Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting --.--.-.- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC" FORM NO. 10148 II Held November 17, 2003 20 I Mayor McCash called the Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council of Monday, November 17, 2003 to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. PledQe of AlleQiance Ms. Salay introduced students from Indian Run Elementary third grade who are studying local government. In follow-up to her visit to the class last week to discuss local government, she invited the students to attend a Council meeting and to lead 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 was absent (excused). Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Gibson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Clerk reported that the minutes of the meeting of November 3 are not completed at this time. Approval was delayed until the December 15 Council meeting. PROCLAMA TIONS/SPECIAL RECOGNITION . Dublin Coffman High School Girls Varsity Soccer Team - Division I State Champions Mayor McCash presented a proclamation to the members of the team in recognition of their State Championship. Marie Crock, team captain and the coaches thanked City Council for this special honor. Mayor McCash noted that staff would install signage at the entryways honoring the team's achievement as State Champions. CORRESPONDENCE The Division of Liquor Control has sent a Notice to Legislative Authority regarding the issuance of a new D5 permit for Muirfield Wine Co., LLC located at 7178 Muirfield Drive. There was no objection to the issuance of the permit. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that his comments might indicate that he wants to review the firing of Bobbie Clarke, but he does not. He wants to comment on a remark made by the City Manager in the discussion of the firing. The charge was a conflict of management style. He drew attention to the City of Dublin where there are two styles involved. First is the City Council portion, and that management style is deeply rooted in the development of a democratic republic in which there is accountability down the line to ultimately the citizens. The other management style is in the City management portion, and the model there is essentially that of American business. The model is not codified, but the City Manager is the "boss" and has absolute, total, unshared control similar to that of the CEO in a business. Therefore, there is an inherent potential conflict of management style between the democratic one and the autocratic one. The hope is that they have a common goal of the welfare of the City. He noted that the City management is under the surveillance of the Council who answer to the citizenry. He is not implying that there is anything problematic in this combination, but implicit in it is the possibility for a breakdown. He believes there was a misunderstanding in a newspaper account of the firing where a remark was made that the person fired was an "at will" employee, meaning the person was hired and fired at the will and at the pleasure of the City Manager. This language is taken from the City Charter. But the City Council and the democratic system rooted in this has enough experience and history that it feels uneasy about that kind of absolute control and has therefore included Charter language regarding accountability to the citizenry. This requires a complete report to the public and to the City Council, and provides that City Council can require such reports. He advised carefully guarding against the abuse of power, noting that he is not making such an implication in this case. He made this clear in the report provided to Council about the Kindra firing. LEGISLATION RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 2 Held 20 SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES ZONING Ordinance 93-03 Rezoning Approximately 1.6 Acres on the North Side of Tuller Road, 540 Feet East of Riverside Drive, from: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (Case No. 03-88Z - Thomas Rezoning - 4444 Tuller Road) Mr. Gunderman stated that this rezoning involves a single-family home, located at 4444 Tuller Road, and currently zoned R-1. The property became vacant sometime ago, and the property owners have now sought the rezoning to accommodate business use. P&Z recommended the change to the Suburban Office and Institutional District by a vote of 7-0 on October 2. This is a straight rezoning with three conditions appended. One condition is that, because this is already in the overlay district for site plan review no use would be made of the property as a commercial use until that plan had been reviewed in the CCD. There is an application submitted for this. Mr. Lecklider noted that in the background materials provided, the future land use plan identified this as residential high density. Mr. Gunderman stated that the zoning map actually shows most of the area as commercial. He recalled that staff felt the area was already an established residential property and that single family did not seem viable as a long-term option. Keeping it in a residential classification may have had some advantage, but he is not certain of the details. Mr. Lecklider stated that another concern relates to the acceptable conditional uses within the proposed text, which could include banks, drive-through businesses, restaurants and bars. Does anyone share his concern about those types of conditional uses? Mr. Gunderman stated that in this case, it is a straight rezoning - there is no text. Most of the surrounding properties are CC. By virtue of an SO district, there is more restriction than that of the adjacent properties. Ms. Salay asked if there are any plans for exterior changes to the building. Mr. Gunderman stated that none of the applications seen thus far indicate any changes, but they are not far along in the process at this point. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Mayor McCash suggested that Ordinances 95-03,96-03 and 97-03 be handled together, as they are all area rezonings and one staff presentation would address all three. He asked that the Clerk read the ordinances into the record. Ordinance 95-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 25 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 87 Acres as Annexed from Perry Township in 1961 and 1972, South of 1-270, West of Sawmill Road and East of the Scioto River, to CC, Community Commercial, or SO, Suburban Office, and Institutional Districts. (Case No. 03-081Z - CDD Commercial Area Rezoning) Ordinance 96-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 14 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 26 Acres, as Annexed from Concord Township in 1977, East of Dublin Road and North of the Delaware County Line, to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 03-082Z - Deer Run) Ordinance 97-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 76 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 133 Acres, as Annexed from Washington Township between 1980 and 2001, East of Dublin Road, South of Dunleary Drive, West of the Scioto River, to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 03-083Z - - Bellaire Area Rezoning) Mr. Gunderman stated that these are area rezonings done as part of the staff effort to establish Dublin zoning where areas were annexed to the City and not formally rezoned into City categories. He displayed a map demonstrating the three areas. Ordinance 95-03 involves properties being established as CC, with one property being established as SO. The Tall Pines property will be established as SO. There were no objections to any of these rezonings, and P&Z recommended approval on October 2 by a vote of 7-0. Ordinance 96-03 involves single-family homes, and will be established as R-1. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 3 Held 20 Ordinance 97-03 involves the Bellaire area and includes 76 lots that will be established as R-1. These areas were treated as R-1 zoning since the time they were annexed to the City, so the change is merely to clarify the records. There was no opposition to any of the three ordinances and all were approved by P&Z on October 2 by a vote of 7-0. Mayor McCash asked about Ordinance 95-03, specifically the Tall Pines property on the south side of Dublin-Granville Road. Is this currently zoned residential? Mr. Gunderman responded that most of the properties in 95-03 were assumed to be in the classifications being assigned to them. There is no substantive change to the perceived zoning of the area. The zoning is being established to the closest City zoning category available. Mayor McCash stated that at one time, a car dealership was proposed for the south side of Dublin-Granville Road, and he recalls that it was zoned residential as outlined in a staff report. Mr. Gunderman responded that there was at one time an office project proposed for a portion of the Tall Pines property. Vote on Ordinance 95-03: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on Ordinance 96-03: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on Ordinance 97-03: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. TAX CODE AMENDMENTS Ordinance 116-03 Amending Chapter 35 ("Income Tax") of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam reported that there are no further changes proposed. Ms. Gibson is available to respond to questions. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. BID Ordinance 123-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the City of Dublin Reforestation Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam reported that there are no changes since the last reading. Mr. Hahn is available to respond to questions. Mr. Kranstuber moved for emergency passage. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES BID Ordinance 125-03 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Coventry Woods Park Development Project Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Hahn would address this matter. She noted that there is some disagreement among the neighborhood about this project. Council may want to take testimony on this at an appropriate time. Mr. Kranstuber asked Mr. Hahn to describe the typical process for neighborhood park development. Mr. Hahn responded that once a project is approved in the CIP, at some point in the design process, staff will use whatever means available to work with the neighborhood in various ways, i.e., through the Association, direct mailings, etc. Concept designs are presented and refined in meetings with the neighborhood. When a firm design is decided upon, the project goes out to bid. This project was initiated by the neighborhood itself and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 4 Held 20 brought to Council in the CIP document in either 2001 or 2002 and approved in the 2003 programming. The park development project itself is reviewed by Planning & Zoning. It was presented earlier in the year to P&Z and tabled, and then brought back to P&Z in August of 2003. Mayor McCash asked for verification - that in order to have a project included in the CIP, a neighborhood must contact the City about their interest in having such a park development plan. Mr. Hahn responded that the normal process would be for City staff to consider in the five- year CIP future park needs for neighborhoods. In 2008, for example, it would be projected that a substantially developed neighborhood would be on the list for park development. This is the norm for neighborhood parks. In the case of Coventry Woods, it was an approved CIP project several years ago. At that point, the majority of the residents in the neighborhood were not in favor of the project and it was not carried forward. The idea was resurrected by residents in approximately 2001, and the correspondence indicated that the majority of residents were supportive of a simple playground. It was then programmed in the five-year CIP. Mayor McCash stated that he had heard that a letter was sent to Council, representing that it was from a group of residents, but that was apparently not true. Mr. Hahn responded that the individual initiated this through a survey of the neighborhood. She then took the results of the survey to the homeowners association and they supported the initial movement to have development funds for the park set aside in the CIP. It went from an individual survey to a neighborhood association movement, and they in turn initiated their own resident survey. The strong indication was that the neighborhood as a whole wanted the project. Mayor McCash stated that one fax or letter to Council indicated that when Coventry Woods was originally developed, or somewhere in the process, the area was to be a passive park. Mr. Hahn responded that most of Coventry Woods parkland is wooded. During the initial rezoning and platting stages, the City was interested in the open space part of the development and wanted to retain as much woods as possible. They negotiated with the developer to secure the specific tract within that development desired - which was floodway or flood plain land. Some of the original correspondence made reference to the intent of why the City was interested in the land - to set aside and protect existing wooded areas. Later, during the initial phases of design for the park, it was stressed that a design would not be brought forward that included any clear cutting of the woods. Two potential locations were identified by staff and relayed to the residents: 1) a dry detention basin within the subdivision that had already been cleared of trees; and 2) the site under discussion tonight which was cleared of trees at some earlier point for sanitary sewer work. The intent was not to clear-cut trees for the park development. Ms. Salay asked where the dry detention basin is located. Mr. Hahn responded that it is along Coventry Woods Drive, approximately one block north of this location. There is a landscaped hedgerow that screens the basin. That location was discussed and was deemed not to be the preferred site. The preferred site was the manmade clearing through the woods. Ms. Salay asked why it was determined not to be the preferred site. Mr. Hahn stated that this was determined very early in the process. He recalled that staff identified some shortcomings for the site that related to problems with any type of development in a detention area. These areas are damp and not conducive to the nicest park environment. In addition, there is a house immediately next to the basin, in very close proximity. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that part of the issue in this case seems to be that some feel the majority do not want the park, while others indicate that the majority of the neighborhood actually wants the park. What type of process for notification was used for public meetings on this issue? Was it similar to that used in other neighborhoods for discussion of park design? Mr. Hahn recalled that at one point, this item was on the association's annual meeting agenda. Each resident would have had notice from the association of this general meeting. In terms of the validity of the results of the survey, the City assumed that the survey results were accurate, although it was not a City initiated survey. Two surveys RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO. 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 5 Held 20 were done, one by an individual homeowner and one by the homeowners association itself. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about notices for City meetings about the park design. Mr. Hahn responded that he believes this notification was done through the association newsletter. The information was provided in the same manner to all of the residents. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Council has received a large number of e-mails in support of the park development project. He credited staff for the process in place for park development. Many factors are considered in the park development process, and input is sought from the residents who use the park. Does staff have a general feeling of whether the majority of residents support having this park? Mr. Hahn responded that staff's only indication is the results of the survey provided to them by the association. This is the basis for believing the majority of the residents, at the time of the survey, supported this park development. Mayor McCash stated that it is unfortunate that the neighborhood residents are fighting with each other about this. If the question to residents was whether they want a play structure - and some are now questioning the language contained in the survey - some may want a park, but not a play structure. He would prefer that Council's involvement at this point would be only to award the bid. Mr. Hahn responded that, typically, the design review for park projects is done by Planning & Zoning Commission. They are the body that determines whether the development is appropriate. Unfortunately, some of the residents were not satisfied with the outcome at P&Z and they believe this is their last opportunity to convey the message to the City that they do not want any type of development in the park. The normal process is for Council to approve the award of the bid at this point. Mayor McCash stated that he has heard several issues: some do not want the park and some are concerned with whether due process was followed in polling the residents. He does not want to be in the situation of determining whether due process was followed. Mr. Hahn stated that staff's assessment is that the park as proposed in the bid documents tonight has the support of a majority of the Coventry Woods residents. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this park development has been on at least two or three five- year capital improvements plans which include two or three public hearings and a vote. In addition, it has gone through legal public hearings, with notice, staff reports, opportunity for public comment and a vote. All of those things determine the nature of the park development. Council's action tonight is administratively acting to award the bid to construct the project. For someone who supports the park, not awarding the bid tonight would be a violation of the due process. Mr. Lecklider state that, obviously, this matter was considered by P&Z. Council has not been provided the minutes of those meetings in the packet. He asked Mr. Hahn to summarize the consensus of the residents, based upon those meetings. il Mr. Hahn responded that there was not consensus among the residents. There was equal testimony at both meetings. It was tabled at one meeting and brought back at a later date. The Commission heard testimony from those opposing the park that the character of the land promoted other forms of recreation without introducing any man- made components. There was testimony about the visual impact on certain houses. There was some concern, especially with the original design of the park located deeper in the woods, about it being attractive to undesirables. The proponents testified that their neighborhood was somewhat landlocked from other existing parks. The closest park was in Wellington, but access would require crossing Brand Road. They advocated small- scale park development, noting that it would be convenient for the young children of the neighborhood and would not require any significant clearing of the natural environment. He did not observe at the end of the two meetings that there was any consensus among the group. Mr. Lecklider asked about the P&Z vote. Mr. Hahn recalled that he believes it was unanimous. (Someone in the audience clarified that the vote was 6 in favor; one opposed.) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 6 Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she attended the P&Z meeting. It appears the issue was less about should there be a park or not a park. There is evidence in the form of a letter written by Parks Director Janet Jordan years ago indicating that this would be a passive park, and so those who purchased homes had reason to believe it would be a passive park. The question seems to be the definition of "passive. At one meeting, a staff member described this as an active park and people responded that they were told something differently in the past. It seems that the primary issue, however, is the process used by the homeowners association and whether or not Mimi Horner who signed it as the Committee Chair of the Parks Committee for the Coventry Woods Homeowners Association had the authority to do so. Those opposed to the park say that there was not such a committee of the Association, and as such, she did not represent a committee sanctioned by the Association. The document that generated all of this discussion is two years old now. As the process continued, neighborhood residents did participate and there is a group that supports the park as well as a few who have expressed dissatisfaction - primarily with the process. This group is requesting that the City conduct a formal survey, and if 51 percent or greater are in favor of the park as designed, they will accept that this is the will of the majority of the neighborhood. The question is whether the City would want to engage in this element of the decision making process, but that is what has been requested by those opposed to the park development. Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is that she has heard from the same four people who do not want the park. It is unfortunate that they cannot work within the homeowners association to resolve this. The City should not interfere in a homeowners association disagreement. It is unfortunate for those who have worked hard to secure their own neighborhood park. It is sad that the City would consider not awarding the bid at this point. Ms. Salay stated that she met with several of the people who are opposed to constructing the park. Her sense is that one of the issues for them is the change in the nature of the parkland from passive to active. The process issue is not focused on the City, but rather the internal process used by the neighborhood. In addition, an elaborate park is to be constructed in the Killilea neighborhood in 2004, in very close proximity, and she questions spending money on two parks so close to each other. In any case, Council should remember that this is a first reading and the second reading/public hearing will take place on December 15. Before Council makes up their minds on this matter, they should hear the testimony from the individuals involved. While normally the process works well, occasionally there are issues that arise which can be resolved. People are generally pleased with park development, and in view of the acrimony, it seems prudent to study this further. If a city-sponsored survey would help, that may be warranted and will not delay anything. Because of the level of anxiety in the neighborhood, she would support the City's role in trying to resolve this. Mrs. Boring stated that similar situations have occurred in the past with park development. She believes that allowing the very vocal, active minority groups to delay projects would effectively bring the City to a halt. Not being able to carry out the decisions made for parks contained in the Community Plan is not desirable. She also wonders how the residents of Killilea will feel when told that another neighborhood will be sharing their park. Staff has worked very hard with the neighborhood on this park project, and allowing a very vocal small minority to take the lead on this is not a good idea. Mayor McCash stated that what he is hearing is not that residents do not want a park. It seems that the majority of the issue relates to the City's commitment that this would be a passive park and the process by which that direction has changed. If the project was dropped previously because the residents did not want it, he is confused about what changed between that time and now. He is not certain which side is actually the majority at this time. He has heard objections from more than four people. Some have endorsed a democratic process, but don't believe it was followed in this case. Mr. Kranstuber noted that perhaps the City is a victim of being too responsive and too democratic. The fact is that there is a system of neighborhood parks and he wonders how many new neighborhoods since the adoption of a parkland ordinance 15 years ago do not have a park? He believes the City should do what is appropriate and what is consistent with the policies in place. The park will be there into the future, and the residents who live there today may not live there in a year or two. A long-term capital planning process has included this park, the park project was approved through P&Z, and it has been deemed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 7 Held 20 appropriate by the Parks division. It is important to do what is appropriate for the City and for the future. Staff should be given credit for trying to be responsive, but it is not fair to staff or the individuals who support the park to abandon it at this point. There is a system in place calling for neighborhood parks, based upon the requirement for developers to dedicate land. These are the kind of factors he is considering in this deliberation. Mayor McCash agreed that parkland dedication is required, but not every park is developed actively. Mr. Kranstuber responded that there are 150 plus homes with no playground equipment for the children in this neighborhood. Mayor McCash stated that in view of the Killilea Park development next door, perhaps it is feasible that they will share the parks - one could be active and one passive, similar to what has been done in Trinity and Brighton Park subdivisions. Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Kranstuber's comments beg the question of whether there is a routine process for dealing with these. It doesn't sound as if this occurred for Coventry Woods. For some neighborhoods, it was always assumed that there was dedicated parkland and that it would be developed in an active way. In the case of Coventry Woods, he does not have the impression it has always been approached with the idea of development. Somehow, it was placed on the CIP but did not proceed, due to the lack of consensus to go forward. He wonders what happened, as he wasn't part of that decision- making process. In the example of Wyndham Village, if residents had come forward and requested an open, passive field, he assumes that the City would have proceeded with development. In this case, the history is inconsistent with that approach. Ms. Salay stated that at the time of development, it was stated that there would be passive open space. Mr. Lecklider stated that in his opinion, the letter from Ms. Jordan indicated that this would make wonderful passive parkland. He is not certain that this letter obligated the City not to develop the parkland. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this was not addressed in any Planning & Zoning documents back at that time. If it was, the next question should have been where the active playground equipment would be located to serve the 150 plus homes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that what staff is suggesting, then, is that when a neighborhood park project is scheduled for programming on the CIP, if the neighborhood at that time declines the project, staff would reallocate the funding for a location where such a park is desired. Mr. Hahn responded that this is what was done in the case of Coventry Woods, but there are no similar situations where a park was programmed and then not carried out. He added that Coventry Woods parkland dedication was relatively significant - approximately 15 acres. Locating a playground in a clearing does not convert 15 acres of parkland from passive to active; instead, it represents an active component within a relatively passive tract of land. The intent of Ms. Jordan's memo was to convey why the City wanted the particular land as a whole. The 15 acres as a whole would be for passive set aside, and the playground was intended to be located in a cleared area. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Mr. Greensaliz contacted him about these issues. He indicated to Mr. Greensaliz that he did not know the definition of passive in terms of parkland, but this helps to clarify and to affirm that a cleared area within the land could be used for a playground. Mr. Lecklider asked for purposes of reference if staff is familiar with a small park installed in Park Place by the developer. Is that a similar park? Mr. Hahn responded that the developer, at the City's urging, did selective clearing of underbush and small caliper trees and installed a playground within an existing wooded lot. It is comparable in that it was placed with the environment in mind and selectively located within a woods. Mr. Lecklider encouraged Council to view this similar park. It is northwest of Westbury subdivision. Mayor McCash noted that this item is scheduled for second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. He asked that staff provide the minutes from P&Z prior to that meeting packet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting -------,. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO, 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 8 1 Held 20 Ms. Brautigam agreed to provide copies of the P&Z minutes to Council as requested. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. He added that the meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. on December 15. COST OF SERVICES UPDA TE Ordinance 126-03 Amending Chapter 35 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System and Establishing a Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for City of Dublin Services. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this process is done annually. Staff is proposing somewhat of a modified approached in terms of the Finance Committee review because of the few number of changes proposed. Therefore, the Committee may choose not to do a detailed review. There is a minor item to be added to the ordinance before the second reading that relates to the daily pass rate for admission to the Rec Center. Staff recommends modifying the children's rate age range from the current 3-12 to ages 3-17 to address the desire to attract more teens into the center. The daily pass for children is $4, which is $4 less than the adult rate. In addition, staff is recommending modifying the timeframes for corporate residents to use their pass to the DCRC to add Saturday and Sunday usage. This is in response to some concerns raised during staff's retention visits to businesses. The Recreation staff felt it would be appropriate to extend use of the facility to Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Kranstuber asked if staff believes there is adequate capacity for this. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff's assessment is that there is not a capacity issue on weekends; the capacity issues are related to extending corporate resident passes past 6 p.m. Mr. Kranstuber asked what staff projects as the increase in revenue from the five percent fee increase. Will this discourage some from joining? Ms. Grigsby stated that staff estimates an additional $75,000 in revenue for a full year. She added that the fee was increased slightly two years ago, and there were no significant concerns expressed at that time. Ms. Salay asked about the rate for non-resident seniors. The rates seem low, in view of the fact that a non-resident senior will not pay a higher fee than a Dublin resident. She has heard that people drive from across the Columbus area to use the Rec Center because of the favorable rates. If there are capacity issues during the day, perhaps the City should consider raising that rate to discourage non-residents from using the facilities. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff could provide information at the next meeting regarding the number of senior non-resident passes. She pointed out that the capacity concerns relate to 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the evening, and most seniors use their passes in the morning or early afternoon. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the note indicating that there is a service fee for a monthly automatic deduction. Most organizations that offer this provide a discount for using this option versus charging a fee, as it guarantees that the funds will come in. Ms. Grigsby responded that when the fee for this service was initially established, the intent was to recover the costs incurred on a monthly basis for processing. The logic was that if this option were not offered, the member would have to pay the full amount upfront. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that things have changed now, and facilities such as this are not charging a service fee for the option. Ms. Grigsby stated that she would check with the Rec staff to see if a concern has been expressed with this fee. Ms. Salay asked if a monthly fee is incurred by the City for processing these charges. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is a fee incurred by the City. Ms. Salay stated that a for-profit organization is quite different from a government where the goal is to recover 50 percent of the costs. She agrees with this practice that covers the costs for the service. Mayor McCash asked if the Finance Committee wants to review the ordinance at an upcoming meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the Committee would not meet on November 19, but another meeting can be set for this purpose prior to the December 15 second reading. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ------------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 9 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider recalled that the Finance Committee had planned to discuss fee waiver policies and the cost study at the November 19 meeting. Ms. Grigsby stated that it was later determined by Council not to review the fee waiver policy until after the first of the year. Mrs. Boring stated that there seems no need to refer this to Committee in view of the few changes proposed. She noted that she was surprised with the increase of fees proposed for garage sale permits. She had understood this related to a desire to regulate garage sales versus recovering the costs of this program. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff's desire was to encourage residents to obtain a permit for safety reasons so that the Police would be notified of the events. But in reviewing the fees this year, it was noted that this fee has not been increased since 1995 and there is a i large gap between costs and recovery. Mr. Kranstuber moved to refer this Ordinance to the Finance Committee. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ms. Salay asked if the outdoor pool pass would allow users access to both the outdoor pools next year. A resident has asked this question. Ms. Grigsby responded that this fee ordinance proposes one pass at one rate to be used for both, and it will be evaluated after the first season. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Ordinance 127-03 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging the Expansion within the City by Wendy's International, Inc., which Include Declaring Improvements to a Certain Parcel of Real Property to be a Public Purpose, r Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements to be made to Benefit that Parcel, Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Providing for the Franklin County Treasurer to Distribute Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount that the School District Would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption, Establishing a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development and Tax Increment Financing Agreement. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher introduced the ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated that this agreement provides incentives to Wendy's and a tax increment finance agreement to help offset the funding costs of extending Shamrock Boulevard to Emerald Parkway. In terms of jobs, the commitment by Wendy's is to bring 50 new jobs to the City. Wendy's has also committed to undertaking a major renovation of the 20-year old existing headquarters. The TIF will be done as a non-school TIF that will generate on an incremental basis revenue to offset the costs of extending Shamrock Boulevard, the costs of which are estimated at $2 million. In conjunction with the economic development agreement, Wendy's, the State and the City have worked together to obtain a $500,000 grant for the roadway extension. Mr. Lecklider noted that the grant made reference to a reimbursement. He asked for clarification. Mr. Stevens responded that the state would actually reimburse the City for the costs expended. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. Ordinance 128-03 Amending Ordinance 82-97, Passed June 9,1997, to Supplement the Public Improvements to be Made to Benefit the Parcels Identified in that Ordinance and to Provide for Payment of a Portion of the Service Payments Received to the Dublin City School District. (Ruscilli TIF) Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this would modify the existing legislation and will allow the current TI F district to be converted from a straight TI F where the City receives 100 percent of the payments to a non-school TIF where the City will receive the non-school portion of the incremental increase. It also provides for an expansion of the definition of the public improvements that will be completed, adding future improvements to Perimeter Drive as well as intersection improvements at Avery-Muirfield and Perimeter Loop, Avery-Muirfield RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting _________ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 10 r--- Held 20 Ii II Ii and Perimeter Drive and Avery-Muirfield and Post Road. The straight TIF payments will be reimbursed in 2004 with the original improvements constructed; after that time, the City can begin receiving non-school service payments that can be set aside in reserve for the future improvements whenever they are programmed. The modification does not result in any type of commitment in terms of the timeframes for the improvements, but merely allows the City to begin reserving those dollars. The required notifications to the school districts have been made. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. Ordinance 129-03 Amending Ordinance 58-94, Passed June 20, 1994, to Supplement the Public Improvements to be Made to Benefit the Parcels Identified in that Ordinance and to Provide for Payment of a Portion of the Service Payments Received to the Dublin City School District, and Declaring an Emergency. (Perimeter Center TIF) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this TIF is being converted from a straight TIF to a non-school TIF and adding the same public improvements referenced with Ordinance 128-03 to the list of infrastructure improvements. For this TIF, the City will be reimbursed as of the end of 2003 for the original improvements that consisted of the extension of Emerald Parkway from Post Road to Perimeter Drive. Therefore, the City will begin receiving and setting aside the non-school TIF payments beginning in 2004. At the second reading, staff will be requesting emergency adoption so that it will be effective prior to year end. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Ordinance 130-03 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Economic Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Compensation Consultants, Inc. to Induce a Relocation of Its Operations to the City in Order to Increase Employment within the City. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated that the City was approached in July by representatives of Compensation Consultants, Inc. in regard to a relocation of their operations from Columbus to Dublin, specifically to the 5500 Glendon Court building, bringing approximately 140 jobs to Dublin. This incentive is based on five years with a maximum of $180,000. It is a not a company where the City initiated the relocation; the company has a business relationship with CareWorks and therefore wanted to be located in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher and Ms. Salay expressed satisfaction with staff's recruitment of a new business to Dublin. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the December 15 Council meeting. APPROPRIA nONS Ordinance 131-03 Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2003. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. There were no questions. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. REZONING Mayor McCash moved to waive the Rules of Order to introduce the three rezonings together and to refer them to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 11 Held 20 Ordinance 132-03 Rezoning 2.89 Acres Located on the South Side of Venture Drive, 700 Feet South of Perimeter Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PCD, Planned Commerce District (Case No. 03-112Z - Rezoning - MAG Expansion). Ordinance 133-03 Rezoning 139.65 Acres on the West Side of Avery Road, 2,000 Feet South of Rings Road from: R-1 B, Limited Suburban Residential District (Washington Township Classification), to: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. (Rezoning Case I No. 03-139Z - Avondale Woods of Dublin - 5215 Avery Road) I Ordinance 134-03 Rezoning 25.16 Acres Located on the East Side of Avery Road, Opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive, from RI, Restricted Industrial District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 03-143Z - Preliminary Development Plan - Avery Commons) Ms. Salay asked that staff provide general information in terms of tax revenue generated by car dealerships. It is sometimes stated that this is a desirable land use as it does not generate a lot of traffic, but does generate tax revenue. In regard to Ordinance 134-03, she asked that she be provided complete staff reports for this rezoning in view of the neighborhood interest in the rezoning. I I INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS II I ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT I Resolution 43-03 Authorizing the Acceptance of a $500,000 Grant from the State of Ohio, Department of Development. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to the Wendy's economic development project. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. OTHER . Revised Final Plat 03-115RFP- Belvedere, Section 4 - Lots 115-154 Mr. Gunderman stated that this is Section 4 of Belvedere and is located on the north side of Brand, west of Avery. Immediately to the west is the high school site. This phase contains 28.1 acres and 40 single-family lots with three reserve areas being dedicated to the City. This development was approved by P&Z, and as noted in the memo, there was an oversight in the development of the area on the westerly side. There was a certain amount of construction activity in a "do not disturb" zone that required adjustments to the final plat by P&Z. This added an additional condition to the approval that required an assessment be done by staff about the vegetation along the west side. This has now been completed and an agreement reached on how to handle the matter. There was no immediate damage or minimal damage to some of the potential root systems. If damage becomes evidence at a future date, additional tree plantings may be required for the area. The plat is consistent with the preliminary plan and was recommended for approval by P&Z on October 2, 2003. Mr. Lecklider noted that there is a street named, "Abbey Glen Boulevard" and asked if street names are checked for duplicates in the City. Mr. Gunderman stated that staff does try to avoid this type of confusion. H will check this. Mr. Kranstuber stated that there is a subdivision off of Avery-Muirfield named "Abbey Glen." Mr. Lecklider stated that he would leave this issue for staff to determine. Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of the final plat with the conditions appended by P&Z. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. . Final Report - Pedestrian Tunnels Mr. Hammersmith stated that this final draft has been prepared in response to the comments at the Council meetings. The various comments were incorporated into the document. He asked that Ms. Yorko summarize the changes: Ms. Yorko stated: 1. A table of contents was added to the document. 2. The recommendation was expanded to include an itemized list of capital expenditures on the prioritized tunnels. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 11-- , November 17, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 II 3. The section names were changed to more accurately describe why the tunnels II are included in the section. The "immediate needs" tunnels were renamed to ! "prioritized tunnels." I 4. The prioritized tunnels were divided into two groups of "programmed" and "unprogrammed." progammed tunnels are those included in the 2004-2008 adopted CIP program. The remainder of the immediate needs tunnels make up the unprogrammed category. 5. The "future needs" sections were those tunnels associated with a future road construction or reconstruction and these were renamed to "unprioritized." 