Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2009RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, May 18, 2009 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Mr. Foegler, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Noble-Flading, Ms. Swisher, Mr. Burns, Ms. Vroom, and Ms. Worstall. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of May 4, 2009 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the May 4, 2009 Regular Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS • Mack Parkhill, Grand Marshal, Independence Day Parade Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher introduced Mr. Parkhill, noting that the parade grand marshal is a Dublin resident who has made significant contributions over a long period of time to the community. She requested Vice Mayor Boring to present the proclamation to Mr. Parkhill, as she was one of those who nominated him for the honor. Mr. Parkhill thanked Council for the honor. He has attended many City Council and Board meetings over the years, and is overwhelmed by this honor. It has been a privilege to watch Dublin evolve from a small village to the wonderful City it is today. He is looking forward to a particularly enjoyable July 4tn • Linda Kick - 2009 Women-Owned Business of the Year Award Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a proclamation recognizing Ms. Kick, owner of "Our CupCakery" for her recent receipt of the "Columbus District Women-Owned Business of the Year" award, presented by the Columbus District Office of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Ms. Kick thanked those individuals in the audience who have supported her business and City Council for their recognition. • Update from Dublin Convention & Visitors Bureau Cheryl Herbert, Board President, Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau (DCVB) presented a brief update on DCVB activities. The mission of the DCVB is to attract, service and retain overnight visitors to the City, which helps increase bed tax revenue and generate dollars for the City's economy. The DCVB Board recently welcomed new Board members Sue Burnes, City Council liaison and former City Council Member Greg Peterson. The 2010 budget is being finalized. The Board considers it critical in the current economical situation to increase its marketing efforts. Scott Drinq, Executive Director, Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau (DCVB) distributed the quarterly report to Council and updated them on the 2010 budget. The current economy has taken its toll on the tourism industry. They are projecting bed tax revenue to be down approximately 5-6 percent in the upcoming fiscal year. That will follow the 7'/2 percent decrease experienced this year. However, Dublin is faring better than most other municipalities in the state. Due to this situation, the DCVB marketing efforts will be increased in the upcoming year. To accomplish this, the DCVB reserve fund will be tapped and administrative costs have been reduced. Their summer campaign is underway, which features a "Wild and Wet Summer Getaway" package. This is the 7cn year for this package, which has generated over $610,000 in total revenue and generated over 4,500 room nights for Dublin's hotels. All the research indicates travelers will be staying close to home, so this package is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 2 anticipated to do very well this year. Business travel has decreased substantially, but they have had some success in filling that void with the youth sports market. As an example, 40 baseball tournaments will be held in Dublin this spring and summer. Last month's Nike soccer tournament generated over 1,800 room nights, a 32% increase over 2008. He thanked Council for their ongoing support and partnership. • Update from Dublin Special Events Council Joel Campbell, President, Dublin Special Events Council stated that last year, City Council assisted the Special Events Council with the bid package for the Can-Am Police and Fire Olympic Games. Dublin was successful in obtaining that bid for August 2010. The Special Events Council includes Mike Epperson, Chief of Police; AI Woo, Washington Township Fire Chief; Sandra Puskarcik; and a number of other individuals. There will be approximately 45-50 events in and around Dublin for police officers and fire fighters to participate in. Approximately 2,000 game participants and their families and friends are anticipated for the 8-9 days involved with the event. This will generate approximately 4,000 room nights for Dublin hotels and $3.5 million in economic impact to the local economy. They have entered into an agreement with Heinz-Nicklaus-Sullivan Sports, which assists with events such as this. They will help with the sponsorship arrangements for the event, due to the magnitude of this project. Josh Bricker, Dublin Special Events Council stated that the Can-Am Games planning is progressing. The volunteer sports coordinators for the 50 different sporting events are being finalized; 90 percent of these come from the Dublin Police Department and the Washington Township Fire Department. The venues are also being finalized, the majority of which will be within the City of Dublin. All members of the International Federation of Can-Am Police and Fire Games are in town this week to host the five finalist cities for the 2012 and 2014 games. It is the goal of the Dublin Special Events Council to make the 2010 Can-Am Games a signature event of Dublin's Bicentennial Celebration and to involve the residents of Dublin as much as possible. All events are free to the public. The opening ceremony will be held on Sunday, August 15 in Coffman Park and will utilize the Dublin Irish Festival set-up. One of the evening hospitality functions for the games participants will coincide with the HDBA Slainte Thursday. He thanked the City of Dublin for their partnership and support of the Can- Am Games. SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recognized Dublin resident Chris Cline and congratulated him on his promotion to Brigadier General. Chris Cline, 6060 Post Road, stated that this past weekend he was appointed as commander of the 90th Regional Readiness Command. This is the successor to the 90th Infantry Division, which fought in France in World War I and went ashore on Normandy on June 6, 1944 and remained in continuous contact with the defending Germany forces until D-Day. He noted that the Regional Readiness Command will phase out at the end of this year, and the various legal support organizations will be under the new Legal Command. He is actually Commander of both the 90th Regional Readiness Command and the new Legal Command. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority from Ohio Division of Liquor Control -Transfer of D5 and D6 permits from Jason's Restaurant & Bar Co. to J. Liu Restaurant & Bar, 50 W. Bridge & Patio Council had no objection to the transfer of these permits. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that at the April 6th Council meeting, Council rescinded a previous Council action prohibiting his discussion of a certain topic. He is coming back to that topic now -specifically, to two sectors of it. During the course of the earlier disagreement that he and Council had on the issue, he reported everything that transpired to Mr. Kindra. He had an understanding with Mr. Kindram that he would inform him of his comments or actions at Council meetings, but he would not tell RECORD OE PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 3 him what his future plans were. He told him of Council's April 6~h action and also gave him a copy of the DTV recording. He noted that he did advise Mr. Kindra that he would be bringing up that topic again tonight. Last night, he re-read the seven-page 'i investigative report, which he compiled regarding Mr. Kindra's firing. A point of contention between Council and himself is that in later discussions where references were made to the report, it was consistently revealed that Council members had not read that report. He would like to request that before the next Council meeting, Council members re-read his report. