Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2002 RECORD OF' PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~~,~~~~,~~4~.,~„~~~w~,,~b~w,~„~,~~.,a.~,.,,,~,.~,,.,~,~,,,.,~.~..~~„~q~~w~,,,.~,,.4,~oWw~,.~,,~~,~~,~, . Dub1.t3z,~C~~unc.~~r~,~„~,~,~~~,,,,,,..n~~,.~,,~.~~,.,aro.,~,.w~~,~a~w Meeting~,~,v~mwv,M~.~uh DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R Held February 19, 2002 19 Mayor McCash called the Dublin City Council meeting of February 19, 2002 to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ' Roll Call Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Lecklider, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Kranstuber arrived at 7:05 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Kindra, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Stevens, Lt. Epperson, Ms. Heal, Mr. Price, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Husenitza, Ms. Hoyle, and Ms. Crandall. Approval of Minutes Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of the February 4, 2002 Council meeting minutes as submitted. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion -Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Correspondence There was no correspondence requiring action from Council. Citizen Comments There were no comments from citizens. Staff Comments Ms. Grigsby reported that three requests have been sent to Council for waivers for water and sewer connection in areas where the City has recently extended lines: 1) Ms. Helen Carvour, 4191 MacDuff Way: waiver from requirement to connect to water and sewer. Staff recommends granting the waiver based upon the fact that the existing systems at the residence are new and the distance to the house from the lines results in a very high cost for connection. 2) Ms. Rochelle Vennari - 7594 Dublin Road: waiver from requirement to connection to waterline. Staff recommends waiver for a period of three to five years, which would give the property owner additional time to have the funding sources in place for the connection. 3) Mr. Edward Upperman, 6001 Avery Road: waiver from connection to water and sewer due to the impact on his property from the future Avery Road widening project. Staff recommends that Council temporarily waive the required connections until such time as final design of the Avery Road widening project is completed and the impact on this property is determined. Should Council approve the waivers, staff will draw up agreements between the City and the property owner to formalize the waivers and outline the details. Staff proposes that the waiver be granted to the property owner, and if the property were later sold, connection to the system would be required at that time. Waivers from the required connections can be granted only by City Council. Mayor McCash asked if the property owners requesting waivers would therefore be ineligible in the future for the current rate reduction being offered. Ms. Grigsby confirmed this. It will be detailed in the agreement. Mayor McCash noted that the property owners should be informed that they would not be eligible for the rate reduction at a future date in conjunction with the granting of this waiver. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Resolution specified that the rate reduction was in effect only through December 31, 2002. The property owners will be notified that connection after December 31, 2002 results in not being eligible for the rate reduction approved with Resolution 59-01. ~ u RECORD CJF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit n Council Pa e 2 Meeting ~~,,~~~„m~,~~~o,~m, ~„~W,.~,~,a,~,w„~~,~,roAw,~.~.~.„~,,~~,,,~,w~,.,. ~~~ro_~,9~,~.,;n „~,K.,,~,w~~,~u„~N,~„~a~A„~„~~.~,,,~.,~~,~~~., DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held February 19, 2002 19 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if it is advisable not to have a timeframe specified for the waiver for MacDuff Way - perhaps a timeframe should be established, and the property owner would then have to return to Council for an additional waiver. Ms. Grigsby stated that in this case, the water and sewer systems are new and the setback from the roadway makes this an expensive connection. Therefore, staff felt it appropriate to grant the waiver. If there are future problems with the system, the City can require " " connection. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this language be included in the agreement. She added that it is important to be clear on the internal policies regarding the specific criteria used to make the decision to grant the waiver. Waivers will not always be recommended, nor will they be granted unless certain criteria are met. In the second case along Dublin Road, staff is recommending up to five years for the waiver. Will the agreement specify that an extension will not be granted after the five-year period? Ms. Grigsby stated that the language would specify that connection is required after the period for which the waiver is granted. At the end of the five years, however, the property owner could return to Council and request an extension. ' Mayor McCash stated that the concept is that the property owner will have five years to save the funds needed for connection. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if connection to the system is desirable by the City, she is not personally interested in granting extensions of such waivers. Five years would be adequate time to plan for this connection. Ms. Grigsby responded that if there are no changes in the property owner's financial condition, and if they had taken no steps to plan for this connection, this would be a consideration in whether or not Council would want to grant an additional waiver. Mr. Lecklider suggested language being included in the agreement specifying that renewal or extension is not automatic, and that the property owner should not make such an assumption. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of the staff recommendations for waivers fvr the three properties specified in the memo of February 13, 2002. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. McDaniel reported that staff provided to Council last fall a sequence of events and a timeline for design and construction of the second outdoor pool. As part of that process, staff was to form a staff technical committee to retain an architect for the project. On Friday, the Environmental Design Group was selected as the architect. The next step in the process is to schedule a meeting with staff, the architect and Council to obtain Council's input and guidance on the design process. He suggested that a meeting be scheduled for this purpose within the next month. Mayor McCash suggested that Council members check their calendars so that later this evening, a date can be set for this meeting. Mr. Harding noted that, pursuant to the Mayor's direction to staff, he has scheduled a public meeting with another consulting firm in regard to the City Manager search process. The meeting is set for tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m. in the Council conference room with a representative of Paul Reaume, Ltd., known as the PAR Group. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to formally notify the current consultant, Mr. Slavin to cease working on the City Manager search project. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion -Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mrs. Boring stated that she received notification from a former neighbor who would like to be considered as a consultant for the City Manager search. She asked how Council would prefer to handle that request. Mayor McCash noted that he had asked Mr. Harding to talk with this resident. Mr. Harding reported that he spoke with Ms. Berke prior to the meeting. He explained that Council had gone through an extensive RFP process previously and would not be i ~ ~ RECORD OF ~'ROCEEDINGS ,ma Minutes~of ~ ~ Dublin Council City ~~~,~,.~.~,~~o,~,~,,a~~„ Page 3~~„~~ 1Vleeting .~m~,~~,~.~„a DAYTON LEGAL BLA K R Held February 19, 2002 19 reviewing additional proposals at this time. He assured her that he would keep her proposal on file, as from time to time staff retains consultants for department/division head searches. Mr. Kranstuber asked for further clarification regarding the second outdoor pool design process. In the Recreation Center process, he recalled that a Committee was formed that included Council members for selection of the architect. He wants to ensure that there is no work underway prior to further public input in the process. Mr. McDaniel responded that the timeline previously approved by Council specified that staff would retain the architect for the project. Mr. Hahn provided details on the qualifications of the team selected for this project. Staff is very confident in their capabilities. Staff will seek guidance from Council at an upcoming meeting to be scheduled, and this will be followed by several public input meetings regarding design. The goal is to have the pool program and site plan established for a July meeting of Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that the Parks and 1ecreation Advisory Commission be utilized as well. Mr. Hahn stated that staff and the consultant will recommend a course of action for this project, subject to modification by Council at the upcoming meeting. The proposal assumes involvement by PRAC. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff will redistribute the timeline for the project to Council. Ms. Puskarcik thanked Council members who have submitted their biographical forms and had their photos taken. She reminded those who have not to do so as soon as possible. She wi1T put another form in their mailboxes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 140-O1 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 30.399 Acres Located at the Northeast Corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North) To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Wasatch Estates-File No. 01-0812) Mayor McCash noted that Michael Close has signed in to testify on this rezoning. Ms. Clarke stated that within the Amberleigh North development, the northern piece of 30 acres is zoned for cluster housing and single family residences - 74 units in total. This rezoning revises that section of the PUD and creates six estate-sized lots. Planning Commission reviewed this in December of 2001 and approved the application with 17 conditions. There is an error in the Record of Action from the P&Z hearing where it states that Mr. Close agreed to the above conditions. He agreed with 16 conditions, but not the 17~h condition. Condition #17 was a carryover from the Amberleigh North PUD which stipulated installation of a bikepath on the north side of Memorial Drive. Mr. Close indicated that he is unable to agree to this condition based upon the wishes of his client. This is a new layout of the PUD -there will be only one access which will serve this and the subdivision to the north, Deer Run Estates. There will also be a gatehouse constructed along Dublin Road at the new entry drive. This is a subdivision which will be constructed on a private road system. She then showed slides of the site plan for the development. She noted that there have been very developments proposed in the last several years with private roads. There is a bikepath as part of the PUD which is to run from the Dublin Road bikepath over to the park. This is the condition to which the applicant objects. The proposed plan with six units will result in saving many trees compared to what would have occurred with 74 units constructed on the same site. Ms. Clarke noted that this proposal changes the preliminary development plan. The site would still be zoned PUD, but the permissible use would change substantially. The Record of Action will be corrected as previously described. There is a PUD text, a layout established, and staff recommends approval with 17 conditions. Mayor McCash asked if Mr. Close sent copies of a letter regarding the bikepath to all members of Council. RECORD OF' i'RC7CEEDlNG~ ' t s of Mmu e Dubli ' ~~.