shawnee Hills, but rather only to grant jurisdiction to the City of Dublin to regulate a source of noise located within Shawnee Hills...." She asked for clarification. Mr. Smith explained that a portion of the Bogey Inn will remain in Shawnee Hills and this agreement would allow Dublin to enforce their ordinance on that property and cite them into Dublin Mayor's Court. The goal is to allow both municipalities to control the noise that may be emanating from another municipality. Absent an intergovernmental agreement, there is no right to control this. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the agreement is exclusive to the Bogey Inn property. Mr. Smith responded that it is not exclusive to that property - it would include all of Shawnee Hills and all of the City of Dublin. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she was in Shawnee Hills at 9:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning and a band was playing at the Zoo or Wyandot Lake. When does something rise to the level of a nuisance? Mr. Smith stated that the area of noise control is one of measuring standards and is a difficult, subjective area. The legislation is aimed at the Bogey Inn property due to the surrounding residential areas, but there are noise issues arising from the zoo and Wyandot Lake as well. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that education be provided to those who are most closely impacted in Dublin. They could be invited to a meeting where the levels of noise that constitute a nuisance could be demonstrated. Mr. Smith agreed that this could be beneficial. Ms. Salay asked about the status of the reciprocal agreement with Columbus regarding noise. This was brought up in relation to the restaurant business operating across the river in Columbus. The character of the business has now changed to a much quieter operation. She doesn't believe this issue should be dropped, as Columbus is a close neighbor and issues will continue in the future. Mr. Smith responded that there were discussions in regard to the former Gibby's restaurant, but the issue was mitigated with the change in ownership. Ms. Brautigam added that Columbus has a new City Attorney and this became somewhat a less critical issue for them than for Dublin. Staff will bring back a status report on this item. Cynthia Reed, Arvshire Drive thanked Council and staff for their help with this issue. This agreement would be a start. Both the concerts and events held at the zoo generate a lot of noise. Mr. Borin of the Columbus Zoo has been very cooperative with the neighbors. The Civic Action Committee of Muirfield hopes to meet with Mr. Borin regarding a good neighbor agreement. If they could obtain something in writing with Columbus, it would be very helpful. Is she correct in understanding that noise complaints about the Bogey Inn can now be directed to the Dublin Police? Mr. Smith responded that the annexation of the Bogey Inn property will be heard by the Delaware County Commissioners and then will be forwarded to City Council for acceptance under the annexation process. He will advise Ms. Reed of the effective date of the annexation. The agreement will need to be executed. The City Manager hopes to meet with the Mayor of Shawnee Hills regarding this matter. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Reiner moved approval of Resolution 30-03. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER final Plat, Post Preserve Section 1 There were no comments from Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of the final plat, subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission on October 4, 2001. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. final Plat. Park Place Section 3 There were no comments from Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of the final plat, subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 20, 2003. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. STAff COMMENTS Council Discussion Appointment to Assistant Director of Enqineerinq position without a competitive selection process Ms. Brautigam stated that under the City's Charter, a competitive selection process is required for appointment of all employees. for a period of time, Barb Cox has been serving as an Interim Assistant Director of Engineering. She has done an excellent job, and staff believes she is very qualified to fill this position. Instead of launching a search process to fill the position, staff therefore recommends that Council by motion waive the requirements for a competitive selection process and appoint Barb Cox to this position. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to waive the competitive selection process and to appoint Barb Cox to the position of Assistant Director of Engineering. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Naminq of Parks Ms. Brautigam stated that some citizens have indicated their desire that the park and municipal pool adjacent to Ballantrae be named to identify them as separate from the subdivision. Staff is recommending that Council request that Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommend a name for this park, and that they recommend a general policy for the naming of parks. Mr. Lecklider noted that for him, this prompts a question about the naming overall of City property - whether they are buildings leased from the City, or whether they are rooms within City-owned buildings. Mayor McCash noted that in general, they have made an effort to stay away from naming buildings after people. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that the Dublin Arts Council is naming rooms within the building after people. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that this relates to donations and is a marketing tool - that in exchange for donations, naming rights are given to certain rooms within the building. If the City did not want this to occur, it should have been a part of the lease documents. Mayor McCash stated that this is an internal thing, not an external name on the building. Mr. Lecklider pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce building is named for the Executive Director. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council approved it. Mayor McCash clarified that his recollection is Council opted not to do that, but as a leaseholder, the Chamber named the building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider stated that as a matter of policy, are there concerns about a City-owned building being named by a tenant? Ms. Brautigam stated that perhaps this should be addressed in the leases. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the DAC had to raise monies for necessary renovations and they opted to do this with fundraising and naming rights in exchange for donations. Personally, she is not offended with this. Mr. Lecklider responded that it is not a matter of being offended; it is a matter of structure or policy. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the policy be that naming rights be structured in a lease agreement, and that any change in the name within the timeframe of the lease would need review. It would be difficult to determine a policy outside of this to be applicable across the board for all City-owned property. Mayor McCash agrees with having a policy in place. Mrs. Boring moved to request that PRAC provide a recommendation on a name for the new outdoor pool and park, and that they recommend a general naming policy for parks. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mr. Hahn provided additional information about the park located adjacent to Ballantrae and noted that two citizens have raised the concern about the name. In addition, staff would like to have name identification for parks such as the one located in the northeast quadrant of the City, so this is a more of a global issue. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUND TABLE Mr. Reiner asked if there are problems with the Muirfield fountains. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the third and final coat of epoxy is being applied, and so they were drained for this purpose. Mr. Reiner noted that water seems to splash out of the base - it may not meet the ratio of two to one for the height of the water. Is it on an automatic refill with a well system? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there are some operational issues and they will be addressed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted: 1. In regard to the PRAC minutes, is the Committee planning to spend a lot of time on the "bark park" issue? She is concerned that staff indicated that the police cannot enforce the leash laws in place because two sections of the Code conflict. Further, there is now discussion of park rangers and this may be expensive and not a good use of tax dollars. Mr. McDaniel responded that there are some conflicts in the leash laws. The park ordinances are being updated currently, as authorized in the budget last year. There are some issues of enforcement in the parks, and if ordinances are approved, there will be some level of enforcement needed. This has not been analyzed at this point, but if needed, it will be brought up in the operating budget sessions. Mr. Reiner noted that he has contacted other cities about bark parks and it is a progressive idea. It works well in areas of high density and may require an investment of $12-15,000. Mr. McDaniel noted that PRAC is studying the bark park issue as referred to them by Council. A recommendation will be forthcoming. 2. She is joining the delegation from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce in traveling to Dublin, Ireland tomorrow. They have an aggressive schedule of meetings, including a meeting with the American Embassy officials. The delegation hopes to learn about business opportunities and any initiatives Dublin could be involved in. Meetings are also scheduled with industry representatives from the country. Mr. Lecklider: 1. Complimented Ms. Brautigam on the letter sent to the MORPC Executive Director regarding the Hayden Run corridor plan and cost sharing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 13 Held 20 2. Noted in regard to Dublin Road bikepath safety that immediately north of the Shawan Falls ravine, there is a need for a guardrail on the west side of the bikepath. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff shared this concern and the guardrail will be installed soon. 3. Reported that a fire recently occurred at a home on Wings Livery. There have been some reports that water did not flow out of the hydrants as quickly as it should have. Ms. Brautigam stated that Ms. Crandall contacted the fire lieutenant in charge and he indicated that this was not true - there were no problems with the hydrants. She will follow up on this with a report to Council. Ms. Salay: 1. Thanked staff for the follow-up information in the packet in regard to some issues raised recently by Council Members. Thanks in particular for the quick response on the removal of the poison ivy bush. 2. Asked about the plans for the parade on July Fourth for Council Members and table packets. Ms. Puskarcik stated that Council would have a float for the parade that begins at Metro Center at 11 a.m. on Friday, July 4. A VIP tent will be available for Council and the Grand Marshall. The celebration takes place at Dublin Coffman High School. The packets will be delivered to Council this week. Ms. Puskarcik added that there are 8 tables remaining for sale at this time. Mrs. Borinq: 1. Thanks for the prompt responses to issues brought up at the last Council meeting. 