Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2002 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~~h___~_'~h~_'~_~~~~H_~~'_ ~inutE;~-Ei~_'__~~___Q~~U~~~~1.!l21inJ2i!X,~~Qn!}2il ~~,-----~-~-,_u_----_,~J~~e~1~p{L_h__'~_~~'h DATION LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 1014~ Held January 7, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber called the Dublin City Council meeting of January 7,2002 to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. ,......... Roll Call Council members present were: Mr. Kranstuber, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay. Staffmembers present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Hartmann, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Kindra, Mr. Harding, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Puskarcik, Chief Geis, Mr. Colby, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Heal, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Price and Mr. Husenitza. Oaths of Office - Council Members Elect Mr. Kranstuber administered the oath of office to re-elected Council Members John Reiner and Cathy Boring. Mr. McCash administered the oath of office to newly elected Council Member Amy Salay. Ms. Salay acknowledged members of her family who were present - husband, Stephen, children Rachel and Stephen, and her father, William Jackson of Kettering, Ohio. Mr. Lecklider acknowledged his family members who were present, including his wife, Sharon, daughters, Kathryn and Lauren, his mother, Joyce Nolan and her husband, Judge Robert Nolan. He stated that Judge Nolan served 33 years on the Court of Common Pleas bench in Montgomery, Ohio and will celebrate 50 years as a member of the Ohio State Bar in 2002. Judge Nolan administered the oath of office to newly elected Council Member Timothy ~. Lecklider. Mr. Kranstuber moved to adjourn to executive session at 6:40 p.m. for personnel matters. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Kranstuber reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Kranstuber moved to elect Mr. McCash to serve as Mayor of the City of Dublin and to elect Mrs. Boring to serve as Vice Mayor of the City of Dublin for two-year terms. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Oaths of Office - Mayor and Vice Mayor Mr. Kranstuber administered the oaths of office to Mayor McCash and Vice Mayor Boring. Mayor McCash announced that Council would take a brief recess in order to have photos taken. Mayor McCash reconvened the meeting at 8 :00 p.m. - Citizen Comments Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road. stated that he had planned to address the issue of the election process for Mayor and Vice Mayor. However, he has noticed that it is an agenda item for tonight, so would it be inappropriate to offer comments at this point? Or must he defer his comments to a future Council meeting? Mayor McCash responded that the meeting has already progressed to a later point on the agenda, so perhaps Mr. Maurer could defer his comments to the next meeting. Mr. Maurer agreed to do so. I Ii d ,I """, ","',. :ii',.,I:! I 'Ii"'" , :, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '*'~P_P_.'.*~mM~m~~~m_PM_.pp~te~~~J?L__'~~PM___~'~~~~_____.J211!ili!l Ci1Y_~~Q!!l!fil__m~___~,~~e L~_M.~eti!!Kp_.mm~_,~pmm' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 Helrl January 7,2002 19 George Burris. 6016 Kentigern Court S., stated that he wanted to follow up on a letter he sent last October to the Mayor and all Council Members, including those newly elected. He has not received a response to that letter. In reviewing the City's files, he has determined that the City retained two consulting engineering firms to conduct studies on - the need for signalization of the Muirfield-Glick-Concord intersection. Both studies concluded that there was no need for signalization. In addition, the City conducted a similar study, which included a prioritization schedule for intersection signalizations throughout the City. The Muirfield-Glick-Concord intersection was not included on the list. He stated that he lives adjacent to Avery-Muirfield and has no issue with the signal, however, the intersection does not rank in the priority hierarchy for signalization. Mr. Burris added that he reviewed Dublin Police Division's vehicle accident records at this site for the past four years. His study of the number and types of accidents also indicate that signalization of this intersection is not necessary. He inquired as to the reason that the City is proceeding without a full and thorough study to validate the proposed changes to this intersection. He is also curious about why he received no response to his letter and inquired if there is anything that he could do to clarify his concerns. Mayor McCash stated that Council members had received the letter from Mr. Burris. He asked Mr. Kindra ifhe had received a copy ofthe letter and supporting documentation, and if so, was he preparing a response? Mr. Kindra responded that although he does not believe the letter was sent to him, he has seen a copy. He stated that staff has made available all the documents on this subject, and - Mr. Burris has reviewed them. It is true that the documentation indicates that traffic signalization was not warranted, but the traffic signal was approved by the City Council based on other factors, such as limited visibility, vertical curve, and citizen complaints. The development of Tartan Fields has occurred, and over the years, there have been many citizen complaints. Due to the many complaints, City Council asked staff to review the possibility of signalizing that intersection. He added that although Mr. Burris is technically correct that the signalization is not warranted by the traffic studies, in consideration of the many other factors, the City has justified the need. Mayor McCash inquired regarding the status of the engineering design of that intersection. Mr. Kindra responded that staff intends to bring information back