Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting .-------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, lNG., FORM NO. 10148 October 6, 2003 Held 20 II I' I Mayor McCash called the Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council of Monday, October 6, i 2003 to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. i Ms. Salay lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. Kranstuber arrived at 7:35 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigaum, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Hoyle, Ms. Heal, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik and Ms. Willis. Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2003 Regular Meeting Mr. Reiner moved approval. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. PROCLAMA TION/SPECIAL PRESENT A TIONS . 9-1-1 Hero Award - Tyler Muraski Chief Epperson and Chris Burkhart, Communications Center Supervisor described the heroic actions of 1 O-year old Tyler Muraski on April 10. His friend, Eric, fell 10 feet from a trampoline, resulting in a severe head injury. Tyler appropriately used the 9-1-1 system to seek assistance. The medics promptly responded and transported Eric to Children's Hospital. He has now made a full recovery. Mayor McCash presented a plaque to Tyler in recognition of his efforts. . Proclamation for "Communities in Motion Week" - COTA Vice Mayor Boring deferred this item to Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Dublin representative to COTA's Legacy Advisory Board. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that October 13-18 is "Communities in Motion" week, recognizing the benefits of public transportation in the area. She presented this to Ed Garger, COT A representative. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that COT A has been impacted by the reductions in sales tax revenues that are one of their funding sources, necessitating adjustments to their service schedules. They continue to look forward to and promote their vision of light rail and diversification of transportation opportunities for citizens in Central Ohio. Over the next 5- 10 years, there will be a dramatic change in the variety of options for moving about the community. . Introduction of Traffic Enforcement Unit Chief Epperson noted that the new formalized traffic enforcement unit members are present tonight, together with the Sergeant overseeing this area. The unit will be supervised by Sergeant Ed Gozoski, and the officers working the unit will be Josh Fultz, Mike Keck, Steve Krum and John Cruise. Among the group, there is over 70 years of experience. They began operations two weeks ago, emphasizing traffic enforcement in neighborhoods, accident reduction, data analysis, and coordination of StealthStats and speed trailers. They will also coordinate the activities of four volunteers assigned to the neighborhood speed watch program and will be involved in education campaigns. Mayor McCash expressed Council's hope that this new unit will offer a response to concerns about speeding in residential areas and will serve as an alternative to other traffic calming measures. CITIZEN COMMENTS Cynthia Reed, 5208 Arvshire Drive addressed Council regarding the recent tragic accident at the Muirfield-Avery/Brand intersection that resulted in the death of Nicholas Watkins, a two-year old passenger in one of the vehicles. She called for expediency in resolving the safety issues at the intersection. Many residents who are concerned about this issue are attending the child's funeral services tonight. The Muirfield Civic Action Committee has received many calls regarding the need for the City to immediately take action to address the safety issues. She had a call from Karen Johnson who lives close to the intersection and who has witnessed the increasing number of accidents in this location. The City cannot afford to let this intersection improvement wait at the possible expense of another human tragedy. It is currently on the list of intersections to be improved. She has learned that the actual implementation date of the improvement is 2005, with design in 2004. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ~,...."-- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. lNG, FORM NO, 10148 Page 2 T October 6, 2003 Held 20 owever, ese a es 0 ow e opening 0 e new Ig sc 00 In a ran yan - Croy Roads that will bring many inexperienced drivers through the area. The residents are appealing tonight that the City reconsider the implementation date of these improvements and move it up. In checking accident statistics, since January of 1999, there have been 79 accidents. Forty-nine occurred in 2001 and 2002, which demonstrates the situation is becoming worse. The residents believe that once the City is aware of their concerns, it will take action more quickly than anticipated previously and move up the construction and completion prior to the opening date of the third high school. Steve Krizan, 7184 Brodie Boulevard noted that he has resided in Dublin sine 1997. He shares the concerns about traveling through the Brand/Avery intersection and the lack of a stop sign for those traveling north and south on Avery-Muirfield. As an engineer, he would suggest installing stop signs on Avery-Muirfield Drive, north and south, which would make the intersection safer. The permanent improvements can then be done next summer. Ross Kavutha, 6485 Moors Place West noted that he has resided in Dublin since 1994. He also asked that the issue of pedestrian and biker safety at the intersection be addressed. They would like to see the Muirfield walking path and Dublin bikepath system connected. Muirfield does not have adequate access to the City's bikepath system. He supports addressing the improvements for the intersection at an earlier date, but asked that they be addressed from a pedestrian/biker's perspective so that access will be available to both the Dublin system and to the Muirfield system. Karen Johnson, 5894 Tartan Circle South noted that she has lived in this location since 1991. All have recognized the dangers of the Muirfield/Brand intersection over the years, and personally, she has cautioned many coming to her home about this intersection. The signs are confusing and drivers are not aware of who has the right of way. She, too, urges Council to address the intersection improvements at an early date. She added that Council should not delay the improvements for reasons of aesthetics or beautification, as was the case at Muirfield/Glick. Her son was involved in an accident at Brand/Muirfield, but was not injured. The Dublin community should have reacted sooner when it was known this was a dangerous intersection and should have demanded that the City act sooner. She pleaded with City Council to allocate the funding to begin the work on making this a safe intersection so that no others will experience the pain and heartache that the Watson family has experienced. Many travel this intersection everyday - not by choice, but because it is one of the only ways to connect with the rest of Dublin. Mayor McCash noted that he is aware of speeding and traffic control device violations in this location, and problems with visibility at the intersection that is obscured through entry features. This project has been moved up in the CIP, and there are many factors involved in accellerating the construction process, i.e., right of way acquisition, whether donated or whether an appraisal process is necessary, the building of asphalt roads in the winter weather, etc. Perhaps staff can provide a report covering these issues. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that what was originally planned is a long-term solution. The design time could perhaps be reduced by some months, but she asked about the short- term alternative as the City works toward implementation of the longer-term permanent improvement. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff has been reviewing the options. Staff is exploring several alternatives, including: drawing better attention to the stop signs at Brand Road; better compliance with speed limits on Muirfield Drive. In terms of design, a completion date can be established and then a timeline set working backwards. The residents are interested in construction beginning in 2004 and having the improvement in place for school opening in August of 2004. Working backwards, and under the assumption that the construction would not begin until after the Memorial Tournament due to logistics, the bid process would have to occur, as well as plan preparation with a consultant. The difficult part of the project is selecting the design alternative and acquisition of right-of- way. Overcoming these two hurdles adds an exceptional amount of time to projects. The project could be expedited with an extraordinary effort on everyone's part. Mayor McCash stated that if the right-of-way were donated, there would then be no need for an appraisal process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ~_._--- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO, 10148 --- Page 3 Held 20 IS. Mr. Reiner asked in terms of the design aspect, what is the current timeframe and how can this be accelerated to move into the construction phase? Mr. Hammersmith responded that an alternative needs to be pursued primarily, and if determined not to be feasible, the fallback alternative would be implemented. Given the geometrics of the intersection, the volumes and the pedestrian traffic, the roundabout is an excellent alternative for this intersection versus signalization. However, signals do not necessarily translate to safe intersections. Mr. Reiner stated that the Muirfield Association and the residents of Muirfield would likely be very interested in donating the right-of-way necessary. He would like to expedite this project due to the increasing east/west traffic with the school opening in 2004. He would like staff to initiate the planning phase and initiate discussion with the Muirfield Association on right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Hammersmith responded that if staff is asked to proceed with the permanent improvement, direction can be given and consultant selection can be addressed immediately. Staff will await further direction. Mrs. Boring asked if staff could provide a report about the timeline and timeframes required. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff has prepared a scope of services for design and an RFP that can be issued tomorrow. If Council prefers, a written report can be provided in two weeks, which will include an interim solution and the information about the scope of services and RFP. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to proceed with the scope of services and RFP and to provide information about short-term solutions to Council in two weeks. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. (At this point, Mr. Kranstuber arrived - 7:35 p.m.) Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Mr. Reiner noted that the funeral services for Nicholas Watkins are tomorrow at 11 a.m. at St. Brigid's. He suggested that City Council and staff attend the services, as many of the family members live out of town. Mayor McCash added that the City sent flowers on behalf of Council to the family. Ms. Brautigam added that a number of residents have placed items at the intersection in memory of Nicholas. These items will be left until tomorrow when they will be transported to the church. She asked that people refrain from leaving additional items at this location, as it is distracting to motorists and may in fact be dangerous. Mark Birnbrich. 5768 Castleknock. Trinity Park addressed Council regarding the proposed United Dairy Farmers gas station, car wash and retail center approved recently by P&Z. He moved to Dublin in 1995 and was told that the development behind his property was under negotiation, and he should stay involved in the process to protect his investment. Residents of Brighton Park, Trinity Park and Heather Glen banded together to ensure that the integrity of the Dublin family lifestyle was protected. Many compromises were reached throughout the Thomas-Kohler rezoning. He then reviewed the timeline for the recent proposal for subarea E for UDF. 1) On January 10, 2002, they submitted a proposal with little or no input from residents. They were encouraged by P&Z to meet with the residents. 2) In February of 2002, UDF met with the residents who outlined their concerns with the number of gas pumps, the cut-through traffic, hours of operation, landscape screening and the car wash. 3) On March 12, the residents followed up with a typed summary of the issues to UDF and Dublin staff. 4) On March 21,2002, P&Z met and the meeting minutes reflect that this area was too intense of a development plan and UDF requested tabling until further discussion with residents was held. 5) On April 8, UDF met with the residents, and in good faith, the residents defined compromises to support UDF being developed in this neighborhood. Residents RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. lNG" FORM NO, 10148 October 6, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 en 0 owe UPWI approval. 6) On May 6, 2002, residents sent a letter to Dublin staff regarding the agreed upon compromises, anticipating that a joint proposal soon would be submitted to P&Z. However, nothing further was submitted until one year later after significant changes had occurred in the P&Z membership and Dublin staff. 7) On May 17, 2003, UDF submitted a more intense plan and it appeared that all of the hard work by residents was for naught. On June 25, 2003, residents met with staff and UDF representatives to discuss the proposal. An item-by-item review of the 5/6/02 letter of compromises was presented to staff and UDF, and residents presented their concerns with UDF's current proposal. UDF indicated that they no longer agreed with the compromises but promised to study them and return with a proposal at a future meeting. 8) On July 28,2003, UDF informed residents by letter that they plan to move forward on their current application without any further consideration of compromises. 9) On September 4, 2003, the Dublin staff report was issued to P&Z that inaccurately outlines the residents' concerns by ignoring written information and discussions presented at the 6/25/03 meeting. Other inaccuracies and omissions were included. 10) On that same day, September 4, there was a P&Z meeting and UDF offered a proposal not including the compromises agreed to by the residents and now includes a retail location, making the development more intense and in direct conflict with the 3/21/02 directive from P&Z. At this P&Z meeting, other problems were noted: . Normal protocol at Dublin P&Z has been to yield time to other speakers, and the neighborhoods selected four key neighborhood speakers to address various issues, including the fact that Dublin is ignoring the valid concerns of the residents and listening to developer's needs and desires. The more intense plan was approved by a vote of 6-1 by P&Z. . A P&Z member stated that residents of an apartment complex at Perimeter Loop have not complained about car wash noise in their area, so this would not constitute an issue. The comparison to apartment living is not valid. Those raising families in a community setting do not expect to be subjected to these noise levels. . A P&Z member inferred that the residents believe development should be stopped due to traffic problems. This is correct! The developer should work with the cities of Columbus and Dublin to resolve the traffic issues, not ignore them and make things worse. The key word for the Commission is planning. . A P&Z member stated that they did not have the authority to determine the number of gas pumps and that this is a business decision for UDF. This is not about UDF making numbers work, but rather planning for the future of Dublin and maintaining its quality of life. If the numbers do not work for UDF, they should find another location where they will work. . A P&Z member reviewed the minutes of a previous meeting and stated that he did not believe the applicant had done any of what was asked - regarding the level of intensity and working with the residents. However, that member voted in favor of the application. . P&Z accepted the architect's rendering of sound travel over that of a Dublin resident who is a sound engineer. . On September 10, 2003, because residents testified on 9/4/03 that screening was not adequate as the developer had stated, a Dublin landscape inspector found that over 210 trees needed to be planted or replaced. . On September 12, the residents filed an appeal. It is a sad day when residents must file an appeal to be heard by the same officials elected by residents. The appeal was regarding the issues of due process and conditional uses. They are awaiting a decision from the Law Director regarding the status of this appeal. . In the meantime, on October 2, 2003, another P&Z meeting took place. Dublin residents worked hard to contact P&Z members to request a reconsideration of the vote on UDF. During the conversations prior to the meeting, P&Z members told residents that the vote would not be final and that they were merely making a recommendation to City Council. The residents' understanding is that this is not correct, and that some P&Z members did not appreciate the significance of their vote. . At the October 2 meeting, there was a complete lack of due process. The applicant's attorney was afforded the opportunity for a five-minute speech RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 Page 5 Ii October 6, 2003 I 20 Held regar Ing ow ern e e u In resl en s are, ow as en over backwards for them, and that UDF will pull out of the deal if it were reconsidered." I . P&Z then asked Dublin staff about the process in order to reconsider. The ,I response indicated that new information had to have been brought forward. At that point, the residents had selected one resident to speak for them, and a P&Z member requested that the resident be permitted to speak. The Chair, however, indicated that no public comment would be taken on this matter. Why was the applicant's attorney given five minutes and the residents none? . As P&Z members were deliberating, the applicant's attorney provided answers from the audience. The residents may have erred in not speaking unrecognized from the audience, but thought it would be best not to and instead come before Council tonight. . The reconsideration vote was 4-3 in favor of the applicant. The residents question whether the vote would have been different if they had the opportunity to speak and inform P&Z that there was new information. Due process was not afforded to the residents. In closing, he noted: 1. If P&Z relies so heavily upon an outdated 1996 traffic study to support that this is a good use of the property, the study actually specifies "a 10-pump gas station - no convenience store." Yet P&Z approved a 12-pump, 4,850 square foot convenience store, 1,500 square foot retail, vacuum center, patio, and a car wash. 2. How can P&Z on 3/21/02 indicate that the use is too intense and instruct the applicant to meet with the residents, and yet one year later, a more intense development plan is proposed, residents are ignored, and the plan is approved by P&Z? 3. What do residents need to do? The residents organized meetings in good faith with the developer, secured 200 plus signatures on a petition, to obtain nothing, and to then be painted by the applicant as "terrible residents." By the vote, it seems that P&Z agrees. 4. He hopes that Council will instruct P&Z that when a personal attack of Dublin residents is made by an applicant moving into the City, the residents be given the opportunity to rebut. 5. The residents did not have due process and their rights were violated. 6. Clarity is needed regarding Council's instructionn to P&Z about their mission. P&Z is appointed by City Council, which was elected by the people, for the people. The residents of Dublin need to understand what direction Dublin is taking - for residents or for developers. If it is a balance, then both sides need to come together in a good faith negotiation. Due process has been missing throughout this for the residents and at all levels. They are hopeful it ends today. 