2. In regard to the letter to MORPC, she has concerns about MORPC not conducting meetings with all of the parties. Before considering any funding of the study, she will need to know the scope, the respective results of the study and the implementation. As it now stands, it seems that the expectation is that the other communities are to fund the study and then build the roads to handle the Columbus development. Will the zoning fit the area, or is the area going to change to accommodate the zoning? It should be clear that supporting a study does not mean funding changes to the Dublin community when Dublin has no influence over this zoning. The Hilliard citizen made a good point about the environmental impact to the area from the development proposed. Unless there is influence over the pending zoning, she is not interested in participating in a study. Ms. Brautigam clarified that the study being discussed is a regional study, the geographic limits of which will be determined by a technical committee. Mr. Hammersmith is serving on that Committee, as well as the engineers from Hilliard, Columbus and the county. They are working to establish the parameters of the study and the geographic limits. This Committee is not driven by Columbus or MORPC. Due to the previous efforts of Dublin and Hilliard, the developers have been forced to come up with traffic studies related to the three rezonings. But this technical group is now working to create a framework for a new study and working on a memorandum of understanding about how the study will be funded. The meeting about this indicated that Columbus will pay a greater share of the study cost, but each of the other entities has been asked for a contribution of $12,000. This figure could increase depending upon the parameters. No one has made any commitments at this time about funding. The issue is what will happen when the study results are returned and the infrastructure needs are identified - and who will pay for that infrastructure. Part of the process is looking at the impact of the new development and what innovative ways are available to have the developers and new residents pay for the cost of this growth. It will also consider what part the background traffic of Hilliard, Dublin, Franklin County and Washington Township plays in the overall impact on that area. When those things are determined through this study, it will be possible to determine what everyone's "fair share" is. At this point, it is not possible to determine. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a second meeting regarding the technical scope of the study was held last week in Hilliard. MORPC has served more as a facilitator in this process. The advantage of MORPC being involved is the overlap of the MIS study with the regional study. The regional study will involve the corridor in Columbus, but it will also involve growth areas within Dublin. It will be difficult to sort out the associated costs of growth and its contribution to the improvements necessary to manage the traffic. Based on the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 June 23, 2003 Page 14 Held 20 cooperation he has observed to date and the parties involved, he believes it will be worked out. Mrs. Boring stated that some cities do not allow development until the roadways are improved. Pavement can always be built to accommodate development, but why not delay development until the roadways are in place? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the impacts would not be known until the regional modeling is done within the study. In this way, the traffic impacts can be determined and attributed to different areas. Ms. Salay asked if the Development Commission of Columbus still plans to hear the corridor plan on June 26. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this item remains scheduled for June 26. Ms. Brautigam added that the City Council in Columbus does have the final vote on these matters. Staff has strong commitments from Council Member O'Shaughnessy that this matter will not be brought before Columbus City Council until the regional traffic study is completed. Staff is working at all levels on this effort and it is important to stay engaged in order to influence the outcome. Mayor McCash asked for a status report on the SR 161 landscaping and turf. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he is to meet on July 7 with Ray Lorello and Brad Jones regarding this matter. He has emphasized the urgency of resolving this matter before the time expires on restoration. Mrs. Berinq noted that in the PRAC minutes, residents expressed concerns about the Amberleigh North park development. Plans have long been in place for a community park in that location. Perhaps the City should construct the parks prior to the time the residents move in. Mr. Hahn responded that he has met with a neighborhood representative who was collecting information in order to build a case about not supporting the development of a park in this location. The residents indicate they were told that this would remain a passive park. For Amberleigh, a master plan was done in a timely manner and a copy was posted in the sales trailer by Tolles Brothers. The developer also erected signs on the street indicating the site as a future community park and with a phone number to call for details. For whatever reason, it seems many homeowners do not obtain this information. Mrs. Boring noted that she would bring this park development matter up at the time of the CIP workshops. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that maybe something should be in place that designates the park area sufficiently so that residents don't expect it to be a private area not to be trespassed. Most of the park users are the neighborhood residents themselves. Mr. Hahn stated that Amberleigh will perhaps have more draw than a typical neighborhood park and will have parking to accommodate patrons. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that signs are helpful, but perhaps a rendering of the future park development would also help. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for legal and land acquisition matters at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mayor McCash noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. conv ed at 11 :00 p.m. and formally adjourned. ~ C2~ Clerk of Council