Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20,2003 Held 20 Mayor McCash called the Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council of Monday, October 20, 2003 to order at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. Mrs. Boring lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigaum, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Heal, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Stevens, Chief Epperson, Ms. Hoyle, Ms. Gibson, and Ms. Yorko. Approval of Minutes of October 6,2003 Regular Meeting The Clerk reported that the minutes are not completed at this time. Approval was postponed until the November 3 Council meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road commented: 1. In regard to the renaming of the Dublin Community Theater, the name selected was, "The Abbey Theater of Dublin." Was it necessary to consult with the Abbey Theater in Ireland regarding their concern with other entities using this name? He referenced his recommendation for the Dublin Community Theater, name - "American Abbey Gateway Theater" - which hearkens back to the original Gateway Theater. Mr. Lecklider noted that it was determined by the Committee that there was no conflict with the name of the Ireland theater. 2. He recalled that during the golf course negotiations, Mr. Edwards appeared before Council and offered a sculpture done in England of three dancing hares to the City to be used at the park entrance for the new development. The City did permit the sculpture to be installed in the public space near the golf course development. Mr. Maurer is interested in learning about the expenses associated with the sculpture placement - transportation costs and the sculpture itself. What are the arrangements for this piece? Mr. Smith responded that the City has not expended any funds for this sculpture. The City did not commission the piece, and did not pay associated transportation costs. At the end of five years, the City will decide if they would like the sculpture to remain. It is the intention of the City at the appropriate time to ask Mr. Edwards to dedicate this piece to the City. 3. Is anyone aware of a company in Dublin named Startec, Inc.? An October article in Time Magazine regarding "The Great Energy Scam" references this company and its search for alternate power sources. The article indicates that tax credits were given for this. He asked staff to research whether or not the City provided tax credits for this company in 1991. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES ZONING Ordinance 66-03(Amended) Establishing Dublin Zoning for Four Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 14.33 Acres, as Annexed from Washington and Concord Townships in 1973, Located Generally to the East Side of Muirfield Drive, within the Muirfield Village Development as: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R, Rural District. (Case No. 03-055Z - Muirfield Outlots Area Rezoning) Mr. Gunderman stated that there are five ordinances on tonight's agenda that involve area rezonings. There is a modification requested to Ordinance 66-03 that he will further detail. Mayor McCash asked the Clerk of Council to read into the record the titles of the other four ordinances. Mr. Gunderman showed slides depicting the areas affecting by the proposals. These ordinances involve housekeeping changes necessary because a Dublin zoning was not established at the time the land was annexed to the City. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, all of the ordinances were approved without conditions except for one ordinance where there is a potential for an interim change of zoning for a property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 2 Held 20 However, this rezoning has not taken place yet, so there is no need to change the basic recommendation from P&Z to approve the ordinances as submitted. He noted that Ordinance 66-03 or the Buckner property is located in the middle of the Muirfield area. It is an old farmstead and is proposed to change to the R-1 classification. In the township zoning class, it was listed as an FR1. Because the City did not have a comparable zoning, staff selected an R-1 zoning as the long-existing zoning maps had indicated such. Although staff reviewed all of these in public meetings, Mr. Buckner, the property owner did not have a full understanding of the change. Mr. Buckner and his son met with staff today and have indicated their preference for an R-Rural classification. There are many similarities between the R-Rural and R-1 classifications. Both require 40,000 square feet for a single family home. Using the rural classification on this property would limit them in terms of the number of lots they could create, should they want to use the zoning classification in place. Mr. Buckner indicated a desire to retain the ability to keep some horses on the property, and therefore prefers the R-Rural category. Staff does not see a problem with changing this. Council could by motion amend Ordinance 66-03 to change these two parcels from the proposed R-1 classification to the R-Rural classification. Mr. Reiner moved to amend Ordinance 66-03 to provide an R-Rural zoning for the two parcels under discussion. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mr. Gunderman noted that Planning Commission, by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of the other four ordinances. Mayor McCash noted that two speakers have signed in to testify on this ordinance, Mr. Buckner and his son. They were present in the audience and declined to speak, indicating their satisfaction with Council's motion to amend. Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 84-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 26 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 112 Acres, As Annexed from Washington Township in 1966 and 1973, Located Generally Along the North and South Sides of Post Road, Between Avery-Muirfield Drive and SR 161/1-270, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and U, Limited Industrial District. (Case No. 03-073Z - Post Road/Avery Road to 1-270 Rezoning) 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. Ordinance 85-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 12 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 83 Acres, as Annexed from Washington Township in 1965, 1973, 1980 and 1988, Located Generally on the South Side of Brand Road, East of Coffman Road and West of Dublin Road, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R, Rural District. (Case No. 03-072Z - Coffman Road to Dublin Road, Between Brand Road and 1-270) Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 86-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 13 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 24 Acres, as Annexed from Washington Township in 1973, Located Generally on the South Side of Brand Road, West of Coffman Road, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 03-071Z - Coffman Road/Brand Road) Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 87-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 18 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 150 Acres, as Annexed from Washington and Jerome Townships in 1973 and 1999, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 3 Held 20 Located Generally on the North Side of Post Road, South of Brand Road, Between Hyland-Croy and Muirfield Drive, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R, Rural District. (Case No. 03-070Z - Post Road to Brand Road, West of Muirfield Drive and East of Hyland-Croy Road) Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES AGREEMENT Ordinance 114-03 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Delaware Municipal Prosecutor in the Delaware County Municipal Court Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to an annual contract for services provided by the Delaware Municipal Prosecutor. The cost has been reduced from last year's contract, based on the volume. Mayor McCash noted that a second reading/public hearing will be scheduled for the November 3 Council meeting. AWARD OF BID Ordinance 115-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Westbury Park Development Project. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hahn offered to respond to questions. Ms. Salay noted that at the time this was presented to P&Z, the residents seemed concerned about the location of the future bikepath. Have meetings been held with the residents and has their comfort level improved? Mr. Hahn stated that a meeting with the residents took place prior to the P&Z hearing on the park plan. They may have concerns with the 2005 bikepath project that arose subsequent to the P&Z hearing. The residents were informed that when funding is appropriated for the bikepath project, staff will work with individual residents to address their various concerns. The design engineering for the project will not be done until the appropriations are available in a future year. Certain residents may have ongoing concerns about that future bikepath project which is separate from the park development plan reviewed by P&Z. The bikepath project is approved administratively, after Council has appropriated funding. Mr. Lecklider asked if this company has done playground work for the City previously. Mr. Hahn responded that they have done several such projects for the City and performed satisfactorily. I There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 3 Council meeting. CODEAMENDMENT-CONDITIONALUSEPROCEDURE Ordinance 117-03 Amending Section 153.236 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Entitled "Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use" (Case No. 03-32ADM). Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance and moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. ZONING Ordinance 118-03 Rezoning Approximately 24.3 Acres, on the Northwest Corner of Perimeter Drive and Avery-Muirfield Drive, from: PCD, Planned Commerce District, to: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Case No. 03-19Z - Riverside Hospital, PCD Composite Plan Revision, Subarea A). Mr. Reiner introduced the ordinance. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider asked that staff ensure that all parties are notified who were noticed when this was previously considered. Such notice went beyond the requirements specified in the Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mayor McCash asked the Clerk to read the titles of Ordinances 119-03 through 122-03. Ordinance 119-03 Rezoning Approximately 28 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 43 Acres as Annexed from Washington Township between 1881 and 2001, South of Brand Road, North of West Bridge Street, To: R, Rural District or R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, or R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District. (Case #03-120Z Indian Run, et al. Area Rezoning) Ordinance 120-03 Rezoning Approximately 42 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 544 Acres as Annexed from Washington Township between 1970 and 2000, Southwest of the Shier-Rings/Avery Road Intersection, East of Cosgray Road, To: R, Rural District or R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 03-121Z - SW Shier-Rings/Avery Road, Residential Area Rezoning) Ordinance 121-03 Rezoning Approximately 13 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 40 Acres as Annexed from Washington Township in 1990, Generally South of Woerner- Temple Road, and West of Avery Road, To: RI, Restricted Industrial, PIP, Planned Industrial Park or NC, Neighborhood Commercial District. (Case No. 03-122Z - SW Shier-Rings - Avery Road, Commercial Area Rezoning) Ordinance 122-03 Rezoning Approximately 26 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 376 Acres as Annexed from Washington and Jerome Townships between 1966 and 1999, South of Post Road To: R, Rural District, R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, RI, Restricted Industrial District, L1, Limited Industrial District or GI, General Industrial District. (Case No. 03-123Z - SR 161/US 33, Corridor Area Rezoning) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinances, moved to waive the Council Rules of Order to treat these as a group and refer them to Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. OTHER . Hotel/Motel Tax Grant Recommendations - Finance Committee Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair, Finance Committee reported that they met on October 7 to review applications for hotel/motel tax grants. There were a large number of applications this year. The amount of funds available for grants was minimal, due to previous commitments of hotel/motel tax funds to: 1) the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau - 25 percent of hotel/motel tax revenues plus $80,000 per year for five years to subsidize their rent at the new building; 2) the Dublin Arts Council grant per the lease arrangement; and 3) City special events, including the Dublin Irish Festival, St. Patrick's Day, July Fourth Celebration, Holly Days and Spooktacular. Many of these commitments were approved by previous Councils. In addition, a multi-year commitment was made to Dublin Youth Athletics for field improvements at Darree Fields. The commitment to DYA for 2004 is $52,894.00. Given these circumstances, the Committee is recommending three additional grants: 1) Dublin Kiwanis Frog Jump - an amount not to exceed $2,000 for City services related to the event; 2) The Arthritis Foundation for the Annual Classic Auto Show - an amount not to exceed $2,000 for City services; 3) The Dublin Historical Society - $1,500 to expand the development of the digital image and text library depicting the history of Dublin. For the remainder of applications, the Committee is recommending disapproval due to the lack of funding. Copies of the letters sent to applicants have been provided to Council. Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of the Finance Committee recommendations. Mr. Lecklider 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. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a Committee meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, November 6 at 6 p.m. to review the policy for fee waivers regarding the DCRC and the Dublin Arts Council. All Council Members are welcome to attend. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 . Final Draft of Pedestrian Tunnel Report Mr. Hammersmith stated that he and Ms. Yorko are presenting the final draft of the tunnel report. Council's suggestions have been incorporated into the document, and staff can respond to any further questions. Ms. Yorko summarized that the changes made at Council's request include: 1) Revamping the front section into an executive summary. 2) Digital photography was added to the description of each tunnel. 3) Removal of the Post Road at Post Preserve Boulevard and Avery Road at Memorial Drive tunnels from the immediate needs and placing them in the future needs list. 4) Additional narrative added to the River Forest/Dublin Road tunnel. 5) The cost estimate was edited to include a disclaimer that they are very preliminary estimates and that a full, detailed investigation would be required. 6) They updated the MORPC document to include the final, not the draft, version. 7) For the exhibit map, the Post Road/Post Preserve Boulevard and Avery at Memorial Drive tunnels were relocated to the future needs. 8) At the request of the Planning Division, staff would like to add two tunnels. They request that two tunnels be included for Tuttle Crossing Boulevard as it extends further west - at the railroad and at Cosgray. 9) On the spreadsheet, they included columns to score posted speed limits, neighborhood connectivity and access options or lack therefore. They removed connectivity from the comments column and added five points to bring out this factor more. 10) They changed the priority to a number, not a letter, and removed the timeframe associated with the priority. 11) They formatted the future needs spreadsheet to match the immediate spreadsheet without the scoring. 12) There was an error in the point scoring for the River Forest tunnel. Because it connects a bikepath and a park, it should have been given 15 points, for a total of 70 points. Mr. Hammersmith summarized that staff struggled with the neighborhood connectivity issues, especially the areas served. If a tunnel will connect two neighborhoods, it was given five points. If it would not connect two neighborhoods, but did connect facilities, no points were given. In terms of access options, they tried to identify cases where other alternatives are not available. For priority, tunnel NO.6 at SR 161/Monterey was the highest in terms of point totals. Staff is recommending that they proceed in accordance with the intentions announced previously - that further analysis is done regarding the feasibility of a tunnel at that location, with the funds allocated in the 2003 budget of $125,000. The NO.2 and 3 tunnels would be elevated in priority in accordance with their ranking. Their order is actually the same as that proposed in the CIP. Staff's intention is to submit a final document that Council can adopt by resolution. This will serve as a guide in future programming in the CIP. Mr. Reiner asked if it is possible to build a pedestrian bridge over SR 161 for under $750,000. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there are ADA access and grade issues for such a structure. There are also considerations for a 14-foot clearance. This could be considered in conjunction with further investigation. The MORPC document includes this alternative. Mr. Kranstuber added that it is more difficult to access a pedestrian bridge and therefore utilization would be lower. Mrs. Boring noted that the other issue is with the potential for people dropping items off of the bridge. Mr. Kranstuber summarized that the top three tunnels have not changed in priority. Staff is suggesting that they proceed with NO.2 and 3, and that No. 1 be investigated further. He noted that the first sentence in the report causes some concern. It states, liThe following pedestrian tunnels... are near-term, less than 10 year, requests." He is not certain that the funding will be available for these, balanced against other City needs. He is concerned that some of the later tunnels may never be built due to the huge commitment of funding needed. Many cities do not construct tunnels at all. He supports I ,I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20,2003 Page 6 Held 20 the River Forest and Bristol Commons tunnels, and is somewhat skeptical about the feasibility of the SR 161 tunnel. He is not willing to commit that all of this is to happen over 10 years - it may take much longer. Mr. Hammersmith stated that perhaps staff could define what is termed "immediate needs" which are connections to existing facilities or established routes. Some of those in the future needs category are actually developing areas. Mayor McCash stated that perhaps the language can include, "subject to funding availability." Based on the economic situation, the schedule may be adjusted. Mr. Kranstuber stated that for him, this need does not rise to the level of parkland acquisition where a certain amount is set aside each year. The timing can take place as funds are available. Ms. Salay asked about the timeframe for learning of the feasibility of the SR 161/Monterey tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith estimated that this can be obtained prior to the CIP consideration in 2004. Ms. Salay noted that she would prefer that this tunnel remain as a No. 1 priority until it is determined it is not feasible, or until another alternative is available for this area. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his understanding is that Monterey/161 will remain as a NO.1 priority, but priorities NO.2 and 3 will receive immediate attention. Mr. Hammersmith noted that in the CIP, monies were allocated for a tunnel design next year, without specifying the location. Waiting to proceed on that until the evaluation of the SR 161/Monterey tunnel is done would result in adding a year to the timing for the Brand Road location. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that staff will proceed with the study regarding SR 161/Monterey with the funds previously allocated, and that the design of the Bristol Commons tunnel will proceed in 2004. Mr. Hammersmith noted that at Council's direction, the design funds would be included in the upcoming operating budget. Mr. Lecklider asked if this will include the Brand Road/Bristol Parkway tunnel only. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that her understanding is that in 2004, a study would be done regarding the feasibility of No. 1 at SR 161/Monterey and that design of Brand Road/Bristol Parkway tunnel would be done. Mr. Lecklider echoed Mr. Kranstuber's comments, requesting that the language include "subject to the availability of funds and at Council's discretion." Mayor McCash invited public testimony. II Beckv Stephens. 7621 Forest Knoll Drive spoke in favor of the tunnel location on Brand Road, just east of Bristol Parkway. She noted that this crossing is dangerous due to the visibility issues and the high speeds. It is not uncommon to view Police cruisers on Ashbaugh Road trying to deter speeding in the area. If traffic calming is instituted on Tara Hill, this will divert more traffic north to Brand Road, magnifying the dangers of the crossing. This tunnel will serve many neighborhoods north of Brand Road, including Bristol Commons, Brandon, the Woods of Dublin, Wellington, Donegal Cliffs, Amberleigh and Muirfield residents who travel down Ashbaugh Road. It will provide safe crossing for walkers, riders, joggers and rollerbladers who travel to destinations south of Brand along the bike trail, including the baseball fields, soccer practice areas, schools, pool, swim team practices, shopping centers, and countless others. It will provide safe access to children's friends who live outside of their neighborhood. As the bikepath system continues to expand throughout Dublin, this tunnel location will grow to serve more members of the community who travel across Brand Road. Bob Kieffer. 5285 River Forest noted that he is Treasurer of the River Forest Civic Association and has attended these meetings previously. He expressed his annoyance with the City Engineer's report and the characterization of the crossing of Dublin Road. He asked what this will look like in 3, 5 or 10 years. The situation will not improve on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 7 Held 20 Dublin Road with traffic counts of 11,000 on a two-lane road, a 45 mph minimum speed, a road without signals, crosswalks or other mitigation compared to traffic counts of 26,000 on a four-lane road at SR 161 with traffic lights and crosswalks in the vicinity. The Presidents of Amberleigh Homeowners Association and Donegal Cliffs Association both have expressed their support in letters to Council. Those children attend Bailey Elementary and a future park in Amberleigh will also be affected by this. The tunnel would allow people to come in to their neighborhood, benefiting a large number of people. The photos do not depict the current conditions on Dublin Road, nor the lay of the land. The cost estimates for the tunnel at SR 161 are a concern. The caveats indicate many unknown costs and the impact of the tunnel on the business district. It is also difficult to believe that (1) a tunnel under SR 161 will meet the design requirement of seeing daylight from one end to the other; and (2) cost only $200,000 more than the projected costs of the River Forest tunnel. Someone had raised the issue that installing a tunnel at River Forest would lead to a desire for the Woods of Dublin to have a tunnel, but those residents have other alternatives for connection. He is disappointed with the report that reflects more of a development approach. The report was expanded to include many future tunnel needs, confusing the issue of immediate needs. The safety and connectivity issues for their area are significant, and he requests that the tunnel be constructed sooner rather than later. Tom Fletcher, 5525 Bristol Parkway, President of Bristol Commons Association spoke in support of the tunnel report and the process. Perhaps time should have been considered as a factor in the process, as they began requests for a tunnel six years ago. As an association of residents, they don't choose to review the priorities and argue one versus another. It seems that Council recognizes tonight that they remain at the top of or near the top of the list in terms of priority. One factor not considered was the 2001 traffic volume. Staff has now directed improvements for the Brand Road intersections at Dublin Road and at Muirfield that indicate the rising traffic volumes. The land acquisition at the Brand/Bristol Parkway tunnel will be minimal, as City parkland exists up to the bikepath. The earlier engineering report proposed two pedestrian tunnels for construction, as included in the CIP budget. They were pleased that after review, their request remains a top priority. They do support a higher level of communication between the Council and the School Board regarding redistricting policies and their impacts on these issues. The many amenities they are seeking safe access to are City amenities They have worked with staff and Council in a process that has taken a year. Some residents indicate that if Council wanted to respond to a safety issue, the tunnel would have already been constructed. They are again calling from a decision from Council on this matter so that the construction of the tunnels can move ahead. Brad Getz, 5385 Indian Hill Road. River Forest Civic Association noted that this is an issue that they feel strongly about. Their community strongly supports this, as well as the Amberleigh and Donegal Cliffs Associations. They have been seeking connectivity to the bikepath system for 20 years, and the issue was brought to the forefront again seven months ago. They also understand the fiscal constraints in funding these amenities. They felt that the previous draft report did not adequately address the safety issues they initially brought to Council's attention. Mr. Hammersmith then submitted another draft, including the