6. This renaming required the changing of the organization of the written summary and the categorization in the spreadsheet. 7. Points were added to Brand Road at Bristol Parkway tunnel for Bristol Park and Gardens and access to the bikepath system, making the point totals consistent throughout. 8. The tunnel at Brand Road/Muirfield Drive was moved to the prioritized programmed section from the future needs tunnel list. Council has allocated funds to build this tunnel in 2004 as part of the programmed intersection improvements in that location. Mr. Kranstuber noted that he does not recall any previous discussion of the tunnel at Avery-Muirfield/Brand Road within the context of the tunnel report or in the roundabout improvement. Ms. Yorko stated that this was included in the future needs table in the previous documents. Mr. Hammersmith added that in terms of the CIP, it was included in the project description for that intersection improvement in the last several CIP documents. It was part of the scope of the project. In the RFP for the intersection, it was included in '\'..'" the scope of services. Mayor McCash stated that this seems inconsistent with the videos about roundabouts that show at-grade crossings. In essence, including a tunnel at this intersection does not seem consistent with the previous information provided about roundabouts. Mr. Hammersmith stated that on December 15, the merits of a tunnel in this location would be discussed. It was always included with the signalization project in the CIP. He acknowledged that he doesn't disagree in terms of pedestrian safety issues being different with a roundabout versus signalization. Mayor McCash asked to what this tunnel will connect. The Muirfield paths are private and the Muirfield residents do not want connection via bikepaths or roadways to other neighborhoods as heard in testimony at the Tartan West rezoning hearings. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this would purely provide an east/west connection beneath the south side of the intersection, under Muirfield Drive, connecting Hawk's Nest and the Lakes of Dunmere. Mayor McCash asked if there would be some type of access from the center of the median to the statue. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is not intended. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at the meetings regarding Tartan West, her understanding was that the Muirfield Association and some other groups actually indicated some desire for connectivity. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is some division within the neighborhood - some would like connectivity to the bikepath system, and others would not. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that they did not want road connections, but did want bikepath connections. Mr. Kranstuber commented that in view of all of the discussion about the tunnel priorities, he finds it strange that this tunnel is on the list at this stage without any Council input. Mr. Hammersmith stated that when the Muirfield/Brand intersection project was accelerated, staff felt it was appropriate to include this in the prioritization. Mr. Lecklider stated that he spoke with Mr. Hammersmith a couple of weeks ago about the conflict in cost estimates for the intersection in the scope of services versus the CIP. He then called Mr. Hammersmith who explained that the bike tunnel was always contemplated at this location in the CIP for 2004-2008 and in the 2003-2007 as well. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC FORM NO 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 13 Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Brand/SR 745 intersection improvement includes a tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a tunnel was never contemplated with that improvement. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the expectation might now have changed in view of this addition. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the tunnel could be discussed at the December 15 meeting. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is questioning the process. In any case, a tunnel is certainly needed more at the Scottish Corners School crossing on Avery-Muirfield. Mrs. Boring commented that she is concerned that this was added without any discussion with Council prior to tonight's final tunnel report. Ms. Brautigam clarified that the tunnel was included in the Brand/Muirfield intersection I improvement. As she met with Mr. Hammersmith to finalize the report, there were I three projects prioritized in the tunnel report and Mr. Hammersmith mentioned that a tunnel would be brought up in terms of the scope of services for the roundabout. In order that Council would not be surprised with this at the December 15 meeting, staff made the decision to include the information at this point. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the tunnel priorities are certainly Brand/Bristol Parkway, Dublin Road/River Forest and Monterey/161. In view of the pedestrian traffic at Brand/Muirfield, he would much prefer any tunnel be built at the school crossing to the south. Ms. Salay stated that on December 15, perhaps Council could revisit the concept of how pedestrian traffic operates within roundabouts. Mr. Hammersmith stated that when the data came back for the Avery-Muirfield/Brand i intersection, the pedestrian counts were in fact very low. .'iIl'""...,.",.j Discussion continued. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Council did not request this tunnel and the citizens did not request it, who did? Mr. Hammersmith stated that it was carried forward in the scope of the CIP project from previous years. It is similar to the construction of the Avery/Woerner-Temple intersection where it made sense to include the tunnel. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in this case, however, the area is already developed and the use established. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff shares the concerns expressed about a tunnel at Brand/Muirfield. Ms. Salay summarized that in approving the tunnel report, Council is not indicating that a tunnel will be built at this location. This decision can be made at a later date in conjunction with the roundabout discussion. Mr. Lecklider indicated that he agrees with Mr. Kranstuber's comments about the school area where a tunnel is needed. Mayor McCash asked if staff is seeking a formal approval of the tunnel report tonight. Mr. Hammersmith proposed that a resolution be brought back to Council to formally adopt the document, including any modifications made to the document based on tonight's discussion. Staff would not object to delaying the approval until after the December 15 roundabout discussion. Ms. Brautigam stated that the main focus tonight is on page IV of the document with the prioritization of the three intersections. There are CIP monies programmed for 2004, 2005 and 2006 and there was confusion at the last discussion about how the monies will be spent for Brand Road/Bristol, SR 161, and River Forest. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he does not believe it appropriate to approve a document containing an item where there are many questions to be answered. Would staff object to Council deleting the tunnel at Brand/Avery-Muirfield at this point in time? Ms. Brautigam stated that staff would certainly not object to this. It was only included for clarification purposes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---.-..--- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO, 10148 I~---~ ~ Held November 17, 2003 Page 14 i 20 I ! I Mr. Kranstuber moved to delete the tunnel for the Brand Road/Avery-Muirfield intersection. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor McCash invited public testimony at this time. Aaron Pitz, 5014 Closeburn Court. Brandon thanked the City for agreeing to construct a pedestrian tunnel under Brand Road. His support is twofold: one in terms of public safety and as a contribution to a healthy community lifestyle. While their area is assigned to Bailey Elementary, they frequently cross Brand for a variety of reasons- the municipal pool, parks, and soccer. He thanked Council for their support and focus on construction of this much-needed pedestrian tunnel and acknowledged the residents of Bristol Commons who initiated this request. It will benefit more residents than those in Bristol Commons. Craiq Stephens, 7621 Forest Knoll Drive, Bristol Commons noted that he is a resident as well as a DYA and OP soccer coach, a DYA T-ball coach and past president of the swim team. He supports the Engineering staff's recommendation that the Brand/Bristol tunnel be designed in 2004 and constructed in 2005. He provided a letter from the Principal of Wyandot Elementary School who supports the tunnel. Wyandot serves 100 students from Bristol Commons and a crossing guard is not an option in this location. He feels strongly that this tunnel would be an asset to the entire community. In addition, he provided a map of the Wyandot attendance area, noting that Bristol Commons is the only neighborhood in the attendance