to Council at the next meeting. Mr. Burris responded that his greatest concern is that if specific direction is not given by Council for cost reduction, the project will remain at the $1.385 million currently budgeted. He noted that minutes from earlier Planning and Zoning meeting minutes indicate discussion of a budget of $350,000 for the signalization and intersection changes. Later, the estimate increased to $1.6 million. He does not believe such major changes are cost benefit justified. He asked for answers to the following questions: (1) What is the City really doing and why? (2) Could it be done for less money and still be as attractive as the entrance once was? Some of the items, such as the waterfall on the northeast comer, ~ He requested that Council give more definitive direction to City staff on are unnecessary. what is appropriate for this site. He added that he would like to be kept informed regarding progress on the issue. Mayor McCash stated that this subj ect is scheduled on Council's next agenda. For the convenience of the new Council members, he asked that copies of previous traffic studies be forwarded to them. Mr. Ciarochi stated that the information would be provided in the next Council packet. He noted that Council has approved the $1.385 million project with the direction that the waterfall feature be replaced with a water fountain feature. i I I !I l'l.ij,. f:Jl!:f::!ill1l I ..j I,.:." i. ji iii'"~ ,;.,.,.'."':" ;....'.;,.,: 'V.-.-:O.",::F":.:n!!(I','l'l","l'.;';,!lI ::"i.." 't;:.~tf:ltWi't'lI.:!.:I!"lI'i;-'! lHHI',j':UfY\il-V ,:i'<',),.,> 1,:1 ] RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '~"~~~QQ~~~~Q"~'_QQ~_Q~$~~e~~ oL~~~__Qm_Q_~~_~'~~~~Q~M#~~QuQli~i!Y"~~9l!!!S~iL_~~Q~Q~~~Q~~~_'~Q~~~~~ p~!J'~~~#Q~#~e~!!n#~#"~~~~~~Q~~#M DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C .. F RM I January 7, 2002 I Helcl 19 Mr. Kranstuber inquired about the specific issue for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Ciarochi responded that due to the extensive discussion regarding the project, staff had agreed to bring back a revised concept plan for Council's approval before bidding the ~ project. The revised plan with the approved budget of $1.38 would incorporate the amendments as Council directed - to replace the waterfall feature with the water fountain, to move the improvements in on the southeast side of the intersection so that the larger trees are left intact. Along with the revised plan, options will be provided to Council at the meeting. Mayor McCash encouraged Mr. Burris to attend. Mr. Burris asked ifhe could have the opportunity to meet with staff and review the revised plan before it is presented at the Council meeting. He stated that at a previous Planning and Zoning meeting on this subject, which Ms. Grigsby attended, she indicated that the highest cost traffic signalization at a similar intersection was $350,000. The increase in cost from $350,000 to $1.4 million would indicate many additional components. He stated again that he does not understand the need for such major changes. Mayor McCash suggested that Mr. Burris contact Mr. Ciarochi to schedule a meeting to discuss his concerns with staff prior to the Council meeting. If concerns remain, they can be discussed in public session at the January 22nd meeting. Mr. Burris congratulated the newly elected Council members and officers, and noted that he has not had a good "batting record" with Council, but hopes to improve that with this - group. Staff Comments Ms. Grigsby: 1. Noted that a memo was included in Council packets requesting Council direction regarding goal setting, including the date and type of facilitator. She asked that Council members contact her or Ms. Crandall in the next few days with guidance. Mrs. Boring stated that in the past a Council member was assigned to oversee the goal setting planning. She inquired if any Council member was interested in leading this project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would first be necessary to determine the type of goal- setting desired. Formal teambuilding or policy discussion, for instance, could require different types of facilitators. Mayor McCash stated that it would likely be a combination. He asked Mrs. Boring if she would be interested in developing a list of potential facilitators. Mrs. Boring agreed to do so. Mayor McCash requested that Council members check their calendars and, after the meeting tonight, share date preferences for the retreat in February or March. 2. Referred to a request from Dublin Scioto High School for a fee waiver for use of - the banquet hall at the Recreation Center. Mr. Kranstuber moved to approve the fee waiver. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the only school fee waiver she recalls approving has been for the after-Prom parties. Her understanding was that the City's fee schedule already provides reduced rates for the School District. Ms. Grigsby agreed, noting that there was one other fee waiver granted to the School District in the past, and it was for a teacher orientation session. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that this is a special group of students the school would like to recognize, however, there are many groups within the school for which recognition is I I: ii,1 Iii] ..,,11:11 .01 dIU..'I'! il, ]i.", "1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "_'_"'~~$U~U_~hUU'~h~~HohHo'HoHoMi!lu t~,~~~L_____m_$_'_'~_Ho~~_'Ho$m'm_,_J2J!2!L1L~iu:J:q!!!!QiL_'_m_~=hh_h_Uh~_h_'h~P3;g~~~,,___ Mh~~~in[m~~h_U_'_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Helrl January 7, 2002 19 desired. Does Council want to set a precedent in providing the facility for those recognition events? If Council were to discriminate between those requests, what basis would be used? ..