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEMS Ordinance 08-09 Accepting an Annexation of 39.8 Acres, More or Less, in Jerome Township, Union County, to the City of Dublin. (Petitioner: Celtic Capital LLC) Mr. Smith requested that Council postpone this legislation to the June 15 Council meeting. A compromise regarding the reparations issue has been tentatively reached with the property owners. It is anticipated an agreement will be finalized by the June 15`h Council meeting. Mr. Gerber moved to postpone Ordinance 08-09 to the June 15 City Council meeting. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Ms. Salay asked if the City has previously negotiated reparations for other parcels in Jerome Township. Mr. Smith responded that, typically, the City requires the developer to pay the ~ reparations; however, this case is different. The City is particularly interested in this annexation because of the road right-of-way included. The parcel included in the annexation is currently undeveloped, and it would be desirable for the City to resolve the reparations issue before it is developed and sold to multiple property owners. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning Approximately 5.258 Acres, Located on the South Side of Brand Road, i Approximate) 1,000 Feet West of Aver Road, from PUD, Planned Unit y y I Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Indian Run United Methodist Church, 6325 Brand Road -Case 09-0222) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that on the previous occasion when Council heard a case related to this church, she recused herself on the basis of her membership in the church. However, subsequent discussions with the Law Director have clarified that ~~ because she does not hold a leadership position at the church, she can participate in this discussion. Ms. Adkins stated that this site is located directly adjacent to the Indian Run United Methodist Church building. To the south is City parkland; to the north and west are subdivisions. The site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as is the Shannon Glen subdivision to the north, across Brand Road. The Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision to the west is zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. The Indian Run United Methodist Church and the City parkland to the south are zoned R-1. In 2003, the City rezoned the property to establish Dublin zoning of R-1 as part of the City-wide area rezoning process. In 2004, the site was rezoned to the current PUD for anine-lot subdivision, and a final development plan was approved later in 2004. In 2005, Indian Run United Methodist Church purchased the property. This year, the church submitted a request to rezone the property to R-1 to enable them to expand their use to that site. On March 16, 2009, the Church requested a waiver from Council for the rezoning application fee. In working with church representatives on their plans for expansion and improvement, staff determined that the previously approved PUD had actually expired. The Zoning Code provides that if construction is not initiated within three years of the approval of a final RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f Dublin City Council Meeting Page 4 May 18, 2009 development plan, the PUD may be considered expired. At that point, the City may initiate a rezoning to return the zoning to that in place prior to the PUD. The background provided to Council for the fee waiver consideration included information about the expiration of the PUD. Council then directed staff to initiate the rezoning to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. At the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing of that rezoning, the Commission indicated a preference that the current PUD rezoning remain in place, as it provides the City with greater ability to review details on any future changes desired by the Church. Based upon this, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended disapproval of the rezoning to R-1. The R-1 zoning permits dwelling structures of a minimum of 40,000 square feet area, home occupations, public schools and parks, private schools and religious activities. The Community Plan designates this site as Private Institutional, which does include religious activities. Therefore, staff's evaluation is that a proposed rezoning to R-1 does meet the Community Plan provisions and recommends approval of the application. Mr. Reiner inquired if it is the intention of the church to expand to this site. Ms. Adkins responded that a church representative is present and can respond. Mr. Reiner stated that when churches expand, they do not typically have funds to build at another location and therefore prefer to expand current facilities. In these economic times, the church cannot anticipate any additional income. He believes Council should help facilitate such expansions. Brian Gath, Associate Pastor, Indian Run United Methodist Church stated that the church has been serving the community since 1981. The church purchased its present property in the early 1980s. The church desires to continue to serve the community at this location. They have been very grateful for the assistance of City staff as they attempted to negotiate and understand the impact of PUD-related zoning matters. The church recognized a few years ago that the current facility was not large enough to serve its current members as well as the additional members of the community to whom the church wished to expand its ministry. With the help of the architectural firm, Wandel and Schnell, they had developed a master plan to expand their building and include a family life center on the existing 6305 Brand Road property. On the day that the congregation was anticipated to approve that plan, a new floodplain map was published by FEMA. That plan took a significant portion of the church property, and scuttled their expansion plans. It also took a substantial portion of the adjacent proposed subdivision property and made it unbuildable. Subsequently, the Church negotiated with the adjacent property owner and was able to purchase that property. With the assistance of Wandel and Schnell, an education building was constructed. The church now desires to further expand its ministry to the community by expanding on the 6305 Brand property. They understand Dublin's expectations and intend to construct a building that meets those expectations. They have engaged landscape architects to develop a master landscaping plan. They are attempting to fulfill their mission to the community within the realm of what they can afford. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that their intent is not to sell any of the land, and that all of it would be retained for church facilities. Rev. Gath confirmed that is their intention. He noted that two-thirds of the property is within the floodway and not buildable. Bruce Smith, Building Committee Chairman, Indian Run Methodist Church stated that he previously worked for the State of Ohio in a development capacity. The church has purchased this property so they can better meet the needs of the community. They are hopeful the City will return the zoning on the land to its previous R-1 and that they will be able to construct a building on this site. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if it is possible to combine both parcels to create one parcel. Ms. Adkins responded that has already occurred. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin_City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 5 Vice Mayor Boring stated that the church then would not be permitted to sell that parcel unless they were to receive authorization from Council to re-divide the parcel. She agrees with Mr. Reiner and supports the City's rezoning of this property. Mr. Lecklider noted that he and Mr. Reiner were also in agreement on the previous rezoning for this land. Don Joseph, 7914 Wiltshire Drive stated that he is a resident of the adjacent subdivision to the west of the 6305 Brand Road parcel and is President of the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association. He was unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on the proposed rezoning. The Association is concerned with the development of this lot. They are concerned about traffic flow, lighting and landscaping. They are also concerned that an R-1 rezoning would limit their ability to have input on the development of that land. When the City originally rezoned this property R-1 in 2003, there was a single house, a barn and pasture land with horses. The proposed development and use of the property is quite different than the preexisting use. If they are incorrect and would have ability to provide testimony on any proposed development for this property, then they do not oppose the rezoning. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Ms. Adkins to describe the public process that would be available to the residents. Ms. Adkins responded that if the site is zoned R-1, any changes the church would propose for the site would require a building permit, or if a building is not constructed, it would require a certificate of zoning plan approval by the Planning or Building Standards Department. There is no public process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the church would be required to meet certain Codes. Ms. Adkins responded that the City has several strict Code requirements for landscaping, lighting, parking and setbacks to buffer the development from the adjacent properties. Mr. Joseph asked if the public process is available if the zoning remained a PUD. Ms. Adkins responded that that if it remained zoned as a PUD, the church would be required to amend the PUD text to permit the development on the site. A PUD text revision must be approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Joseph responded that, based on that description, he opposes the R-1 rezoning and requests Council to disapprove the rezoning proposal. Mr. Gerber stated that several years ago he served on the Development Code Task Force that discussed PUD issues. It was recommended that if a PUD is not developed within three years, there would be other options -that the PUD could revert back to its prior zoning or it could remain a PUD until a future owner brings forward an application for a different zoning. The intent was for the City to have some control in that situation - to apply the PUD standards if possible to the then current practices of the City. Reverting back to R-1 is essentially a straight zoning, which does not allow for input from the surrounding neighborhoods. The intent was to balance the two. If this were simply a fee waiver case, he has no objection to waiving the application fee for the church. However, he believes it is very important for the City and the residents to have some involvement in the process. Mr. Lecklider inquired if staff has any objection to maintaining the PUD zoning on this parcel. Ms. Adkins responded that as a general rule, staff prefers to have one zoning designation on a property. Now that the two parcels have been combined, there are two zoning designations on one parcel, which makes administration very difficult for the City in terms of the church's future plans on this parcel. An R-1 zoning does meet the Community Plan provisions for this area, and the existing standards do permit the City to administratively, through the permit process, ensure that high quality landscaping, lighting, parking and setback standards are met. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council May 18, 2009 Page 6 Mr. Lecklider inquired what, theoretically, would prevent the church from erecting a metal panel building. Ms. Adkins responded that in a straight district, nothing would prevent that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the church, however, has recently completed an expansion, which was consistent with the existing buildings. There is no reason to believe that any future expansion would not similarly be in keeping with what exists on the site and in the neighborhood. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is not suggesting that. It was a theoretical question, as it is not without precedent for other churches in this region. Staff has provided a list of churches that have developed under the PUD process and those that were developed under a straight zoning. One of the Planning Commissioners used St. Brigid as an example; however, St. Brigid developed as a straight zoning. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the motion made at the Planning Commission meeting was that Private Institutional Use, which is designated in the Community Plan for this area, does not allow for religious institutions. However, that was inaccurate. The revised 2007 Community Plan does permit religious institutions for that use. Mr. Lecklider noted that perhaps the Commission would have voted differently if they had understood that. He is concerned that with a straight zoning category, the City would have no control. He believes the church would make every effort to expand consistent with the existing development, but he is aware of another church that did expand with a metal panel structure. Ms. Salay stated that Council suggested that this parcel be rezoned to R-1, and Planning staff recommends approval. However, the neighbors have expressed a concern with that zoning category. What is staff's recommendation regarding how to balance the desire of the neighbors to have input into the expansion plan process? Ms. Adkins responded that, if the church is agreeable, the neighbors could express their concerns to see if those are issues the church could address. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Rev. Gath would like to respond. Rev. Gath responded that they did invite all of the contiguous neighbors and the adjacent homeowner associations to a neighborhood "charette" to discuss their ideas and receive their input. None of the neighbors attended that meeting. The church does desire to be a good neighbor. Mr. Reiner stated that the City has strict regulations with the R-1 zoning that relate to lighting, parking and screening that will protect the neighbors, and there are a significant number of requirements for the church to meet. There have been eleven church expansions within R-1, straight zoning districts and seven expansions within PUDs, according to the list provided by staff. Mr. Gerber noted that the PUDs generally reflect later church expansions; the R-1s took place earlier. He asked about the challenges of handling this as a PUD rezoning. What are they trying to avoid? Mr. Adkins responded that there is no attempt to avoid anything. However, when staff became aware that the PUD had expired, it seemed that it would be simpler for the church if the City exercised its right to initiate the R-1 rezoning. Mr. Gerber noted that as everyone is aware, the Code standards for R-1 straight zonings are much less stringent than the PUD regulations. Therefore, signage, mounding, etc. will be different. An analysis as it relates to the impact on the surrounding neighborhood is non-existent. Mr. Reiner noted that there would be two abutting zonings, and according to Dublin's Code, they will have to provide screening, mounding, landscaping. Ms. Adkins responded that is correct. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of .Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 7 Vice Mayor Boring stated that the key point is there is one parcel existing with two different zonings, which makes administration very difficult. She added that there are actually two churches on Summitview Road that are zoned R-1; the list contains only one. Mr. Gerber stated that this church expansion under an R-1 zoning will likely be fine, but what about the next case which comes forward? He is trying to remain consistent to the intent of this Code revision, which occurred five years ago. He believes the intent was to preserve participation in the process for surrounding neighbors, particularly in infill areas such as this. Mr. Reiner inquired if staff's intent was to assist the church in avoiding the more cumbersome PUD process. Ms. Adkins responded that it was not evaluated any differently than any other case. However, the church's actual zoning is R-1. From a Planning perspective, it made more sense for the entire property to be zoned R-1. Mr. Reiner noted that staff was essentially trying to simplify the process. Mr. Lecklider stated that although the landscaping regulations may be strict for an R-1 zoning, it does not address materials and architecture. Although that may not be a concern with the currently proposed expansion, he is concerned about future expansions. It is a sensitive site, and that is what led to concerns and opposition to the previous rezoning. Mr. Foegler stated that in his experience in regard to church zonings, they are frequently permitted in residential straight zonings. However, in many cases, such as with schools, they are listed as conditional uses because they require special conditions to integrate them into the neighborhoods appropriately. There is a recognition that they typically belong in residential areas. One item Council could consider going forward would be to actually characterize this type of use in straight zones as a conditional use and subject them to a site plan or a formal review process. It would not be nearly as involved as the PUD process, but would recognize that this use at times requires special considerations for integration into the neighborhoods. Council could consider this on a policy level in the near future. Mr. Lecklider stated that the criteria for reviewing a conditional use would not address some of the issues about which he is concerned. Mr. Foegler responded that is correct. The criteria would have to be developed upon which this use would be evaluated for conditional use approval. Mr. Gerber stated that if it would provide assurance regarding materials and other standards of a PUD, there wouldn't be an issue. Mr. Foegler indicated that staff concurs. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked what additional information Council requires before the second reading/public hearing. Vice Mayor Boring responded that she is interested in information about the house on the property, and whether the church is restricted from using it. Ms. Adkins responded that there is no explicit restriction. But the current PUD zoning does place some restrictions on it. They had been working with the church regarding their ability to use the house as part of their outreach ministry, but decided to wait until the rezoning issue was resolved so that there were fewer limitations. If the zoning to R-1 is approved, the primary limitations would be Building Code related. If the R-1 rezoning is not approved, it will be necessary to review their plans before moving forward. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the Humbert family continued to use the property as residential after the PUD zoning was approved. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council May 18, 2009 Meeting Page 8 Ms. Adkins responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is concerned with limiting the use of that residence in their outreach program to the community. She would like information about how Council could allow them to continue that outreach program using the house. Mr. Lecklider inquired what the height limitations of a straight zoning would be for any structure on this property. Ms. Adkins responded that it would be 35 feet. Mr. Reiner asked if conditional use review criteria, such as Mr. Foegler suggested, could be enacted in time for consideration with this legislation. Mr. Foegler responded that staff could proceed to work on that process and provide some suggestions for Council. Mr. Gerber stated that it would appear to be an ideal solution for this case, but are there other situations where it would not be appropriate? Mr. Foegler responded that later on tonight's agenda, there are some items Council may choose to refer to the Community Development Committee for possible Code amendments. This may be another item that could be considered. Mr. Gerber responded that his hesitancy is not in regard to this church but to some future party that may not be as cooperative and earnest. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there is any other information Council requests prior to the second reading. Mr. Reiner noted that there are clearly differing opinions on this rezoning. He asked if it is possible for staff to assemble what the City Manager has suggested in terms of conditional use criteria. Mr. Foegler responded that staff would proceed to study the options for site plan reviews or conditional use reviews to address this. Mr. Reiner stated this option would address the concerns of the residents, ensure that the Church of an expedited process, avoid the high cost to church members for a PUD process, and yet provide the City the necessary oversight. He believes it would be a good solution. Mr. Gerber responded that he agrees. As more infill development occurs in the future, the City cannot create a new set of rules for each case. Mr. Foegler stated that what he is proposing would have a broader application than this case alone. However, it would be an appropriate requirement for straight zones that when an institutional use is proposed, they are subject to a review process. That could be a site plan review process or a conditional use review process. They do have a different impact on a neighborhood than that of a typical residential development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if staff is not satisfied with what has been assembled by the next meeting, perhaps staff could suggest that the Church consider requesting a postponement to the following meeting. There will be a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 24-09 at the June 1 Council meeting. Ordinance 25-09 Rezoning 0.48 Acres Located at 6200 Wilcox Road, Approximately 125 Feet South of Shier-Rings Road from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to RI, Restricted Industrial District. (Master Maintenance -Case 04- 0422) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council May 18, 2009 Page 9 Ms. Noble-Flading stated that the site currently has access off of Wilcox Road. The site is relatively flat in terrain with the exception of the southwest portion of the site, which crosses the Cosgray Ditch. The surrounding properties bordering the site are zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. Ro To the east is a commercial warehouse within the Dublin Commerce Park. Asingle-family home is located to the south. Vacant land across the street to the west is zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. Currently, the site is developed with an approximately 1,000-square foot, single-family residence; a 750- square foot, detached structure; and a small parking area to the forefront of the garage. For this use of the property, the applicant is pursuing two application processes. One is the rezoning; the second is a conditional use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to legitimize an administrative office associated with the cleaning business. That review process is pending, per the results of tonight's meeting. The objective of this rezoning application is to adopt a rezoning for the property that is more consistent with the Community Plan, which calls for glow-density research and development zoning for this site. The requested zoning classification is for non-residential uses, including office, research and development, and light industrial uses. The RI district is the least intensive industrial classification that the City of Dublin has. The staff and Planning Commission believe the RI classification is comparable to the Community Plan land use classification. The Planning Commission recommends Council approval of the rezoning application. Ms. Salay stated that the application contains no site plan depicting how the site would be configured in the future. Could staff provide that? Ms. Noble-Flading indicated a site plan can be provided. Ms. Salay asked about the number of parking spaces. Ms. Noble-Flading responded that five parking spaces are required. There are four surface parking spaces and two parking spaces provided in the existing detached structure, which is an excess of one space of the requirement. Ms. Salay stated that the Community Plan calls for a future land use of low density office, research and development. Is there a better way to pursue this versus a conditional use approval after the property is rezoned? Her concern is that if the proposed rezoning is approved, there will be a situation of immediate