area north of Brand Road. The proposed tunnel will provide safe crossing and help to create a sense of community for all of these students. The third page shows the ~, neighborhoods served by the tunnel who travel to the Municipal Pool and who swim at the pool. If the Recreation Services Division were consulted, they would advocate this safety feature within close proximity to one of their busiest facilities. He has observed first hand the many teams who practice at Earlington Park, and those who must cross Brand to access the park. This will provide safe access for these children. In turn, the tunnel will provide access for neighborhoods south of Brand to the many amenities located north of Brand Road. Lauren Stephens, 7621 Forest Knoll Drive stated that she would attend Karrer Middle School next year. Many of her friends live across Brand Road and she cannot cross the road by herself. She also swims at the pool and must depend on her parents to drive her to the pool. She is not able to cross Brand Road on her bike due to the safety concerns. Most of her friends live in Hawk's Nest, Hemingway and the Woods of Dublinshire and visiting them requires crossing Brand Road. She encouraged Council to vote to design the tunnel in 2004 and build it in 2005. Steve Henck, 5507 Fawnbrook Court, Bristol Commons thanked Council for their consideration and approval of the Brand Road tunnel. He wanted clarification on the process to be followed. Bristol Commons began focusing efforts on securing a tunnel several years ago. About a year ago, they were asked by Council and the City Manager to focus their efforts through a common voice - their neighborhood association. They have not inundated Council with individual letters from the 180 homeowners, but have opted for a coordinated effort and have followed the guidelines set forth by Council. They met with the City Manager, Engineering division and attending the CIP meetings in the summer. Tonight they are seeking confirmation that the determining factors for the construction schedule will be the rankings performed by the Engineering division which ranks the Brand Road tunnel as first in terms of priority. The study considers traffic volumes, but the figures are from 2001 for Bristol Commons. Given the recent development, they would expect the traffic volumes on Brand Road to increase. Other factors are neighborhood connectivity, access to existing parks, biking and walking paths, community pools and schools. Given those factors, the Brand Road tunnel is certainly a leader in the study. He thanked Council for the appropriate changes that have recently been made in the study. While the study does not allocate points to the number of residents served, over 1,000 homes will be served by this tunnel. He asked that Council not change the criteria at this point. They are under the impression that the Brand Road tunnel will be the next tunnel constructed. If that is not the case, they ask that Bristol Commons be notified RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 November 17, 2003 Page 15 il Held 20 I in writing and given an opportunity to respond. They are confident that Council will agree that the Brand Road tunnel is the next tunnel needed in the community. Ms. Salay thanked Mr. Hammersmith and Ms. Yorko for their hard work and responsiveness in this report. ii ! Mayor McCash noted that the report indicates the priority as Brand Road/Bristol Parkway tunnel design in 2004 and construction in 2005, and River Forest/Dublin ,I tunnel design in 2005 and construction in 2006. In addition, a study on the SR 161/Waterford tunnel will be done in 2004. In regard to the River Forest tunnel, is I there anything to be done in the interim to warn motorists about a vehicle/pedestrian interaction at this location? Perhaps a marked crossing can be added, or signage indicating a pedestrian crossing. River Forest has no connection to the bikepath at I present. ,I Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff could review this. If anything, perhaps a warning II sign could be posted about the potential for pedestrians at that location. He would be reluctant to stripe a crosswalk in this location and encourage crossing here due to sight limitations. :i Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the $500,000 programmed for the tunnel at I Muirfield/Brand is not used, could that funding be reallocated to accelerate the tunnel at River Forest/Dublin Road? Mr. Hammersmith acknowledged that there would be a reduction in the project costs for the Avery-Muirfield/Brand intersection if the tunnel were eliminated. At Council's direction, staff could proceed to use those dollars allocated in the CIP for a tunnel at the River Forest/Dublin Road location. Mayor McCash stated that perhaps the River Forest tunnel could also be designed in 2004 and constructed in 2005 along with the Brand/Bristol Parkway tunnel. Mr. Hammersmith deferred to Ms. Grigsby on this matter. Mrs. Boring supports accelerating the River Forest tunnel, if possible, and doing both the River Forest and Bristol Commons tunnels in 2004-2005. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff would evaluate this and have a response to Council on December 15. Mayor McCash asked if staff is requesting action tonight on this matter. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff would like a motion to accept the recommendations for the first, second and third priorities as outlined in the report, and that staff will report back on the timing question for the River Forest tunnel at the December 15 meeting. Mayor McCash moved to accept the recommendations for the first, second and third priorities as outlined in the report, and to direct staff to report back on the timing question for the River Forest tunnel at the December 15 meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. . Northwest Franklin County Traffic Study - MORPC Executive Summary Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Habig of MORPC presented an overview for the Board members at the MORPC meeting on Thursday. He indicated his intention to meet with all jurisdictions involved within a short period of time. After checking the schedule for Council and for Mr. Habig, a potential meeting date is Tuesday, December 2. She is requesting that Council schedule a special meeting on this night for the presentation. The Council Chambers are under renovation, so the meeting could be held at the Rec Center or the Justice Center. She asked for Council's feedback. Mayor McCash asked about the rationale for MORPC's request to meet with the entities on an individual basis. Ms. Brautigam responded that the goal is to provide as much access as possible to the information. Washington Township is also looking to establish a date for such a meeting, and some discussion focused on the possibility of scheduling a joint meeting. At this point, she is working to establish a date for the City Council to have this meeting. I I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC FORM NO 10148 --- November 17, 2003 Page 16 Held 20 It was the consensus of Council to meet on Tuesday, December 2 for this purpose. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the purpose of the meeting also includes engaging Council in a dialogue about this topic? Ms. Brautigam agreed that this would be desirable, and added that staff is working with the township officials on notification of the meeting to the township residents. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the meeting be held on December 2 versus later in the month, due to residents' holiday commitments. The Justice Center would be a preferred site due to the greater availability of parking in the evening. Ms. Salay suggested that staff choose the appropriate location for the meeting and provide notification to the public. . Review and Adoption of Meeting Schedule for 2004 Mr. Lecklider suggested that Council dispense with the meeting scheduled for July 19 I, to allow a summer break. ,I ! There was no objection from Council. It was the consensus of Council to move the CIP meetings to August 4 and August 11. Mrs. Boring asked if study sessions each month are a necessity. Ms. Brautigam suggested that Council save these dates, although the sessions will likely not be necessary every month. These will be marked as "tentative" meetings on the schedule. Mayor McCash moved to adopt the 2004 meeting schedule as modified - eliminating the July 19 meeting, moving the CIP sessions to Wednesday, August 4 and Wednesday, August 11, and marking the study sessions as tentative. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Council Discussion . 2004 Community Survey Ms. Puskarcik stated that the packet includes a copy of the survey from 2002. This was provided for Council's review, based on discussion at the budget hearing. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher had suggested some dialogue regarding the survey. Staff is suggesting that comments be discussed at the December 15 meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a substantial emphasis is placed on police and safety services. Is this fairly common in community surveys? Ms. Puskarcik stated that it depends on the kind of information wanted about City services. Each City designs these differently. The format is from 2002, as the feedback from management staff has not been obtained at this point. For benchmarking purposes, they do try to keep many of the questions the same. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked how the City uses this information for planning and visioning. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the information is used for budgeting purposes and Council uses it in many decision-making processes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be interesting, where appropriate, to have citizen input regarding why items were or were not a priority for Council when decisions are made. She has observed that survey results are not often brought up nor considered at Council goal setting. Ms. Salay asked how many surveys are sent out. Ms. Puskarcik responded that 2,500 are sent out, and the return was 600 plus - a high response. A response of 400 out of 2,500 is needed to make the survey a valid instrument, and the response exceeded this level. Ms. Salay asked how the distribution across the City is done. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the distribution of surveys was random, but this survey will also look at ward responses. In the last survey, some responses were different, depending upon which ward the resident lived in. However, if this effort takes away the validity of the survey, it would not proceed. Ms. Salay asked if discussion of the individual survey questions would take place at the December 15 meeting. Ms. Puskarcik responded that based on the comments at the budget meeting, she is seeking Council's preference in this regard. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC, FORM NO. 10148 ~-~ November 17, 2003 Page 17 Held 20 I' ,i Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that Council members respond individually with their feedback. Mayor McCash agreed, and asked that Council Members provide feedback within a week. Ms. Puskarcik stated that she is more interested in Council's input regarding what they want to find out in the survey - not the wording of specific questions. Wording can be suggested, but it is more important to understand what Council wants to know. The management team is also providing feedback on the survey in early December. The goal is to have the survey out in January. Mayor McCash asked if Council would like to review the final draft survey before it is sent out. Discussion followed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is concerned with commenting on the ultimate questions, because the design has statistical analysis and it could invalidate the instrument. Mayor McCash asked that Council provide feedback to Ms. Puskarcik no later than December 12. The final survey will be provided to Council in January as an information only piece. Information Onlv . Public Information Campaign reo Muirfield/Brand Roundabout . Proposed WalMart on Sawmill Parkway Mayor McCash stated that Mr. Maurer has signed in to testify on these two items. He clarified that the proposed WalMart is not located in Dublin. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that he received a notice about the roundabout proposed for Dublin Road just prior to a previous meeting. He asked for a copy of the various stages of the public information campaign which must have been provided for the Avery-Muirfield roundabout plus the national commentary or theory about these devices in general. He would like a copy of all of the materials available for the Muirfield/Brand roundabout, which he assumes will apply to the Dublin/Brand Road roundabout as well. Ms. Brautigam suggested that he make a visit to the Engineering division to determine which copies he will need. In addition, there is information on the City's web site about roundabouts and links to other information. Mr. Maurer asked about the status of the Dublin/Brand Road roundabout. Is it imminent? Ms. Brautigam responded that the Muirfield/Brand roundabout would likely be built first. The City is working on obtaining state funding for the Dublin/Brand Road roundabout, but has not heard back at this point. It is in the planning stages and will likely be on line in the next two years. Mr. Maurer asked if all of the public meetings listed in the public information campaign for the Muirfield/Brand roundabout have been held in conjunction with the Dublin/Brand roundabout. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Community Relations has assembled the public information campaign for Muirfield/Brand. A similar document has been assembled for the Dublin/Brand roundabout, but it has not been implemented at this time. . Council Retreat Ms. Brautigam noted that the packet included information about a proposed facilitator for the retreat scheduled for January 23. She asked for feedback. It was the consensus of Council that Carl Neu be selected as a facilitator for this retreat. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Asked about the notice provided by the Division of Liquor Control. The Clerk clarified that this notifies Council of the opportunity to object to any liquor permit during the renewal time period each year. 2. Noted that a letter was sent from Joshua Bricker of the DCVB to Ms. Puskarcik regarding a meeting taking place in February. Was this an invitation for a Council Member to attend the meetings, or simply an FYI? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ---. Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting__ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 r-- November 17, 2003 Page 18 Held 20 I Ms. Puskarcik responded that this is to notify Council that she will be representing the City at these meetings. She also wanted to share the information with Council because it mentions the hotel/motel tax application process. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she still has concern that it appears the grant process is being used as an incentive package to persuade people to have events in Dublin, using this revenue stream to help defray the cost of City services. \,.,., There has been a fairly aggressive approach to that by the DCVB when there is such a limited amount of funding not already committed. Council will have to have discussion about this and process issues in the first quarter of next year. i Ms. Puskarcik responded that in the Council portion of the next Inside Dublin there is an article regarding the hotel/motel tax fund commitments. The draft was approved by the Mayor several weeks ago. The message is that $3.6 million has been distributed during the past 11 years in grants and that the 2004 process will change. They are partnering with the DCVB to educate residents and event planners about the commitments already made in the hotel/motel tax funds. 3. Stated that a meeting needs to be established for the Finance Committee to review the cost of services study. It was the consensus of the Committee to meet on Monday, December 1 at 7 p.m. for this purpose. Mr. Lecklider noted that: 1. He recently reviewed an article in the paper regarding traffic signal cameras in use in Dayton and Toledo to ticket motorists who run red lights. Is this something Dublin has considered? Chief Epperson responded that Dublin has not examined the benefits of this program. Most of those who market these do so as revenue generators. Staff doesn't believe there are any intersections in Dublin in need of this type of monitoring. 2. There are bottlenecks in traffic eastbound on SR 161/33 due to the limitations of the system. With the congestion in this area and the many semi-trucks, does it warrant a lighted trailer indicating, "Reduced Speed Ahead" or some other warning? Perhaps something like, "Watch for Stopped Traffic Ahead" signage could be used. Chief Epperson responded that this is one of the top accident locations in the City. It is a volume issue, and most accidents are related to assured clear distance violations. They have placed cruisers in this location for enforcement, but it sometimes compounds the problems. He emphasized that the issues are related to volume. Most accidents occur between Avery-Muirfield and 1-270. Mr. Maurer asked about the WalMart issue. If it is not in Dublin, why is it on the information item list? Mrs. Boring responded that it affects Dublin residents to the south of the proposed WalMart and traffic to the south of that. Mr. Maurer stated that if this development impinges in any way upon Dublin, consideration should be given to their labor practices which might account for their low prices. They deny having any connection with the subcontract for their night work that involves illegal immigrants. Mayor McCash responded that these issues are beyond Council's control. Mr. Kranstuber moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:05 p.m. for personnel and land acquisition matters. Mayor McCash seconded the motion, noting that the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. ~ ()~ Clerk of Council ! II