~. Mrs. Boring stated that Council would not want to set a precedent in allowing frequent use of the banquet hall with no revenue. V ote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, no. 3. Noted that a memo in Council packets provides an update on issues related to the parking lot expansion project at the Indian Run Elementary School. If Council has questions, please contact her or Mr. Ciarochi. 4. Referred to a request received last year from the Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission for the City to participate in funding a traffic and growth management study. Council declined participation at that time; however, Mr. Habig has recently contacted the City with the same request. Ms. Grigsby requested an updated list of the other financial participants. Mr. Habig provided that information, which was included in the meeting materials. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she serves as Council's representative on the MORPC Board. She has had conversations with Bob Lawler on several occasions subsequent to the meeting where Council did not support the original request for financial support. Her previous concerns remain largely the same: (1) the amount of the request -- $30,000; (2) ,..-.., the lack of financial commitment by other regional partners; and (3) the fact that the City of Dublin has already completed these studies in the context of the Community Plan and CIP. However, she believes it would be advisable for the City to participate in the study, as Dublin is part of the region. Also, Dublin specializes in transportation and movement issues, and would be able to provide a significant contribution to the discussion. She recommends a lower financial contribution -- $2,500 versus the $30,000 requested. Mayor McCash stated that he has similar concerns. In addition, no matter how much information is compiled, unless there is a mandate to use that information, the report will be filed and the problems will continue to exist. He would recommend a task force or cooperative plan for implementation of the study. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff could prepare legislation for the next Council meeting for the $2,500 funding participation. Mrs. Boring expressed support of a $2,500 contribution. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that it would be advisable for Dublin to be "at the table" in terms of regional participation. Mayor McCash requested that Ms. Grigsby prepare the legislation. Mayor McCash referred to the Indian Run Elementary parking lot expansion project, ,..--, stating a concern with the growing difference between the original project estimate and the ~ current estimate. He asked if the original estimate was done by City staff. ~ Ms. Grigsby responded that the original estimate resulted from preliminary work that the School District completed with their engineers prior to the time they provided the information to the City for review. Upon review, City engineering staff identified several areas that were not addressed in the preliminary estimates of the School District, such as stormwater, landscaping and fencing issues. Mr. Ciarochi stated that, originally, the project was anticipated to be one-third the size of what it is currently. Mayor McCash inquired ifthe approved funding for the project is sufficient. : Hi,:!i. Iii' . ....; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "b~~_~~~~_"_"~__~'_b_b~'_~~~!~~ te~~~~L~~~b_~~~'_b~4~b_'b_~~__~~_b,~J2!!blil1J~itx,_~olJl!2iL_~_~'~~~~4~~'~b~j~lz~~t,_,~__~e~!!~~~~,~~~____~" DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. !-ORM No 1014tl Held January 7, 2002 19 Ms. Grigsby noted that according to the City's bond counsel, the unexpended funds from the Metatec TIF can be applied to this project. Mr. Ciarochi: - 1. Referred to a report on the Post Road/U.S. 33 Interchange Justification Study, f , which was funded in 2000. The report lays out an entirely new schematic for the interchange, which lies within both Dublin and Union County. A resolution endorsing the new layout of the interchange will be scheduled on the next Council meeting agenda. After Council's endorsement of the layout, endorsement by Union County Commissioners will also be sought before the project can be programmed. He stated that the project is estimated at $12 million. Four options have been suggested for funding, including the timing sequence involved with the various funding mechanisms. If the City financed the project on its own, it could be implemented in three to four years. Using State and/or Federal funding could take up to ten to fifteen years to implement. Mayor McCash inquired if discussion of funding is needed at the next Council meeting. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the immediate need is endorsement only, so that the same can be obtained from Union County Commissioners. The programming can be discussed at a future meeting. 2. Provided an update on the Senate Bill 5 referendum. He noted that Council has supported the referendum effort by official resolution, with a $1,500 initiation contribution, and a later $10,000 contribution. Currently, there has been a flurry of activity since the Secretary of State has released his official statement regarding the validation of petition signatures, in which he indicates that only 171,000 of the 231,000 ~ signatures submitted were validated - a 60/65 percent validation rate. Some of the signatures invalidated have been challenged, and that appeal will be heard in February. Currently, an attempt is being made to obtain the additional signatures needed in the 44 required counties in the "remedy period" and to file a supplemental petition, thereby, succeeding in placing this issue on the November ballot. He stated that additional funds are needed. Legal opinion indicates that public funds can be used in the effort to have this issue placed on the ballot. However, if it is placed on the ballot, public funds cannot be used to advocate its approval by the electorate. An additional $8,500 contribution has been requested from the City of Dublin. Ms. Salay inquired how much land would be impacted if this bill were enacted. Mr. Ciarochi