~9~~,~mn,4,~~~v~,~.~.,r~,,,~,~~,~~,~,u~~~„o~.9,~,~~,~,~~.,,~~,...,.,~,,~~,~.~»,..~<m,.,~, n Cit~~rCouncil,~~„~m~.,,~~.~~.~.~~„~„~~,~w~~,~,Pae 4 n..,~, Meeting,~~rvo,,w,~,~,~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., F RM 1 Held February 19, 2002 19 Mr. Close confirmed that he had done so. Mayor McCash stated that the tunnel under Dublin Road is located on the north side of Memorial Drive, so the bikepath that the applicant has concerns with is one that will tie into the tunnel. Mr. Kindra confirmed this. Mr. Reiner asked for more information about the bikepath, which appears to be the only unresolved issue. Ms. Clarke responded that she does not have a copy of the correspondence sent by Mr. Close to members of Council; she is aware only that Mr. Close indicated in a public meeting that he would not agree to the bikepath condition. Staff's position is that a park is located immediately east of the development and a bikepath immediately west of this development. Staff believes the connection is important. Mr. Reiner asked if there is an alternate solution to accomplish this connection. Ms. Clarke stated that staff has not reviewed other options for this connection. Mayor McCash stated that the only other alternative would be to cross under Dublin Road at the tunnel, and to then cross Memorial Drive to access the south side. Mr. Reiner asked what investment the City has made with the tunnel. Ms. Grigsby stated that she estimates the cost of the tunnel as $520,000. Michael Close 7360 Bellaire Drive Dublin representing the applicant apologized for not copying Ms. Clarke on the letter sent to Council. His client believes that the bikepath as required will not have a functional purpose. The applicant has reduced the density from 74 units to 6; reduced the five driveways to two; and there is an existing bikepath on the south side of Memorial Drive just 40 feet away which runs to the park. According to the park plan, there will be no need to cross the street again to access the north end of the park. The bridge or whatever ultimately goes across the road there will be below grade. A bikepath serves no functional purpose in this location. Ultimately, the project will include a decorative security fence along the perimeter of the property, including Memorial Drive. They would prefer not have the bikepath in this location, if possible. Council then reviewed the site plan as shown by Mr. Close. Mrs. Boring pointed out that Council is forgetting in this discussion that Memorial Drive is to be a future bridge cross connecting to the other side of the river. In walking the area, residents have commented that this bikepath will provide a safe way to cross the road to access the park. If families use the bike tunnel and upon leaving the tunnel have to cross Memorial Drive, this results in jeopardizing their safety. Mr. Close disagreed. By the time the park is built which will attract people, and by the time the bridge is built, if ever, there will be a traffic signal installed to allow safe crossing at grade. Mr. Reiner stated that he is hopeful that there is never a bridge crossing at this location. Mr. Close stated that if a bridge is not built, there will be no need for the bikepath under debate tonight. He added that the Emerald Parkway has provided traffic relief, and he doubts that there will be a need for a bridge in this location based on expected development. Mayor McCash stated that the advantage of the path along the south side of Memorial Drive is that it would allow the Amberleigh North residents to access the park. The path on the north side allows access by the Muirfield residents and River Forest residents who will use the tunnel and eliminates the need to cross Memorial Drive. His concern is that residents would at some point in the future complain about speeding issues and then request traffic calming measures to allow safe access to the park. Mr. Close suggested a condition that the bikepath be installed in the future if the Memorial Drive bridge is built. i RECORD tJF' PRC~CEEDII\1GS . . Minutes of Dublin City Council Pale 5 Meetin .,Mw~m,~~,,,,~,~,..~,,,M~,w~, ,~,mx~,M~„~~.,~~~,,,,,-,,~~r~.~,w~,.~.h.,~ DAYTON LEGAL 6LANK C FOR N i Held February 19, 2002 19 Ms. Salay noted that the decision was made to install the tunnel on the north side of Memorial Drive with the anticipation that a bikepath would connect. She asked for history of this decision. Mr. Close responded that the tunnel was located on the north side because the developer agreed to provide the land for installation of the tunnel as part of the development of i Amberleigh. Ms. Clarke stated that the decision was actually driven by topography -from an engineering feasibility standpoint, this was the most workable location for a tunnel. Mr. Reiner asked why the Planning division requires two bikepaths, one on each side of the road. Ms. Clarke responded that the decision for the tunnel was made at a later date. Fifteen years ago, staff was not aware of where tunnels would be located and what the final disposition would be regarding construction of the Dublin Road bikepath. Mr. Hahn stated that he believes that the south side of Memorial Drive actually has afive- foot sidewalk, and not a true bikepath. The master plan for bikepaths called for a path on the north side of Memorial Drive. When Amberleigh was platted, the developer was required to install a sidewalk along the residential area along Memorial Drive. Mr. Kranstuber asked for his assessment of the need for this piece on the north side. Mr. Hahn stated that his recollection is that a true bikepath, eight-foot minimum width, was to be built on the north side of Memorial Drive to serve the park, whether or not there would be a bridge at this location in the future. Mr. Kranstuber asked, procedurally, how Council would delete Condition #17, if desired? Mr. Smith responded that the rezoning was approved with various conditions. Council can add a condition or delete a condition by motion. Voting on the Ordinance would include all 17 conditions, unless Council approves a separate motion regarding Condition #17. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Hahn noted that a bikepath was included in the Master Plan for the north side of Memorial Drive. This path was also included in the Amberleigh plan, but at that time there was an expectation of 63 condos and 11 single- family homes. Mr. Hahn responded that from a broader plan point of view, whether or not the Memorial Drive bridge is implemented in the future, the concept of a bikepath connecting from one side of the river to the other has always been planned. The community scale park of 22 acres in this location by design will have strong linkages, whether pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular. It was viewed as a needed amenity for this site. In terms of the quantity of residential homes, it does not have a bearing on the needed path -the path will serve a greater population than this development. The bikepath on the north side of Memorial Drive is a necessary piece of the overall bikeplan throughout the City. Mrs. Boring noted that the setback along Dublin Road for this PUD is 60 feet. Doesn't the community plan call for larger setbacks along Dublin Road? Ms. Clarke stated that, as a general rule, yes. However, the setback was one of the compromises made in discussion about the height of buildings, etc. Mr. Reiner asked about the impact the bikepath requirement on the north side will have on the client. These are huge estate lots -what is the width of the path and the setback from the curb for the path? Mr. Close responded that the path was not part of their submission - it was a condition added at the end of a long hearing at Planning Commission. There was no detail provided by staff. He noted that some of the concerns about the path relate to security. There are distinct security issues for this kind of client. The smaller setback somewhat relates to the need to have the gatehouse closer to the roadway so that it can function properly. Mayor McCash asked if the bikepath could be placed all within the existing City right-of- way. III., ax .n x ~ Aux ior~m'it~e rorrit t I RECORD CAF I'R4CEEDINGS a wu,~~~n~v~,y~~~~ Minutes of Dublin City Council~~~ ~ Page 6 ~ Meeting ~ ~a, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C F RM N 1 Held February 19, 2002 19 Mr. Kindra responded that, typically, bikepaths are installed within the existing right-of- way. In this case, the right-of--way is established for the wider road needed for a future bridge. There is quite a big of flexibility in layout for this bikepath due to the amount of right-of--way available. Mr. Lecklider commented that three members of Council served on Planning Commission when this case was presented in December. He does not begrudge the applicant asking for elimination of this condition; that is his right. As he recalls, however, there was extensive discussion of the condition regarding the bikepath at P&Z, and there was discussion of the security issue as well. Compromises were made on both sides in the course of the consideration, and he believes that fair consideration was given to the request for elimination of the bikepath. After review of all the facts, six members present at P&Z that evening determined that the path should remain in the plan. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the gatehouse is the only encroachment on the desired setback on scenic road. Mr. Close stated that the topography on lot 5 might impact the setback. There will be a fence around the perimeter, but no other structures encroaching. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it is difficult to complain about a development where the density has been reduced from 741ots to 6; the school district appreciates the lower density, as density impacts the number of future students. In terms of the bikepath, he will defer to staff. For future reference, he would adhere to a larger setback requirement on a scenic road. This case is clearly the exception. Mayor McCash stated that Council has indicated that a 200-foot setback is desirable on scenic roadways. In this case, however, the low density will provide for a more open feeling. Ms. Clarke stated that as a general recommendation, staff strives fora 200-foot setback along scenic roadways. Mr. Lecklider stated that P&Z struggled with the setback issue as well. Hearing no amendments from Council, Mayor McCash asked the Clerk to call the roll. Vote on the Ordinance - Ms. Salay; yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 10-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Annexation of 42.387 Acres from Concord Township, Delaware County, to the City of Dublin. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption at this time. Mayor McCash noted that two citizens have signed in to testify. Cvnthia Reed, 5208 Aryshire Drive, Dublin stated that she attended the Delaware County Commissioners hearing on this annexation where she asked that the commitments made in writing by the Muirfield Village Golf Club to the Muirfield residents be made part of the record. She has copies of the minutes of the Concord Township Trustees April 1986 meeting that took place between John Hines, attorneys, and the residents. She had previously provided a copy to Mr. Smith and to the Clerk. In 1986, Muirfield Village Golf Club officials met with many surrounding residents of the 42-acre plot purchased from the Diocese of Columbus. They assured the residents verbally that as long as there was a Muirfield Tournament, the land would be used as a parking lot. At the time, they made several concessions including landscaping and installation of a tall chain link fence to block the Bogey Inn from using this as overflow parking access. Recently, when residents heard that Muirfield was interested in selling the land to Kroger, they circulated petitions indicating their opposition to any and all commercial development on this acreage currently owned by the Golf Club and located along a scenic roadway. She presented these petitions to Council. The residents are adamantly opposed to this land being zoned to any RECORD ~F PRt~CEE®[IVGS riwm9,wa,~. wq~~m ,yp,~,q gy,~~Minutes of ~ ~gDublin City Council, ~ e 7 etin ,~.,.um~~ w.,~ ~ti,.m Pam ~~vti Me m,~~ g DAYTON LEGAL BLANK F RM N Held February 19, 2002 19 commercial use in this residential area. They are in favor of Dublin annexing this property in its current rural residential status. She believes it is currently zoned as FR-l, Farm Residential Single Family, and the Golf Club had a conditional use variance for parking for special events. The residents would like to work with the City and the property owner on the development of the 42 acres so that they could have input in the process. They understand that a study is underway of the southern portion of Delaware County, and they would like to meet with those doing the study. There are 746 signatures on the petitions which will also be forwarded to Planning & Zoning Commission. She noted that the residents have also collected 459 signatures in favor of a Dublin noise ordinance directed toward the Bogey Inn. While this is not under discussion tonight, the 42 acres and the way in which it is developed will affect the Bogey Inn. Since 1995, she has worked with various entities in the jurisdictions surrounding the Bogey Inn. The Bogey Innis now under new ownership, and while they have indicated they do not intend to expand, what happens on this 42 acres will be a factor. Mayor McCash stated that he is aware only of an annexation petition before Council tonight. It is his understanding that Kroger is no longer interested in this site. There is no zoning application being considered by Council at this time. Ms. Reed concurred, adding that if it is annexed to Dublin, the residents desire that it remains in the same zoning category of farm residential single family. The owner would have to secure a new conditional use permit to use this for parking. Mayor McCash stated that Council cannot prohibit someone from submitting a rezoning application, but Council can deny the application. All of this discussion should be deferred until any rezoning is filed. The residents at this point should have discussion with the current owner of the property regarding whatever commitments have been made to the residents. Ms. Reed responded that in the letters from Mr. Hines, he would not acknowledge that any written commitment exists. Concord Township supplied them with the copy of the variance secured by the Golf Club. Mayor McCash stated that the City at this point should not become involved in a dispute between the Muirfield residents and the current property owner regarding what occurred in the past. The City can act only on an application submitted. Mayor McCash asked the Law Director to comment regarding the continued use as a parking lot. Mr. Smith stated that there is currently a conditional use for this property to be used for the Tournament parking lot. Upon annexation to the City, the use does not change. It constitutes anon-conforming, pre-existing use. There is not, to his knowledge, any pending application or discussion of a rezoning with the City. The annexation petition was prompted by the change in state law regarding annexations. Ms. Clarke confirmed that no rezoning application has been filed for this property. Mr. Smith stated that informal discussion was held previously with Kroger regarding this land, but the rezoning was never pursued. Mr. Lecklider stated that the land use issue has been raised previously in the course of discussion of property annexed to the City from townships. It is his understanding that the City has the ability to designate a zoning category upon annexation. Mr. Smith responded that in a proposal provided by the Law Department to Council tonight, there is a request for such policy direction. An ordinance approved by Council in 1972 provides that upon annexation, land is placed in the closest category of City zoning to the previous township zoning. A suggestion in the memo is that when an annexation is accepted, the land would then be placed in a type of holding zone until it is actually rezoned by the City. That holding zone permits the existing township use to continue, as pre-existing rights cannot be taken away. Staff will be seeking policy direction from Council on this matter in conjunction with the new zoning code currently under review. Mayor McCash stated that for purposes of clarification regarding this 42 acres, the Golf Club could use this as a parking lot under the existing conditional use from Concord Township. It is anon-conforming, pre-existing use. i ~ s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dubl' ' ~ ~o..,,x~mv.~,~~~..,,~.,ti~,v~~,...,,,,~.,,~.~v~~,~~~,, ~,m~,~~,~~,,,~.~,~,~,,~,~,~.~„~~,~,~bro,..,,,,~, m Cit~',.Council w„~,n~w,~„~,~,_W,~,~w~,,~,w...~..~ Pa~e,.g Meeting .~,~,,~.v_,_..,~~,~,,, ~ DAYiON LEGAL BLANK C R February 19, 2002 Held 19 Mayor McCash stated that from Dublin residents' standpoint, it would be beneficial to have this land in Dublin in order to control future development. Mr. Smith agreed, adding that this acreage is in Dublin's exclusive service area for water and sewer, and under the contract from Columbus, only Dublin can provide those services to any potential developer of the site. Secondly, the applicant would be subject to the laws of Dublin with any rezoning application. If it remains in the township, the township would have jurisdiction over any future use. Ms. Reed stated that she was made aware at the Delaware County Commissioners hearing that the attorney from Muirfield Village Golf Club stated that there are several offers pending on the land. This is the concern of the residents. She asked if it would be possible for the residents to be involved in the traffic and growth management study being undertaken for northern Franklin and southern Delaware County by MORPC. Moreover, she read a recent article in the Dispatch regarding a sewage dispute which could close the Bogey Inn. She wonders what type of master plan is in place for this area. Mayor McCash stated that the MORPC study relates to traffic; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher represents Council on the MORPC Board and could provide a contact name to Ms. Reed. Ms. Reed provided a file folder with letters from residents and copies of newspaper articles regarding these topics. Mayor McCash suggested that the residents stay in touch with their ward representative, Mr. Reiner, regarding their opposition to any proposed commercial development in the future. Nicole Sullivan. 5224 Arvshire Drive, Dublin noted that she has no further comments to add. Ms. Salay stated that the City does have a noise ordinance in place. She would be interested in the Law Director's opinion regarding enforcement of Dublin's noise ordinance in relation to businesses outside of Dublin affecting Dublin residents. In her ward, she has received complaints regarding noise from a Columbus restaurant located across the river. Mr. Smith stated that in addition to the "sewer issues pending with Shawnee Hills, another matter raised was a cooperative agreement on a noise ordinance. This has not been explored due to the other matters pending, but there are ways to implement this. Currently, the Bogey Inn is located in the township -not in Shawnee Hills. He will provide a memo to Council regarding this; in fact, a memo was drafted last year on the same topic. It would require negotiating joint agreements with the neighboring jurisdictions. He will provide a memo prior to the next meeting of Council. Vote on the Ordinance -Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 11-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Printing of the Recreation Services Program and Activities Brochure and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Said Printing Services. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff was directed to review cost reduction measures for this printing, and this was done in conjunction with the specifications. The brochure is now printed in black and white with a color cover. Previously, the brochure was done in three colors. Mrs. Boring asked if contact was made with Washington Township for partnering on brochures in the future. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff will research this. Vote on the Ordinance - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 12-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Darree Fields Lighting Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption by emergency. ~ i ~ i I ~ -N , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS y , ~a ~,p ~~~w Minutes of Dublin Cif Council ~ Pale 9 ~ Meeting ,y~ p DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C R February 19, 2002 Held 19 Mr. Kranstuber moved to treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance - Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes, Ordinance 13-02 - An Ordinance Approving a Tax Credit and Economic Development Agreement with StatProbe, Inc., and Authorizing, Confirming and Ratifying the Execution of the Agreement. Ms. Grigsby reported that staff is recommending adoption at this time. Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 14-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Maintenance Easement Agreement with Columbus Southern Power. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption at this time. Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 16-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the Purchase of a 1.25 Acre, More or Less, Tract of Land, From Evelyn L. Davis, Located at 4070 Bright Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption at this time. Vote on the Ordinance -Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 17-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Grant an Easement Agreement with Columbia Gas for the Development of the Ballantrae Golf Course in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is requesting authorization by emergency action to provide an easement to Columbus Gas in conjunction with the Ballantrae development. Mr. Kranstuber moved to dispense with the public hearing and declare an emergency. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 18-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Grant Additional Easement Agreements with AEP for the Development of the Ballantrae Golf Course in the City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that these are additional easements necessary to serve the Ballantrae development. Ms. Salay moved to dispense with the public hearing and to declare an emergency. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion -Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chnnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 19-02 - An Ordinance Amending Dublin Code Sections 53.130, 97.38, and 153.136 To Comply with State Law, and Declaring an Emergency. (Request to dispense with public hearing) Mayor McCash introduced the ordinance. ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ I I G li i $ o.: ern. f, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Pa e 10 Meeting .W~,~mv~,.~,~~.,.,~,~,~~,.,~,~~,,.~~~..,,..,,~„~,~,~~~~~w,~.,~.~,~a,~,ti~,,~.~.,,,,„~~a,~„~~,,,,.,~ Kv,. n~.,~a~~..an,,,...~a„~,~,a.,.~„m~v~,wwa,~~~.,~~„~~Hmw,~~~~,,~,~~,.~w„~~. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R O. 1 February 19, 2002 Held 19 Ms. Grigsby reported that this ordinance is brought forward as part of a recent case before the Ohio Board of Building Standards. Mr. Smith noted that there is a correction necessary on page 2, where some language has been unintentionally left out. It should state under Section 3(B) that "It shall not be legal to P-.. use the property (as opposed to the structure) until landscaping is completed as shown on the approved plan. A performance bond, or irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution or other such surety acceptable to the Law Director maybe substituted for completion as shown in the approved landscaping plan subject to approval by the Director of the Division of Planning." Mr. Smith added that this ordinance would normally be referred to Planning & Zoning Commission as an amendment to the zoning code, but this is a procedural change which is being done in conjunction with a case before the Board of Building Standards. Mayor McCash noted that currently, an applicant can obtain conditional zoning approval in the winter prior to the time the landscaping can be done in the spring. This will not impact the current practice. Mr. Smith stated that this will not change the current practice in this regard. Mr. Reiner stated that in Section 2(E), the language being omitted relates to the City's refusal to issue an occupancy permit. He asked for clarification. Mr. Smith stated that Dublin was cited by the Ohio Board of Building Standards because the building occupancy permit was tied to zoning issues. This legislation is in keeping with the ruling by the Board, and separates the building occupancy permit from zoning compliance issues or other non-structural considerations. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and to declare an emergency. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 20-02 - An Ordinance to Change the Name of Tuttle Road to Tuttle Crossing Boulevard Between Hirth Road and Wilcox Road in the City of Dublin, Ohio. (Second reading/public hearing March 4th Council meeting) Mr. Kranstuber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Salay asked why this portion is identified for the name change and not the portion from Frantz to Dublin Road. Mr. Kindra stated that the confusion regarding the name is primarily with this portion. If it is Council's preference to include the other, it can be amended prior to the next reading. Ms. Clarke stated that the name change for the portion from Frantz to Dublin Road was a major issue for the neighborhoods bordering Tuttle Road. They made it very clear that their desire was not to change the name of that portion to Tuttle Crossing Boulevard. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 4 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION & PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Mayor McCash moved to introduce Resolutions 09-02 through 13-02, to waive the Council Rules of Order and that the Clerk read the property owners' names into the record. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion -Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 09-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.013 Acre, More or Less, Bikepath Easement, From Scott B. Franklin and Marie E. Franklin, Located West of Dublin Road and North of Indian Run Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 10-02 A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.089 Acre, More or Less, Bikepath Easement and a 0.071 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From Gary E. Gray and Dale Ann Gray, Located West of Dublin Road and North of Indian Run Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. .-.,ryiy RECORD OF PRC)CEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 11 Meetin ~~Mw~~~o,,.va,~~,ti,.~~~~,n~,~,,x,~,~.~w,-~„~~,~„~,~~.~,,,,,,A~,.~.,,~,~~~~,~.~„ri,~,~~~~..~, .~.~,~,,~,.~a ~~,w~,A~~,~w~~~~.,m~,~~~~,~m~~.,~~K~,~~~,.W„~~„w ~~~-,~~ro~~w,~~,.~,.~,~4.~axN,. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R N Held February. l9, 2002 19 Resolution 11-02 A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.101 Acre, More or Less, Bikepath Easement and a 0.076 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From Nancy J. Lambert, Located West of Dublin Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 12-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.023 Acre, More or Less, Bikepath Easement and a 0.018 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From Charles J. Simon and Marion F. Simon, Located West of Dublin Road and North of Indian Run Drive, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 13-02 - A Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.052 Acre, More or Less, Bikepath Easement and a 0.0052 Acre, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement, From Jonathan P. Smith, Located West of Dublin Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Ms. Grigsby stated that these resolutions relate to construction of the Dublin Road bikepath from the library to Emerald Parkway. Vote on Resolutions 09-02 through 13-02 - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. K.ranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. OTHER • Proposal from LPGA/Wendv's Championship for Children Mayor McCash asked Ms. Puskarcik to address this issue. Ms. Puskarcik stated that, based upon Council's discussion at the last meeting, Mr. Erikson has put together a new proposal. Ms. Gilger has outlined for Council the differences in the benefits provided with a $35,000 versus a $50,000 sponsorship ` level. Mr. Kranstuber commented that the lower sponsorship level translates to a much lower number of complementary passes proportionately. The tournament does not enjoy the same level of attendance as other tournaments, so it seems that they would be willing to offer a greater number of clubhouse passes in return for this contribution from the City. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the LPGA values this package at $41,700, as shown on the materials provided. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the Irish Festival is scheduled on the same weekend which will preclude some participation in this Tournament by many City officials. Therefore, it maybe desirable to have more publicity-related benefits in return for the City's contribution. The four items removed from the original proposal -City of Dublin logo on the leader board, ad messages on leader board, editorial in the program; and a foursome in the Pro-Am Tournament would have much more value for Dublin. Again, having the Dublin name attached in key areas is more important as the ability to participate is diminished due to scheduling. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in terms of a public purpose, these items are far more justifiable than the others. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, noting that the City receives a tremendous amount of national publicity with Dublin's name on the leader board during the television coverage. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the LPGA has. committed #~rom the outset that the coverage will state that the Tournament is being held in Dublin. She noted that the LPGA will still partner with the City and the Irish Festival in terms of cross promotion. Their event ends at @5 p.m. each day which will allow for the attendees to attend for the Irish Festival. In addition, the Irish Festival will continue until 9 p.m. on Sunday night this year, and this will encourage folks from the LPGA to come to the Festival. Mr. Erikson focused on sponsorship benefits for items held earlier in the week, as he was aware of the conflict with the Festival on the weekend -this is why the golf outings at the Golf Club of Dublin were. the focus for benefits. i i s IIi ~ ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of uDublin City Council ,q,~~, ~ Pale 12 Meetin ~,9„a,~,~,~a,~wn~~~,HW,a~,a~~ ~~.~,~,,x~mw~,~~ ~,~,~.a,~.,.W~,~,,~x~,~~„~., gw,~,wa~ g DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held February 19, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber asked if there are general patron badges provided in addition to the clubhouse, skybox and hospitality club passes listed in the proposal. Mrs. Boring noted that there are 20 any day tickets listed in the booklet. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the memo focuses on the changes made in the proposal - it does not list all of the benefits. She commented that if Council is generally supportive of this package, she believes that adjustments can be made. Mr. Kranstuber noted that it would be desirable to have the LPGA event as a permanent event at Tartan Field, if it would not conflict with the Irish Festival. His concern related to the reduction in benefits which was not proportionate with the reduction in contribution. Mr. McCash stated that the most valuable benefit to Dublin is the publicity. He asked if the City would be required to implement traffic control or special signage for this event. Ms. Puskarcik stated that a plan is already in place in conjunction with another Tournament held at Tartan Fields. The .City is exploring sharing of shuttles and working with the hotels on transportation issues. The attendance levels of the LPGA Tournament are not at a level which will have the same impact as the Muirfield Tournament. Mr. Lecklider stated that he concurs with Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's position. He agrees that the publicity is of more value to Dublin than complimentary rounds of golf or tickets. Perhaps staff could negotiate some of these items with the Tournament officials. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of a $35,000 sponsorship for Wendy's LPGA Championship for Children at Tartan Fields, with the request that staff ~.y-, discuss with Tournament officials Council's desire to add the following: (1) the City of Dublin logo on the electronic leader board; and (2) participation of a foursome in the Gordon Teter Memorial Pro-Am Tournament. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Lecklider asked if Council is satisfied with the number of passes. Mr. Kranstuber asked to amend the motion to include the provision of additional daily passes. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher accepted this amendment. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the amended motion. Vote on the amended motion - Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Discussion of Traffic Study Re arding; Dublin Jerome High School Ms. Grigsby stated that this was carried over from the last meeting. A memo was prepared by staff, based on earlier Council direction. Mr. Ciarochi noted that staff has assembled an outline of the scope of services and provided a cost estimate and timeframe. Specifically, the study will look at the intersections on Hyland-Croy, both north and south, as well as the intersection with Mitchell-DeWitt. It also incorporates Brand Road/Avery and Brand Road/ Muirfield, per the memo provided by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The cost of the study is approximately $10,Q00 and will take approximately 6-8 weeks to complete. Staff also recommends that the design for the school signals be programmed, in keeping with the City's current policy. The cost of the design of signals is approximately $7,000 and installation of the signals is estimated at $50,000. Ms. Salay asked if staff has discussed with school officials the attendance boundaries for Dublin Jerome High School. Currently, the proposal calls for attendance boundaries including all of southwest Dublin, west of I-270. This may necessitate moving the study area to the south. At the time of Planning & Zoning Commission review, the attendance boundaries were expected to be different. Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff can review this area as well, but the cost of the study will increase. RECORD OF' PROCEEDINGS t s of Mmu e Dublin City Council Pa e 13 Meetin e,,,~,.~r~,~~,~~A,~„,.~w~,,~..~,~„~,.~.~.-,~..~~,~~,a,~,,,.,~,,,rev-um,~,,.~,~.,~,,,~~~,.,~~,~~~9,~~,,~ ~ m ,awm.~ ~ w~~,,~„~~„~.,,.,~ ~,~-.~,.,~~,~~.~~.,.~,.,~,~..mw,~.~.~,,,~,mw,~~ DAITON LEGAL BLANK CO., RM Held February 19, 2002 19 Mrs. Boring noted that what Council is most concerned with is the area where the traffic volumes converge -which is the focus of the planned study. Mayor McCash asked what portion of the Hyland-Croy/Mitchell DeWitt and Hyland-CroylMcKitrick areas will actually be within the City of Dublin. Mr. Ciarochi responded that currently, the only area along Hyland-Croy within the City boundaries is the frontage along Dublin Jerome High School. There are other annexations pending, however. The balance of Hyland-Croy on both sides is outside of the City. Mayor McCash asked how much of the improvements the City and the school will be responsible for doing, and what level of improvements will be needed in view of the reduction in development pressures as part of Metro Park? Mr. Ciarochi responded that this is an important issue. When the intersections are studied, the traffic counts will indicate what is needed in terms of warrants for signals, stop signs, etc. In the packet, staff included the school's traffic study. It indicates that through 2025, the impacts of the high school do not warrant the left- hand turn lanes that the City staff recommended for the intersection of Mitchell Dewitt and Hyland Croy. These turn lanes were not included in conditions appended by P&Z and Council The issue was raised the night that joint sharing was discussed with the schools, but the outcome was an assurance from the schools that at the time it is determined to be necessary, that the schools would be willing to partner with the City. He added that a traffic analysis is quite different from a transportation plan analysis at buildout. If that were Council's expectation, the scope of services would be much larger and more costly. Such a transportation plan would cost between $70-100,000, and the improvements would cost approximately $10 million for an intersection where 90 percent of the right-of--way is outside of Dublin's jurisdiction. Mayor McCash asked what would then be gained from this smaller scope study. Mr. Ciarochi stated that what will be gained is some sense of what is taking place at these outlying intersections based on the high school development coming on line; and an understanding of what types of warrants would be met with the projected traffic flows with what type of traffic control devices at specific locations. Currently, at Muirfield and Brand, the warrants are close to being met for a traffic signal. The traffic projections with the high school will likely indicate a date when warrants will be met and indicate that design should begin. Mr. McCash noted that a traffic signal prioritization was done a few years ago. The previous studies may have presumed residential development in areas which will now be parkland, so the high school location may not impact this intersection in terms of prioritization. P&Z's concern was that Council be proactive in the traffic management issue versus waiting until the need is apparent. Mr. Kranstuber asked if staff is comfortable going forward without this additional information. Mr. Ciarochi stated that two thirds of what is outlined in the scope is already in place. The City does not have information related to McKitrick/Post Road/Hyland Croy. The study would provide an update of the other intersections from the traffic analysis standpoint. From staff's perspective, there was enough concern with the intersection that staff recommended left-hand turn movements in four directions as part of the development conditions. Specific analysis of that intersection should be undertaken, but the other intersections of Brand/Avery and Brand/Muirfield have already been studied and need only to be updated. Mr. Kranstuber noted that Coffman Road was only atwo-lane road for many years and served Coffman High School well. In this case, the school has two road frontages, and most of the surrounding roadway is not in Dublin's jurisdiction. Mayor McCash stated that at the last meeting, Council was given a presentation on a study of the Post/33 interchange which took into account Hyland Croy. If it did not take into account the high school development, perhaps the study needs to be redone. He does not envision the City ever allocating funds to improve the intersection at Hyland-Croy/McKitrick, identified on the Exhibit as "B". RECORD OF PROCEEDIIlIGS Minutes of Dublin ' .4,~4~~,.~~,~„e,~,W,~r~W„~~,.~v~,,.~.~a„~..,,.,,,~,~d„~r..~~.~w~„~H,~,,m,~.; Clty Council Pale 14 Meeting DAITON LEGAL BLANK R February 19, 2002 Held 19 Mr. Lecklider stated that the recent maps for the high school redistricting show quite different attendance areas for Jerome than previously identified. It is not likely that more traffic will come through MuirfieldBrand, as the Jerome attendance area does not extend east of Avery Road. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that the study be delayed until the redistricting issue is resolved. Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff can certainly delay the study until then. Depending upon the boundaries for attendance, the focus of the study maybe adjusted. It was the consensus of Council to delay the study until the school district establishes the attendance boundaries for Dublin Jerome High School. Mr. Ciarochi suggested that Council move forward with design of the school signals, consistent with policy. Ms. Salay moved to direct staff to prepare the design documents for the school crossing signals for Dublin Jerome High School. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Coffman Park Master Plan Ms. Grigsby stated that this item was originally discussed in February of 2001 in conjunction with a policy discussion regarding parkland acquisition on the north side of Post Road. At that time, Council directed staff to draft a conceptual plan of how that land could be developed. Mr. Hahn completed the plan, provided it to Council in June of 2001, and it was referred to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission without discussion. In December of 2001, PRAC recommended that Council approve the concept plan. In January of 2002, Council directed that this item be placed on the Council agenda in February. There are funds programmed in the CIP in 2006 for this project, and the original concept drawing has been redistributed to Council. Mr. Hahn stated that the concept plan reflects the direction of Council. The vision was to complement the existing Coffman Park with more passive areas. The drawing shows an extensive trail system, naturalized landscaping, stream crossings, and small shelters used for reflection on the surroundings. Much of the land is somewhat park-like in nature already, with a stream corridor crossing the land and natural vegetation. Other ideas shown in the concept plan include a nature education center. The philosophy of the plan is to have a relatively large park in the geographic center of Dublin, which will serve as the center of City government in the future. It is conceptual in nature, but includes some specific design ideas. Mrs. Boring stated that the City has previously purchased land at Emerald Parkway/Post Road. She asked about the cost. Ms. Grigsby stated that the City acquired land and right-of--way in this location for a total cost of $5 million. The average cost per acre on the south side of Post was $190,000. Mrs. Boring stated that her understanding was that something other than passive park would be developed in this particular area. Ms. Grigsby stated that the land has been identified as the future site for City Hall. Mr. Hahn stated that staff is uncertain about the footprint and infrastructure for a future City Hall, and for this reason, the. exact location is not yet established. Mr. Kranstuber asked if a consultant was retained to study space needs for City Hall. Mr. Hahn responded that a space analysis was done a few years ago for the City, based on a buildout population of 50,000. The document is dated, and the assumptions may now have changed. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the study should be updated before the City Hall is included on the five-year CIP. RECORD CJF PRC~CEEIDINGS Minu tes of Dublin Ci, ty Council Pavge 15 Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK R N Held February 19, 2002 19 Mr. McDaniel stated that there was a staff committee which studied current space needs at City Hall more recently, focusing on the annex and Community Relations building. Ms. Grigsby added that as part of the recent update on the CIP, funds have been programmed for a space needs analysis in 2005 in preparation for design of City Hall in 2006. Mayor McCash stated that the plan calls for amassing of parkland southeast of existing Coffman Park, but there is still a roadway to be crossed to access these parklands on the south side. In the past, there has been discussion of a proposal to cul-de-sac Post Road, whether at Commerce Park Drive, at Wilcox, or at Metatec. It seems that there is an effort underway to create this parkland space, but it is divided by a busy road. Has there been any consideration given to this in the current plan? Secondly, the plan shows a small parking lot located along the curve on Post Road where a resident was prohibited from having a curbcut. Mr. Hahn responded that there has been no formal discussion about the transportation portion of the plan, only informal conversation about possibly de- emphasizing Post Road to make it a park-like road through this area. He is not certain what traffic or engineering studies would indicate regarding the possibility of the road becoming a cul-de-sac. As the plan evolves and matures, these are major areas of concern that would require further study. This concept shows Post Road in its present configuration. None of this is "set in stone" - it is more of a vision with desired components. The plan needs to be dynamic based on future land acquisition. Some portions maybe implemented earlier, based upon the availability of the land. This should not be viewed as a development plan, but only as a concept plan as requested by Council last year. Ms. Grigsby added that the drawing presented tonight was scheduled for review and discussion by Council last June, but Council elected to instead refer it to PRAC. Mr. Reiner pointed out Council has been very open in their plans for this area and the direction. to staff has been clear in terms of land acquisition. Ms. Grigsby stated that as part of the policy discussion regarding parkland acquisition, some of the concern was with development of passive versus active parkland. Mr. McDaniel stated that the specific charge to staff was to review potential land acquisitions and what type of passive park components could be placed on that land. Staff did not consider transportation issues, but devised a "bubble" plan. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Council previously created a committee of Council, staff and Post Road residents to ensure an open process and to establish policies for the use of the property after it is acquired by the City. The plan presented tonight is very general and is appropriate in view of the timeframe. The City is attempting to bank land as a resource for the future so that the City will then have the opportunity to develop it. Mrs. Boring stated that she did not anticipate that land acquired along Emerald Parkway at $190,000 per acre would be used as passive parkland. She believed that the City wanted to control the land and what would be built on the land, and that if land remained after the City's needs were met, that it was possible to sell it. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his recollection is that staff brought to Council an opportunity to purchase three parcels, and Council made the decision to purchase all three. ~ ~ iii ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS eeting „~M„~,..~„~~m~,~,~~~,~~~, Minutes~of m~.,,.,~v.~~,~..~,~,~.~~.,~,~wW~~Dublin City Council ,~,a.,~.u.m~_,-.~,~~~..,,.~,~,.~,~.,, Page 16 ~,~M A~„~,w ~.~mwv~~~.,~,, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK Held February 19, 2002 19 Mayor McCash stated that his concern is that overpaying for land to be used as passive park may result in pressure to use the land as active park, impacting the adjoining residents who have an expectation that it will be passive park. Ms. Grigsby responded that Council responded to this concern previously by directing staff to assemble a concept plan for passive parkland uses in this area. It was understood that the price for land with existing structures north of Post Road would be somewhat high because of the' existing homes, and that land south of Post Road along Emerald would be more expensive due to its location. The desire was to control development in the area and to assemble land for expansion of the park in the center of the City. A larger Coffinan Park will be needed to serve a larger community in the future. Mr. Reiner agreed, adding that he has no issue with acquiring the key pieces of land north of Post Road. The City has already invested in a number of land acquisitions toward this goal. In the future, if there. is an opportunity to sell the City-owned land along Emerald Parkway for an office building, that could be considered at that time. Mrs. Boring stated that if Council adopts this plan tonight, an existing homeowner would not be satisfied with less than $190,000 per acre for parkland. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is a difference in land values on the south side of Post Road due to the construction of Emerald Parkway. The north side of Post Road is residential in nature. Mrs. Boring stated that the land on the south side of Post is currently office zoning, but if Council indicates their intent to have the use as passive parkland, the use is totally changed. Ms. Clarke noted for the record that the current zoning is Industrial. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in looking at the footprint of the Justice Center, a City Hall would take up a large portion of the land and would leave little to be sold. Mr. Reiner noted that all of this discussion seems to be much speculation. He advocates approving the plan and moving forward with the remainder of the agenda. Ms. Salay noted that there is a new Council in place, and she was elected to represent the Post Road neighborhood, the Indian Run neighborhood and a portion of Hemingway that abuts this land. These citizens do not believe that they have been heard or recognized by Dublin's government. She has reviewed the Community Plan for guidance in this matter. The goals in the Plan are very clear in regard to the central civic center. They include providing open space and access to the Indian Run creek; to provide a civic center, a civic core for the City of Dublin; to locate these civic uses in prominent locations which she interprets as the corner of existing Post and Emerald Parkway and not back toward the Justice Center; and to respect the character of Post Road. She then moved to direct staff to pursue the following goals for the previously stated reasons: 1) Locate the new City Hall at the corner of Emerald and the current Post Road. This is a highly visible and valuable site and would not be cost effective passive open space. If Council elects not to locate City Hall at this location, the property should be sold and the dollars returned to the taxpayers. 2) Dead-end Post Road into the municipal complex which accomplishes a long- standing goal to emphasize Perimeter Drive as the east-west route in this area, and also creating a unified municipal complex and calming traffic along Post Road. 3) Consider lowering the speed limit on Post Road from Avery Road to existing Emerald Parkway to 25 mph, calming traffic on Post Road, encouraging use of Perimeter Drive, and enhancing the residential and parkland environment in the area. i I ~i'~~ Ili ;I; e ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDCNGS a ~o~~~~~~ Minutes of ~ Dublin City Council ww~~,~~~~ ~ Pale 17~~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C R ' - Held February 19, 2002 19 4) Plan the remaining parkland on Post Road with the goal that the open space be compatible with and protect the remaining homes. There is no reason that the residents need to be eliminated to have a beautiful, accessible park. Council should be sensitive to the fact that there are many homes adjacent to this area which will abut this open space. 5) There is too much parking in the plan and it is located inappropriately. There are lots of parking areas and lots of shelters which makes the parkland more active. The Costello home has parking lots on either side which is not advisable. There is adequate parking at the Rec Center, the future civic center, and at the Community Relations Center. Making this park as active as the number of parking spaces indicate would elevate the park to a potentially regional attraction for non-residents, turning the quiet park into a bustling center of activity and traffic. The residents of Indian Run Meadows, Hemingway, Tara Hill and Post Road do not desire to have a busy, active park adjacent to their homes. It should be a linear park abutting the existing residences. When the new City Hall is built, the Community Relations Center should be converted to amore passive use with less parking and asphalt, less traffic and less light. The neighborhood did not anticipate having this use in the middle of their neighborhood. 6) Council should encourage development of the Kinman property as low density, high quality, large lot, single-family homes. There should be open space dedicated along Post Road to link the creek and the existing City-owned property, formerly known as the Halloran property. Council should discourage undesirable development of the Kinman property under the current R-1 zoning which could result in 7 lots and minimal parkland dedication to the City, potentially losing that linkage forever. 7) Consider that some of the single family homes and properties acquired over the years could be returned to single family use as the City may not need them. With deed restrictions in place, the City's interests of preserving the greenway and access to the creek could be protected. After the plan is revised, and there is a clearer picture of what is owned and what is actually needed, the homeowners prefer to keep neighbors versus having homes in the middle of a lot of vacant homes. She summarized that there is a huge cloud over the Post Road neighborhood and it is unfair to continue to have "fuzzy" concepts presented that are not supported by the neighborhood. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion for purposes of further discussion. Ms. Salay stated that framing this as a motion does not indicate a desire to preclude discussion -she merely wants to have the issues on the table. Mr. Reiner commented that his view of the plan is that it is a prairie, a wetland, and does not include intensive uses. The road issue has been raised several times, along with the speed limit issue. The City Engineer recommended previously that the speed not be lowered. Ms. Salay noted that the Engineer recommended this prior to the completion of Emerald Parkway and Perimeter. Her interest is in enhancing the residential environment by lowering the speed limit. Mrs. Boring added that a promise was made to the residents long ago with the Perimeter study. Post Road was to be changed to a cul-de-sac after Perimeter was connected from Avery. Subsequently, the Rec Center was constructed and the commitment was not carried through. It is time to resurrect this commitment to the residents. Mr. Reiner noted that in previous discussion, it was clarified which lots would remain as residential homes and which were key pieces needed for acquisition. F y RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . . Minutes of Dublin City Council Pale 18 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM N 1 February 19, 2002 Held 19 Ms. Salay responded that this is her. argument -she disagrees with this plan. The previous representative was unwilling or unable to deal with these issues. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the decision was made by a previous Council. He has no problem with the fact that Mr. Cline disagrees with Council's decision, but the decision made was to acquire the properties from willing sellers, without using eminent domain, to purchase properties as they become available, for the purpose of a park. In response to concerns of the residents, a committee was formed of staff, Council and residents to establish policies regarding the acquisition. Council's vision was for a central park in the center of Dublin, and in the context of this, Council will make every effort to make this as comfortable as possible for the residents affected. Council did not create a "cloud" over the residents; the intent was made very clear. There was a compromise involved, as staff felt the park should extend to Avery Road; Council decided to acquire land halfway up to Avery. The decision was made with vision and knowledge, not with malice. In terms of "non-passive" uses north of Post Road, he is not certain what she refers to after reviewing the concept plan. Ms. Salay responded that her concern relates to the large quantity of parking included in the plan. Parking is available in other areas to serve this passive parkland. The residents who choose to remain deserve respect. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the parking is an issue which can be resolved. But the suggestion of selling back the properties acquired over the past few years is an entirely different matter and is not consistent with the citizens' leadership expectations of Council. Mayor McCash stated that in terms of connection, there are two large areas of parkland on either side of the Kinman and Cline properties. Is it necessary to acquire all of that land or a significant amount south of the creek in order to obtain a linear connection across the park area? Mr. Kranstuber responded that he has never focused on the properties that far to the west -his concentration is on the land to the east. He is puzzled about Ms. Salay's statement regarding development of the Kinman property. He would not want to encourage any further development of this land. Mayor McCash clarified that she is advocating development as a planned district with guidelines and standards. Ms. Salay stated that under the current R-1 zoning, the property owner could develop 7 houses with minimal open space dedication. She understands that the property owner is interested in selling the land for development. Mr. Kranstuber responded that if he were on Planning Commission, he would discourage that type of development as much as possible and would make every effort to maintain the rural character and a 200-foot setback. Mr. Reiner stated that he views this as a failure of leadership. Council set a goal based on a vision. Abandoning the concept will disappoint the citizens Council represents. Mrs. Boring suggested that the discussion remain focused on the issues instead of criticism of another elected official Mr. Reiner stated that the plan has been to develop a core park that is meaningful for the community. There have been a few people opposed to this, but Council is charged with representing all of the community. These are difficult decisions and leadership issues. Mayor McCash stated that he takes offense that any member of Council is labeled as not being a strong leader by virtue of bringing issues forward for discussion. He RECORD ~F PROCEEDINGS aq,~,py„ ~,~yw Minutes of Dublin~~ Council p Pale 19 a~ .Meeting , DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C F R N February 19, 2002 Held 19 agreed that the discussion should focus on the issues -there is not a right or wrong answer at this time. Ms. Salay clarified that she is not opposed to the concept of a central park concept - she cited the Community Plan which calls for a core park and civic center. She would prefer that the Kinman property remain as single family, but the reality is that this may not occur. There is not much Council can do to stop this development. Mr. Kranstuber responded that Council could opt to purchase the Kinman property. Ms. Salay pointed out that the goals of having a park and maintaining the Kinman, Cline, Costello, and Nyrop homes are not mutually exclusive. It has also come to her attention that there is an historic farmhouse on the corner property owned by the City, and this should be preserved for its rural character as well. Both goals can be achieved -allowing the continued existence of the neighborhood and creating a lineal park from Coffman Park out to the Metro Park. This is not an abandonment of past Council policy, but instead sensitivity to what exists today -allowing the residents to peacefully co-exist with the park. Mr. Kranstuber reiterated that this is a leadership issue and relates to the interests of the larger community. None of this was done without much thought and planning. This is a long-term goal of Council which will take years to realize. The City has indicated that at the point a resident wants to sell his property, the City would be a willing buyer. A committee was then established to address concerns of the residents who chose to remain. Discussion continued. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that her understanding was that Council began to acquire the land intended to be a passive park to exist in concert with the abutting residents. Council talked extensively about those who opted to remain -that they would be an integral part of the park and the park would not be in conflict with their decision to remain. This layout as proposed may need adjustment, but she asked for clarification of the goal for tonight - is it to approve the concept plan, reaffirm the passive approach, and the desire to acquire land as it becomes available? Mayor McCash asked staff for clarification of what they are seeking from Council tonight. Mr. Hahn responded that staff was directed at the February 2001 meeting to draft as concept plan for a passive park, linear in style, with design components which would fit. The various components can be modified. This passive park is to complement the existing active Coffman Park. The final development plan will determine the needs for parking. Mr. Kranstuber stated that as a compromise, Council could adopt a general statement that for the areas north of Post Road, the City will continue to acquire properties for passive park, and for areas south of Post Road, a City Hall will be developed in a more active fashion at some point in the future, beyond 2005. Staff is tonight seeking assurance that Council is in agreement with the general concept. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed with the concept of a passive, linear park as previously discussed, and proposed that a dynamic community committee be established to include people with expertise and vision to work with the citizens, staff and Council to create an award-winning plan. Council has previously made the decision that this park would be passive and lineal in nature, and that people would live in concert with this passive park for as long as they desired. She had understood that the Community Relations building was to be a temporary location until a future City Hall was built. At that time, the building would be converted to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~w~~a w~~q,~,Minutesof Dublin Ci~wCouncil~ ~ Pale 20 ~Meetin ~ g DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C F R N ' February 19, 2002 Held 19 another use compatible with the passive park. It seems that Council's intentions have been misrepresented -the intent was never to be abusive to the citizens of the ..neighborhood or to develop obnoxious structures. Mayor McCash stated that that he believes that residents could co-exist with a passive park. In terms of desirable parcels for acquisition, there are some areas along the curve isolated from other residential properties. To address this, perhaps the City could convert some of the property already acquired back into single family, or is it in the best interests of those residents to continue with acquiring those isolated parcels to create the central core park? Perhaps where Council fell short was in not creating a Post Road area study or Coffman Park study to determine what will remain as a viable neighborhood. The Kinman property can be developed under the existing zoning for 7 houses. Is there a better compromise available? Mr. Reiner asked about the existing zoning. Ms. Clarke stated that the current zoning is R-1 for 40,000 square foot lots with 60 feet of frontage on a public street. The. subdivision regulations require filing a preliminary and final plat with creation of a subdivision of 71ots. Mr. Reiner asked how much land is actually available for development outside of the flood plain. Ms. Clarke responded that she has not reviewed the properties under discussion. They did review this for the Halloran property at the time a rezoning was filed, and there was a substantial portion of land tied up in the floodplain. Whether it ,...-...w substantially impacts these properties, she is not certain. She would estimate that under the R-1 zoning, developing the Kinman property would require a cul de sac street to develop 71ots. Mrs. Boring summarized that Mr. Kranstuber has addressed one of her concerns - that the parkland south of Post Road should be more active. She agrees with the concept of passive park and continuing to work with the residents. Her conclusion from tonight's discussion is consistent with Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher's suggestion to have a community committee work together on a plan to develop something dynamic for this location. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his concern is that people must come into such a process in good faith, with the long-term interests at heart. If they participate as a means to buy time or to filibuster, that is a different thing. Some people complain about the process, but their real issue is with the result. In the end, they would have to accept the outcome in fairness to the process.. Mrs. Boring stated that the stakeholders should be involved in the process. Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee should also be involved. Mayor McCash stated that providing the opportunity to be heard is desirable, even if the end result is the same. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not advocate entering into this process, however, as though nothing has happened. Council needs to declare that the intent is to have a passive park, to allow residents to live in concert with the passive park, to have a linear concept for the park, to have City Hall located within this park, and that given those intentions and the land under focus, to develop a dynamic plan. But it would be important to emphasize that these intentions have already been established by Council in previous actions. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Ms. Salay has a right to propose reversing or changing a previous decision. But in this case, there have been funds expended toward this vision and it is a matter of what is appropriate. He believes that the intent of ~ Iq i I I !~I ~ i ~i i~ RECORD OF PROCEEDtNGs ~ Minutes of Dublin Cif Council ~ Pale 21~ Meeting y m y, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C F RM 1 ~ February 19, 2002 Held ig Council remains to be acquiring land from willing sellers in pursuit of this long- term goal. For this reason, he is opposed to any proposal to resell parcels already acquired or not having along-term vision of acquiring properties toward the east. He would not support any new process which includes such an assumption. Mr. Lecklider noted that he observes much more agreement than disagreement among members of Council in regard to the discussion points raised. They understand the general location for City Hall and the need to accommodate the footprint of the future design of the building; lowering Post Road speed limits seems acceptable; rerouting Post Road eastbound continues to be a possibility - there is a temporary traffic signal at Post and Avery-Muirfield due to the uncertainty about this and the desire to de-emphasize Post Road as an east-west thoroughfare; preserving the existing neighborhood is agreed upon by all; developing City-owned properties in a passive manner is the intent of Council; the Community Relations building is a temporary location until the future City Hall is constructed; the parking issues can be resolved; and there is little possibility of the Kinman property being approved as a 7-lot development by P&Z, but perhaps it maybe approved as a 2-3 lot development. The City may desire to purchase this property, or it could be acquired by eminent domain, although this has not been the City's policy in other cases. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his main objection relates to abandoning the intent to acquire lands as they become available or to reselling lands already acquired in the area. Everything else can be on the table and worked through, in his opinion. He has always envisioned the Community Relations Center being converted to a nature center or historical center after the new City Hall is constructed. Mr. Reiner agreed, adding that he could not support expanding development in a potential park area. Council has been very sensitive in this parkland endeavor and will continue to purchase properties from willing sellers in the future. Mayor McCash stated that there seems to be a need for further community input to review options regarding to what extent the City acquires property as it becomes available. He suggests that Council establishes a focus group to explore options, given this background information and parameters. The outcome maybe the same at the end of the process, but Council will have provided an opportunity for involvement by all the parties in the process. Ms. Salay has a motion on the table, but perhaps an alternative motion for a focus group maybe in order in follow-up to the discussion. Ms. Salay emphasized that her goal in framing a motion was not to preclude discussion, but to crystallize the issues as she perceives them. In reviewing the goal established in the Community Plan and reviewing the actions of past Councils, she is not proposing anything contrary to the concept of a lineal, passive park. She is suggesting that Council be more respectful to the residents who are interested in remaining in their homes. The neighbors are merely seeking some clarification from Council regarding issues. Ms. Salay then withdrew her motion. Mrs. Boring withdrew her second. Mayor McCash stated that Ms. Salay has noted specific items that she would like addressed as part of this focus group. Other Council members may have additional items to be considered, or may be opposed to some of the items raised by Ms. Salay. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification of the composition of the focus group -that it would include residents on both sides of the park, on Tara Hill, etc. Mayor McCash confirmed that it would include residents of the area impacted. Mrs. Boring stated that because this is a City park, it should include City residents interested in park development. a,-.-,r.~,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' t s of Dublin Cit ' Mmu e Council Page 22 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK C F RM ~ Held February 19, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber proposed involving PRAC. Mr. Kranstuber then moved to establish a Task Force to study the issues related to the proposed expansion of Coffman Park to include two Council members, one member of PRAC to be appointed by the Chair, three citizen representatives from neighborhoods abutting the park, and one community at-large representative. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kxanstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ms. Grigsby asked for clarification regarding advertising of the positions and timing for implementation. Mayor McCash suggested that letters be sent out to neighborhood associations requesting they select a representative. Mr. McDaniel noted that PRAC meets tomorrow and could select someone at that time. Council concurred with this. Mayor McCash moved to appoint Ms. Salay and Mr. Kranstuber as Council representatives. Vote on the motion - Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Discussion of CounciUP&Z Meeting Re arding the Unified Development Code Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this be deferred until the next meeting. Mayor McCash agreed that this should be deferred in view of the scheduled executive session tonight. He noted that he has drafted a memo summarizing the goals established in that meeting. At the same meeting, the Law Department was requested to provide Council with an action plan to move this process forward. This was provided to Council tonight also in draft form. He asked that Council members review the drafts and respond to him or to the Law Director or City Manager as soon as possible to avoid additional delay. Council Round Table/Committee Reports Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the status of the Golf Centre of Dublin issue. Mr. Ciarochi responded that a memo was included in the packet. Staff has retained CDM to propose some options and costs. Mr. Lecklider noted that: 1) A fee waiver for use of the Rec Center has been requested by Dublin Coffinan for the after prom party on May 4, 2002. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved approval of the waiver as requested. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. 2) The Dublin Arts Council has forwarded a letter to Council regarding requests for parking assistance and for funding assistance for landscaping and atwo- tiered deck addition. Mr. Kranstuber stated that perhaps this would be appropriate for referral to the Finance Committee. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she was not a member of Council at the time the building was purchased, and would like information about other commitments made by the City. Ms. Grigsby responded that the commitment made by the City was to renovate the facility to enable use for their programming purposes. The lease agreement specifies that the City would do the renovation work. There were also some agreements related to installation of parking for day-to-day use, and any event parking was to be done through shuttles. In terms of landscaping, this was raised by the Arts Council as something they desire. The two-tiered deck was proposed i i, I ~ is m r ~ n RECORD OF` PROCEEDINGS Mir,~t~~..~~~.~...._ti....~o.,~.~w~,..H...~~w..~w~m~.~_a.~~,..~..~...mu...~_~.~..,~.~~H.,~~l~~il~i~o w~w,ae~.~.~....w~..~m~.~~.,H.mw.~~ ~ '~gwA~m,~...-~~. A~~~ncil~w.mbrH.or~~,~~.ropa._.4~~.,~q,~_.~~,..~,~~~m~,mo~ett Held February 19, 2002 (YEAR) after the original discussions and cost estimates, and the Arts Council was informed that funds were not available for this addition. It was recommended that fundraising be done for this purpose. The hotel/motel funds were not available at that time to include the deck in the renovation project. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, personally, she does not believe the landscaping and deck are necessary in order to open the structure and begin programming. Fundraising can be done by the DAC to implement these additional items. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to deny approval at this time of the request by the Dublin Arts Council for funding for landscaping and an addition. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mrs. Borin noted that she was recently informed that the Mayor's Association of Ohio has scheduled a conference in Dublin in June. She asked Ms. Puslcarcik for some ideas for showcasing the City while the Mayors are in town. Ms. Puskarcik noted that she spoke with Sue Cave, Executive Director of the Ohio Municipal League regarding their requests for support for the conference. She highlighted some of the items requested which include possible sponsors, a recommendation on a site for a golf outing, potential speakers and tours of the City. There is no financial assistance being requested, but there will be some staff time associated with this support. It was the consensus of Council to provide this support for the conference. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the Art in Public Places program be highlighted in tours. Mavor McCash noted: 1. On Friday, March 1, from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m., a Business Leaders breakfast is scheduled at the Rec Center. Council Members are invited to attend and should respond to Mike Stevens. 2. Congratulations to the Building Division for the positive comments sent by Denier Electric regarding outstanding service and responsiveness in a recent project done in the City. 3. Kudos to the Police and Service Department staffs for their responsiveness in regard to a stop sign issue at Bradenton. 4. The City of Dublin Grounds and Facilities division recently achieved a 2001 Ohio Parks and Recreation Association award for meritorious park area development in the $250-500,000 category for the M.L. Red Trabue Nature Reserve. Congratulations to staff on this recognition. Mr. McDaniel pointed out that three of the Recreation programs achieved awards from OPRA as well. Mayor McCash suggested that these awards be listed on the City's web page. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition matters. At the conclusion of the executive session, Council will reconvene for the purpose of formally adjourning the meeting. No further action will betaken at that time. ,Y--,. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor ` McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 11:15 p.m. The me vas rec t 11:40 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor = i mg Officer Clerk of Council