7. Dublin is receiving an international Citizen Involvement Award. He described some of the comments attributed to the City Manager in the coverage in Dublin Life. 8. He and his neighbors, representing 200 plus residents who have signed, are requesting that Council help nurture the commitment as outlined in the article about citizen involvement. In order to do this, a forum must be identified to discuss the UDF application. Residents are requesting that City Council reconsider the UDF proposal. The residents would be happy to discuss the issues more in detail, if desired. 9. They would prefer to carry out their next steps in concert with City Council. Mayor McCash stated that this matter has been the subject of phone calls and discussions over the past few weeks. He understands that the record of the hearing is not completed at this time. He asked staff for an update. Mr. Smith responded that Mr. Rogers, attorney representing the residents, filed documents with the City on September 12, 2003. Council then instructed him to review the legal issues which is a case of first impression. The easy answer would be to indicate that the Code does not provide for that type of appeal, but he will research this further in order to provide a complete response. Mr. Rogers on behalf of his client has raised both procedural and substantive due process issues. He was furnished the record a week ago, but the written Record of Action has not been signed. Therefore, the appeal time does not begin to run. He is currently listening to the meeting tapes. Staff has reviewed the Charter and Revised Code and has talked with Mr. Rogers about the substantive and procedural due claims and the interpretation of case law on those. He hopes to have an opinion by the next Council meeting with respect to this appeal. There has never been an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---. --_.-.- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 Page 6 [ October 6, 2003 Held 20 appea Ie 0 IS na ure an I IS no ca e or In e u In o e. owever, ere IS also a body of home rule law in Ohio that at times permits extraordinary action. He also has an obligation to Council to inform them of the liability issues if they take away a substantive right versus a procedural right. He informed Mr. Rogers today about the fact that the appeal time does not begin to run until the record has been signed. Ii Mayor McCash noted that he spoke with Mr. Yoder and Mr. Mitchell regarding the issues. In view of the many legal issues involved, an opinion is needed from the Law Director prior to Council taking any action. Mr. Kranstuber noted that his understanding of the primary question for the Law Director is whether there is a right of a citizen group to file an appeal of this administrative action. Could he also review whether Council would have the right to an appeal regarding the action? Mr. Smith responded that both of these are being considered. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the resident testified tonight that legal staff advised P&Z that new information or changed circumstance was needed to justify reconsideration. Mr. Smith responded that the question was if P&Z voted to reconsider the matter at a later hearing, what is the standard? The standard relating to new information was the topic of the discussion. This is taken from the P&Z Rules. Mr. Lecklider asked if the Law Director will investigate Council's discretion to hear this appeal. Mr. Smith responded that this is the basic question relating to the way the appeal was fashioned. It was not filed as a 2506, but reads as such, citing the right of people to appeal administrative actions to the Common Pleas Court in the state in which they live. Mr. Lecklider asked if it is determined that Council has this discretion, would it require a supermajority vote of Council to overturn P&Z's decision? Mr. Smith responded that it would not require a super majority, as it is not a rezoning, but a plan review. Ms. Salay asked if Legal staff could provide information in the memo about other remedies the residents would have in this case in terms of citizen action, aside from appeal. Mr. Smith responded that he will do so, if that is Council's direction. Mr. Kranstuber stated that, if the issue is whether there are new circumstances or changed conditions to justify a hearing, and if the developer was allowed to testify but the residents were not, this may constitute a procedural due process issue. He asked that the review include this. Mayor McCash echoed Mr. Kranstuber's comments, noting that he would share these concerns. Mr. Smith noted that no one's right of appeal, either to the court or to Council will be endangered by the time needed for his review, as the record has not been signed at this point. He will try to have the opinion provided at the next Council meeting, but the scope of his review has expanded somewhat based on tonight's discussion. Mr. Reiner agreed with Ms. Salay that he would like to see alternative remedies that the residents may have in this matter. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that he has tried to get to the bottom of the Kindra case during the past 15 months. He has tried to engage Council in this discussion, but Council's silence to date has precluded any debate. He reviewed the minutes of the last exchange with Council and, specifically, that with Mayor McCash. Mayor McCash said that he read Mr. Kindra's report and that it was "ancient history." The implication of that remark is that if a wrong in the past can be categorized as ancient history, it has reached a statute of moral limitations. He is prepared to accept this, provided Council can specify where in past history is a marker that indicates, "At and previous to this marker, ancient history occurs." Anything in that area is not worthwhile to discuss because it is irrelevant. On this basis, any wrong or issue in the past cannot be further considered. He is not certain of his next course of action. He is not taking this issue to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 October 6, 2003 Page 7 ~--- II 20 Held I Barbara Altenberq, 340 Stonewall Court addressed Council, noting it is her third visit to inform Council of the status of the greenspace behind her house. When she purchased her Waterford home in 1995, there was a nearby home with tall bushes, constituting a pedestrian safety issue. She contacted the City and followed up to ensure the bushes were trimmed. This process took over 60 days, and it is now safe to walk down ii Waterford. Ms. Chope met with her last Thursday and discovered hazardous trees. She witnessed Ms. Altenberg's clean-up of recycled yard waste piled 18 inches above the tree root collar. The honeysuckle is all around, as she has complied with the City's order not to remove it. Dublin's reaction to her removal of honeysuckle that provided coverage for alcohol and drug use in the greenspace behind her home has been disastrous. Volunteers were interested in helping to make greenspace safe for children to play in, to deter the continuous dumping of trash, and alcohol and drug use by children. Dublin continues to humiliate her, by filing a restraining against her on September 25. Many are outraged by the continued lack of interest by the City in amicably resolving a statewide invasive plant issue. The Waterford Homeowners Association sent a letter to all homeowners on 9/18/03 instructing them to report destruction or dumping of greenery to Greg Jones or to the Dublin Police. As a person concerned about how the City uses its limited resources, she requested that they refrain from sending certified letters. The City has paid $80 to serve a restraining order on her personally. The City Manager has agreed to provide a complete accounting of the expenses incurred to date to prevent Waterford residents from enjoying the greenspace. She is confident that the majority of Dublin residents would be furious about their tax dollars being allocated to harass her. Most citizens support community education on environmental issues and respect volunteers. In addition, there was no listing for a "Waterford Park." She requests that the greenspace be called, "Harmony Park" so that all families bordering the park would be respectful. Only Stonewall Court is actually in Waterford; Carrowmoor and Old Springs are not part of Waterford. The "Waterford Park" was referenced in the summons filed in Environmental Court. She received a note from a friend regarding the recent coverage in the local newspaper who was surprised at the negative reporting regarding the individuals volunteering in the parks. She will be in Environmental Court on October 9 explaining the difference between trash and plants. She would appreciate Dublin withdrawing this complaint that has been destructive to her neighborhood. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES ZONING CODE Ordinance 53-03 (Amended) Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Establish the Historic Business (HB) District and the Historic Residential (HR) District. (Case No. 01-113ADM - Historic District Code Amendment) Mr. Combs noted that Council previously introduced a series of ordinances related to Historic Dublin. This is the second in the series which addresses the zoning code and consolidates zoning classifications to include the Historic Residential and Historic Business districts. There is a broad range of existing zoning classifications that create many inconsistencies and difficulties for property owners in the district in regard to standards that apply to each property. What is being proposed tonight is to revert all of the residential classifications into one -"Historic Residential" and all of the commercial properties into "Historic Business." The purpose for implementing Historic Residential is to simplify the current zoning system and enhance administration for all the properties within the district. Under the R-2 and R-4 standards currently, there are a wide range of different uses. What is being proposed with the Historic Residential is to primarily focus on single-family dwellings as well as the typical home occupations, accessory uses, schools and parks that are found within generally all of the residential classifications in the city. In particular, the changes are to remove religious uses and day cares from the residential districts due to their potential impact, and view them as more of a commercial use. Also, to eliminate wireless telecommunication due to its incompatibility with the Historic District. In addition, to simplify the residential classifications to the single-family use that is more consistent with the existing residential character of the district. In terms of standards for residential, aerial photography and the GIS system were used to identify patterns currently existing. Minimum front setbacks range from 0 to 25 feet, depending upon the particular character of the street. Minimum side yards are being RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. lNG, FORM NO, 10148 Page 8 II II Held 20 il !I revise o e er correspon 0 e curren non-con orml les WI In e IS r1C an o e er blend with the Building Code. As far as the total side yards, in contrast that is to provide for some amount of separation between adjacent properties. Many of the existing historic structures are located at or near the property line, so there is a desire to provide flexibility yet provide a minimum amount of separation. For the rear yard setbacks, the goal is to provide enough to allow for rear parking off of an alley. The other standards for residential include providing a .2 acre minimum lot size. The ARB will be given the ability to have some flexibility depending upon the design merits of the application. The Historic Business District is to provide more simplified standards, to be more consistent, and to facilitate mixed uses throughout the commercial portions. There is a desire for consistency and an enhanced capability of administration. Due to adjacent impacts, churches and day cares have been added to the business district; wireless communication has been eliminated; and residential uses of up to four dwelling units have been added to provide for an added mix. Feedback from residents indicated a desire to encourage a greater mix and allow residents to live within the business district, allowing greater access to retail and commercial sites. For standards for the business district, they are looking at a maximum of Y:z acre in order to limit development to a scale appropriate for the district. They are also providing for a zero front setback to limit existing non-conformities and to provide for added design flexibility. They also want to provide more flexible side yard standards. With regard to rear yard standards and lot coverage, they are providing for added flexibility to allow for pull-in parking off of alleys which is common through out the district and to provide added design flexibility depending upon the particular application in terms of lot coverage. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification about the minimum 5-foot rear yard setback for businesses. What is trying to be achieved with this? Wouldn't more back parking along the buildings be desirable? Mr. Combs responded that in general, if a commercial business wants to provide parking to the rear, for a parking lot within the site, the goal is to provide a minimum separation for landscaping. If it is a type of system that incorporates pull-in parking off the alleys, that setback would be zero to allow for that. Mr. Lecklider asked if the discretion regarding the 35-foot height limitation rests with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Combs responded that this discretion was previously left to the Planning Commission. In looking at the overall goal of the ordinance to simplify the process, the ARB is already considering the massing, size and scaling of buildings, so for ease of administration, it seemed logical for them to review this at the same time. All of staff would also have review of this prior to the ARB. Ms. Salay thanked Mr. Combs for his work. She has heard no discord from the businesses or residents, and she is hoping it will enhance the development process in Historic Dublin. Mayor McCash stated that he had submitted a draft ordinance for the Historic Development District three to four years ago, and he is pleased it is finally back to Council. He noted that the lot coverage limitation for residential is 50 percent of the lot for primary accessory and impervious surfaces, and for business it is 80 percent. In determining these percentages as well as the other components, was an analysis done of the existing lot sizes in the historic areas? Mr. Combs responded that these were reviewed. When looking at the overall lot coverage figures, they were based on the existing Codes - commercial is 80 percent and residential is 45 percent. Given the general development patterns of the district, there was a desire for consistency but, depending on the application and site characteristics, the ARB could review the proposed changes to see if they merited surpassing the maximums. Mayor McCash pointed out that he believes the Code is actually 70 percent for lot coverage in commercial areas. Mr. Combs stated that staff will check this. Mayor McCash asked if conditional uses would continue to be reviewed by Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Combs responded that the current process requires review by Planning Commission. Design issues are reviewed by ARB. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO, 10148 Page 9 1 20 ,I Held ii i Some of the other ordinances under review will Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Ordinance 105-03 Declaring Improvements to a Certain Parcel of Real Property To Be a Public II Purpose, Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements To Be Made To Benefit !i That Parcel, Requiring the Owner Thereof To Make Service Payments In Lieu of Taxes, Establishing a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of a Tax Increment Financing Agreement. (Irelan Place) Ms. Brautigam stated that there are no updates at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ordinance 106-03 .t Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the i Expansion by Cardinal Health, Inc. of its Operations within the City and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Brautigam stated that there are no changes. Representatives from Cardinal Health are present to respond to questions. Mr. Stevens can respond to questions for staff. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that on page 2, Section C, where it states, "for the purposes of this Section 2, employees shall include all individuals employed by Cardinal and working at ~Iocation within the City." Earlier, there had been discussion in the document about multiple locations within the City. Is that inclusive, or is it the primary corporate office? Mr. Stevens responded that this is inclusive language. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that one paragraph caught his intention which involved Cardinal Health asking whether they could, instead of guaranteeing a certain of new employees as a result of construction at a certain amount, guarantee a lesser number of employees through a rented facility in Dublin. There is a drop-off in terms of commitment, and has staff inquired as to the reason? Is it due to the current economic depression? Is the City comfortable with this provision? Mr. Stevens stated that in 1999, Council approved an economic development agreement for Cardinal that contained certain incentive payments. There is one remaining incentive payment that is contingent upon Cardinal building at least a 120,000 square foot office building adjacent to their headquarters. Cardinal requested that the City accelerate that payment due to the current economics of the office market - is it cost efficient for them to lease space at this point. So they have leased over 60,000 square feet, and this agreement accelerates that payment by 50 percent. They will receive the remainder of the payment when they build the building committed to in the 1999 agreement. So it is not any less of a commitment, as they have continued to grow and add employees. Mr. Maurer summarized that his question really was whether there was any "bad faith" involved in this situation. Mr. Stevens responded that there was none whatsoever. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT Ordinance 112-03 Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Ohio for a Change of Township Boundary Lines for the Area Included within the Corporate Limits of the City of Dublin from Perry Township, and Declaring an Emergency. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO, 10148 Page 10 Held 20 r. ec I er In ro uce e or Inance. Ms. Brautigam explained that this action petitions the County Commissioners for a change in township boundaries. This is done in follow-up to annexations in conformance with Council's policy. 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; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. APPROPRIA TlONS Ordinance 113-03 Amending the Annual Appropriations Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2003. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that there are three sections in the ordinance. The first allows the purchase of light emitting diode traffic lights which are much more energy efficient than the current ones, and can be purchased at state bid price. The second relates to the remodeling of the Council Chambers that is to be completed by January 1. The third relates to some unexpected repairs needed in the pool area at the DCRC. Ms. Grigsby can respond to further questions. Mr. Reiner asked about the disposition of the lights that are being replaced. Mr. Hammersmith stated that they have little value at the City auction, and it has been suggested that portions of the units be donated to a neighboring community for repair and upkeep of their system. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS AUCTION Resolution 38-03 Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager to Dispose of Said Property in Accordance with the Ohio Revised Code, Section 721.15. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this resolution allows the sale of excess City property. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. TASK FORCE ESTABLISHMENT Resolution 39-03 Establishing the Tara Hill Traffic Calming Task Force and Setting the Goals for the Task Force in Connection with the On-Going Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic Calming Study. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that on September 15, following the presentation of Stage 1 of the Tara Hill Traffic Calming study, Council gave direction to staff to move forward with establishing a task force for the neighborhood. This effort will engage the community leadership to work through the Stage 2 portion of the study regarding appropriate devices for traffic calming on Tara Hill Drive. Secondarily, the scope of the study was expanded to consider the impacts and mitigation measures on the adjoining streets that would be affected by the traffic calming measures on Tara Hill Drive. This resolution establishes the Task Force. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about a worst case scenario of closing down streets, which results in moving traffic to Brand, Avery-Muirfield, Dublin Road or Coffman Road. It may affect more residents than those specified in the composition of the Task RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---"'-~- --- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO, 10148 October 6, 2003 Page 11 Ii I I I Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of traffic calming, diversion is an option. But it is a complicated option due to the adjoining streets and interconnectivity of the neighborhood. Should that become something the Task Force wanted to pursue, those areas would have to be brought into the discussion. Mr. Lecklider stated that he previously expressed an interest in serving on this Task Force. He clarified that tonight's resolution merely identifies the composition of the Task II Force - it does not name members. i Mayor McCash noted this is correct. Mr. Hammersmith noted that staff is seeking Council's assistance in identifying the leadership within the identified civic associations. Ms. Salay noted that she has expressed interest in serving as well. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. EASEMENT Resolution 40-03 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with American Electric Power (AEP) for the Development of the Post Preserve Residential Community. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this involves an easement or conveyance of real property, and requires authorization by resolution of Council to allow AEP to construct its line as req uested. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER . Right-of-Way Encroachment - Muirfield Greene Entrance Sign (Case No. 03-078RFD) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a subdivision signage issue. It requires action be taken by Council to approve placement of such signage in the City right-of-way. The sign is located in the middle of a boulevard area, just off of Muirfield, and is a stone monument sign approximately 3 by 6 feet. Mr. Reiner asked if there are any liability issues for the City with placement in the median strip. Mr. Gunderman stated that the City Engineer has recommended approval. There is nothing remarkable about this sign versus others installed in similar locations. There is a hold harmless agreement being executed with this signage. Mayor McCash invited public testimony. Sam Sberna, 7827 Nassau Loop testified that the final approval of the signage has taken a year. His neighbor, Ed Frantz is representing the Muirfield Greene Homeowners Association in this matter and will provide details to Council of their request. Ed Frantz, 5731 Lvnx Lane stated that their request in follow-up to the extended approval process included submitting an application for a revised development plan, at a cost of $850 to the Homeowners Association - an amount equal to half of the budget for the project. He asked that in conjunction with this encroachment approval, that Council consider waiving the fee for the revised development plan application of $850 or in the alternative, waiving the sign application fee of $270 to help mitigate the costs incurred by the residents as a result of this process. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor McCash asked if the Association has submitted a letter requested a fee waiver. Mr. Frantz stated that they did not. Mrs. Boring noted that the text indicates that the original design included an entryway feature on the right-of-way. Why did they have to undergo a development review process? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO, 10148 Held 20 Mrs. Boring stated that if the original drawings indicated an entryway sign at the right of way, although it was never constructed, why is it now considered a revised plan? Mr. Gunderman responded that the original drawings referred to were the preliminary drawings. The final plat for the project did not include the signage, so the plan had to be amended as a minor change to their final development plan. Mr. Sberna added that the original plans submitted showed a sign on the right-of-way. For some reason, that developer never installed the signage. Because of the time that has lapsed since submittal of original drawings, the Association was asked to resubmit the sign application and undergo the process again. The residents are the ones asking for a waiver of the fees, not a developer. This is a small group of homeowners who desire an aesthetically approved sign in front of their development. The homeowners are funding the sign project as well. Mr. Lecklider noted that he has some concern about the precedent that might be established with refunding of fees already paid, but suggested that Council consider waiving the sign application fee. He moved to waive the sign application fee. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is related to the $850 fee for the revised final development plan review. She asked that Council consider waiving this fee prior to the signage fee. Mr. Frantz noted that the Association had asked about the possibility of having this fee waived upfront, but were told that only Council could waive the fee. They proceeded to pay the fee, hoping they could later bring this matter to Council for consideration. Mr. Lecklider again noted his concern with a precedent established by waiving fees after the fact. He appreciates their efforts to improve the entryway and the neighborhood, however, and can rationalize his motion on this basis. Discussion continued. Mr. Lecklider withdrew his motion, and Mr. Kranstuber withdrew his second. Mrs. Boring moved to waive the $850 fee paid by the Association for the revised minor final development plan review. She cited as bases the confusion about which fees were paid in the past, and the fact that this can neither be confirmed nor unconfirmed. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Brief discussion followed. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Lecklider stated that the Association can obtain a refund of the $850 fee paid, but they will be required to pay the sign application fee. Mr. Kranstuber moved to approve the encroachment in the right-of-way. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. . Pedestrian Tunnel Report Mr. Hammersmith noted that in follow-up to the CIP workshop, staff was requested to prepare a comprehensive report regarding future pedestrian tunnel needs throughout the City. A draft report is being presented to Council tonight and Council feedback will be incorporated into the final report for community distribution. Several City divisions have collaborated on this report, and have identified 30 potential locations for pedestrian tunnels. For immediate needs, present through ten years, staff identified nine locations as appropriate for tunnels. Staff devised a rating system for the locations, including factors RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO, 10148 Page 13 Held 20 su as ra IC vo umes, unc lona c ass I Ica Ion an connec IVI y 0 pu IC aCllles, I.e., schools, parks, pools, other neighborhoods and assigned scores to each factor. Construction costs are indicated in the prioritization table, but no score was assigned to the construction costs. That is left to Council's discretion. The prioritization was done with letters, A, B, C, and ultimately a prioritization of 1 through 9 can be established for the tunnels. Staff also provided a narrative description of each location, but will provide digital photography in the final report and incorporate Council's comments tonight. The lead person on the project has been Kristin Yorko, Civil Engineer who works on the development related engineering matters. MS.Yorko reviewed the different locations that staff believes are immediate needs, and that are not associated with a larger construction project or revamping of an intersection. The locations are: Muirfield Drive at Sells Drive; Brand Road at Bristol Parkway; Dublin Road at River Forest; Post Road at Post Preserve Boulevard; Summitview Road at the southeast corner of the Conine property; Avery Road at Avery Park south entrance; S.R. 161 and just east of Monterey Drive; Hyland Croy at future Tullymore Drive; and Avery Road at Memorial Drive. She then showed slides of each area, and briefly described the various factors considered in the need for a tunnel, as outlined in the draft report. Mr. Hammersmith noted that of the nine immediate needs, staff is not recommending the Post Road at Post Preserve Boulevard location. Staff felt that there is existing bikepath connectivity further along Post Road to the east. In a similar fashion, for the Avery Road/Memorial Drive tunnel, staff does not recommend this as an immediate need due to the low volume of users at present. In terms of point totals, there were many ties. The top priority in terms of points assigned was the Monterey Drive/161 tunnel. The current CIP includes $125,000 funding for study of a pedestrian at grade crosswalk at that location. Mr. Kranstuber noted that some of the tunnels proposed are new ones, and some were previously dismissed for various reasons. Was information researched on the history of the Sells Mill and Monterey tunnels? There were reasons identified in previous discussion that precluded construction in these locations. He recalls that an overhead bridge was an alternative considered. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Mr. Richardson recalls those conversations. They involved locations closer to Schoolcraft Drive and identified conflicts related to the existing cemetery. Mr. Kranstuber asked about the safety issues related to the length of a tunnel under 161. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the MORPC guidelines attached identify the need for visibility from one end to the other for security reasons. The length is exceptional and would be costly. Mr. Reiner asked if there is any interest in considering a pedestrian bridge over that area. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff looked at this, but because of construction costs and accessibility issues related to ADA and security issues, this was not considered. MORPC has found that above-grade structures are generally more expensive than the tunnels. Ms. Salay commented that she was pleased to see the 161/Monterey tunnel as a top priority. The Waterford Village area was redistricted to Indian Run and desires safe walking access to Indian Run elementary as well as Sells Middle School. There was some interest expressed at the time of the Historic Dublin Task Force to provide access for Waterford residents north to the library and to the historic district. The Waterford residents had presented a petition to Council in 1998 requesting consideration of a tunnel at this location. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff did not obtain these documents from the City files. Mayor McCash recalled that the former City Engineer had reported that crossing SR 161 was not feasible due to the many utility lines. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---- -------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 03 Held 20 Mrs. Boring asked how the costs were computed. The figures are less than what she had anticipated, based on other locations where tunnels have been constructed in the City. Ms. Yorko verified that the costs include construction, design and right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Brand Road and River Forest crossings are consistent with the figures reported to Council previously. Mrs. Boring stated that at this time, the CIP includes a pedestrian tunnel for 2004 and another in 2005. Staff is therefore seeking Council's feedback before further action is taken. Mr. Hammersmith summarized that staff is seeking Council's opinion about what they consider as immediate needs, and feedback about the rating system. Mr. Kranstuber stated that, procedurally, Council has received requests from residents for the Brand Road and River Forest tunnels. He is not certain if Council endorsed any program to construct all of the tunnels outlined in the report. Ms. Brautigam responded that Council did not approve this program. This report is a tool to be used in further evaluation of tunnel needs throughout the City in conjunction with a prioritization of allocating funds. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Council was seeking a guide document and policy statement for prioritization. Mayor McCash stated that from a planning standpoint, perhaps the developers can be asked in the future to contribute funding toward tunnels needed to serve those neighborhoods. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this could take place in future developments - not areas that have already obtained approval. Mr. Lecklider noted that for NO.6 and 8, they have an identical score, yet have different assigned priorities of Band C. Ms. Yorko stated that NO.8 should actually have been assigned a "D" priority, because it is a future need. Mr. Lecklider asked regarding No.6, where is four-way stop as referenced in the comments? Mr. Hammersmith stated that, initially, staff looked at a location closer to Hawk's Nest and the Avery/Brand intersection where there is an existing four-way stop. Part of the staff concern and that shared by the residents is that of excessive parking in their neighborhood when events take place at Avery Park. They did not want to encourage this by having a tunnel close to their neighborhood. So staff then looked at a location further south at Wynford. The comment portion will be revised accordingly. Mr. Reiner asked about the budgeted monies for tunnels in the CIP program. Ms. Grigsby stated that the 2004 CIP includes design for one tunnel and construction in 2005; design of a second tunnel in 2005, with construction in 2006. Mr. Reiner commented that the report is nicely done and represents a fair way to assess the community-wide needs. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that staff is not recommending the River Forest/Dublin Road tunnel as one of the two tunnels to be done in 2004 through 2006. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of points, No. 2 and 7 had the highest totals with the Summitview Road tunnel in third place after removing those not recommended. After that, River Forest and Muirfield/Sells Mill are tied. Mrs. Boring suggested that Council proceed with citizen comments. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO. 10148 Page 15 -_.~---- Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that an e-mail was sent to Council from a resident of River Forest who could not attend tonight. She had raised the question that if a tunnel is not to be provided to them, what other options are available for safe connection to the bikepath system? Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff recommends a below grade crossing at this location in view of the speeds and volume of traffic. Secondarily, for a bikepath I connection to the north and south, it is quite a distance to a crossing. Perhaps this is I! another factor to be considered - other alternatives for connection. I' Mr. Kranstuber stated that in regard to No.1, Muirfield Drive at Sells Mill - the factor not taken into account in comparing it to the 161/Monterey area is the speed of traffic on II Muirfield Drive. In talking with a school crossing guard, they indicated that Muirfield Drive, I with the median and the high speeds seems to be much more dangerous for an at grade crossing. He asked about the volume of tickets in Mayor's Court related to this location. The speed issue does not seem to be factored in these ratings. Mayor McCash responded that his experience is that very few people adhere to the school zone speed limits along SR 161. He has not seen many tickets issued in the Scottish Corners area. Ms. Salay added that there is an historic wall along 161, so there is not an opportunity to add a sidewalk for safety of the pedestrians. Mayor McCash asked if there are other potential options being considered, such as right- of-way donation, land donation, or other approaches that will facilitate construction of the pedestrian tunnels. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in the intersection study, the Muirfield/Sells Mill intersection was determined to be a priority in terms of providing safe pedestrian crossing. He is not certain if the warrants are met for this traffic signal, however. Ms. Salay asked how many homes are located in River Forest. I! An audience member responded that there are 117 homes in River Forest. Ms. Salay asked if these homes are essentially completely disconnected from any other neighborhood. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the neighborhood is generally self-contained. Mrs. Boring noted that she appreciates the report provided by staff. She believes that when a prioritization is proposed, more residents will come forward to request pedestrian tunnels. She is concerned about River Forest because they indicated they have been seeking connectivity for 20 years. Is this tunnel the least expensive way to provide such a connection? Mr. Hammersmith responded that in many respects, it is the most feasible. The location does not lend itself to an at grade crossing. Mrs. Boring summarized that this location may in fact rank higher because there is no other connection available to them. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed that this is another factor that should be included in the scoring. Mayor McCash invited public comment. Tyrie Martinsson. 275 Beckley Lane stated that she supports the proposed tunnel from Monterey Drive across 161. Sells Middle School, Indian Run Elementary, and the Dublin Library are all located on the north side of 161 and they desire access. She does not believe that there is a crossing guard provided at this location along 161, and such a tunnel would benefit all of the small children in the area. It would provide more connectivity for the neighborhood. She finds it strange that there were no autos in the photos, as 161 is a high volume, high-speed road. She is hopeful that the traffic enforcement unit focuses on this area, especially during the restricted school hours. People do not adhere to the speed limits. Christine Gawronski, 7691 Worsley Place noted that she lives in the Brandon subdivision and is a new Trustee. She asked for clarification: is the proposed tunnel at Bristol Parkway or at Brandonway? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin~___ _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO, 10148 Page 16 II October 6, 2003 I Held 20 Ms. Gawronski noted that the Brandonway crossing would provide access to several neighborhoods - Bristol Commons, Brandon, Wellington and Woods of Dublin. They are hoping that Council would consider moving this to Brandonway crossing over to Earlington, providing direct access to the municipal pool. Ms. Yorko responded that the location at Bristol Parkway was considered a preferred location for an immediate connection; the Brandonway connection was of lower priority. Mrs. Boring added that the other neighborhoods all connect by bikepath to the Bristol Commons area. Mr. Lecklider commented that one of his frustrations is with the lack of communication between Dublin Schools and the City in regard to actions they take and their financial impact on the City. A resident of Bristol Commons told him that they previously attended Bailey Elementary. What happens if the school moves students again? Mr. Hammersmith stated that this factor was considered in the evaluation. Staff sought input from the schools, but their response was that they will bus more children if there is not adequate pedestrian safety. In reviewing this location in particular, there are needs related to the pool and park, even without the school access. Ms. Salay asked if any discussion took place about the possibility of the school district deciding in the future not to bus these neighborhoods because they would have safe pedestrian access? Some parents are not in favor of losing a busing option and this should be considered. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the only input they have from the schools is that students are bussed who live outside of a Y:z mile radius of elementary schools. Brad Getz, 5385 Indian Hill Road spoke in favor of the River Forest tunnel request. They are concerned about the draft report being presented tonight. He provided the history of their neighborhood's efforts to obtain connectivity to the bikepath systems, which began over 20 years ago. He pointed out the growth of Dublin in that time, the volume of traffic on Dublin Road where their two points of ingress/egress are located, and the high speeds of traffic on Dublin Road. This year, they came to Council again due to some near accidents related to crossings to the bikepath system. They felt encouraged and that they were making progress until the August CIP hearings, when issues of cost and fairness arose. The Engineer was asked to devise a plan, taking out the political considerations. As a result of the scoring system, River Forest was prioritized as a "B" - meaning that they will not have a tunnel for at least 5 to 1 0 years. They believe that the study is seriously flawed and does not adequately address the safety issues that brought them to Council. The report focuses on traffic volumes, but not speeds; the posted speed on Dublin Road is 45 mph and does not allow for safe crossing. It does not account for conditions specific to intersections, such as lack of visibility from the north. It also does not account for the lack of alternatives for connection/crossing. The proximity of City amenities is highly weighted in the study, yet the residents of their neighborhood have no way to access the elaborate infrastructure built by the City. There is a proposed park being developed in Amberleigh, Donegal Cliffs is nearly completely developed, and many of their children's friends live in these neighborhoods. State Route 745 is similar to the Berlin Wall - and often results in parents escorting or driving their children back and forth to their friends' homes. This safety issue for River Forest should be the first priority for the City. They are aware of Council's consideration of cost and fairness, but they don't think it is a matter of availability of funds, but rather proper allocation of funds. They do not want to compete with other neighborhoods that have similar needs, as that is not fair. They also do not believe it is fair that the City is considering multi-million dollar projects in other recreational areas and not addressing the safety needs of the citizenry first. In terms of fairness, their neighborhood is the one who first brought this issue to Council, the one who has championed this issue all along, and as a matter of fairness, it is unacceptable to ask them to wait another five to ten years for this important safety issue. Mr. Kranstuber asked about the next step. Mayor McCash stated that staff has done a prioritization and is requesting Council's input on other factors to be considered in the scoring, i.e., alternatives available or those that could be incorporated until a tunnel is constructed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO, 10148 -lr---- I October 6, 2003 page 1/ 'i ! I Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff can incorporate these factors as well as the safety !, concerns. A final draft will then be prepared for submission to Council on October 20 for Ii !I " I their final approval. Ultimately, a policy statement will be developed and adopted for I I I ! I funding of future tunnels throughout the community. , I , I , , I Mr. Kranstuber stated that he drove in the River Forest area this week and agrees that ,i i they have no other options and are basically landlocked. All of the other areas seem to I I I have their own bikepath system, even though there may be difficult access to some other I i i City amenities. For him, this is an important criteria. He believes that the River Forest I I I and Bristol Parkway tunnels are the top two priorities. The Muirfield/Sells Mill and SR I I 161/Monterey have valid points, but would be secondary to the top priorities. I I Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that for River Forest, there is no bikepath from Memorial Drive to Brandonway along the west side of Dublin Road. She asked staff to consider that other neighborhoods in this area, such as the Woods of Dublin also desire access to a bikepath so that they can avoid having to cross SR 745. The properties on the west side of 745 do have large setbacks and the next phase of bikepath extensions should contemplate extending the bikepath in this area. Mayor McCash added that the larger issue is the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles, the traffic volumes and speeds. In the prioritization, it is important to have all of these considerations. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that while a comprehensive approach can be taken, it is not feasible to do all of these tunnels immediately - some neighborhoods will necessarily be done ahead of others. Council can allocate a certain amount of funding over a period of 10 to 15 years - it is not possible to fix all of the present problems immediately. As a side item, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in school zones, very few obey the speed limits. It is difficult to view the school zone flashing lights when traveling west on SR 161, due to their small size and the growth of trees. Is it possible to have larger light fixtures? Mr. Hammersmith responded that this discussion has taken place at times, and the issue is the expense of relocating the flasher to a different location versus the lower cost of ongoing tree pruning. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that she is hopeful that the speed enforcement unit's top priority will be enforcement of speed limits in the school zones and not along 1-270. With a police presence over time, motorists will slow their speeds. Ms. Salay noted in regard to the tunnel report that she would be interested in an estimation of the number of people served or impacted by a tunnel. Assuming that there are four at the top of the priority list, the third tunnel would be constructed in 2007 and the fourth in 2008. She does not envision that any of the top priorities would have to wait ten years for implementation. Mr. Hammersmith stated that they will try to evaluate this as best they can, perhaps using elementary school boundaries as another consideration. Mrs. Boring asked if a decision will be made on October 20. Some of the residents have been frustrated with the need to attend many meetings and not knowing when a decision will be made. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that staff is returning on October 20 with their final report. She would expect that a decision can be made at that time. Steve Hank. Bristol Commons noted that 15 residents of their neighborhood are present. He is proud to live in a community that has the ability to fund these types of projects. Every single reason discussed tonight pertains to the tunnel requested at Bristol Commons. He agrees that the intersection at River Forest and Dublin Road is dangerous and that the speeds along the school areas of 161 are excessive. He reiterated that all of the factors discussed tonight are relevant to Bristol Commons. Mr. Reiner echoed Mr. Kranstuber's comments regarding the River Forest/Dublin Road tunnel. Mayor McCash summarized that a final report will be provided to Council on October 20. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Page 1 tl October 6, LUU~ Held 20 ~ I AI"" r II~ Council Discussion . Fee Waiver Requests for DCRC - Dublin Scioto High School and Davis Middle School Ms. Brautigam stated that staff has maintained a policy of not making a recommendation with regard to waivers for the Recreation Center. However, she believes that these two requests for waivers are within the policy normally followed, which is that if the school requests them for a school function, they are generally granted. Mrs. Boring asked if the Schools request waivers for football or band banquets, what then? She had understood that a lower rate was established for non-profit organizations within the fee schedule. There are now three high schools, a large number of middle and elementary schools, and perhaps they cannot all be accommodated. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that most of the waivers approved by Council have been for academic related programs, not athletics. But if the policy is to consistently waive fees for the Schools, there is no reason to come to Council for a waiver. The issue may then be who takes precedence in terms of scheduling - a paying customer or one granted a waiver? Ms. Brautigam stated that this would be on a first come, first-served basis - not on a paying customer versus one whose fees were waived. Mayor McCash stated that perhaps the prioritization should be based on paying customers. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff does try to accommodate scheduling to secure rooms for paying customers and steers other groups to alternate dates. Mayor McCash noted that the Schools may have alternate facilities available to them on site rather than using the Rec Center. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that for these waivers, both groups were fairly small and could likely be accommodated in the school facilities. Mr. Lecklider responded that perhaps these activities are scheduled during the school day and there may not be rooms available during those hours. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the issue is that a policy was set which includes reduced rates for these groups, yet the policy has not been adhered to in regard to the Schools. Perhaps the policy should be revised to indicate that the Schools will not pay fees, as this seems to be the will of the majority of Council. Mr. Lecklider asked for the percentage of fee reduction for school groups. Waiving fees may bring even more requests for such waivers. Staff did not have this information available. Mayor McCash noted that he has two daughters in high school who are part of many school activities and groups. Students are charged fees for participation in the activities, including athletic events. From his standpoint, he is not interested in waiving the fees- these are for school functions and the school system should pay the related fees. It is a reasonable fee and has already been established. Until a different policy is established, he will adhere to the current fee schedule. Ms. Salay commented that she recalls that Council recently approved a fee waiver for another high school for the Leadership Challenge program. She is concerned about parity. Valid points have been made tonight, and are in keeping with improving communication with the schools. Mayor McCash stated that he understands staff's reluctance to make recommendations, as Council's position on these waivers has varied. Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the fee waivers for use of the Rec Center facilities for the Leadership Challenge Program by Dublin Scioto High School on October 20 and Davis Middle School on November 5. He added that this is not intended to serve as any precedent for any conclusion Council ultimately reaches after recommendation of the Finance Committee. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, ING.. FORM NO, 10148 Held 20 Ms. Salay added that perhaps any revised policy can be implemented in January of 2004. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mayor McCash, no. (Motion failed) . Recommendation for Name of Dublin Community Theater Mr. Kerchner, Theater Supervisor noted that Council had previously directed a committee to meet in regard to renaming of the theater. The Committee consisted of Council Member Lecklider, Ms. Brautigam, Pat Santanello of Dublin Scioto Drama Department, Kathy Beyl - volunteer with the Dublin Arts Council, Patty Scott of the Dublin Coffman Drama Department and himself. They met on September 30 and recommend the name, "The Abbey Theater of Dublin." He added that this will help the theater to create an identity and will echo back to the National Theater of Ireland. Mr. Reiner moved approval of the recommendation. Ms. Salay 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; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Mr. Kerchner added in regard to fee waivers that two elementary schools used the theater for the first time this year and paid the full fees. Due to the costs incurred, they will not be able to return to stage future performances. In talking with the teachers about a compromise, it was suggested that the Dublin Arts Council has a lower rate for the theater rental and perhaps a lower fee could be offered to the middle and elementary schools that do not have theater facilities. He asked that Council consider this in their deliberations at the Committee level. . Recommendations for Facilitating Communication between Dublin Arts Council and City Council Ms. Brautigam noted that several weeks ago, Council asked that she and Mr. Kranstuber meet with Christy Rosenthal to discuss ways of improving communications with the DAC. The quarterly updates from the DAC occur in a forum which does not allow the opportunity for in depth discussion about arts programming, arts budgeting, etc. This kind of information would be useful for Council in view of the amount of funding the City provides to the DAC. Recommendations are that Council appoint a Council Member to serve as an ex officio, non-voting member of the DAC to be charged with bringing information to Council about various DAC activities. The second recommendation is that early each calendar year, a portion of a study session is scheduled to meet with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss their vision, strategic goals, budget, etc. Mr. Kranstuber added that Ms. Rosenthal was very excited about the opportunity for more dialogue with Council. There was also some discussion of the needldesire to better understand the public art process and perhaps have an opportunity for Council to have a separate presentation of the project, maybe in conjunction with a reception. Ms. Brautigam stated that if Council desires to have one of its members serve as an ex officio, non-voting member of the DAC Board, staff would need to have legal staff investigate the process for effecting this. There was no objection from Council to this. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will target the January organizational meeting for this appointment. A study session will also be scheduled early in 2004 regarding the Dublin Arts Council. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE . Jenmar Court Noise Assessment Mr. Reiner. Community Development Committee Chair noted that the Committee met and recommend removal of the three vacant City-owned homes on Jenmar Court by the end of the year; removal of the two remaining City-owned Jenmar Court homes in 2004, allowing sufficient notice to the current renters; and completion of a noise study that will include multiple parameters to determine the noise implications of removing the homes, and the type, size and location of the sound barrier needed to mitigate any additional noise impacts resulting from the removal of the homes and the future extension of Emerald Parkway. The recommendation also includes initiation of a noise study for a fee not to exceed $12,000. The report will be provided to Council on November 17. He moved approval of the Committee's recommendation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO, 10148 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Kranstuber commented that a Letter to the Editor was printed in a local newspaper supporting a candidate for Council. The statement in the letter is patently untrue and if nothing else, he wants to point this out for the benefit of staff and Council. The letter states ,. that, "Some current members of Council are willing to sell part of Coffman Park to developers. This very bad idea is contrary to the best interests of all of us who make Dublin our home. We don't want more development." He noted that this is untrue and ridiculous. The Coffman Park Expansion Task Force has completed their work on that portion of the park, and there is no such recommendation. There was not such a motion, nor a second, nor such a discussion - other than at a meeting very early in the process. There is certainly no Council member he is aware of that is willing to sell part of Coffman Park to developers. It is so completely ridiculous that he felt it was important to bring this up. Mr. Lecklider noted: 1. He had a similar reaction to this Letter to the Editor. 2. Does anyone know if the City has received a contribution from The Golf Club of Dublin for all of the City's expenses associated with the well problems that occurred last year? Mr. Smith responded that the answer is "no" - however, the matter is not concluded. The City spent approximately $400,000 in total and has recovered approximately $300,000. The City is waiting for another insurance decision for the remainder. If not, the City expects to recover this remaining amount from The Golf Club of Dublin. Mr. Lecklider summarized that the $300,000 recovered to this point has primarily been from insurance coverage. Mr. Smith responded that the City filed insurance claims and the claims were paid. The Golf Club of Dublin has filed insurance claims and they are waiting for a decision. If they do not pay the City, the City intends to pursue this. This and other legal matters will be discussed in tonight's executive session. Ms. Salay thanked staff for the many responses to the Roundtable items she raised at the last meeting. She appreciates the information. She also thanked Mr. Kranstuber for his comments about the Letter to the Editor, as she shares his concerns. Some clarification for the media may be in order, as they are not taking responsibility for the items that are being printed. Mayor McCash noted that in the October Governing Magazine, on page 26, there is coverage regarding citizen input via a GIS system. This may be something appropriate for Dublin to use. Mr. Kranstuber reminded Council that a Special Meeting is scheduled for tomorrow evening at 6 p.m. for an executive session for personnel matters. It will be followed by the Finance Committee review of hotel/motel tax applications at 7:30 p.m. Mayor McCash moved to adourn to executive session at 10:50 p.m. for legal and land acquisition matters. The meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. wa reconvened at 11 :55 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor - Presiding Officer ~{!(I~J- Clerk of Council