safety issues of the speed of the intersection and the lack of alternatives. It did not address the lack of visibility at the intersection. He is encouraged to see they are moving up on the priority list, but the point totals seem to indicate they are tied for No.2 with Brand/Bristol Parkway. However, other discussion indicates Monterey/161 as No.1, Brand Road as NO.2 and River Forest as NO.3. He hopes that further clarification is provided tonight. The final draft overemphasizes some aspects of the pedestrian versus vehicle safety issues at the intersection. The report also overemphasizes the proximity to a school, pool or library - an area within .5 miles of those amenities receives 30 points. However, an area .7 miles from a school is discounted. He emphasized again the lack of alternatives for River Forest. They came to Council to seek a way to cross a busy intersection to connect with any amenity in Dublin. The 161/Monterey area is a high traffic intersection, but within .25 miles there are four traffic signals, four crosswalks, three crossing signals, multiple warning signs, reduced speed limits during school hours and flashing lights. All of these are alternatives they would like to have had but were told were not possible in their location. If Council proceeds with the Monterey/161 tunnel for $750,000 to $1 million, it will exhaust the budget for all of the other issues, and their safety issues may never be addressed. Letters have been sent from Amberleigh and Donegal Cliffs Association Presidents in support of this. He asked that Council take into consideration that drivers on 745 cannot anticipate elderly residents and small children RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 8 Held 20 crossing the road. If Council fails to adequately address their concerns, there is a great risk of injury and death at this location. Betsy Hackett, 5558 Ashford Road stated that they have been residents of Dublin for over 20 years and are very familiar with the area. They have four young children who attend Bailey and Grizzell. Their neighborhood cannot access the biketrails. As a parent, she is confused: SR 745 has double the traffic as that on Brand Road, yet the scoring is tied on the priority list. They must drive their children to their friends' homes due to the lack of connections. After school activities occur during rush hour and the speeds of cars is very high. She, too, agrees that the safety issues are very compelling. Mrs. Boring noted that she is confused because Council was told previously that the SR 161 /Monterey tunnel was not feasible. However, Council asked for a report with ratings to have an objective assessment. The River Forest residents' points about the intersection are very valid. She asked Mr. Hammersmith to respond to their questions. Mr. Kranstuber asked that he also clarify the point issue. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the school access issue was based upon a 1.5-mile radius around the schools, and whether or not a pedestrian tunnel would accommodate walkers to the schools. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that staff indicated there is "x" amount of funds and so only the first and second priority tunnels can be addressed in 2004. Is that correct? Mr. Hammersmith responded that Council adopted a CIP where funding was allocated for two tunnel projects not yet identified. It is Council's discretion how to use those funds. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the total amount of monies allocated. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the total amount allocated was in line with the cost estimates for the tunnels at Brand Road/Bristol Parkway and Dublin Road/River Forest - Brand Road being the first priority in the proposed CIP, and Dublin Road the second. The dollar figure should be consistent with what is in the report for design, acquisition and then construction. Mrs. Boring stated that the one point brought up which makes sense is the availability of other safe crossings within a reasonable distance. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that this is a valid point in terms of access options and limitations. If Council wants to allocate more points for this factor, that can be done. Each one has their own justifications, based on facilities and neighborhoods served. Mayor McCash stated that part of the problem lies with Council's direction to continue to adjust the points, based on various testimony. This does not help the prioritization issue. Mr. Getz raised a concern about projects "falling off the list." But that is not the case- Council is instead trying to prioritize, based on agreed upon standards. If two tunnels are "tied" under this scenario, and while studies may continue about the feasibility of 161 - is staff indicating that the design for Dublin Road and Brand Road can proceed? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the programming is Council's discretion, not staff's. There is funding allocated in 2004 in the existing CIP for design of one tunnel and construction of one tunnel in 2005, and a second tunnel is programmed for design in 2005 with construction of the second tunnel in 2006. The total funding programmed is $945,000 over three years. Mr. Reiner stated that staff had indicated the NO.1 priorities as SR 161 and Bristol Parkway - correct? Ms. Salay noted that there are traffic lights along SR 161, but there are no sidewalks on the south side due to the historic stonewalls around the cemetery. Therefore, there is not II safe access to the signals. I Mayor McCash added that there is access, however, to Historic Dublin with the sidewalk installed along Waterford to connect to Historic Dublin. There is a path of connection, although it may not be a direct connection. Ms. Salay stated that there is only access to the library and Historic Dublin. River Forest residents have made valid points. However, the Bristol Commons tunnel would serve many more homes versus the River Forest tunnel. For her, this is the distinguishing factor in the prioritization. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20,2003 Page 9 Held 20 Mr. Reiner agreed, adding that the summer use of the pool area is another important factor. Mr. Kranstuber stated that, after setting aside the SR 161 tunnel for further study, he disagrees with Ms. Salay and Mr. Reiner on this characterization. When he drove through River Forest in anticipation of this discussion, it confirmed for him that there is no other option for them to access the bikepaths. In addition, he believes tunnels should be used in extraordinary situations such as the Dublin Road area with speeds and sight distance problems. For him, the first priority would be River Forest. For the SR 161 tunnel, he would not want to invest a lot of money in studies for a tunnel that may not be feasible. He is not familiar with any cities that have constructed tunnels under what is essentially a state highway. Ms. Salay noted that the City has a number of long tunnels under five lanes of roadway - Avery at Dublinshire, Avery at Woerner-Temple, Muirfield at Dublinshire. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the scope of the study for SR 161 will examine the feasibility of a tunnel as well as other alternatives. In response to Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Hammersmith stated that for design parameters, it is desirable to be able to see the other end of the tunnel. This relates to approach grades. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he believes tunnels should be used in extraordinary situations. The point system does not properly evaluate these, and River Forest without other access options, with high-speed traffic and with sight distance issues should be at the top of the priority list. Brand Road does not rise to this top priority level. Building tunnels at every dangerous intersection as staff has proposed would bankrupt the City. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff is not suggesting building all of these tunnels. Staff was asked to review the needs for tunnels community wide and suggest appropriate locations for the future, based on past practice. These are policy decisions for Council to decide. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there is $945,000 programmed in the current five-year CIP for tunnels. The total of tunnels 2a and 2b is $980,000, so this is only a $35,000 shortfall. She proposed allocating an additional $35,000 for these two tunnels in the CIP. In view of both tunnels 2a and 2b having significant justification to be built, she asked that Council consider adding up to $35,000 additional funding for this purpose. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Council has already approved funding for the feasibility study for SR 161/Monterey tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this is already included in the budget. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to approve pedestrian tunnels for Brand Road at Bristol Parkway and Dublin Road at River Forest for up to $980,000 for the design and build of those two tunnels. Mayor McCash asked if a motion would be necessary to direct staff to modify the CIP to specify these two tunnels. Ms. Brautigam responded that the CIP can be modified in next year's update. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Ms. Salay asked what will happen if the feasibility study for the No. 1 priority - SR 161/Monterey tunnel - indicates that it can be done. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this can be addressed at the CIP review next year, as the feasibility study will not be completed until that time. Ms. Salay emphasized that she does not want this priority to be lost. Mr. Lecklider echoed Mr. Kranstuber's comments that future requests for pedestrian tunnels should be considered only in the case of extraordinary circumstances. Also, a comment was made regarding increasing traffic counts on Brand Road in the event traffic calming is done on Tara Hill. While he doesn't believe this will be the case, it is a sensitive issue and he wants to ensure that this is not exacerbated. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher added that it is important that staff continuously update itself on traffic patterns which may change the next priorities on the list. Some, but not all issues RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 10 Held 20 about pedestrian traffic relate to the Schools. Traffic patterns change because of residential builds and travel patterns. Similar to the need to reassess the impact after each phase of the southwest traffic calming, it is important to update the traffic patterns. Mr. Kranstuber added that at the planning stage, the City should ensure that the subdivisions are designed to provide relief to pedestrians. In cases where a school is nearby, every effort should be made to extract commitments from the developers for any necessary tunnels. With proper design, tunnels should be a last resort. Mrs. Boring suggested that at a minimum, the developer who is contributing to the demand should contribute to necessary tunnels. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that because of the success of the bikepath system, residents now want access. Mayor McCash called the question. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Mr. McCash stated that staff will bring back a final report for Council to adopt. Ms. Brautigam stated that based upon tonight's discussion, the report will be brought back to Council in a slightly different format for adoption at a future meeting. . Concept Plan - Freshwater Mr. Gunderman noted that this is a concept plan in anticipation of an eventual PUD rezoning. The project is called, "Freshwater" and is located on the south side of Brand Road, west of Avery. The zoning surrounding it is in planned districts. The proposal calls for ten single-family homes on just over five acres, and a 100-foot setback is proposed along Brand Road. One of the recommendations from the staff and the Commission is to reduce the density by a lot or two. The proposal includes a substantial amount of open space at the southern end of the property, adjacent to the City park. P&Z reviewed this on October 2 and recommended approval with 12 conditions. Other items of discussion concerned the lot arrangements. The proposal calls for a courtyard type of lot plan for each of the homes, and a side entrance to a garage structure in front of the majority of the house. As a result, this leaves a relatively short front yard setback. Currently, there is a single-family homestead and existing barn on the property. Both of these would be removed under the proposal. Another issue discussed was that staff recommended that the public space at the southern end become part of the public property. The P&Z considered, but ultimately did not feel it necessary to have a left turn lane installed along Brand Road in conjunction with the development. The concept plan is designed to allow an opportunity for Council feedback on a proposal, but the total discussion is non-binding for the applicant and the Council. Ms. Salay asked for clarification about the left turn lane. Mr. Gunderman stated that this item was not recommended by P&Z, as they did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Reiner asked about P&Z's basis for this. Mr. Gunderman stated that the small number of homes in the proposal was a key factor. Mr. Reiner noted that the first condition indicates that the layout should be refined to include fewer lots. Mr. Gunderman agreed, noting that this will loosen up the site and improve the design on some of the lots. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the definition of "fewer lots." Mr. Gunderman stated that P&Z did not specify, but staff felt that one or two lots should be eliminated. He then showed a rendering of the concept plan. Mr. Lecklider asked about the setback from Brand Road. The setbacks of other subdivisions along Brand are at least 140 feet. What is the rationale for the setback at 1 00 feet? Mr. Reiner added that part of the charm of Brand Road is the large setbacks. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman stated that on the whole, there was a feeling that in this case, given the setback for the church to the east, the setback might work as proposed. Mrs. Boring stated that the discussion about the reduction in lots was related to the desire for a larger setback. Mr. Gunderman agreed. If two lots were eliminated, the setback could be moved back and additional space would be available for the rest of the cui de sac. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in view of the increased traffic for the third high school, it is essential to have a setback larger than 100 feet. Ms. Salay stated that she is not comfortable with the location of the first garage, so if that could be reconfigured and the setbacks increased, she would feel more comfortable. She applauds the desire for the side load garages, but the setback is too small for the first garage. Mr. Gunderman stated that even with the loss of a couple of lots, the setback change would result in the loss of the center area in the plan. Mayor McCash stated that this same type of cluster-type homes exists throughout Dublin. Ms. Salay stated that this appears as a standard cui de sac in terms of lot size and density. She can't envision a landscape treatment that would make this aesthetically pleasing. Mayor McCash responded that some of the components seen here are similar to that in the conservation design subdivisions. Ms. Salay responded that she does not see 60 percent open space to compensate for this. Mrs. Boring stated that P&Z suggested that the number of lots be reduced to conform to the desired Brand Road setback. This concept, compared to the previous one reviewed for the land, makes sense. Some of the issues raised will be addressed at the preliminary plat stage. Mr. Lecklider noted that there were also some concerns from staff & P&Z regarding the fountain. He assumes this relates to future maintenance. Was there any mention of architecture other than the rendering provided? Mr. Gunderman responded that the rendering was submitted today for this presentation. There was no discussion of architecture at P&Z. Mr. Lecklider noted that Council would be particularly sensitive, regardless of the setback, about the architecture of the first two lots off Brand Road. Mayor McCash asked if two lots are eliminated, bringing the setback further back from Brand Road - is the 25 feet from the right of way for the remaining houses still an issue for Council? Mr. Gunderman responded that maintaining the dimension of the center island as it currently exists would result in a very short setback. On average, without adjusting the cui de sac width itself, there will still be less than a typical setback distance. Mayor McCash asked if the 25 feet is not adequate, would additional setback come at the expense of the center island? Mr. Gunderman agreed that there would have to be a reduction in the island area to make that work. Mayor McCash asked if the priority of Council is for the 25-foot setback or having a center green feature? Ms. Salay responded that she is not opposed to some deviation from the standard 25- foot setback. However, on some lots, it appears that the edge of the garage is a couple of feet, at most, from the sidewalk and that is not acceptable. She would not require the full 25 feet for approval of this concept, but it would have to be adjusted. Mr. Reiner noted that he questions the waiving of the requirement for a left hand turn lane on Brand Road. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO. 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 Mrs. Boring stated that this was waived because Llewellyn Farms South received a waiver for a left turn lane on Dublin Road and on Tuttle Road for a subdivision with 65 homes. It was hard to justify requiring a left hand turn lane for a subdivision of this size. Mr. Reiner responded that Brand is a two-lane road and will have traffic back-ups absent this turn lane. It was not prudent to waive the requirement for the other subdivision. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the problem will be exacerbated with the new high ?h ~, school opening in less than a year. The issue of turns will become more pronounced, whatever the number of homes is. Ms. Salay asked about the expense of installing a left hand turn lane. Mr. Hammersmith estimated that the cost is approximately $75,000. Ms. Salay stated that P&Z dealt with this issue for a development along Martin Road, and the requirement of the turn lane would have made the property undevelopable. She is not sure if that is the case for this one. There are some left hand turn lanes done in Ballantrae that make no sense. The traffic volumes do not warrant these. On the other hand, individuals slow to make a turn, slowing traffic in general, which is a positive thing. Mr. Reiner noted that Brand Road will not be widened in the future, based on the Community Plan. In addition, the high school will bring more traffic along the road. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is undecided regarding the turn lane, as it will remove green space. Mr. Reiner noted that Brand is a major east-west arterial and it is important to keep traffic moving. Mr. Lecklider asked about other locations along Brand Road where turn lanes have been installed. He recalls there are turn lanes at Coventry Woods, at Earlington and Bristol Commons. Mrs. Boring noted that the minutes indicate that there is not a left turn lane added at Lombard Way. What kind of development exists in this location? Mr. Gunderman stated that it is a typical subdivision neighborhood. Mayor McCash asked why a left turn lane was not required. Mr. Gunderman commented that he does not know. Mayor McCash noted that the cui de sac subdivision on the north side of Brand does not have a large setback from Brand Road. Mr. Lecklider asked about the potential of traffic back up during school hours and the difficulty in making a left turn into this proposed subdivision. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Brand Road is a heavily traveled route - 7,000 vehicles per day at the eastern end. Mrs. Boring stated that the likelihood of back-ups as a result of traffic from this subdivision is minimal. Mr. Reiner stated that the problem can either be solved now with the left turn lane, or exacerbated in the future. Mrs. Boring stated that it is not consistent with the policies to require a left hand turn for this development, as one was not required for Llewellyn Farms South. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this left hand turn lane is a neutral issue in terms of the traffic generated from major subdivisions. Very little traffic will be generated from 8-10 houses. Ms. Salay agreed, adding that the four-way stop at Brand and Avery will create some natural breaks in the traffic, allowing for safe ingress and egress from this development. I Mr. Lecklider stated that he would favor having more greenspace versus a turn lane. II I Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she would support a reduction in the number of lots and a larger setback from Brand Road. Mike Close. representinq the applicants, John and Cathy Humbert noted that it is important to keep in perspective that this land could not be commercially developed. The applicants live on the land and the proposal is a family venture. Part of this is an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 13 Held 20 economic issue - there is not $75,000 available in this scenario to install a left hand turn lane for what traffic studies will show will be non-competing traffic. School releases at 2 to 3:30 p.m., and the usage of the road for turn lanes tends to be later in the day during rush hour. He noted that there is room to move the house back, as Ms. Salay has suggested, but staff actually wanted this placement. Secondly, regarding the setbacks from Brand Road - not all setbacks along Brand are 140 feet. Some nearby are at 100 feet. In addition, roadway is within the setback in some areas. They have a nice looking entranceway. The easy way to make everything fit is to reduce the size of the middle boulevard. If Council desires that, it can be done. Discussion followed about setbacks of nearby developments and buildings. Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Close has suggested that the church has less than 140 feet of setback from Brand Road and that the homes on the north are less than 200 feet. This is in conflict with the staff report. Mr. Close stated that the testimony at P&Z indicated that the setback at the church was 120 feet. Mr. Lecklider reiterated that the staff report indicates that the church building is setback 140 feet, the Meadows at Wyndham Village is setback 180 feet, and the homes on the north side are setback 200 feet. Mr. Close stated that before this comes back for rezoning, they will obtain clarification of the setbacks. Mayor McCash asked if the issue is with setback of the buildings or setback of the parking lots. If the goal is to have greenspace, there should be no parking within the setback. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would like to see at least an additional 50 feet of setback along Brand Road. Mr. Close responded that this is not possible for the project. A lot can be eliminated, perhaps, but because of the flood plain problems at the back of the site, they cannot provide a larger setback. Mr. Lecklider stated the width of the first two lots would certainly total 50 feet. Mr. Close responded that they cannot do the project if two lots are eliminated - it is not economically feasible. Nine may be possible, but eight lots are not. The reality is that Council will be reviewing a number of fill-in projects in the future where the costs of doing infrastructure are proportionally significantly higher because there are not enough lots over which to spread the costs. To have the nicer aesthetic features incorporated into the project, they need more lots. Mr. Lecklider asked who receives the benefit of the proposed fountain other than the homes in the subdivision? Mr. Close responded that all who drive by on Brand Road will enjoy this view. Mr. Reiner stated that Council's job is to maintain the aesthetics in the City. He would prefer that the fountain be removed, that two lots be removed and that the setback be increased in order to continue the cadence along Brand Road. He understands the economics, but the project needs to be redesigned so that it is viable and fits into the community. Mr. Close responded that Council has asked for creative designs and they have now submitted one. Council's response is to run a straight street back into a cui de sac and take out the features. Mr. Reiner responded that the aesthetics relate to the entire community. Every citizen should strive to make this community special. Council's job is to improve the aesthetics of the City, not to help make profits for developers. Mr. Close responded that this plan is a better approach in terms of what Council has indicated they want to see. He added that in regard to Condition #4, that adequate public access be provided to the open space along the North Fork, if this property remains private, there will not be a walkway to permit access. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 14 Held 20 Mrs. Boring noted that P&Z considered the appearance code and curvilinear road approach in this review. The scenic look down the road with a green center island and one-way street seemed to be in keeping with what Council has said they want. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is not certain that Council disagrees. One condition of P&Z is to reduce density, and Council is supportive of this. Mrs. Boring responded that one Council Member has indicated that they do not want the inside island. Mr. Reiner stated that he is looking for an appropriate setback from Brand Road. Mr. Lecklider clarified that he is looking for an increase in the setback, consistent with the setbacks in the area as described in the staff report as 140, 180 and 200 feet. He wants to see the setback from Brand increased, and if it necessitates the removal of the feature in the cui de sac, that is fine. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider. Once a setback at 100 feet is allowed, others will ask for the same consideration. A precedent is set each time something like this is allowed. Mr. Close stated that he was before P&Z with a project previously where staff wanted a 200-foot setback and the Commission disagreed. The applicant will do what is necessary to increase the setback. Personally, he believes that increasing it t0120 feet without pavement would be preferable to 140 feet with cars parked in front. They will obtain the information about other setbacks along Brand in this area. Mr. Lecklider stated that in his mind, he is already conceding a left turn lane for this development. Mr. Close clarified for the record that there is a left turn lane for cars turning north, just across the street from this proposed development. Mayor McCash commented that the 200-foot setback along scenic roads such as Brand related to a desire for more greenspace. If in some areas there is a 200-foot setback, but there is a road or paving in that space, it defeats the purpose. For him, if the green space is 100 or 120 feet and all green, that is preferable to a setback with a road within it. In terms of economics, he agrees there is less ability to spread costs when there are a small number of lots. This is a creative development, and if nine lots are necessary for the development, there is a balance issue involved. Creative development and higher end housing is desirable. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of why this development would be considered "thinking outside the box"? It includes a non-buildable flood plain, cluster housing, high density, and small setbacks on a road with large setbacks. Mayor McCash responded that Mr. Reiner has supported the concepts of new urbanism and ruralism, so this statement is confusing. This development is definitely different from what has been submitted previously. Mayor McCash summarized that a motion is needed in regard to this concept plan, and any action of Council is non-binding. He called for any amendments to the conditions of P&Z. Mr. Reiner moved to amend the conditions to delete the front two lots and to add a left hand turn lane. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Lecklider moved to amend Condition #1 to state, "That the layout be refined to include fewer lots for the purpose of increasing the setback from Brand Road." Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Mayor McCash asked if the issue relates to density or greenspace. Mrs. Boring summarized that both of these are issues. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is not committed to a certain number of lots; staff can work with the applicant to increase the setback. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 15 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the concept plan: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor McCash, yes. . Preliminary Plat - Bishop's Run Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a preliminary plat for a PLR located south of Brand Road along Hyland Croy. The layout conforms to the rezoning and plan approved at the time of rezoning. This revision does include a strip of lots from the Bishop's Crossing preliminary plat that was already approved. The plan calls for a 200-foot green setback and a bikepath that will eventually meander through the project. The Bishop's Run portion of this project conforms to the more newly established subdivision policies regarding variation in front yard setback and variation in lot width. An exception to that are the lots that back up to the Metro Park. All of these will be 100-foot lots with no deviation in lot size. This area would be combined with the Bishop's Crossing homeowners association, alleviating a major concern about the long-term maintenance of the greenspace along the front of the project. P&Z reviewed the project on August 14 and recommended approval with 17 conditions. Mr. Lecklider asked for definition on the map of the common space to be maintained by the 64 homeowners. Mr. Gunderman pointed these areas out on the map. Mr. Lecklider asked if the formula was applied. Mr. Gunderman responded that in applying the formula, this project would not support it. Therefore, it was combined with the larger Bishop's Crossing into one association per the formula. Mr. Lecklider asked for the total number of homes. Mr. Gunderman estimated about 200 homes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the area along Hyland-Croy. Does the City anticipate that the entire area will consist of these large kinds of projects? Mr. Gunderman responded that this is a fair expectation. A good deal of the area's zoning is already approved. There are a couple projects further down Hyland-Croy that are already approved. A couple of tracts remain that are not zoned. Ms. Salay noted that these have generally been brought through by a single developer. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Mr. Reiner asked if there is any chance that the new ruralism concepts could be applied, providing fingers of greenspace connecting to the Metro Park? Or will the area be filled with similar subdivisions? Mr. Gunderman stated that there are a couple of remaining tracts to the south that are not developed and perhaps one good opportunity remaining for applying the rural conservation design. Mayor McCash asked why the bikepath is located along the road and then drops down instead of meandering. Mr. Gunderman stated that at final construction, staff expects to have more of a meandering path. In addition, once the alignment for a bikepath is redefined, a sidewalk connection will be made to it. These will be worked out administratively. This is a PLR, and improvements will begin upon approval by Council. The final plats will come in after the improvements are in place. Mayor McCash noted that this development was influenced somewhat by the "Road to Wow" concepts. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Mr. Reiner pointed out that nothing formally was ever adopted for the "Road to Wow." Mr. Lecklider asked what control the City has over the planning or development of greenspace. He had previously expressed concerns about a homeowners association being responsible for a substantial setback along a scenic road, and the need for uniformity of maintenance along Hyland Croy. He recalls that this was to be developed in a more natural state in order to have a minimal level of maintenance required. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 16 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman stated that he does not recall these details, but there was some discussion about a pond in this location. The pond was eliminated, he believes, based upon some maintenance concerns. Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the preliminary plat for Bishop's Run with the 17 conditions of P&Z. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Council Discussion . Muirfield Drive/Brand Road Intersection - Status and Interim Safety Alternatives Mr. Hammersmith reported that following Council's direction at the October 6 meeting, a request for proposal was issued the following day, a copy of which was faxed to Council on Friday. Staff asked three consultants they felt possessed the ability to do this project within the established timeframe to submit proposals. The proposals were submitted on Friday, and staff reviewed them over the weekend and met today to discuss selection of a consultant. All of the consultants put forth a tremendous effort to submit a proposal within the timeframe. Two consultants, Burgess & Niple and R.D. Zande stood out in terms of the team approach and expertise they brought to the project. Staff felt that the team assembled by Burgess & Niple had the most appropriate approach that included community engagement. They have asked the design consultant to submit contract documents by April 9, 2004 in order to bid the project in May and begin construction immediately following the Memorial Tournament. The goal is to have the roadway portion of the project implemented before the opening of school in 2004. Burgess & Niple has established a schedule to meet this deadline. It will require Council scheduling a study session on December 8 to review the three alternatives for a roundabout. Council would then select the preferred alternative at their regular meeting of December 15. Mrs. Boring suggested that the study session be held earlier, as the NLC conference conflicts with the December 8 date. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the traffic data, models and concept plans cannot be compiled prior to December 8. He and Ms. Brautigam emphasized that a decision on the preferred alternative must be made on December 15 to meet the targeted date for implementation in 2004. Ms. Brautigam noted that Ms. Puskarcik has indicated that the outgoing Council Member reception is planned for December 15 from 5 to 7 p.m., but the meeting can still be held on the 15th if Council is committed to staying late to make a decision on the preferred alternative. Ms. Salay suggested that the reception date be changed to another date. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to schedule a study session on Monday, December 15 at 6 p.m., followed by the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. A decision will be made on the preferred alternative that night. In regard to the interim safety measures, Mr. Hammersmith offered to respond to questions. The staff recommendation can be quickly implemented and most appropriately addresses the current concerns. There was no objection to the recommendations of staff for interim safety measures. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that it is important to be sensitive to the impact of the lights in view of the houses to the south and north of this. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this was considered - the intensities for these lights are increased during the day and lowered at night. . Dublin Road/Brand Road Intersection - Field Review by Council II Mr. Hammersmith reported that Council had previously expressed a desire for a field I review of the staking and grading limits to determine the property impact assessment of a modern roundabout versus a signalized alternative. This information has been provided by DLZ, Inc., the consultant working for the City. Staff would like to schedule this field visit in the very near future. Mrs. Boring asked if discussion will be held in conjunction with the field visit. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the plan would be to transport the Council Members to the intersection with a City van, and to have safety vests available for Council Members to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 17 Held 20 walk the area. They would then return to Council Chambers for discussion. The session could be held prior to a study session or on a Saturday morning. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to schedule a field review with staff at 8 a.m. on Friday, October 31. The stakes will be placed immediately prior to the field visit. Discussion will be held at the Monday, November 3 Council meeting. Mr. Hammersmith will arrange for a van to be provided at City Hall for transportation. . Provision of Police Services to Washington Township Chief Epperson noted that a memo was included in the packet to update Council on this item. In terms of background information, the City was approached by the township last summer regarding police services. He and the City Manager attended a Washington Township Trustees meeting in August with a proposal of estimated costs and how services would be provided with realignment of current districts. Staff was recently contacted by Township Administrator Spring and asked to move forward with entering into negotiations with them for these services. Unless Council directs otherwise, staff will prepared a resolution for the next Council meeting, authorizing the City Manager to begin negotiations on this contract. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she is aware that the contract being considered would be for one year. In terms of hiring officers to provide this service, is this perceived to be a long-term relationship? Chief Epperson responded that he envisions the contract would be for more than one year. The proposal was intended to provide some estimated costs for a year of service. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is concerned about the impact on unions when there is a contractual unit versus City staff. City staff are being hired to perform services under a contractual basis. If the contract ends, what is then the City's obligation to retain police officers? Chief Epperson stated that this would have to be addressed in the contract. To clarify, the City will not hire additional officers to patrol this specific area. The current districts will be modified and the boundaries realigned so that officers would work the township areas within the districts. Another issue to be worked out is areas of township that may be annexed to Dublin in the future, affecting existing personnel. Mr. Lecklider stated that these are excellent questions. Is the net effect that the City will add more officers? Chief Epperson responded affirmatively. Ms. Brautigam added that it is always hard to remain at full staff in a Police Division. She is comfortable with this contract due to the fact that there is generally attrition and turnover. If a future contract with the township is not renewed, the officers assigned would probably stay on through the attrition process as other officers leave employment with the City. She doesn't envision being overstaffed because of this contract. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in a contract, it is important to be cognizant of this potential. Even though the City is not adding staff specific to work assignments, staff is being added to compensate for the additional work assignments. Ms. Brautigam agreed that this issue does need to be addressed in the contract. She is confident that the City, in the worst-case scenario, will not find itself in the position of ultimately being overstaffed. Mr. Lecklider stated that his concern would lie with this being construed as guaranteeing a certain number of positions within the bargaining unit, whereby the City may have some obligation to maintain a certain staffing level. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Wiseman is aware of these issues, and they will be addressed in the contract. Chief Epperson stated that there are no specific staffing requirements in the agreement, and there are provisions for layoffs in an absolute worst-case scenario. . Board & Commission Recruitment Mayor McCash noted that a memo was provided to Council by the Clerk about two current vacancies - one on the Natural Resources Advisory Commission and one on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Salay stated that she understood that at the time appointments were made to NRAC and PRAC in March of 2003, the appointments were made for one-year terms in order to evaluate whether NRAC and PRAC should be merged. Staff was asked to evaluate the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 October 20, 2003 Page 18 Held 20 idea of merging those two Commissions. If that is Council's intent, it would not make sense to fill the vacancy on NRAC. Ms. Brautigam stated that the two Commissions have had trouble obtaining a quorum to meet to discuss the merger issue. Staff will have a report to Council by the end of the year, and she concurs with not appointing a member to NRAC at this time. Mayor McCash asked if the advertisements should be initiated for the P&Z vacancy. The vacant term expires in March of 2006. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the advertisement clarify that there is but one vacancy to be filled. Ms. Salay encouraged that the advertisement indicates that relevant experience is necessary for consideration. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that Council defer discussion of this until the executive session tonight. It was the consensus of Council to defer this to executive session. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner thanked staff for the wonderful Spooktacular event. It was a great event for the children and their families and was well organized. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Ms. Gibson indicated that the Tax Board of Review is meeting on October 23. Is this a meeting that the Finance Chair should attend? Ms. Grigsby responded that this is the City's Tax Board of Review meeting and does not involve a Council representative. Mr. Kranstuber noted that he and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher were in attendance at the Dublin Counseling Center's 25th Anniversary celebration and accepted a plaque in recognition of the City's support over the years. Mayor McCash read a proclamation from the Ohio House of Representatives recognizing City Manager Brautigam for her outstanding contributions and service to the City of Dublin during the past year. It was signed by Rep. Jim Hughes and Rep. Larry Householder, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives. Ms. Brautigam accepted the plaque and expressed her surprise and appreciation. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for legal and personnel matters at 10:40 p.m. and noted that the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. The meetin was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11 :40 p.m. ~(? (l~ Clerk of Council