Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/2003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Held 20 Mayor McCash called the Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council of Monday, November 3, 2003 to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Council Members present were Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay. Mr. Reiner arrived at 7: 15 p.m. Mr. Lecklider lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Combs, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Gibson. Tattered FlaQ ProQram Scoutmaster Jon Kundtz of Troop 111, Jerome United Methodist Church, assisted by scouts in the audience from Troop 117, demonstrated the proper way to fold the American flag, and the symbolism of each of the 13 folds. He noted that this particular flag was flown over the nation's Capitol Building on October 12, 2001 in honor of his son's 15th birthday and his achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. Mayor McCash thanked the Scouts from Troop 117 who volunteered to assist with the flag folding ceremony. He invited Mr. McDaniel to provide details about the Tattered Flag Program. Mr. McDaniel noted that on Tuesday, November 11 residents are encouraged to show their patriotism in Dublin in recognition of Veterans' Day. The holiday also kicks off the City's participation in the Tattered Flag Program. The Washington Township Fire Department has for several years received tattered flags from residents, and the scout troops have assisted with proper disposal of the flags. The City is participating in this program, and residents can drop off tattered flags at the Service Center on Shier Rings Road or at any City facility. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Regular Meetings of October 6 and October 20,2003 Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of the October 6 meeting minutes as submitted. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ms. Salay noted a correction to the October 20 minutes on page 12, the four -way stop should be clarified as located at Brand Road and Avery Road, not at the development under discussion. Ms. Salay moved approval with the amendment. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported receipt of a new 05 permit for Homewood Suites, 5300 Park Center Avenue. There was no objection from Council to the issuance of this permit. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that: 1. At the last Council meeting, he spoke regarding an article in Time magazine, dated October 13, pages 60-70 entitled, "The Big Energy Scam." Startec, a Dublin company was mentioned as having been engaged in the business of extracting oil from coal. Federal legislation which was passed in the early 1970's provided tax credits to fund this type of business. However, the legislation was so loosely drawn up that an immense scam developed in the country. In 1990, Startec came to Dublin and set up five companies engaged in the business of extracting oil from coal. He suggested that staff check to see if Dublin provided any tax credits to that company. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 2 Held 20 2. The memo regarding the pedestrian tunnels indicates there is $980,000 available for the two tunnels being programmed. He recalls that two previous tunnels, at Emerald Parkway and Brandonway were substantially more expensive and wondered if the funding is adequate. 3. He asked about the protocol of agenda items under the "Other" category. He is interested in testifying in regard to the proposed roundabout at Dublin and Brand Roads. Mayor McCash confirmed that Council would take testimony at that time. Ms. Brautigam asked that Ms. Grigsby provide information regarding Startec. Ms. Grigsby stated that Startec does have an office in Dublin, but there were never any local tax credits provided to the company. Ms. Brautigam noted that both the Brandonway and Emerald Parkway tunnels differ from those ones being proposed. The Emerald Parkway tunnel is a much longer tunnel. Staff will provide more information on the tunnels at the November 17 meeting, but staff believes that the two tunnels being programmed will be less costly than the others. Barbara Altenburq, 340 Stonewall Court addressed Council again regarding the issues related to the 1.76 acres of greenspace in Waterford Village that borders the intersection of Monterey and Waterford Drive. There continue to be trees whose trunks are surrounded in yard waste and household garbage. The hole created when Dublin hauled away yards of debris in the summer remains a potential danger. Illegal dumping over the years has raised the level of the land several feet above the natural flora in spots and has created an unhealthy environment for the natural features of the park. A local cub scout pack has committed to take on the greenspace maintenance as their community project. Recently, the Columbus Dispatch featured an article about the invasive honeysuckle. Columbus and its neighbors are working with volunteers to restore the greenspace. Initiating immediate action as Columbus has done is the right response for Dublin before another year is lost without planting trees and shrubs to provide habitat and shelter for wildlife. She is always available to help in this endeavor as a volunteer. At her trial in the Environmental Court regarding the citation for the destruction of parkland, Judge Hale indicated that he admired her effort and volunteer work in Dublin and did not assess any fees. She understood him to say that he had no jurisdiction over the issuance of a restraining order by cities; instead, he was charged with ensuring that the City of Dublin followed the Code precisely. Under court testimony, Dublin officials stated that on July 29, 2003, they became aware of the hazardous condition of the greenspace. At the October court hearing, Dublin had no anticipated date when they would remedy the situation, nor were they certain they would remove the hazardous trees. She thanked the City for finally taking action to remove the hazardous trees. A risk management issue was brought up in court hearings in regard to the City's negligence in not establishing a corrective action plan immediately after the July 29 walk through the woods. It was not until the end of October that staff marked the hazardous trees to be cut down. The trash and the holes still remain. A second risk management issue is that traffic signs are obstructed by the honeysuckle. Personally, she contacted the non-emergency Police number to notify them that the stop sign at Waterford and Monterey was obliterated by the honeysuckle. It was trimmed the next day. She then distributed an article to Council regarding the loss of songbirds due to the invasive honeysuckle, and a copy of the Columbus Dispatch article about the same topic. She would like to see an article regarding Dublin's actions to address these environmental issues in the next Dublin Life magazine. She has statistics regarding nesting of songbirds available. She asked that Dublin accept the challenge to make the greenspace healthy and call a halt to the legal actions they have filed against her. Chris Altenburq, 340 Stonewall Court stated that he has been married to Barbara Altenburg for 31 years and commends her for what she is striving to do. He noted that he does not necessarily agree with her tactics, but he does support her in what she is trying to achieve. The issues are that for 25 years, there has been at best "benign neglect" for the area that has resulted in a group of trees that will not live much longer. The honeysuckle has taken over the open space. The honeysuckle needs to be managed. The wildlife habitat is completely destroyed. There are trees that need to be removed. They would be happy to have their yard as an access point to the open space and are willing to help to make this a safer and much prettier area. There is also yard waste in the space, plus garbage, cans, etc. They request that the City take a proactive stance toward management of this area so that it can become something more than what it is at present. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 3 Held 20 LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE CODE Ordinance 58-03 Amending Ordinance 123-97 by Adopting Modifications to the City of Dublin Community Plan to Incorporate Findings, Policies, Issues and Strategies Relating to Community Character and Residential Neighborhood Development. (Case No. 03- 050ADM - Community Plan Modifications) Ordinance 59-03 (Amended) Amending Portions of the Zoning Code by Amending the Landscape Requirements in Section 153.133 and 153.134 and Adopting Section 153.190 Residential Appearance Standards. (Case No. 03-014ADM - Landscape Code Amendment and Adopting Residential Appearance Standards) Mr. Harvey stated that tonight Council is considering the second reading of the recommendations that were initiated by the Appearance Code Committee appointed by Council in 2002. Ordinance 58-03 relates to modifications of the Community Plan. Council referred this to Planning & Zoning Commission who has endorsed this without amendment. Ordinance 59-03 actually implements the findings and recommendations of the Community Plan with amendments to the Development Code, both the landscaping and creation of a residential appearance section. In 1997, the Community Plan made reference to the need to formalize appearance issues, as the City has a high level of standards to be protected. In 1999, several zoning overlay districts were proposed, but the proposal was not adopted. In 2000, recommendations to require varied lot widths and setbacks were adopted. In 2001, an appearance and diversity point system was drafted and discussed but not adopted. Later in 2002, an external residential design ordinance was approached, but not adopted. In 2002, this Appearance Code Committee was appointed. The members were Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Messineo, Mr. Peplow, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Meleca and Mr. Wieland. A recommendation was made by the Committee in May of 2003 to City Council that was substantially Ordinances 58-03 and 59-03. Ordinance 59- 03 increases street tree size, reduces spacing of street trees and requires that single- family lots have front yard trees. The most difficult part was the creation of the residential appearance standards in Section 4. Council had substantial review and discussion of the Committee's recommendations; Council made some changes to the first draft and forwarded it to P&Z. P&Z conducted six . extensive work sessions and is returning with recommendations to Council: 1. They recommend that the Community Plan modifications be adopted in Ordinance 58-03. 2. They recommended adoption of the landscaping requirements for street tree size, spacing and front yard trees. Mr. Reiner asked that he address the topsoil management issue. Mr. Harvey responded that in the discussion regarding appearance and foundation, Council forwarded this item to P&Z. After review, P&Z suggests that if Council desires to pursue topsoil management, it should be done under a separate study due to its comprehensive and complex nature. Mr. Reiner noted that over the years, Council has praised communities such as Minerva Park and Clintonville. In these communities, the topsoil was retained on the sites. With - current development in Dublin, the clay is dug out, suffocating the topsoil. The homeowner then has to purchase topsoil from a landscaper. In addition, there is a runoff issue created when this practice creates an impermeable barrier, complicating runoff issues and stormwater problems. This is an important issue for aesthetics, economics, and for stormwater management. Mr. Kranstuber responded that this item was not discussed by the Committee. P&Z has suggested this be done under separate study. P&Z saw merit in this, but believe it needs a separate analysis. Mr. Harvey stated that P&Z suggested looking at topsoil management in a comprehensive way, citywide, not as a building permit issue. They suggested that a larger study be undertaken by the Natural Resources Advisory Commission. Mr. Kranstuber suggested a motion to send this to a Council Committee or to NRAC. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 Discussion followed. Mr. Reiner moved to refer the issues of topsoil management and runoff to NRAC for further study and to draft an ordinance for Council's consideration. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mr. Harvey continued, noting that P&Z is forwarded the following recommendations for clarifications/changes to the proposed appearance code: Policy Guide 1. The development code before them proposed minimum standards, not what is desired. Most development is done through planned districts and there are a number of objectives and opportunities to choose from. P&Z is recommending that in addition to the development code changes, Council pursue a way to facilitate high quality residential appearance in planned development districts by creating a planning policy guide for these districts, specifically looking at residential appearance objectives. The purpose of that is to look specifically at the process of planned development district approval. Such a guide would be supplemental to the development code and would be more flexible than the minimal standards in the development code yet would be more specific than the recommendations often cited in the Community Plan. Multiple objectives can be reviewed and their interrelationships. It allows creative solutions and would be in written form, communicating to applicants what the City wants. It will facilitate the review and approval process and will promote consistency from project to project. He showed an example of such a document. 2. In order to implement this, it will be clarified in the purpose statement of the development code that the standards in the development code are minimum standards - they apply to every district, but may be superseded by each planned development district. Mandated review after 12 months 3. The Commission felt that since this is the first development code and guidelines pursued by the City that there should be a mandated review at least 12 months after adoption of each by the Commission so that it can be updated as appropriate. Definition section 4. Much discussion took place about chimneys and other items, and the Commission felt that additional clarification is needed in the definition section. Mr. Kranstuber asked for clarification about the minimum standards and policy guide - who would write such a guide? Would this be included in the text? Mr. Harvey responded that it would be a City policy guide that indicates the type of things that are important as the proposal is considered. The first step is to develop the planning policy guide - indicating the things that are important to the City. The second part is when a developer submits a proposal, he goes through the checklist of minimal standards, although he can submit something other than what is specified in the policy guide. If a developer is proposing a planned district, they must specifically indicate in their design standards that they are proposing something other than the minimal standard. If something different is not specified in the adopting ordinance for their rezoning, they must by default meet the minimal standard. Mrs. Boring noted that P&Z was supportive of adopting at least a minimal standard as soon as possible, but they also indicated a desire to encourage higher standards. For planned districts, they would like to see a higher standard met than the minimal. Mr. Kranstuber stated that what he understood from the comments was that a developer could in fact propose a development with less than minimum standards, and this is not the intent of the appearance code committee. Mr. Harvey summarized that the policy guide is designed to encourage higher than minimum standards. In any planned district, a developer can propose any standard, but it is effective only when approved by City Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that even if Council votes in favor of the document tonight, it likely cannot be implemented until the policy guide is developed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 Mr. Harvey agreed. If Council adopts the ordinance tonight, staff will proceed with drafting a policy guide, and bring it back to P&Z and Council for adoption. Staff believes that can be done fairly quickly. He estimated that the staff could draft this in six weeks, but there may be a lot of discussion at P&Z and then Council. Ms Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this item was discussed by the Appearance Code Committee. Mr. Harvey responded that it was discussed in terms of having other tools to achieve an improved neighborhood appearance. The Committee felt that their mission was to develop a minimum standard in the development code, and that is what they pursued, in addition to the Community Plan and landscaping code amendments. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that a realistic date of implementation may be July 1, 2004, assuming Council supports this portion. Mr. Harvey agreed. The development code section would be effective 30 days after adoption by Council. Staff would then proceed with drafting policy guides. The minimal standards in the ordinance can be enforced, however, prior to adoption of the policy guides. Discussion followed. Mr. Harvey summarized that the Commission is recommending that there be a mandated review process 12 months after the ordinance is adopted and after the policy guide is adopted. Chimneys Mr. Harvey then reviewed the definitions of chimneys. Under the new set of definitions, a chimney is merely a projection from an exterior wall. More specifically, there is a cantilevered type of chimney - one that has no foundation. Secondly is the shed-type chimney associated with a direct vent which has a metal outlet coming straight out of the wall. The Commission's recommendation is that all chimneys must extend full height from ground and vertically past the eaves line. Cantilevered and shed chimneys will be prohibited. He showed slides and discussion followed about what is acceptable and what is prohibited. Regarding chimney materials, the first reading ordinance addressed the materials only for shed-type chimneys. P&Z recommends that if the wall is stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, the chimney must also be stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco - not exactly the same material or color, but of a masonry type group. A stone chimney is permitted on a stucco wall, for example. If the wall on which the chimney is located is not stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco and the chimney is not, then the chimney must match in material and color. He emphasized, however, that a masonry-type chimney is always permitted on a vinyl home. But if a vinyl sided home has a chimney that is not of a masonry type material, it must match the vinyl siding. He reviewed the chart outlining the required materials. Ms. Salay stated that she believe that Council's desire was that chimneys were to be stone or brick, in all cases, unless the entire house is made of stucco in which case the chimney could be stucco. The purpose of a chimney is to carry hot gases out of the house, and by its nature should not be wood or vinyl. The look of vinyl chimneys is not improved by putting a foundation under it. She thought the desire was to prohibit vinyl clad chimneys. Mr. Kranstuber asked if that was discussed at P&Z. Mrs. Boring responded that the general concern was one of cost. In addition, they were not convinced of any aesthetic improvement with a matching material. The cost then becomes part of the consideration. Mr. Lecklider stated that he agrees with Ms. Salay's comments. There was extensive discussion about brick or stone chimneys at Council, however, he is not certain that the majority supported this. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay that for aesthetic reasons, the chimney should be some type of masonry. He would like to see this requirement considered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 6 Held 20 Mrs. Boring asked what Council is trying to regulate? Requiring stone or brick may not always guarantee improved aesthetics. Discussion followed about the example shown on the slide with a vinyl siding and brick chimney. Mr. Lecklider stated that, personally, he does not believe that vinyl clad chimneys are attractive. It does not speak of quality over time, and he is not convinced it will maintain its aesthetic appearance as would stone or brick. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Committee reviewed hundreds of slides, and if cost were not a concern, he could support prohibiting them. He can live with this either way. Much of this is a subjective issue. Discussion followed about the proportions of the chimney and its impact on aesthetics. Debate continued about the aesthetics and cost issues of the chimney material requirements. Mrs. Boring emphasized that P&Z endorsed having a policy guide for planned districts to encourage the use of high quality materials versus the requirement across the board for masonry fireplaces Mr. Lecklider stated that if minimal standards are set too low, that is what will be built. He believes that brick or masonry chimneys speak of quality and durability over the long run. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not necessarily believe that vinyl is less durable than masonry. Much of this relates to the quality of construction. Discussion continued. Mrs. Boring stated that if Council refers something to P&Z for review, yet wants them to vote in a certain way, Council should tell them so. Mr. Lecklider moved to amend the language to indicate that vinyl clad chimneys not be permitted. He asked if this is sufficient. By exclusion, any of the other materials would be allowable. Mr. Reiner suggested a masonry based material limitation. Mayor McCash stated that if the concern is with vinyl siding, someone could use a material such as fiber cement siding. Perhaps the desire is for a masonry material, such as synthetic stone or brick or real stone or brick. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes that a hardiplank house would generally have a masonry fireplace. Mayor McCash stated that if he were opposed to vinyl siding on a chimney, he would also be opposed to fiber cement on the chimney. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mr. Kranstuber asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Lecklider stated that his motion is that for a vinyl sided house, a vinyl clad fireplace would be prohibited and that an acceptable cladding would be something masonry based, i.e., stone, brick, masonry, synthetic brick. Mr. Harvey stated that this motion would not allow stucco chimneys. Mr. Lecklider agreed - stucco would not be allowed for a vinyl-clad house. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for further clarification. What is being excluded from a vinyl house, based on the chart being displayed? Mr. Lecklider stated that the exclusions for a vinyl sided house are a vinyl clad, stucco clad, wood clad, or fiber cement clad chimney. Mayor McCash suggested instead a motion that all chimneys shall be clad in stone, cultured stone, brick, synthetic brick or stucco, regardless of the base material of the house. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 7 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider responded that for purposes of clarification, he could support this. Mayor McCash asked that the Clerk call the roll on the motion on the floor, so that Mr. Lecklider can then introduce a second motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mayor McCash, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Kranstuber, no; Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Lecklider, no. Mr. Lecklider moved that the only materials permitted on chimneys are stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Lecklider yes. Foundations Mr. Harvey stated that at the first reading, the requirement was that the foundations must be clad with facing material to include, but not be limited to brick, natural stone, imitation stone or split block, or by extending siding material down to within 12 inches of the ground. At the Council review, there were comments on split block in particular, especially on the styles available. Mr. Reiner clarified that what is shown on the slide is actually a compressed concrete product which is more attractive than split block. Mr. Harvey explained that the Committee's intent was to eliminate the negative appearance of concrete block or poured concrete. There are a variety of types of this material that appear as split block. P&Z recommendation is that an exposed foundation shall be finished with a facing that provides natural or natural appearing texture and color, and from a performance standpoint, that does not resemble concrete block or plain concrete. For those houses with siding, they retain the option that the siding is brought down to within 12 inches of the ground. For material combination, when exterior walls are stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, foundations shall also be stone, cultured stone, brick or stucco, allowing a combination. Further, the entire house shall have no more than two foundation face materials. Mr. Reiner stated that there are many nice cast cement products on the market. His concerns are with allowing split block and with the 12 inches above the ground. If the developers are asked to have a decent foundation, the house will be attractive. But if 12 inches of foundation are allowed to show, a lot of landscaping will be required to hide the foundation. Other communities, such as New Albany, have requirements for four-sided covering of foundations. He would like Dublin to have similar requirements. Mr. Kranstuber stated that an issue arose with cedar siding and mounding which could lead to termite issues. There was discussion of 12 or 18 inches, and 12 inches seemed appropriate as a minimum to improve the appearance. Mr. Reiner stated that for a cedar house, a wainscoting of brick or stone could be used. Many of the production builders in Dublin are building a more attractive product in other communities. Mayor McCash stated that this constitutes regulating every detail of a house in a community with a variety of aesthetic values. He would prefer to see one course of a split faced concrete block versus regular concrete block. Mr. Lecklider stated that his concern is that what will result is the worst example of the split face block. While exposing only one course is an improvement, he believes Dublin should hold itself to a higher standard. Mr. Kranstuber stated that on this issue, he agrees. It is not a large cost item. Did P&Z discuss this? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 8 Held 20 Mr. Harvey stated that allowing the minimum exposure unclad was always considered as a viable option. Most of the discussion centered on what materials should be used. In terms of cost for facing materials, he showed the range from a hardiplank to brick. Discussion followed about the additional costs of such a requirement. Mr. Harvey clarified that the cost estimates were provided by the builders. Mr. Kranstuber stated that if Council supports this requirement, he would suggest a motion directing staff to devise some language requiring that foundations be clad. Mr. Harvey stated that he believes that this can be achieved by the wording discussed regarding facing materials, and eliminating the option so that every foundation, regardless of how much exposure must be clad. Mayor McCash asked what would be done with hardiplank, as it cannot be taken down to the ground for reasons of durability. Foundation plantings cover up the foundation in any case. Mr. Reiner stated that what is being discussed is having wainscoting for a hardiplank house. Mr. Harvey stated that the building code would separately address the type of material and its proximity to the ground. It would not allow the wood board to come down to the grade itself. Mayor McCash clarified that hardiplank is permitted to go down within two inches of the ground as well as vinyl. The issue is with durability with lawn mowers hitting it. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Council's intent could be accomplished by eliminating "B" and by directing staff to research the building code on some of the issues raised about other materials. Mr. Reiner stated that eliminating the split face block in "A" would be desirable. A concrete pressed product from a mold is a different item. Mr. Harvey stated that the performance type language, recommended by the Commission, that the facing be provided with a natural or natural appearing texture or color that does not resemble the plain concrete block might better fit Council's intent. He can investigate further specific materials, but the building code will address the corrosive issues and the appearance code can specify performance so that it does not appear to be concrete. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the products will change over time, so it does not make sense to list specific products. Mr. Kranstuber suggested amending "A' to specify a facing made from masonry or masonry like material and eliminating "B." This would effectively prohibit split block. Mr. Harvey agreed that this would allow split block that appears as stone, but would eliminate split block that appears as concrete. Mr. Kranstuber moved to amend "1A" on page 10 to state, "a facing made from masonry or masonry appearing materials" and to eliminate "B." Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring requested information about the financial impact of the requirements approved up to this point for a typical entry level home. Mr. Harvey responded that, recognizing there is a wide range of quality and materials in homes, the typical costs as estimated by home builders are: requiring chimneys to be masonry - $2-3,000; foundation cladding - $1,200 to $5,000. Mrs. Boring stated that because the appearance code was to focus on minimum requirements, she would not support this change. Most areas are done with a planned development district where materials are specified. She is concerned with the cost impact for an entry-level house. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 9 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Four-sided architecture Mr. Harvey stated in regard to four-sided architecture that the requirements are for two design elements for any elevation. For a street facing elevation, there shall be three design elements. The first reading indicated that a chimney could count once for each floor that it passes, up to a maximum of two. It was pointed out that a chimney alone might meet the minimum requirements, so P&Z is recommending that a chimney count, but not more than once. There were no questions. Garaqe Door Heiqht Mr. Harvey reported that the height of garages was not addressed in the standards, although it was discussed by the Committee. Typically, a garage door height is 8 feet, although some homes have a 9-foot door height. Moving to a 10-foot door in a single- family home makes the garage door very dominant. P&Z recommends that the maximum garage door height be set at 9 feet, although this should not be encouraged. Vinvl sidinq accessories Mr. Harvey reported that there was substantial discussion regarding vinyl sided homes and accessories being required to "dress them up." Council specifically discussed window mantels and window shutters. The original purpose of accessories was to prevent a cardboard box appearance. The first reading indicated that for a vinyl sided home, required is a door surround if the front elevation is vinyl; required are six-inch fascia strips on all elevations that are vinyl; if other elevations are vinyl, any two of these can be selected. Council discussion as referred to P&Z related to mantel systems and decorative shutters. He showed an illustration of a house with both. P&Z recommendation in regard to mantels and shutters is that for the rear elevation, mantels and shutters shall not be required simply because it is a vinyl home. Regardless of the cladding, either shutters or some type of window trim is always required on every window, on every elevation. He showed a chart depicting the requirements. P&Z recommendation is to delete the requirement for shutters for a vinyl sided home in the rear and to add a requirement for mantels on the side. This is predominantly due to the varied setbacks and the increased visibility of side elevations. In all cases, regardless of wall materials, every window must have either shutters or 3-1/2 inch trim. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that P&Z is recommending that all windows and all elevations must have some accessory. Mr. Harvey stated that this was included in the first reading and referred to P&Z with that requirement. Mr. Harvey summarized that P&Z recommends adoption of Ordinance 58-03 - Community Plan modifications. Planning Commission has also recommended adoption of Ordinance 59-03, and Council has now amended some of the recommendations contained in the ordinance. P&Z is also recommending creation of a policy guide addressing residential appearance and that there be a topsoil management study. He offered to respond to any questions. Mr. Lecklider asked about garage doors, specifically P&Z's reaction to comments made by Council in regard to three-car garages and the fact that a three-car garage could comprise 45 percent of the front elevation. Mr. Harvey responded that the Council and Committee comments were included in the P&Z packet and there was some discussion. However, that item was not specifically targeted for intensive consideration by the Commission. There was some discussion, and they felt that the first reading as sent to them by Council addressed this adequately. Mr. Kranstuber recalled that the assumption was that three car garages are highly desirable in the market. To decrease that percentage simply means that the house is unworkable in terms of design. The architects on the Committee provided this input. Mr. Harvey stated that this is a fair summary. He added that there was substantial discussion and research about what is actually occurring in Dublin in terms of garages RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 10 Held 20 and what should be allowed. The recommendations followed lengthy consideration of the fact that three-car garages are increasing in frequency, and reducing the maximum percentage would result in fewer models being available or models looking similar. Ms. Salay suggested the alternative of locating three-car garages on corner lots or having one or more of the garages a side-load type. Mr. Harvey responded that there was discussion of options. There was recognition that a corner lot could be used for even four or five car garages. The discussion centered on the more typical garages located on a house in the center of a block. Mr. Reiner noted that some of the houses are becoming almost 50 percent garage which is very unattractive. What is being done to mitigate this trend? Mr. Kranstuber responded that the Committee reviewed hundreds of homes in Dublin in the context of this discussion. Most cars with three-car garages are large homes with many design elements, and are not as offensive as the two-car, 35 percent guideline. In general, there was less concern about the three-car garage percentage as the two-car, based on the slide review. Mr. Harvey recalled that at the Council study session there was discussion about percentages and the maximum projection that a garage may have from the main house. Council elected not to change the percentages or the maximum door sizes, but did elect to change the projection allowances. They rather substantially decreased the maximum projection that a three-car garage could have from the main body of the house, and it was forwarded this way to Planning Commission. Mr. Reiner stated that there might be some zoning solutions to address this as part of the development code under review. However, that solution may be several months out. Mr. Lecklider asked about the .44 mill vinyl. Mr. Harvey responded that the ordinance calls for a minimum of .44 mill, and this product is very available. The.46 and .48 mill products have only a few suppliers, and the .50 mill was more available. Council had substantial discussion of this at first reading and recommended .44 mill as the minimum in the document sent to P&Z. Ms. Salay asked about the thickness of vinyl required for Ballantrae. Mr. Harvey responded that there are at least two sets of design standards in Ballantrae in different sections. The first couple of sections had .44 mill as a minimum standard, but some sections require a minimum of .50 mill. The Truberry models have a minimum of .50 mill. Mr. Reiner commented that the Truberry examples viewed in the slides were very attractive, and those are .50 mill. Mr. Lecklider asked if the .44 mill type would be subject to hail damage. Mr. Harvey stated that most any vinyl would not be resistant to hail damage. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a level of quality standard for the community that should be enacted - he is not sure that .44 mill would meet this standard. The presentation included very nice samples of the .50 mill vinyl, but this is not what is being recommended. Mr. Kranstuber responded that there is no standard in place at this time, so the standard is in fact being raised. Mayor McCash summarized that the .44 mill vinyl was agreed upon as it provided the most diversity of aesthetic, color and style options that were available in the marketplace. This is a minimum standard and will protect the citizenry. Mr. Kranstuber added that this might be appropriate for a later review as new products may be offered in the future. Mr. Harvey agreed, noting that this is one of the standards being recommended for a review after 12 months. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 11 Held 20 Mayor McCash invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that there is general agreement on the desire for prudential durability in the standards. However, a stubborn issue rises throughout this discussion that relates to matters of taste and aesthetics. He assumes that the Community Plan still is considered as having merit. The commentary states that the overall goal is to ensure a high level of residential appearance - what is a high level? How high a level, how can one determine that level, and what constitutes residential appearance? He did identify some terms that lend clues - such as natural, scenic, rural, a high level of development, a sense of place. It is important to find the "Dublinesque" vision in this case, which may be a difficult task. What he is seeking is the criteria. He emphasized that the litmus test used to indicate what is desired in the City must be determined. Discussion has focused on the Dublin character, and that must be the guide for what is established. Charles Driscoll. Appearance Code Committee member noted that the costs of the changes as proposed are approximately $8,000 and higher. The most troublesome one to the builders is the foundation cladding requirement, and Council may want to consider this carefully. He agrees that anyone of the items proposed will improve the quality of the homes, but it will have an impact on the first-time homebuyer. The 45 percent was recommended for the three-car garage home, as a huge number of houses would be impacted if this were reduced further. He encouraged Council not to reduce this further. The other issue is when will the ordinance apply and to whom does it apply. He notes that villa homes have not been addressed. They are designed to be narrow with a maximum garage width, and there is no exception included. Mayor McCash stated that this issue could be addressed in the PUD. Mr. Driscoll responded that there is a PUD in Ballantrae that includes villa homes, but it will not qualify under the new rules. In six months, that zoning will not exist, as the language states that there is no exception for existing PUD's. Mayor McCash stated that his understanding is that there is an exception for these existing PUD's. Mr. Driscoll stated that this is not how he interpreted the proposed amendments. It states that "Houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these standards shall be exempt for six months; after that period, they must comply." For villas, there is no way that they can comply now or in six months. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes there should be an exclusion for villas or patio homes. Mr. Driscoll stated that Duffy builds a three-unit condominium building that would also fall under these rules. It is a question of the applicability of the new rules. Also, the transition period is problematic. If a project such as Tartan West is nearly through the process, his understanding is that they would fall under these rules depending upon the completion of their approval process. He asked that Council consider those who are building their first house, as there is a substantial amount of cost involved with these changes. Malcolm Porter. representinq the BIA acknowledged the efforts of all who worked on these revisions. The BIA supports Mr. Driscoll's comments that Council carefully considers the cost impacts of these new regulations to the homebuyers. They support a review at 12 months and perhaps at 24 months as has been suggested. In regard to Mr. Driscoll's issue about applicability to PUD's, Mr. Kranstuber stated that in light of the reworking of this section by P&Z about the minimal standards or the assumption that the regulations would not necessarily apply to a PUD (assuming the applicant can secure staff's recommendation of what they are proposing - why wouldn't the same thing apply to an existing PUD which has already been approved? Mr. Harvey clarified that this language is included in the present version of the ordinance. The wording is that houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of the residential appearance standards shall be exempt from these standards for a period of six months after adoption of the ordinance. After this exemption period, these houses located in a previously approved planned district shall comply with these standards to the deqree that the subiects of these standards were RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 not specifically addressed in the adopted planned district. As with any planned district, staff compares what is proposed with the normal development standards in the Code. Mayor McCash summarized that in the Ballantrae example, how much of the architecture has been addressed within the planned development text that would "exempt them from this standard" because they already have it established in their development text? He does not believe there is any existing planned development text in the community that addresses each and every element in this proposal. Mr. Harvey responded that he is not familiar with all of the standards adopted in the various Ballantrae ordinances, but several of these design standards are addressed. To the degree they are not addressed, the more demanding would apply. In the example of an already approved Ballantrae section which does not indicate that the foundation should be clad, then the standard requiring it be clad will apply. Should the Ballantrae text indicate that the foundation shall be brick clad, then that would apply. Mayor McCash asked about the garage door component. Does this ordinance create a problem where existing planned developments will be required to return to P&Z for a minor amendment to their text for issues where there is a clear conflict and it is impossible for them to comply with the new standard, although their existing text does not address the standard? The garage door component is an example of this. How will these issues be addressed without bringing a development to a halt, because in essence the City is applying a law retroactively to existing planned developments. Mr. Harvey stated that he is not aware that there are any planned development districts where the adopting ordinance incorporates a specific list of elevation designs. In that respect, it is a question of the lot size and how designs might fit on the lot. He does not believe this constitutes making some planned districts un buildable. Whenever a new ordinance is created, however, some existing planned development districts require a Code amendment. Council then makes a determination of whether the new minimal standards will apply. Mayor McCash stated that in general, some of these issues are taken back to P&Z because they are a change the developer is implementing, versus the City setting new standards that will force them back through that process. If they are in the middle of development of a project, will an expedited process be available to address the particular concerns? Will there be an administrative approach to allow them to continue while they are undergoing the amendment process, or will they be told to stop until the approval is obtained from P&Z? Mr. Harvey stated that several of the existing planned development districts provide that P&Z is the approval authority on final development plans, including standards. He believes that those districts would continue to go through that process. Not every planned district, however, has this provision built into the ordinance. For those who cannot be resolved in this manner, staff can consider methods to expedite the staff administration portion of this. Should P&Z review be required, staff will consider ways that this, too, can be expedited. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that one way to address this concern and to provide more flexibility is to change the exemption period from six months to 12 or 18 months. Six months does seem to be a small period of time, based on the time a project is built out. Extending this would provide some more flexibility and allow some to plan for the actions they need to take if they are not fully developed. Mr. Harvey stated that the exemption period could certainly be extended, but the exemption period was designed to address a situation where an individual house is under design at present so they could complete their design and obtain a building permit without having to meet the new standards. Six, twelve or eighteen months will not resolve all of the issues related to buildout for some of the existing planned districts. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in the Ballantrae example of villas or condo portions, these are being phased. They were planned with the anticipation that the appearance would be of a certain type at a certain cost. Now, because of the phasing and the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 13 Held 20 timing of implementation of new standards, the plans will have to be changed and the costs will therefore increase. In all probability, not all standards have been referenced in the text and so staff can require compliance with the new standards. The Planning Commission and others accepted the first phases of such villas/condos on the basis of the appearance as proposed. Mr. Harvey stated that if it were clear in the record at the time of ordinance adoption that these appearances were acceptable, then he would view these as in compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam clarified that she is hearing that the reason the six-month language was included is that the focus of the six-month was single family residential. Mr. Driscoll's issue relates to condos or attached units. Perhaps the problem can be solved by stating that single-family residential must comply within six months, but multi-family or villas and condos are permanently exempt as they were originally approved under a planned unit development. She is hearing that the six months is not workable in Council's view. Staff would be open to proposing some acceptable language that would focus the efforts on single-family residential which is the intent of this ordinance. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes it would be fair to exclude the villas and agrees with this amendment. Mayor McCash stated that the villas are detached single-family, so there is a problem there as well. Mayor McCash suggested changing Section (C)(2)(b) to say, "Those houses located within a planned district approved prior to the adoption of these residential appearance standards shall be exempt from the strict application of these residential appearance standards which are not otherwise addressed in the approved planned district ordinance if the application creates a hardship in compliance due to physical constraints of the site or the development." Ms. Brautigam stated that an issue she would have with the term, "hardship" is that, especially as related to constraint of the site, she is not certain that these types of standards such as gables, garage width, relate to the site. Mayor McCash responded that the issue is with a villa and the garage standard creates a hardship for that particular site. Due to the physical constraints of the lot, it is impossible to achieve the 45 percent of elevation guideline. Ms. Brautigam asked if Council would want those to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, as they generally review variances based on a hardship situation. Mayor McCash responded that he views this as purely an administrative matter. If the application cannot comply with a 45 percent of elevation garage standard because of the site constraints, staff would administratively determine that such a standard would not then apply to the development. The other things discussed tonight are not impossible to comply with due to a site constraint. This relates specifically to the garage standard contained in the appearance standards. If there remains a question after an administrative review, the matter would be reviewed by P&Z. It is not the same hardship standard considered by BZA. Mr. Smith stated that if a developer comes in with five issues relating to a PUD such as the villas, and three are determined administratively to be a hardship, where does the developer go for review of the other two? Mayor McCash responded that these would be reviewed by P&Z, as they are the body that adopted the original planned development. The issue is retroactively applying a law to an existing planned development. There should be a relief valve for situations where performance is impossible. If their only choice is to return to P&Z, that is a tremendous burden for the applicant. Mr. Smith responded that impossibility of performance is a different issue than hardship. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the justification for increasing the exemption period is the broader issue that the developer purchased the land, rezoned it, hired architects, engineers and attorneys, assuming that they have an approved project - and now the standards are being changed. These are not impossible standards, they are simply RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 14 Held 20 issues of cost. Eventually, the issues will disappear, as the units in the development pipeline will be built out. Council's interest is in having the new standards enforced as quickly as possible, and the developer's interest is in protecting their investment. There are likely very few projects where this will be an issue, but he does not know how many planned development projects already approved will be affected. Ms. Brautigam stated that because this information is not known, she cautioned Council about adopting the ordinance tonight and suggested giving staff two weeks to secure this information. Staff would then return with recommended changes for the exemption provision, as well as the amendments approved by Council tonight on the floor. In this way, the final version can be considered by Council at the November 17 Council meeting. Mr. Kranstuber suggested approving it tonight because all of the parties are present who have worked on this. Staff can then bring an amendment back, if necessary, at the November 17 meeting. Mr. Lecklider noted that he has concern with extending the exemption from six months to 12 or 18 months. He wonders if the homebuilders will agree to a price freeze during that period of time. There are cost implications, but ultimately, the homebuyer will bear the burden of those. He suspects that the prices may change next week, based upon Council's meeting tonight. Therefore, he has concerns about extending the period for the exemptions. There is an overall fairness issue involved. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mayor McCash's suggestion is more restrictive than what he is proposing - exempting only those for whom performance is impossible. Mr. Lecklider noted that he supports the language of impossibility of performance, as it would address the garage issue raised regarding villa homes yet allows for earlier implementation of the other things. Mr. Reiner agreed that the language could be modified in some manner to address the issues raised about the villas. He would prefer to leave the six-month exemption language in place. Mayor McCash noted that it is a question of leaving the language in place and amending it at a later date, or a motion to amend the ordinance with the language he has suggested. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would support the impossibility of performance standard in Mayor McCash's proposed amendment. Staff can tweak the language if necessary. Mayor McCash moved to amend Section (C)(2)(b) per the discussion. Staff can tweak this language, if necessary. Mr. Lecklider asked that this include the impossibility of performance standard. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification of what specifically is being voted upon. Mayor McCash moved to amend the language in Section C (2)(b) that if the standard is not otherwise addressed in the approved planned district ordinance, the applicant will comply with the appearance code standards, unless the strict application is in effect impossible to do because of the physical constraints of the home site. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring asked the Law Director for their opinion on this language. Mr. Smith responded that he prefers the "impossibility of performance" language versus "hardship situation." Mayor McCash agreed, noting that he does not view this the same as a hardship issue that would be dealt with by BZA. Mr. Smith stated that staff would look at minor revisions to the language to clarify the process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK lNC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 15 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Mayor McCash asked for clarification about "EIFS" - is it prohibited or is it included in the definition of stucco? He does not see reference to this in the document. Mr. Harvey responded that they would consider EIFS and the various types of stucco all as stucco for this purpose. Mayor McCash suggested that for future application, a definition should be added that includes the synthetic and derivative materials so that it is clear that stucco is a specific type of material. Mr. Harvey stated that for administrative interpretation, they would create such an explanation. Vote on Ordinance 58-03: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor McCash clarified that those who signed in to testify on both Ordinance 58-03 and 59-03 have completed their comments for both. Those present indicated that they have no further comments. Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of Ordinance 59-03 as amended. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on Ordinance 59-03 as amended: Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Mr. Kranstuber thanked Mr. Harvey and each of the members of the Appearance Code Committee who have worked very hard on this matter over the past year. He acknowledged Mr. Driscoll's assistance in some of the practical issues relating to the building industry. Mayor McCash suggested that Resolution 41-03, relating to adoption of the report of the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force be moved up on the agenda to accommodate those in the audience who have an interest in this item. There was no objection from Council. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS COFFMAN PARK PLAN Resolution 41-03 Adopting the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force Report. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam noted that Mr. Combs is prepared to provide a ten-minute presentation on this topic, but in view of the recent study session and discussion by Council that may not be necessary. There was no objection to dispensing with the presentation. Mayor McCash invited public testimony. Tom Adams, 5971 Tara Hill Drive thanked the Tara Hill residents who are present tonight. He thanked the City for the implementation of the traffic enforcement unit. It is having a positive impact on the safety issues on the roadways that will improve their quality of life. He also thanked Mayor McCash for visiting their neighborhood to view the situation. They heard the proposal of the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force last Tuesday. The Tara Hill residents submitted a petition to Council last year to initiate a traffic calming study for Tara Hill. Per the policy, they obtained 90 percent signatures and the study found that problems exist and that the road meets the criteria for traffic calming. At the point of selection of traffic calming measures by surveying the residents, City Council decided to initiate a task force to review the issues. Council felt, and they agree that anything that occurs on Tara Hill will impact other streets. His point tonight is that the same Council that agreed with this impact has determined that closing Post Road will have an insignificant effect on Tara Hill. Does Council truly believe this will have no impact? Ms. Salay stated that when they initiated the Coffman Park traffic study to gauge the impact of redirecting Post Road around the central campus of the park, many assumed that Tara Hill and Post Road were completely interconnected and would RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 16 Held 20 impact each other. Two studies, however, have borne out the fact that this is not true. Secondly, the City is currently studying the impact Tara Hill traffic calming will have on other streets. If it is determined that it will have little impact, decisions can proceed about Tara Hill. However, the study may determine that it will in fact affect other streets. The task force is charged with assessing the appropriate devices for Tara Hill as well as impacts on other streets. Redirecting Post Road around a central campus will leave Post Road open for business; Post will actually carry more traffic after the redirection than today; and adding a left turn lane from southbound Avery-Muirfield onto Post will