responded that it would impact mainly areas of Jerome and Concord townships. In areas where there are multiple owners and there is not 100 percent support of the petition, the County Commissioners would still have the discretion to deny the annexation petition. He noted that there is still extensive land along the Hyland-Croy area which is exclusively within Dublin's negotiated service area that has not yet been annexed into Dublin. Ms. Salay asked if other municipalities are contributing proportionately. Contributing an additional $8,500 would bring Dublin's contribution to $20,000 - the same as the contribution from Columbus. ~ Mr. Ciarochi responded that they are also being requested to contribute proportionately. Mrs. Boring stated that the report indicates that the City of Delaware has made no contribution, although they would be impacted significantly. Mr. Ciarochi responded that his understanding is that they have elected not to participate in the referendum effort in order not to jeopardize other activities they are pursuing with the townships at this time. Mr. Kranstuber stated that from Dublin's perspective, $20,000 is a small sum of money compared to what would be gained if the law were to be successfully overturned. i I I, ,II 11 LUflil, I j"l fii'l H ill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "'~d~==_~d~__dd~___~~_,_~i!lutes "gL~_'~_~---~d_~~"_"_d~"~d~J2Jlbli!lJ:;itY,_CouJ}~il ~-~~~__J:c:L~d"~"'_d= ~eetin"gdd_d""~_' DAYrON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. lU14tJ Held January 7, 2002 19 Ms. Grigsby requested Council direction tonight by motion. Legislation can be subsequently prepared for formal approval. Mayor Kranstuber moved to authorize an $8,500 contribution in support of the "No On -- State Control of Property Rights" effort to place the Senate Bill 5 referendum on the ballot in November 2002. Mayor McCash seconded the motion. V ote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is somewhat concerned about the disproportionate cost of Dublin's contribution, but it is impossible to place a value on the Hyland-Croy corridor. It is to Dublin's advantage to have the referendum placed on the ballot. 2. Referred to a memo from Mr. Sprague, Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, expressing the Commission's desire for Council to commission a special traffic study relating to the area surrounding the Dublin Jerome High School. The Commission is concerned with two rural roads servicing the urban- scale high school development. Staffhas informed the Commission that neither a traffic study nor road improvements are scheduled on the 5-year ClP and that the traffic analysis conducted by the School District and submitted with the plans for the high school indicate that even the intersection at Hyland-Croy and Mitchell De Witt does not require improvement at this time. The Engineering staff differed with that analysis. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends that the City conduct a study, so that any necessary traffic improvements can be completed in ...-.. time for the opening of the high school in 2004. Staff requests Council's direction and an amendment to the budget if such a study is commissioned. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she had indicated at the joint City-School meeting regarding the high school development that she was concerned that there were no plans in place for road expansion. Her memory is that the City's Engineering staff agreed with the findings in the Dublin School's traffic study that road expansion was not necessary. Mr. Ciarochi responded that when the zoning of the site was heard before the Planning Commission and then Council, the Engineering staffs position was that, at a minimum, left-hand turns were needed at that intersection in all four directions. Mr. Reiner inquired about a cost estimate for the traffic study. Mr. Ciarochi responded that it would depend on the scope. The Commission defines a broad scope in different directions and different jurisdictions. Much of the right-of-way along Hyland-Croy and Mitchell DeWitt is not in the City of Dublin. Staff could develop a scope of services, including a cost estimate, if Council so indicates. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that she.would prefer to have that information. Mayor McCash agreed, stating that he is concerned that the study has not already been incorporated into the project. It appears that the City will now be involved in funding a - portion of the necessary right-of-way acquisition and roadway improvements, in addition to the money already allocated for the "road to wow" elements required along that corridor. Mr. Lecklider responded that the Planning Commission's position was that it would be advisable to study more than the single intersection - to include a study of the intersections leading to the school intersection and the most likely traveled route to that destination - for instance, A very and Brand or Muirfield and Brand. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that some ofthose intersections have recently been reconfigured and widened. Hopefully, those intersections will accommodate the increased traffic, so that it is not necessary to tear up work recently completed. She inquired about , I I "I 'I: . I '. LI,d. .J,''':.,LilAII """, """",. ".., ",1 liFii,) H 'i,' - II , t1.' >V_' iJ..'1 'il,,-;tj,;TiM.:I~j/jrl<i'!lfHlj;llIf_1 J \'~~'iffr'IJJt:irt'lt~ii~l~t~ ~tli#' ~ i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "~~Q~4~~"~~N_~~~~_~~~~~"~Mil!u t~s of -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~m~-w~QQQli!L~i!YJ:;;QYlt9iL~~~~N~""~~-""~~~-"Q~~~H"~~~~ffl:K~H2_Q~H~M~~!!~~"H"~~~~mQ~mQ~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., !