Code violations, due to a number of issues with this site. She has spoken several times with Mr. Cline, the applicant's representative about the site and also spoke with one of the applicants a few years ago. This business has operated on this site for a number of years. There are frequently 6-10 cars parked on the site, and there are always two vans parked in the garage. The trash cans for the business are frequently overflowing, and the generated business trash is collected by the City's residential trash pick-up service on Wednesdays. She has spoken to the Planning Director about this issue. The use is appropriate for this site, but this particular business is too large for the site. Perhaps the site should be rezoned to Suburban Office, consistent with the zoning across the street, and then rezoning of the properties in that immediate area to Suburban Office should be initiated. That would be more in line with the low density, research and development use called for by the Community Plan and would upgrade that area, rather than downgrade it. In her view, Suburban Office is a higher quality zoning than Restricted Industrial. The Suburban Office that exists across the street has developed into the attractive Wilcox Place offices. The future use for the front corner lot is intended to be a continuation of that use. The adjacent Washington Township fire station property has been significantly upgraded. She is concerned that the City is essentially forcing this use in this location, but it is not really appropriate. Ms. Noble-Flading responded that staff does see this use as very temporary, if the conditional use is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the site size of .5 acres, it cannot be developed as an industrial use. It would require additional land to develop in that way. With the surrounding parcels zoned R-I, it is anticipated that the land would collectively develop as an industrial use. Ms. Salay responded that she understands the intent. However, her suggestion is that the City instead state its desire for Suburban Office use and then steer the development in that direction versus committing to Industrial zoning on land that the Community Plan identifies as Low Density Office, Research and Development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin ~ Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 10 Ms. Noble-Flading responding that the difficulty is that there is existing land around the site that is zoned R-I. That would require all of the land to be down zoned for it to collectively develop. Ms. Salay stated that currently, however, the uses n the area are single-family residences on land that the City indicates a desire for R-I. She believes the future zoning could go either way on this land. Vice Mayor Boring asked if the residence could be used as a business under an R-I zoning. Ms. Noble-Flading responded that is the applicant's intent in pursuing a conditional use. They would modify the existing structures to accommodate that use. Vice Mayor Boring stated her understanding that Council had previously indicated they did not want to see existing residential homes changed to business use. The example of development which has occurred along Sawmill Road prompted that policy decision. Ms. Salay stated that her concern is not only with the requested R-I zoning, but the actual operation of this business. The business operation overflows the site. Ms. Noble-Flading responded that many of those same concerns were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application was originally heard in March, and this use will be reviewed again by the Commission. Ms. Salay responded that she reviewed the P&Z minutes, and it was suggested that the remedy would be Code Enforcement action. She does not advocate approval of a rezoning that would place more responsibility on Code Enforcement. If the use is approved, it will result in immediate Code violations. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she agrees completely. She recalls an earlier approval of a business operation too large for asite - McDonald's on Perimeter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked what information Council requests in preparation for the June 15t second reading/public hearing. Ms. Salay requested a site plan, including an indication of more parking for this site. Are there ways to mitigate the issues she has described and to prevent this site from being in violation of Code? The key issues for her are land use and designated zoning, and the conditional use. She is not comfortable approving the zoning, knowing there is a conditional use needed. Mr. Gerber stated that he would like information regarding the pros and cons of both zoning classifications -Suburban Office and Restricted Industrial. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that is interested in the history of Code violations on this property. Have they been cited? If so, what has transpired? Chris Cline, representative for the applicants, John and Amarilys Hoge requested that the second/reading public hearing of Ordinance 24-09 be postponed to the June 15 Council meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Hoge have been residents of Dublin since 1987 and have owned Master Maintenance since 1981. The company provides a valuable janitorial service to Dublin businesses as well as to other communities. The zoning category recommended by the Community Plan permits low density research and development. A Suburban Office zoning would not permit the same development. The Community Plan zoning designation does permit support services for offices. Therefore, the Master Maintenance business is completely compatible with what the Community Plan calls for on this site. The existing building is 1,000 square feet. With the Suburban Office zoning, a building of 3,300 square feet would be typical for that site under an efficient use of the site. However, this development proposal uses an existing building. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed whether the site has Code violations as it is currently developed. It does not. It can be fully Code compliant with the exception RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin. City Council Meeting _ May 18, 2009 Page 11 of the garage, as the Code was revised after the garage existed. Therefore, the garage is anon-conforming use. The house is completely in compliance with the applicable standards, and the site can be redeveloped and remain fully compliant with the Code. The site plan is not typical; it is designed to demonstrate that the property can be used fully in compliance with Code. Five different parking layouts have been shared with staff, some of which provide more parking. The initial question raised by staff is whether the site could be brought into Code compliance. The applicant has shown that it can meet all the Codes. He has visited this site approximately 30 times since the process began, and on no occasion has he viewed more vehicles than what was shown by staff. In past years, employees did stop to pick up paychecks, but that is no longer the practice. If this site were laid out with a striped parking area with wheel stops, that would bring more organization to the way the vehicles are parked. He noted that there is also an element of equity. When the Hoges purchased the property in the early 2000s, staff indicated that the zoning on the site was RI. On the old zoning maps, the township land and the City land were mixed together. The R1 looked very similar to R-I, and that is probably how the mistake occurred. He assumes that one of the reasons the City has not been more forceful in terms of working with the Hoges over the years is that the Hoges had relied upon the City's assertion that the zoning was RI when they purchased the property. Since 2002 or 2003, they have been working with staff and attempting to achieve an equitable solution. They believe that it makes land use sense to conform this site to the surrounding site. Currently, it is an inhibitor of new development because it is an obstruction. If it were all in the same zoning category, it would be more likely that it would be combined with a larger site. He noted that staff had pointed out to the Planning Commission that there are two issues - a conditional use issue and land issue. The Commission separated the two and determined they would deal with the land use issue first, and the conditional use at a future date - if the land use change is approved by Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for a motion to postpone the second reading/public hearing until the June 15 Council meeting, as the applicant has requested. Mr. Gerber so moved. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 26-09 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Franklin County to Transfer Ownership of the Cosgray Creek Culvert and Associated Walls to the City, Said Culvert Located on Avery Road, South of Shier-Rings Road, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith noted that this relates to maintenance responsibilities for a box culvert on Avery Road between Tuswell Drive and Shier Rings Road. Council approved a resolution on May 4 notifying Franklin County of the City's intent to take ownership of this culvert. The City desires to make aesthetic and safety improvements to it, and because they are not consistent with the county standards, the county has asked Dublin to take over maintenance of the culvert itself. This culvert was installed as part of the Avery Road/Shier Rings intersection improvements in 1997, and at the county's expense, it was extended and made wider in anticipation of the Avery Road widening. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance by emergency because bids will be opened on the widening project tomorrow. Mr. Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 12 Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 21-09 Extending the Law Director's Existing Contract. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Foegler stated that the current three-year service contract with the City Attorney expires this month. As Council is aware, staff is involved in negotiations and review of legal services. The City Attorney has agreed to allow the contract to extend on a month-to-month basis, and staff recommends approval of this resolution. Staff will keep Council apprised of the status of negotiations. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolution 22-09 Appointing a Member to an Unexpired Term on the Community Services Advisory Commission. Vice Mayor Boring introduced the resolution, and moved approval of the Administrative Committee's recommendation to appoint Kari Hertel to the unexpired term of Eric Snyder on the Community Services Advisory Commission, a term which expires on March 31, 2011. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. OTHER • Preliminary and Final Plat to Subdivide a .93-Acre Residential Lot Located on the East Side of South High Street at the Intersection of Short Street in the Historic District (Bella Tagvilla -Case No. 09-014PP/FP). Ms. Swisher stated that this property is located at 224 S. High Street. The application was reviewed by P&Z on April 16, and they subsequently recommended approval with conditions. • She noted that this site and the undeveloped site to the east are zoned "HR," Historic Residential District. The site currently contains asingle- family home, and there is a 10-foot drop in elevation from S. High Street to the rear of the lot to the east. • There is also an existing historic stone wall along the High Street and portions of the Short Street frontage of the site. The proposed preliminary plat correctly identifies all existing structures and topographical features on the site. • The HR zoning requires .2 acre lots with minimum lot widths of 60 feet. The proposed subdivision consists of Lot 1, which is 1/3 acre and 76 feet in width; and Lot 2, which would contain the existing residence and is just under'/2 acre and 103 feet in width. • In addition to the two proposed lots, there is also aright-of-way dedication associated with this proposal, consisting of .171 acres. This corresponds to 40 feet of right-of-way to the center of S. High Street in accordance with the Thoroughfare Plan. • Lot 1 is permitted one driveway curbcut access onto S. High Street. Engineering has requested that the curbcut be limited to the southern RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 13 portion of that lot to avoid maneuverability conflicts with the intersection of Waterford and S. High Street. This note has been added to the final plat. • Additionally, the driveway access for Lot 2 will remain off of Short Street. The subdivision regulations require sidewalk construction for all new residential subdivisions, except as waived by Council. There is currently a sidewalk along S. High Street, however there is none along Short Street. Due to the existing historic stone wall and the approximate location of the right-of-way, there is not adequate room for that type of improvement on the site. In order to minimize the disturbance to the stone wall, Planning recommends that Council waive the sidewalk requirement for Short Street. • The subdivision requirements also require open space and recreation site facilities dedication for new subdivisions. However, given the size of the site, Planning recommends that the applicant pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, and that $1,500 fee must be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. • In addition, the recreation site fee, which is based on a percentage of the land and building costs must be paid prior to obtaining a building permit when Lot 1 is developed. • In regard to sanitary sewer, there is an existing line on S. Riverview Drive to the east serving existing residents. But the closest sanitary line to proposed Lot 1 is located in the northern portion of the lot immediately adjacent to the north. When Lot 1 is developed, a line will be extended from the existing sewer terminus. • Based on the site's location in the Historic District and the size of the site, the stormwater quality and quantity requirements exempt this site from any stormwater mitigation. • No modifications or improvements are proposed at this time. However, when Lot 1 comes forward for development, it will require review and approval of ARB prior to construction. Planning has reviewed this proposal based on criteria for preliminary and final plats. It is staff's opinion that all criteria have been met or may be met with conditions as outlined. P&Z recommended approval with conditions, and staff recommends approval with the three conditions listed in the report: 1. That the sidewalk requirement for Short Street is waived; 2. That the parkland fee be paid prior to recording of final plat; and 3. That the recreation site fee be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. She offered to respond to questions. Mr. Gerber asked her to distinguish between parkland fee and recreation site fee. Ms. Swisher responded that the subdivision regulations have two similarly worded requirements. The parkland dedication is based upon a percentage of the actual acreage of the site and number of dwelling units proposed; the recreation site fee goes toward construction of recreation facilities in the area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated she has not heard the term "recreation site fee" previously. This is a residential street and not a subdivision, per se, so why would a recreation site fee be required? Ms. Swisher responded that this fee is a Code requirement of the subdivision regulations. This application is considered a subdivision of an existing residential lot. Because it is being taken through the subdivision process, it is subject to the other requirements of a typical residential subdivision under the Dublin Code. Mr. Gerber commented that this is essentially a tax. He is not certain where the recreation fees will be used in this area, based on his observation. Ms. Salay stated that parkland fees are based on the amount of land and recreation site fees are paid in conjunction with the building permit. It is part of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council May 18, 2009 Meeting Page 14 Dublin's Code. In this case, a large lot is being subdivided into two lots, which constitutes a subdivision under Code. Mr. Gerber responded he understands what staff has reported, but this is the first time he has heard about such provisions with an application. Vice Mayor Boring asked for clarification: the recreation site fee is part of the building permit process? Ms. Swisher responded affirmatively, noting that the cost is based upon the percentage of land and building costs. The minimum fee is $350 and maximum fee is $1,000 per residential dwelling unit. Vice Mayor Boring asked why this is a condition, if it is a Code requirement? Ms. Swisher responded that staff wants to ensure this is on the record and that it will be paid prior to building permitting. Mr. Lecklider noted that the records indicate that a letter was received from Mr. McDowell. Can staff share what his concerns were, as expressed in the letter? Ms. Swisher responded that Mr. McDowell, the owner of the property immediately east of the site and property to the south had concerns related to site development, including parking of construction vehicles, grading, etc. His comments are included in the file and will be communicated to the ARB in conjunction with development on Lot 1. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked staff to point out the actual land under consideration for this application. The memo includes a map, and it seems that Short Street should be identified on that map. Vote on the Preliminary and Final Plats: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Acceptance of Reports of Tax Incentive Review Council and Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that page 2 indicates a two-year tax delinquency on a particular parcel. She could not find this parcel number on the list provided. Mr. McDaniel responded that the Franklin County Auditor raised this issue as well and asked Dublin to look into this. The Auditor's staff was present at the meeting, and had details about the delinquency. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked him to follow-up with information on exactly which parcel is delinquent. Mr. McDaniel agreed to do so. Mr. Thurman added that the property is located at the Manor of Craughwell Village Condominiums, located at 6106 Inishmore Lane. A letter regarding the delinquency has been sent. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this involves the entire condominium complex. Mr. Thurman responded that it is one parcel, and a portion of the parcel is included within a tax increment financing district. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff to provide additional information to Council about this delinquency. Mr. Keenan moved to accept the reports of the Tax Incentive Review Council and the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Appointment of Acting Clerk of Council -May 19-23 Mr. Gerber moved to appoint Judy Beal as Acting Clerk of Council from May 19 through 23. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 15 Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Foegler noted that the City has received a significant contribution for the Grounds of Remembrance from Oak Park Hallmark Homes Communities, which has committed $25,000 to the Patron Sycamore Grove. Hallmark Homes has a philanthropic tradition in their east coast communities, and wanted to ensure this philosophy is carried on in Dublin. Their principals plan to attend a Council meeting this summer for a formal presentation to the City. Hallmark Homes is the developer of the Oak Park subdivision near Hyland-Croy and Mitchell-DeWitt Roads. Their gift brings the total raised to $678,000 or 86 percent of the goal of $790,000. In addition, he acknowledged Sue Burness, recent Council appointee to the Dublin Convention & Visitors Bureau for her efforts in securing this generous gift. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner: 1. Congratulated Mr. Harding and staff for the successful Healthy by Choice initiative. He noted that the City is partnering with an insurance company for a three-year program to improve the quality of health of the citizens. Is there any update on this effort? Mr. Harding responded that the steering committee has met twice, and has set a tentative date for the kick-off event of Sunday, October 4th. Staff will provide a written update on this initiative. 2. Noted that former Council Member, Bill Chambers, wrote an epic poem about his experience as a paratrooper in occupied Europe and his jump on D-Day. Several years ago, it was printed in the newspaper. With the Grounds of Remembrance dedication this month, he is hopeful that the newspaper could resurrect this poem and republish it. 3. Reported that the winners of the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage award are being announced tonight. The City of Dublin submitted a nomination, but did not win this award. The international winners were women of Liberia who have risked their lives in the fight for democracy. The American winners were two individuals who predicted the financial crisis, one of whom was the chairman of the FDIC. He thanked all of the people who submitted very moving letters in support of this nomination related to the formation of the City of Dublin and its high standards. Mr. Gerber thanked staff for the memo in the packet regarding the non-conforming fences issue. The fence code changes adopted in 2000 were implemented with new neighborhoods in mind, but there were unintended consequences for many existing older properties with fences. Staff has offered some solutions, including addressing the issue as part of the Zoning Code update. However, the Code update will take 12 months or longer, and he is aware of residents who want to repair/replace their non- conforming fences at this time. He would advocate adoption of some amendments quickly to remedy this situation. He would suggest considering these fences as conforming and permit replacement or upgrading of the fences. Although staff may not have a record of every fence constructed in the city, as residents come in for permits, the records for the older neighborhoods with non-confirming fences will automatically be updated. He does not support waiting 6-18 months for this situation to be resolved. His suggestion would be to declare fences lawfully constructed prior to the effective date in 2000 of the fence code amendments to be considered conforming. This would then allow the existing fence to be replaced in the same location, at the existing height, and with the same materials or those specified or permitted by the Code, at the owner's option. Typically, many want to replace cedar fences with wrought iron. In the case of storm damage to fences, the residents can only replace these fences with the same material. Vice Mayor Boring stated that another consideration is whether such a fence would be required to meet the current height restriction for fences. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 16 Mr. Gerber responded that he would not object to this. His goal is to allow the owner to replace an existing fence with a higher grade material, if desired. Mr. Reiner noted that the City has in place a strict fence code that has kept the viewsheds and vistas open throughout the City. He is aware that this issue has come up for some existing neighborhoods. He does not foresee an aesthetics issue with such a change, but perhaps there are other considerations. He asked for input from staff on any negative impact of such a change. Mr. Langworthy responded that the issue has been appropriately separated for those fences erected prior to the Code amendments effective in 2000. Mr. Gerber is suggesting an option that would allow someone with a fence that complied with the regulations in place when erected prior to 2000 to keep the same fence in place, but replace/repair with different materials, if desired. The normal regulation is that if a non-conforming structure, such as a fence, is removed, the replacement must conform to current regulations. There are a limited number of non-conforming fences such as this, which exist in the City. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification about the Code changes adopted in 2000. Mr. Langworthy responded that the 2000 Code changes related to height and location. The current requirement is that a fence must be located within the buildable area versus the perimeter lot line. The height restriction is currently four feet, and some non-conforming fences are 5-6 feet in height. Mr. Gerber added that many of these property owners have swimming pools, but do not have a fence erected around the pool itself. They use the entire backyard fence to provide enclosure for the pool. Many of these fences were erected in the 70s or 80s. Ms. Salay stated that allowing property owners to rebuild what now exists is acceptable, even if it is a six-foot cedar fence -provided it was legally constructed prior to the enactment of the fence code changes in 2000. She can understand why some property owners would want to retain the higher fence previously erected, if their property borders a bikepath or other public space. Mr. Keenan asked what would occur if someone wanted to replace the fence with chain link material. Mr. Gerber responded that chain link is prohibited under the Code. Mr. Keenan summarized that the material must then be Code acceptable. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the staff memo indicates that non-conforming fences would be allowed to be replaced in their existing locations, but that the height would be limited to four feet and the replacement fences would be of the same or better material. Was that an option or a staff recommendation? Mr. Gerber responded this was one of three options. He would like to balance these options, as some would want to retain their six-foot fences, while others may want to reduce the fence height to four feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in any case, the recommendation would be that the replacement fence not be higher than the existing fence. Mr. Gerber responded that is correct. Mr. Langworthy added that in any change to anon-conforming structure, it cannot be made more non-conforming as a result. Ms. Salay asked if the focus is on having the same or better materials. She is concerned with the definition of "better material," which could be subject to individual interpretation. Some may consider a vinyl fence as an upgrade. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the language could be, "the same or better material, as set forth by Code." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Counc~ Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 17 Mr. Langworthy noted that the Code already provides a list of acceptable fence materials. He would suggest language of "the same materials or as specified by the Code." It was the consensus of Council that the language would allow for replacement with the same materials, but include the option to upgrade to those materials allowed by Code. Vice Mayor Boring asked if there are existing, non-conforming fences of chain link material. Perhaps the language should indicate, "as specified by Code." Mr. Langworthy responded that he believes "only as specified by Code" is a better option. He cannot estimate the number of existing non-conforming chain link fences in the City. Vice Mayor Boring summarized that the language would include, "materials only as specified by Code." Mr. Foegler added that under the Code, a property owner with anon-conforming fence cannot do a wholesale replacement of anon-conforming fence. Mr. Gerber agreed that his understanding is they can repair such a fence, but not completely replace it in kind. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff about the process for this amendment. Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code change must be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Foegler stated that staff can draft such an ordinance for Council to introduce at the next Council meeting, and if it is the desire to expedite the legislation, P&Z could conceivably review it at the June meeting. Mr. Gerber supported this course of action in order to make the change effective for this building season. Mr. Gerber summarized that the process is that a simple amendment to the fence code can be introduced by Council on June 1 and reviewed by P&Z in June as well. Mr. Langworthy concurred. Mr. Keenan: 1. Thanked Mr. Foegler and staff for their work on the Council strategic planning session held last week. He appreciates all of their efforts in preparation. 2. Reported that the Dublin Coffman girls' lacrosse team defeated Cincinnati Mt. Notre Dame tonight. The final regional game is scheduled in Cincinnati next week. 3. The Veterans Committee had their final meeting on Friday prior to the Grounds of Remembrance dedication on Memorial Day. He asked Mr. Hahn to provide a brief update on the project. Mr. Hahn stated that the weather prediction is good for the event. The project is in the final stages of completion, with sod being laid on Wednesday. The project will be completed and ready for dedication on Memorial Day. Ms. Salay: 1. Asked for clarification about the Subway lease agreement, particularly regarding the exclusive rights to sell food throughout the DCRC. Mr. Earman responded that the agreement provides that the City will not have food vending machines in the DCRC while Subway is under contract with the City to provide food service at the DCRC. This does not include beverages provided through vending machines. 2. Reported that the Dublin Arts Council has reworked their budget and hopes to have a surplus, while maintaining the high quality programs the community expects. A subcommittee of the DAC Board was formed to review the Garden Party fundraising event. They are charged with reviewing options for future fundraising. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Qublio_City_Council Meeting May 18, 2009 Page 18 Mr. Lecklider noted that staff has provided a memo regarding the seasonal outdoor display and storage areas. An option identified is referral of the matter to the Community Development Committee, and he asked for Council's input. The consensus of Council was to refer this matter to the Community Development Committee. Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Noted that a candidate for boards and commissions suggested the community have a program for reselling of art. This is a potential idea for fundraising to benefit the arts in the community, and Ms. Salay could share this idea with the DAC. 2. Stated that many citizens have expressed their anticipation of the opening of the Subway at the DCRC. 3. Noted that she attended the Dublin Scioto Spring Art Show at the Market at Serendipity store at Village Square Shopping Center. She was amazed with the abundance of talent, and appreciates their invitation! 4. Reminded Council of upcoming events, including: Senior Recognition Day at the DCRC tomorrow; Taste of Dublin tomorrow evening; Standley Law open house on Wednesday; Nationwide Children's Hospital event on Friday; Habitat for Humanity 5K Run in Historic Dublin on Sunday; and the Memorial Day opening of the Grounds of Remembrance at Dublin Veterans Park. 5. Reported that staff is hosting community information meetings related to the Hyland-Croy corridor area as well as the Emerald Ash borer during the last week of May. 6. Noted that the Tournament activities are schedule in June, and encouraged everyone to respond to the invitations for the various events, including the golf outings and board/commission recognition on Thursday evening, June 4. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Reported that she attended the MORPC Board meeting last week, along with Mr. McDaniel. MORPC staff distributed the new Columbus Metro Bike Users Map. Copies can be requested from MORPC and it is available on their website. It will be updated on a regular basis. 2. Provided Mr. Thurman with a report she received about the foreclosures in Dublin over the past three years. The number has increased, but remains substantially lower than that of other communities. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:20 p.m. for discussion of legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action) and personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official). Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the meeting will be reconvened following the executive session only for the purpose of formally adjourning. There will be no further action taken. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council