also be a positive factor in terms of Tara Hill cut-through traffic. In view of all of these things, she believes that redirecting Post Road makes perfect sense. Mr. Adams stated that on Tuesday night, it was said that the left turn lane from southbound Avery-Muirfield onto Post Road couldn't be implemented until after Post Road is severed at Coffman Road. That was indicated in the study. Ms. Salay stated that her recollection is that many of these things will need to occur simultaneously or be phased carefully because they will impact each other. Mr. Adams responded that the Tara Hill neighborhood is requesting that this vote on the Coffman Park plan not take place until after the entire area is studied for the traffic calming. It makes no sense to decide to close Post before the Tara Hill problems are addressed. Mayor McCash clarified that what Council is considering tonight is a resolution adopting a master plan - not the implementation of any of the components within the plan. The key item addressed in the studies was the realignment of Post and its impact on Tara Hill. That was determined to have a negligible impact. For him, the next piece will be the issues related to the larger area - Council does not want to move traffic from Tara Hill to other streets as a solution. There is a sequence involved in all of these actions. He emphasized that Council's vote tonight is on a plan, not its implementation. Ms. Salay stated that the desire of the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force was not to worsen the situation on Tara Hill. In fact, the task force commissioned studies by two different consultants to assess the impact on Tara Hill. And now, with the establishment of the Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic Calming Task Force, the City can take action to remedy this situation. Mr. Adams responded that a year ago, the Tara Hill residents testified that the two issues are very related. Council has continued to try to separate these issues. They continue to believe that the issues are very much related and impact each other, and the residents don't believe that there will be an insignificant impact from redirecting Post Road. Mr. Lecklider commented that from the outset, Council has consistently indicated that they would not engage in any effort that would have the effect of negatively impacting Tara Hill. His view of the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force is that the primary focus was creation of a master plan. Instead, it has disintegrated to a situation of one street versus another street. He is hopeful that the residents can view the issues globally and support what is in the best interests of the community. The driving force for him was what would be done to secure a larger municipal campus and its location. There were property issues, and properties for sale, and these factors drove the need for a decision about the investment in properties. This required knowledge of the larger plan. The second issue is what to do with the roadways. The consensus seems to be toward redirecting Post Road. Council has heard testimony from experts about the impact of the plan on other roadways, and Council must rely upon this expert advice. The positive aspect of all of this is that Council is devoting time and effort to this, with everyone desiring to achieve an overall improvement in the quality of life of all those affected. It is noteworthy that the residents of Post Road who will have increased volumes of traffic have accepted this. Mrs. Boring stated that she shares the citizens' concerns. Several years ago, there was discussion about closing Post Road. They were told it could not be done, based upon a plan and based upon the future traffic numbers. P&Z at that time reduced the density for office space in that area, based on the projections of traffic. The same consultant is now indicating that Post Road can be closed based on different reasons. She does agree with Mayor McCash that this is only a plan under consideration at this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 17 Held 20 time. She shares many of the residents' concerns and acknowledges that there is a basis for their concerns. Mr. Lecklider commented that if Post Road is to forever be redirected, why is a south turn lane from Avery-Muirfield being installed? Traffic analysis has indicated that Post will in fact carry more traffic. Many have complained about the inability to turn left at Post from southbound Avery-Muirfield. Mr. Kranstuber agreed that the redirection is a fact - Post Road is not being closed. Residents will continue to be able to drive from one end of Post to the other as they can now, with a slightly different orientation of the road. The left hand turn lane onto Post was a compromise, and he, too, is surprised that the Post Road residents have not objected to the increased traffic. The important thing is that this is a plan, a vision to preserve green space and to establish a central park. Post Road is open today, yet people have acknowledged the severe traffic problems on Tara Hill. There is a logical breakdown in that argument. This represents an opportunity for the Tara Hill residents to have their concerns addressed. However, Tara Hill is the only east-west collector in Hemingway Village that is one of the largest subdivisions in the City, so all of the issues cannot be completely resolved. The Coffman Park plan is very important for the long term, and redirecting the road is necessary to make it a reality. Two experts have separately indicated that there will not be a detrimental impact on Tara Hill. Mr. Adams stated that he is not suggesting that the park not be done. But there are other options for the park and for helping both the residents of Post Road and Tara Hill. However, Council has moved right to the closing of Post Road. Mayor McCash stated that his understanding is that the traffic study for Tara Hill did not take into account how the volume and speed would be impacted by the installation of traffic calming devices on Tara Hill. So there is a need to determine the impact, as part of the Tara Hill task force work. The total additional vehicles on Tara Hill as a result of the Post Road redirection were projected at 25. Therefore, if the goal is not making the traffic problems worse on Tara Hill, the traffic calming measures on Tara Hill must be studied to determine their impact on traffic volumes. Mr. Lecklider clarified that overall, there was a net decrease in traffic on Tara Hill with an increase of 25 cars during peak hours of traffic on Tara Hill. Ms. Salay stated that the traffic volumes on Tara Hill were determined to be 4,800 cars per day. By necessity, Tara Hill carries a large volume of cars because of the design of the subdivision. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that for this reason, the Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic Calming Task Force was established - to study the options for relieving the traffic problems. Mr. Reiner indicated that he shares some of the concerns of the residents. An urban planner looking at Post Road would likely believe it appropriate for higher speed traffic in view of the larger setbacks, less density and few curb cuts. Post Road is the logical east-west connector to US 33. He trusts the Committee has done their best and the concept of creating a central administrative building for the City is important. One concern about the plan is the chokers on Post Road designed to choke down the traffic. This may not encourage the traffic to stay off of Tara Hill and to use Post Road. He is concerned about the traffic and does not support choking Post Road that could move the traffic to Tara Hill and Brand Road. He does like the master plan, and a lot of effort has gone into it. Mr. Adams noted that Council has been aware of the Tara Hill traffic issues for a long time. They request that Tara Hill traffic problems be addressed prior to the approval of the park plan. Matt Holman, 5390 Tara Hill Drive stated that he has a number of issues: It was stated by Mr. Lecklider that the 40 residents of Post Road are willing to accept an increase in traffic. The 150 plus Tara Hill residents will also have an increase in traffic under the plan, even though R.D. Zande indicated that Tara Hill has 4,100 cars on average per day which is 2,100 cars over the number that the street was designed to carry. Adding 25 more cars to Tara Hill will only compound the problem. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 18 Held 20 increase for Post Road is a small amount versus the increased traffic Tara Hill has experienced over the past 10 years. The setbacks are huge along Post Road, and the road was designed to carry traffic. Tara Hill was designed poorly. Decisions have been made over the years by various engineers to eliminate left turn lanes onto Post and now to reopen that turn. However, once Post Road is severed and this affects Tara Hill traffic, there will be no remedy. History has proven that many decisions are based on estimates and averages. R.D. Zande has said that they did not take into account the residents traveling on Tara Hill to the Rec Center. This is cut-through traffic, not residents of the Tara Hill neighborhood. When the Rec Center was proposed in 1993, there was to be a gate at the back entrance to be used for special events. He lives on the corner of Roscommon and Tara Hill. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the gate option was considered, but the site plan for the Rec Center was approved without such a gate. Mr. Holman stated that the Rec Center was not to impact Tara Hill, but it has. The numbers provided are only averages - they are not accurate. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Holman has indicated that there are 4,000 cars on a road designed for 2,000. This situation exists today with Post Road open. Secondly, even if Post Road became a four lane, divided highway, there would still be a large percentage of the current 4,000 vehicles on Tara Hill. Mr. Holman responded that Post Road is open now, and yet no one uses it. With modifications to the road to choke it down, even less people will use it. The park plan as developed includes roundabouts in the plan - is this because two members of the Task Force live along Post Road? It is amazing that the Coffman Park plan is to be approved, yet nothing has yet been done for Tara Hill over 10 years. Mr. Holman stated that his goal tonight is to ensure that the processes for reducing speed and hopefully the volume on Tara Hill go into effect before anything is done with Post Road. At the December 12 meeting, Ms. Salay reported that the Task Force stated in its first meeting that the linchpin of the study would be that nothing done in the park would have a negative impact on the Tara Hill neighborhood. A one-car increase is a negative impact. Council is doing nothing to improve Tara Hill. Ms. Salay stated that she respectfully disagrees. This Council has voted to improve Tara Hill, has accepted that there is a problem and will fix it. A consultant has presented the findings and stated that, per the City's policy, there is an issue on Tara Hill of speed and volume to be addressed. Most of the traffic is neighborhood related. The speed enforcement unit indicates that the violators live in the area. Council has said that they will address the issues on Tara Hill. To say that Council has done nothing is completely erroneous. She believes that the Tara Hill neighborhood will be better off as a result of the study that was done as part of the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force. The City has committed to the neighborhood that it will address their problems. Mr. Holman asked if Tara Hill would be fixed before anything is implemented related to Post Road. He wants a commitment from Council stating that they will not implement anything on Post Road until Tara Hill is fixed. Mayor McCash stated that he has already drafted an amendment to the resolution to address this concern. There has been some misinformation throughout the process. He agrees that nothing has happened with Tara Hill since 1993 and he is not certain why that is the case. The current Council has begun to take steps to implement a solution for Tara Hill. Studies are being done and a Task Force is being set up so the neighbors can participate in the solution. He clarified that the traffic calming criteria requires a roadway carrying 2,000 vehicles or more a day. Mr. Holman stated that he recalls that Tara Hill was designed for 2,000 cars per day and actually carries twice the volume. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that some of the recommendations made in the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force report need to be integrated with what needs to be done on Tara Hill. There will be no substantive relief for Tara Hill until the left turn lane is opened at Post Road. She suggested that the language of "redirecting" Post Road be used versus "severing" the roadway. This will facilitate a more open dialogue. She emphasized that it is not an "either/or" situation - there needs to be consistent building on the better flow of traffic. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 19 Held 20 Dennis Hare, 5687 Tara Hill Drive noted that he moved to his home in July of 2002. As he listens to the commentary, he asks that Council step back from some of the comments. With a "no left turn" onto Post, Post might as well be closed in terms of carrying traffic. He suggested moving the "no left turn" to Tara Hill to see what impact it will have on other roads. In fact, perhaps the traffic should be moved down to Brand that was meant to carry the traffic out of Muirfield. In terms of parks, he supports parks and that attracted him to Dublin. Developing a central park does not require diverting roads to this degree, causing an inconvenience to many. In terms of the increased support of traffic enforcement on Tara Hill to monitor speed during the morning hours, he appreciates this. He asked that they also enforce the stop signs in the area. Further, it is virtually impossible for him to exit his driveway between 7 and 7:30 a.m. The traffic is not only Tara Hill residents or residents of adjacent streets, but students from the high school. Perhaps a "no left turn" lane onto Tara Hill between the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. would help reduce this traffic. The bottom line is that he would ask Council not wait any longer, considering this request was first brought to Council in 1993 and no action has been taken to date. He urged Council not to delay until there is a child killed in an accident on this roadway. Dan Huss, 6911 Literary Lane at Tara Hill noted that in reviewing the study done by Mr. Clear, he questions the traffic volume increases on Post Road. All of the statistics seem to indicate that the volumes will not increase with the various alternatives presented. On the other hand, Tara Hill will have some increase in traffic volumes at certain times of the day. (He reviewed the various statistics contained in the report that support his statements.) In peak hours, the increases will have a significant impact. He supports a park but wants Council to consider all of the alternatives, and wants an assurance from Council that the impacts on Tara Hill will be considered. If the park is implemented with the severing of Post Road, there will be a slight increase in traffic; if traffic-calming measures are approved, it may decrease - assuming the traffic calming measures are approved. The severing or diversion of Post Road will impact Tara Hill traffic. If Council does install a left turn lane at Post Road, installs chicanes and slows traffic to 25 mph, this will not help Tara Hill. He suggested that a straight thoroughfare be available leading to the Rec Center. Much of the traffic counted on Tara Hill was actually Rec Center traffic. In terms of the high school opening and its impact on traffic, it appears that the majority of students will live closer to Brand Road and to the north and would not have used Tara Hill in any case. Jenson WonQ, 5822 Tara Hill Drive stated that he attended one of the Task Force meetings. They have friends from Grove City who travel to the Rec Center each day. He is not sure whether that constitutes local traffic. What exactly is the definition of the local traffic on Tara Hill - 10, 20 miles away, or people living in Dublin? Even those in Dublin might have a better alternative to travel to the Rec Center via Post Road versus Tara Hill. He believes that things should be done in the right sequence - not closing Post Road before confirming the reduction of traffic on Tara Hill through traffic calming. The morning traffic is noisy and very severe. He feels as if he is living next to 1-270. The other question he has is communication related: he is not certain about the composition of the task force for the Tara Hill traffic calming. Since it impacts Tara Hill, what type of representation will there be of residents who live on Tara Hill? It needs to be publicized more. Currently, they have heard that there is no Tara Hill representation at this time. Mr. Lecklider responded that citizens who are interested should apply through the Clerk's office. Mr. Wong added that this is an important problem for people living along Tara Hill as evidenced by those who are present at this hour to testify on this matter. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his recollection is that the Task Force is to be nine members. Will the appointments be made at the next Council meeting? Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff and the Council representatives should meet to discuss the membership. Mr. Kranstuber asked if ads have been run? Mayor McCash suggested that a recruitment notice be posted on the web site in order to ensure that all who are interested have an opportunity to apply. Mr. Wong stated that he relies upon the local newspapers to obtain information versus the web site. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that he contact the Clerk for more information. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 20 Held 20 Julie Phelps. 6290 Post Road stated that another neighbor is present tonight with her who shares her concern about the design of the roadway plan and the impact on their driveways. It was presented differently to them. She noted that seven different proposals were presented to the residents, and they appreciate the fact that the Task Force supports the plan that the Post Road residents favored. When the right of way area by the pond was discussed, it was to be dropped further to the south. This would avoid the need to remove two rows of evergreens on their property. Perhaps this could be reviewed in the future. Another item they had requested to be considered was extending a sewer line to the 6 or 8 houses in the area, in view of the many children who play in the streams and the raw sewage that leaks into the streams from the aeration systems. While the roads are torn up, this would be a good time to have the sewer installed. She has heard several comments that Post Road is not accessible with a left turn lane. She, too, has problems existing her driveway as Post Road is backed up to Wilcox. These are growth issues. Positive things such as parks and rec centers help with resale of homes. All of the roads will be taxed with the continued growth in the northwest. Hopefully, more traffic will move to Perimeter with its future improvements. Everyone needs to work together to address growth issues. Mayor McCash clarified tonight that tonight's single issue is the adoption of a master plan. It does not involve implementation of a plan, or sewer access issues, etc. Cheryl Wall. 6296 Post Road stated that the drawings and written information included in the plan does not address many of her concerns. Her home is one of those that fronts onto a traffic-calming device that allows no left turn and wipes out a row of trees planted for privacy. It does not make sense to take out trees in the park planning process. The concepts were to be redrawn to reflect a curve to the south, but that is not shown. Hopefully, that will be addressed at a later date. She is not happy about having a left turn opened up onto Post Road, but she agrees that everyone has to make some concessions. With their location on the east end of Post Road, traffic will likely increase near her home. If she can save the trees, she would consider this a compromise and would stay in Dublin. Mayor McCash moved to add a section, "that the implementation of the infrastructure recommendations of the plan shall be done only after the necessary traffic calming elements are implemented on Tara Hill and other adjoining residential areas that may be affected by the plan. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mayor McCash stated that this would address the concerns heard tonight about addressing Tara Hill before any other elements are initiated. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that his language specifies "any other adjoining residential areas." Mayor McCash stated that he didn't want to narrow the motion to any particular street, in view of Council's plan to take a comprehensive approach on this. Mr. Reiner stated that if the desire is to take the traffic pressures off of Tara Hill, why is the City implementing traffic calming measures on Post Road, i.e., circles, chicanes, choking down the traffic? This road was intended to be a higher speed thoroughfare with large setbacks. Ms. Salay stated that one reason for the traffic circle was to enhance the park-like character of the road as Coffman Park is approached. Mr. Clear stated that the traffic volume increases significantly on Post Road in the future projections for build out of the Perimeter area. The Post Road residents asked, given that the traffic volumes will go up, to mold the characteristics of that traffic by bringing their speeds to some reasonable level. The purpose of the devices proposed - a median in the middle of Post and a traffic circle - is to reduce the speeds to a residential street level - not to control the volume, but rather the characteristics of the traffic. Mr. Reiner asked about the final speed limit for Post Road. Mr. Clear responded that it is not set, but what they are trying to do is to make sure that traffic on Post Road stays at 35 mph or below. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 21 Held 20 Ms. Salay stated that from the beginning, Perimeter was designed to be the east/west road, and Post has been discussed for years as being de-emphasized, cui de saced, or redirected around a central municipal campus. The concept was to have Perimeter as the main road to carry traffic west to Post Road. Neither Tara Hill nor Post Road were to be major thoroughfares. Mr. Reiner responded that Post Road makes more sense as a major thoroughfare as it cuts cross the City to the west. Ms. Salay stated that doing that results in losing the central park and completely changes the character of the municipal campus. If Post Road is to be continued, then the park plan cannot be accomplished. Mr. Reiner noted that the campus concept is worthwhile, but in any case, he advocates taking this slowly and considering it a section at a time. Ms. Salay stated that no one is suggesting doing anything other than that. It is a master plan and is not funded, other than the construction of City Hall. Mr. Lecklider noted that his comments are not intended as a criticism of his predecessors or current colleagues. He does not know what occurred with respect to Tara Hill and the surrounding area 10, 6 or 8 years ago. He can speak to the focus on this area within the last two years, and a solution is being worked toward. He encouraged everyone to stay involved on a positive level. He believes this is moving in the right direction. Mayor McCash called the question on the amendment, noting that this should give the residents a level of comfort with the adoption of the plan. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Mrs. Boring noted that she continues to have reservations about the plan. She supports the resolution as a policy guide, similar to the community plan as a policy guide. In no way does she intend for it to bind future Council actions should circumstances change, such as demographics, a more defined facility plan which indicates another location for City Hall, or if any other necessary changes are warranted. The Rec Center has had a tremendous amount of impact on Tara Hill. The Mt. Auburn study said that when Coffman was extended, it would open the area up for more office development. This is a huge plan - the long-range vision is there, but she emphasized that it is dependent upon evolution and time. She is somewhat surprised that a task force is planning a massive area of land that the City does not yet own, given these current economic times. There are future maintenance costs to be considered as well. While the plan is very nice, it is only a guide and not a direction to bind future Councils. Mr. Reiner noted that he echoes these reservations about the plan. Vote on the Resolution as amended: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes. Mayor McCash asked the City Manager to ensure that information is placed on the web site regarding the Tara Hill Comprehensive Traffic Task Force applications. CONTRACT Ordinance 114-03 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Delaware Municipal Prosecutor in the Delaware County Municipal Court. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. BID - PARK DEVELOPMENT Ordinance 115-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Westbury Park Development Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider noted that there has been considerable discussion with the neighbors about this park. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 22 Held 20 Mr. Hahn responded that this is correct. The most controversial issue relates to an item not included in this plan - the future bikepath. Mr. Lecklider noted that the plan before Council tonight has been through several iterations in response to neighborhood input. Mr. Hahn confirmed that the plan has been revised numerous times and there was ample opportunity for public comment at the Planning & Zoning hearing. Mr. Reiner moved for emergency passage. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES TAX CODE AMENDMENTS Ordinance 116-03 Amending Chapter 35 ("Income Tax") of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gibson stated that there has been an effort underway for over a year to unify income tax codes for all 541 municipalities in Ohio. A committee worked with the legislature and the Ohio Department of Taxation to develop a uniform ordinance that applies to all jurisdictions. The legislature did define qualifying wages and net profits. The only changes made are outlined in the memo; the remainder of the Code is as it exists today or as it will be in January of 2004. The goal was to make Ohio more competitive and to make it easier for employers in the City to remit taxes properly. The penalties were added, not as a revenue source, but to ensure compliance. Without penalties, the provisions are difficult to enforce. Staff has also worked with the Tax Board of Review on this legislation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she had some discussion with Ms. Gibson regarding the letter received from a resident about the tax code changes. She asked that Ms. Gibson comment on the letter. Ms. Gibson stated that his question related to the fact that the City of Dublin taxes qualified deferred compensation at the time of deferral, unlike the federal government. That is generally true of most municipalities that have an income tax. If Dublin had chosen not to tax that, it would have been taxed by all the other cities of residence. It is standard practice throughout Ohio (for those municipalities with an income tax) that qualified deferred compensation is taxed at the time of deferral; beginning January 1 of 2004, non-qualified deferred compensation will be taxed at time of deferral also. She added that there is no new tax in this ordinance for Dublin. Dublin will lose the ability to tax Section 125's. Mr. Lecklider stated that in the scenario described related to qualified compensation, it would apply to someone who works in Dublin but does not live in Dublin? Ms. Gibson responded affirmatively. Most of Central Ohio, if not all, taxes qualified deferred compensation at the time of deferral. The ordinances are written such that gross income before deductions is taxed, which is what Dublin and most other local ordinances have always provided. Box 1 is what the federal government taxes, but they do allow deductions. Mr. Lecklider stated that the option would then exist for Dublin to provide that benefit for residents working within the community. Ms. Gibson stated that after January 1, 2004, the City must tax as the ORC has specified. She added that Clay Rose chairs the Tax Board of Review, and Bill Root and Dale Saylor serve on the Board. They are all CPA's. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 17 Council meeting. BID - REFOREST A nON Ordinance 123-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the City of Dublin Reforestation Project. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff recommends award of the low bid as outlined in the memo. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 23 Held 20 Mr. Reiner asked if the City specifies that the trees be northern grown. Mr. Hahn responded that the specifications indicate that the trees must be from a similar zone. The certificates are inspected upon receipt of the stock. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the November 17 Council meeting. CONTRACT Ordinance 124-03 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Addendum to the Sewer Agreement with the Village of Shawnee Hills. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith requested that Council dispense with the public hearing and pass this as emergency legislation. This ordinance provides an amendment to the contract to allow the Bogey Inn access to Dublin's sewer line. This site was recently annexed to the City. The ordinance does not change the capacity allowed, does not change the payment - it simply adds the Bogey Inn to the contract. He asked for emergency passage tonight as the City is working with Shawnee Hills to execute an agreement with respect to reciprocal enforcement of noise ordinances. Mr. Lecklider stated that in Exhibit "A" - second paragraph, second sentence, there appears to be language missing. He asked that this be corrected. Mr. Smith stated that this would be corrected prior to execution. Ms. Reed had signed in to testify but chose not to do so. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing and to treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. ANNUAL OPERA T1NG BUDGET Ordinance 125-03 Adopting the Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2004. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher introduced the ordinance. Mayor McCash noted that the workshops are scheduled for Wednesday, November 5 and Wednesday, November 12. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT Resolution 42-03 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with Washington Township for a Contract Regarding the Provision of Police Services. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that previous information has been provided to Council on this topic, and the budget document includes some funding for this contract. Mrs. Boring asked for confirmation that the contract will require the addition of three officers. 'f'" Chief Epperson responded that the budget document would reflect the addition of two officers. Mrs. Boring asked if the division is currently fully staffed. Chief Epperson responded that they are not at full staff. Actually, the costs for 2.4 officers will be charged back to the township based on the level of service proposed. All of this will be finalized in the negotiations. The service will not be provided until the City is fully staffed, estimated to be next fall. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. OTHER . Discussion of Proposed Intersection Improvement at Brand/Dublin Roads RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 November 3, 2003 Page 24 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff recommends they pursue refinement of the roundabout alternative, working with adjacent property owners to balance and mitigate right of way acquisition and impact. Mayor McCash asked if staff recommends deferring discussion on this until they have met with the residents. Mr. Hammersmith agreed, but noted that there are a couple of audience members present tonight. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if he could obtain background information on this item - the design, the alternatives, what is involved, etc. Staff provided a copy of the materials to Mr. Maurer. Mrs. Boring moved to direct staff to pursue the roundabout alternative and to refine it. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Monica Radozewski, 4887 Chaddinqton Drive asked about safety issues for the bikepath coming south on Dublin Road and crossing over or under Brand Road. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this would be accommodated in the design, through the splitter island. Actually, in terms of the roundabout, it provides a safer pedestrian crossing than a traffic signal historically has done. Ms. Radozewski asked if there would be a signal? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there would not be a signal. There will be a visual crossing, similar to what is there today, with a break island. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. STAFF COMMENTS The staff reports provided were for information only. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that, due to a conflict, she would like to reschedule the November 6th Finance meeting. She asked that the Clerk circulate an e-mail with some alternative dates in the next month for this meeting. Mrs. Borinq noted that: 1. There is a border issue involving a proposed Walmart in the area north of Dublin on Sawmill Parkway. This will greatly impact the Sawmill Road traffic flow for Dublin residents. They have asked if there is anything the City could do to support the citizens' efforts in the area, in view of the traffic impacts. Ms. Brautigam responded that the City's traffic engineers could work with the township to learn more about the traffic information and provide this to the Council and residents. Council could then decide if they would like to pursue any further action. 2. Tomorrow is Election Day and she has reflected on several issues. She has been very disappointed that Council Members do not call each and communicate. Certain accusations and misinformation has been freely circulated about those who are running for office. She finds it very sad that Council Members do not respect each other enough to personally contact each other to confirm facts. She hopes that these kinds of problems can be avoided in the future. ADJOURNMENT '"'~ Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session at 11:40 p.m. for legal and land acquisition matters. The meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; cklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. The g was ~econvened at 12:20 p.m. and formally adjourned. /" --=====- ~...A- C!..- ~~ Clerk of Council