-ORM NO 1014l::S Held January 7, 2002 19 the responsibility for these roadway improvements. Although she has no issue with shared responsibility, she believes that consideration of the roadway improvements leading to a school should be included in the land acquisition and design stage of the high ,...... school. lfthe City was willing to spend nearly $500,000 for the school project, it may have chosen to invest that in roadways rather than landscaping, if it had been aware ofthe need. Now, there is potential need for an equal amount of commitment for this new consideration. Mayor McCash inquired if the "road to wow" elements are to be done as a City project or will the City reimburse the School District for that amount? Mr. Ciarochi responded that his understanding is that the City would: (1) provide funding for the landscaping over and beyond what the School had proposed in order to bring the landscaping for that area up to "road to wow" standards; (2) fund the extension of the off- site utilities across the site -- the City would then be eligible to have part ofthe cost reimbursed for extension ofthe water line; and (3) participate in a 50 percent cost sharing with the School for the turn lanes at the school entrance. Those turn lanes are not part of the proposed study under discussion. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he does not oppose a study; however, he does not yet support the position that extensive road improvements are necessary. For instance, until two or three years ago, the two-lane Coffinan Road served Coffinan High School as well as heavy residential development. The roads under discussion tonight are also two-lane, with wide, long frontages. He believes that a need may not materialize until residential development occurs. - Mayor McCash responded to Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's inquiry regarding responsibility. He stated that, generally, the road improvements are included in the developer's budget. He is not aware of why this was not included in the School's budget. It will be paid by tax dollars, under any scenario. From the school's budget standpoint, it could require a tax levy being proposed at an earlier date. Mr. Kranstuber noted that as a taxpayer, he would prefer that the City pay for the road improvements rather than the School District. Mayor McCash stated that he would like to have a copy of the School's traffic study. He inquired if City staff had analyzed this report for the Planning & Zoning Commission. He requested copies of this study and analysis for all Council members. He requested that the cost estimate for the study be provided for the next Council meeting. He stated that any funding would have to be included in the 2003 CIP budget. Mr. Ciarochi agreed that it would require 2003 funding to complete the project for the 2004 opening of the high school. Mr. McDaniel stated that there were two memos from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission: 1. Regarding the proposed Coffinan Park Master Plan, Council directed Mr. Hahn to ,......., draft a plan that reflected the expansion of Coffinan Park following the additional acquisitions, and to identify components that could be placed in that expanded area with an emphasis on passive uses. Mr. Hahn was to then have a discussion with the residents who live immediately adjacent to the City's property. The draft plan was referred by Council to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). The Commission has reviewed the plan and recommends approval. Staff requests Council direction at this time: should staff bring legislation forward for the next meeting to adopt the plan, or would Council prefer this plan be included on the next CIP agenda for consideration? Mayor McCash stated that he had some difficulty in reading the plan detail. He inquired if it is consistent with the Post Road Committee recommendations. I I! ill; . n"I! ilrn lial; ..;1 }!jH;.j. !/ Ii 'ii: ''''''._,,"'''.'.f<'',,",,''. ",' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "H"'~~HHm"~~H~~'H"~Q",,~",_M~u tes oL~~~__'~~~~~~~Q,~~~J2yblin .~~i!YJ:~Q1!!lS?iL~"__~~"~"~~~~",~_~Efl:g~~~H~'~H4~~~~!i~~"~~~~~_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. fORM NO. 1014l;;S Held January 7, 2002 19 Mr. McDaniel responded that it is. Mayor McCash inquired if there is a plan for phasing the work. .~ Mr. Hahn responded that, excluding land costs, a preliminary ClP budget has been developed. This type of budget lends itselfto many variations in phases. It is designed to enhance the park-like elements already present. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that citizens have contacted her with questions about the Coffinan Park Expansion Plan. Because she has also had difficulty reading the detail, she would like to schedule a meeting to review the plan thoroughly with staff before responding to citizen inquiries. Mayor McCash stated that he, too, has received citizen inquiries. He suggested scheduling this topic on a Council agenda under "Other" for discussion. He also requested color copies of the original of the master plan for Council. Mr. Hahn agreed to provide them in the next Council packet, along with preliminary cost estimates. ln the interim, the over-sized rendering of the plan will be placed in the Council Planning Room. Mayor McCash stated that this discussion would be delayed to a February Council agenda. Mrs. Boring asked ifthe neighbors' concerns were forwarded to PRAC. Were those neighbors also invited to the PRAC meeting to share their concerns? .- Mr. Hahn stated that the residents were concerned about the disposition of the houses as the City purchased them. The determination was made that the houses would be torn down as soon as possible. Another concern was that the plan might include "unattractive" City facilities, such as salt sheds and maintenance buildings. He noted that copies of the Coffinan Park Master plan have been provided to all the neighbors, and viewing the plan has satisfied many of their concerns. In addition, some of the neighbors who had concerns earlier have since sold their properties to the City. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to know how the plan would be integrated with future facilities. PRAC indicated that is to be reviewed by Council in the future, but she would like it to be an integral consideration of the plan. Mayor McCash stated that after the information is provided to Council and the topic is scheduled on a Council agenda, Council would proceed with that discussion. 2. Referred to another memo from PRAC regarding the lighting of bike path tunnels. Staff completed an inventory of those tunnels, and that report was provided in Council packets. PRAC recommends lighting the two tunnels as indicated in the report. Mr. McDaniel stated that if Council would approve the concept, staff will bring cost estimates back to Council. The project could be included in next year's budget, an additional appropriation could be approved for this year, or perhaps the - project could be absorbed in the current operating budget. At this point, he cannot estimate a cost. Staff requests guidance. Mayor McCash stated that he supports the concept due to the safety factor. The tunnels are dark and provide areas for unsafelillegal activities. He is familiar with the tunnel at Muirfield Drive and Tullymore. He is not familiar with the one at Muirfield Drive and Dublinshire, and because he is not aware of the light levels being considered, he cannot assess the potential impact on the neighbors. Mr. McDaniel stated that at that location, it would not impact the neighboring residences to any greater degree than those tunnels throughout the City which are already lit. On the east side of Muirfield Drive, there is one house in the corner; but the lights can be placed to minimize the impact on that home. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS H'~~~~'4H~~N",H~HH","~_~~~HM!~~H~~~"~H__~_"~",~~H~mmH~~H_~~PllblinJ::;i!YJ::Q!l!1~iL~_~~mH~~~~~~_~~1?~E~2~~'""'H~~~~!!E-g ~HH"~""Q~",",~"H" DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 1014CJ Held January 7,2002 19 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the criteria for determination of whether to light a tunnel. -. Ms. Grigsby responded that the two tunnels under discussion are the City's two oldest tunnels and were installed by developers. Recently, tunnels have been installed through the City's capital improvements program and are lighted. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why these two were selected for lighting. Mr. McDaniel stated that the remaining unlit tunnels are in Muirfield. When he asked Mr. Holbrook if the issue of lighting tunnels had been raised in the past, he was told that it had not. However, the two tunnels suggested by PRAC for lighting serve a higher volume pedestrian crossing at Muirfield Drive and Tullymore Drive. Youth crossing A very Road typically take the sidewalk on the east side to the tunnel and cross at that point to the other side. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that a need for construction clean up has been noted. Has that occurred? Mr. McDaniel responded upon completion of the inventory, work orders were done for that purpose. He added that those sites are checked routinely. Mayor McCash asked for confirmation that the Dublin Road/Memorial Drive tunnel currently under construction will have lights included with the construction. Ms. Grigsby affirmed that it would. - Council consensus was that Mr. McDaniel proceeds to obtain an estimated cost and timeframe for lighting of the two identified tunnels. Mr. Harding referred to a memo in Council packets regarding the City Manager search. process. Mr. Slavin has indicated that his schedule is open for the next two weeks, and requested that Council select a date for a briefing on the top group of candidates. Mayor McCash stated that dates would be discussed in the immediately following executive session. The Council Clerk will relay that information to Mr. Harding tomorrow. Mr. Kindra referred to a petition provided in Council packets from Dublinshire residents regarding installation of another raised crosswalk on Dublinshire in the area in front of the pool and two additional speed limit signs. He noted that the speed limit signs were installed prior to receipt of the petition. He also recommends the addition of the second crosswalk in the 2002 Street Maintenance Program. Mrs. Boring requested a diagram of the crosswalk at the proposed location. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he supports the additional crosswalk. He walks that area daily, and the speeding is considerable. Mr. Lecklider noted that Mr. Hatch is present this evening, if Council would like to direct any questions to him. - Mark Hatch. 5513 Dublinshire Drive. stated that his family has lived in their home for eleven years. Initially, Dublinshire did not connect to Muirfield Drive, but dead-ended at the Woods of Dublin shire. Since its opening, it has provided a cut-through to other neighborhoods. It is a wide street and can provide substantial parking for the school, the pool, and the park. Bikepaths leading to the school and park converge there. The raised crosswalk in front ofthe school is appreciated. However, the residents believe that a raised crosswalk at the point where the bikepaths converge near the pool would help slow the traffic at a critical point. The vast majority ofthe neighbors support the additional crosswalk. Mr. Lecklider stated that this crosswalk is substantially warranted. i I I Ii j .1 ii' i Uhlil I ,Ii Ii: .... : RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS W"",W"~d",~"~"","Wd~'HH~",~",~,",",,,~MLnu tes -2!_<H",_~~",~QM~~~~H_~_",~~"",_"~'~<H,~QQplil1 Gi!Y_GJmnci1 "~~-~_~_~b_"~b",'b_M_rb~E,~wL9~~",_ ~!n~L~~ffM~"~d~",b DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 1014B Held January 7, 2002 19 Ms. Salay moved to approve installation of the raised crosswalk at the location specified by the City Engineer. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. - V ote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinallce 147-01 - Au Ordinance ~uthorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right-of-Way Permit to Adelphia Business Solutions. Ms. Grigsby stated that Adelphia Cable has applied for a general right-of-way permit. Staff recommends approval. There were no questions. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 148-01 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Rockford Homes for Reimbursement of Sanitary Sewer Oversizing Costs, and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Ms. Grigsby noted that a memo from Ms. Crandall in Council packets provides detail on the subject. It relates to the City required oversizing of the sanitary sewers for the Cramer Crossing development by the developer. There were no questions. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. --- Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 149-01 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Settlement Agreement with Thomas A. McDowell to Resolve the West Branch Sewer Extension Acquisition and Damage Claims. Ms. Grigsby stated that during the process of construction of the West Branch Sewer, Mr. McDowell provided the City a right-of-entry to complete the necessary work. This clears up that transaction. The total amount of $49,000 covers the cost of three easements and the rental of some of Mr. McDowell's land. There were no questions. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 01-02 - An Ordinance Amending Certain Sections of Ordinance 98-96 ("Compensation Plan") Regarding Wages/Salaries for Non-Union Personnel. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that a detailed memo from Mr. Harding was provided in Council packet. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the January 22 Council meeting. - Ordinance 02-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Health Services with the Franklin County Board of Health for 2002, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is an annual contract with the Franklin County Board of Health for services they provide to the City. Staffrequests adoption by emergency. Mrs. Boring moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. V ote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. : ; I II :1:1'ii:kd,llm, 1<,.1111 '"lHi H ii i:t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ",H_Q&.$~'~"Hh","~'_H~H"_~.~~t~!.~2L'~~_~_'H~~~",",~_~m~Q~~~~Qublin Ci!y","~~oun9il ~~",",~",~~",.~~~_~~"E~g.~.1L~~. ~~~!~g ~.~"'~~.~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. I014t1 Held January 7, 2002 19 Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 03-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with the Franklin County Public Defender Commission for the Defense of Indigent Defendants, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is also an annual contract, and staff requests approval by emergency. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance and moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Ordinance 04-02 - An Ordinance Amending Sections 91.29 and 91.99 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that based upon discussion at the last Council meeting, a change was made in the language regarding fence height. The requirement for six-foot fences is replaced with the "maximum height allowed by law." There will be a second reading/public hearing at the January 22 Council meeting. OTHER Jt!""", Waterford Drive Sidewalk Project Mr. Ciarochi stated that this project was initially considered by Council in Fall 2001 in an attempt to include the project in the 2001 funding cycle. However, in response to residents' concerns, Council directed staff to meet with residents in the Waterford Village subdivision. Per Council's request, postcard notification of the meeting was made to Waterford Village residents, and on November 18th, City staff met with residents at the Dublin Library. There was excellent resident attendance at the meeting, and many public comments were offered in favor of the sidewalk. Public comment forms were distributed for direct response to the City. Thirty-six of 41 comment sheets received supported the sidewalk project on the north side of Waterford Drive. Staff recommends approval of the project and bidding of the project to facilitate construction in Spring 2002. The project would also include sidewalk construction on the west side of Dublin Road to provide pedestrian access to the Historic Dublin area. Mrs. Boring inquired about future maintenance of the Waterford sidewalk. Mr. Ciarochi responded that it would fall into the same category and responsibility as other sidewalks throughout the community. It is included within the City's right-of-way, but City ordinances place the responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk on the property owner. He clarified that if cracks result from defects in .,,"""" the sidewalk, the City would make those repairs. The sidewalks will be installed according to the City's standard specifications. ln the future, per City policy, the property owner would be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Kindra pointed out that although the Code does make the stipulation, the City for the past several years has been maintaining the sidewalks in conjunction with the street maintenance program. Either the Code requires reconciliation with the practice, or the City needs to terminate its current practice. Mr. Reiner inquired if a City resident can contact the City and request sidewalk repairs. Mr. Kindra responded that the City makes note of needed repairs and schedules those repairs in the street maintenance program. This work has been listed in the street maintenance schedule, which is provided to Council annually. " ., -, ..,,, '... , -"';",,,,,,,,,., l<'''."'''''''' "."":U'''.:'';'.''''t'':H:J:<.'''I~~II:;I.'' 1l'll'II:'."'l~L,1~':L"t::".:~'ii\t.::":.li 'I: '1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS m#Hdm'~d~.~"~_d~W~,~,~~~~'~m~.MiIl~l~~~t~~~~"~d~~~"~H~_~~",~",_~",~",#H.~~4~",_!?~Q)inww~i!Y~<::Quncil.~mw~~"",w","",~'~.~~__'W"WH"J:<!R~Jl.",H_.~~~g:~"",~~~~"" DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Held January 7, 2002 19 Ms. Grigsby stated that because the City infrastructure is relatively new, there has been little need for repair. Staff has discussed this issue and noted the need for clarification of the policy. Currently, the Code assigns responsibility to the homeowner, but there have been instaJ1ces in which the City has made the repairs. This may be an appropriate topic for a Committee discussion, unless Council prefers to direct otherwise. Mr. Reiner inquired why staff deviated from the Code. Ms. Grigsby responded that some time in the past, the City staff inspecting the streets, curbs and gutters for the street maintenance program also included a few sidewalk repairs - that deviation from the Code inadvertently has been carried through. However, staff has recently discussed the need to reconcile the practice with the Code. Mayor McCash inquired if the City will need additional right-of-way for the installation of Waterford sidewalks. Ms. Grigsby responded that that no additional right-of-way is required. Mr. Ciarochi stated that in the Waterford subdivision, the City will need a temporary easement in a transition area from lawn to sidewalk on two properties. He believes the easements are being addressed. Mr. Hahn stated that at this point, the easements have not been granted to the City from those two residents. Staff is waiting for direction from Council regarding the project prior to obtaining the easements. ~ Mrs. Boring asked why the sidewalk is designed to be on the north side rather than the south side of Waterford. Ms. Grigsby responded that, initially, sidewalks were identified for both the north and south sides. It was subsequently determined from a funding standpoint that sidewalks on both sides would not be necessary. The majority of the homes are on the north side, so it would be more user-friendly to have the sidewalk on the north side of the street. Mrs. Boring inquired about the impact on trees. Ms. Grigsby responded that the trees have been evaluated. On the map provided, there are areas where the proposed sidewalk curves; that curve is related to existing trees. Mayor McCash suggested that, depending on the residents' preference, the trees could be removed/replaced and the sidewalk could be moved farther from the homes. Curving the sidewalk around trees often results in sidewalk placement closer to the homes. Mr. Ciarochi noted that most of the movement of the sidewalk is closer to the street. There is a driveway apron and behind the driveway apron is a four-foot slab. This subdivision layout was originally done to accommodate sidewalks. The ~" majority of the trees affected are the white pines on the east side of the street, and the affected property owner wants those trees removed. Mr. Reiner moved to authorize staffto proceed with soliciting bids for construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Waterford Drive. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. V ote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Council Round Table/Committee Reports Mr. Kranstuber: ". , "'H'..",,,-.>'''!)'';':I'''UU;~.'IH'::IMVJ!lllJ:;'1''?:HlIf:!:~ li"j-' . I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .",~q~q~H~",~m~"Q""_~",qm",H~_~~inute~~~ofmH~~~_~~q~H~~"~_"~~",",_~m_~_DuQlin. CiJYJ;~gl!!!2il ~-~~~~~"~_~q_~",-E9-E"~J.L",H",m~ti~~"_~~_~q_q DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 1014e I HeM January 7, 2002 19 1. Congratulated Mayor McCash and Vice Mayor Boring on their elections by Council as Mayor and Vice Mayor. He stated that he enjoyed the six years he served as Mayor. 2. Reported that he received a call today from the Dublin Schools -- Administration indicating that the joint meeting scheduled with Planning and Zoning Commission on January 24th conflicts with the State of the Schools event. He responded to the Schools that he would ask Council about the possibility of rescheduling that meeting. Mayor McCash noted that he also has a conflict on the 24th. Ms. Salay suggested that a proposal be made to Planning and Zoning Commission to reschedule the joint meeting with Council to Thursday, January 31 st. Ms. Clarke stated that when staff calls tomorrow for determination of a quorum, staff would also poll the members regarding the proposed meeting date change. Mrs. Boring thanked Mr. Kranstuber for his dedication to the City while serving as Mayor, thanked all Council members for working together and welcomed Mr. Lecklider and Ms. Salay to City Council. Mayor McCash: 1. Inquired if staff needs Council direction regarding the overhead marking signs on Riverside Drive and Bridge Street. Mr. Kindra responded that staff will proceed with that change, unless directed otherwise. 2. Mayor McCash asked if all of the existing US33/SR161 directional signs are necessary within the landscaped island between the right-turn lane and ~ the two straight lanes at that same intersection. Mr. Kindra responded that over the years, some unnecessary signs might have been added. Staffwill review the site for sign clutter. 3. Mayor McCash referred to the staff memo regarding parking restrictions on Sells Mill Drive. Will staff now proceed with implementation? Staff indicated that they would proceed to implement parking restrictions per the memo dated January 5, 2002. Ms. Grigsby informed Council that Law Director Steve Smith became ill earlier this evening and has been transported to Riverside Hospital. At this time, tests have not identified a serious problem. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for land acquisition, legal and personnel matters. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. V ote on the motion - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, Mayor McCash, yes. Mayor McCash announced that the meeting would not be reconvened following the executive session. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9:30 p.m. - ~~ an~~ CL-~ Clerk of Council