Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2009RECORD 00= PROCEEDINGS _ _Minutes_c~f_ _ Dublin City Council _ _ Meeting June 1, 2009 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, June 1, 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, Ms. Readier, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Martin, Ms. Ott, Ms. Worstall, and Ms. Vroom. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of May 18, 2009 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the May 18, 2009 Regular Council meeting. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Boring noted a correction to page 17, paragraph 3. In the second line, her comment should read, "Perhaps language should indicate only as specified by Code." Vote on the minutes as corrected: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher congratulated staff, the Veterans Project Committee and the community for the Grounds of Remembrance opening, which was held last Monday. Although the City holds many events and there are many opportunities for the community to come together and celebrate, this was one of the City's finest moments. The Committee, including Council members Reiner and Keenan, contributed many hours to this effort on behalf of the community. The many donations from the community in time, ideas and dollars have resulted in the well deserved recognition for the community's veterans. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that in the past few years he has bitterly complained about the development occurring at the intersection of Dublin Road and Bridge Street. He is not happy about the high-pitched roofs of the new construction, but will refrain from further comment, as it is now being constructed. Tonight, he would like to discuss an item which was brought up recently at Council -the name "BriHi." This item is a clumsy mismatch of two syllables, BriHi, the name for the development at the corner of Bridge and High Street. The name is also proposed as the brand for that area of the City. For years, the City has discussed what to do with the corner. At this point, everything emotionally, intellectually and historically related to this City and that corner are to be crunched into two clumsy syllables. It is not too late to stop that from occurring. This corner was once a great center of the town. The fathers of the City met there around the old village pump on benches. He noted that Martin Lindstrom has written a book called "Buyology," a review of the impact of brands on the human brain. Mr. Lindstrom has drawn conclusions as to what causes some of them to succeed and others to fail. He recommends that the City staff and Council consider that in regard to the proposed BriHi brand. Yi Xiao Ping stated that June 1 is Children's Day in China. He requested that Dublin City Council formally recognize Children's Day in Dublin. The day is set aside in China to honor its children. It was established many years ago after the nation's liberation. The day is observed with tokens of appreciation, gifts and celebrations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 2 LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning Approximately 5.258 Acres, Located on the South Side of Brand Road, Approximately 1,000 Feet West of Avery Road, from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Indian Run United Methodist Church, 6325 Brand Road -Case 09-0222) Ms. Adkins stated that: • At the first reading, discussion took place regarding the fact that the R-1 straight zoning district, does not provide for a public review process for any future changes the church might propose. There would be no ability for the public to comment and for the adjoining neighborhood to have input on the design, in keeping with the need for high quality design and architecture in the City. The City Manager then suggested modifying the zoning requirements for R-1, straight districts, in regard to institutional uses to require either a site design review or a conditional use process. Staff seeks Council's direction about moving forward on a Code change for institutional uses to be considered by the Planning Commission. • In addition, Council requested assurance that the adjoining neighbors and the church would meet to discuss the church's plans. She attended a meeting of the two groups at which the church presented their proposed plan and the neighborhood representatives explained their concerns. A letter from the homeowners association has been forwarded to Council, indicating the homeowners association's support for the rezoning. • At this time, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. She clarified that a super majority of Council is required to override the recommendation of disapproval by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Dan Joseph, 7914 Wiltshire Drive, stated that he is the president of the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association. He and another trustee attended the meeting hosted by the church to review the plans. Their remaining concerns relate to the proposed parking lot in the final phase of the project, which would adjoin the reserve area diagonal to one of the properties in the neighborhood. There is very little buffer between a parking lot and that area. They would like the church to eliminate two of the proposed parking spaces, to provide more buffer and screening to the reserve and the homeowner's property. The neighborhood is also concerned with the bikepath ending at the church's parking lot and crossing over Brand Road. If a pedestrian or biker desired to continue on to Avery Park, it would be necessary to re- cross Brand Road at the intersection of Avery and Brand. With the increase in traffic on Brand Road, the residents are concerned with the need for pedestrians and bikers to cross twice within that same section of Brand Road. They would like the City to consider funding the extension of the bikepath to the Avery/Brand intersection, as it is not likely feasible for the church to include this in their project. The homeowners association has withdrawn its opposition to the rezoning, but remains concerned with these two items. Brian Gath. Associate Pastor, Indian Run United Methodist Church stated that the church did not receive any feedback from the meeting with the neighborhood representatives until tonight. Therefore, he is not prepared to respond to their request to eliminate two parking spaces. There are a certain number of parking spaces that are necessary, but assuming this can be achieved in some other way on the property, the church could accommodate the association's request. The bikepath issue is more significant. The bikepath was included with the Meadows at Wyndham Village development, and that development ends at the church property. Anyone using the bikepath has to cross over the roadway. They believe the best solution would be to bring the bikepath up to the intersection and provide a crosswalk at that location. To RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 3 continue it all the way to the east would require a bridge over the Indian Run, which would be quite expensive. Mr. Gerber stated that this is consistent with the discussion at the previous meeting. He would support staff reviewing the suggestion for amendments to the institutional use R-1 zoning, and drafting an amendment for P&Z to consider. This amendment is needed, as this type of situation will likely occur more frequently in the future. Mr. Lecklider asked about the need for 40 parking spaces. What is the basis for that number? He noted that Council does not have a copy of the site plan, which was discussed at the meeting between the church and the homeowners association. Mr. Adkins responded that the number of parking spaces required for religious uses is based upon the space of the assembly area. If the church adds to its assembly space, it must add the equivalent number of parking spaces. The site plan did include parking area in the west, but it should be possible to identify a solution that would achieve the number of needed parking spaces, yet provide space for the buffer requested by the residents. Mr. Keenan asked about the ratio of parking spaces to the assembly area. Ms. Adkins responded that one parking space per 30 square feet of assembly area is required. Mr. Lecklider asked if 40 spaces would be a reasonable number, given the proposed square footage. He would like everyone to have a general understanding of the expectation. If the required spaces are closer to 60, 70 or 80, he suspects the homeowners would have a different view regarding this rezoning. Ms. Adkins responded that there are a minimum number of spaces required by Code. Her understanding is that there is not a significant expansion proposed for the assembly area. The additional parking would be required to accommodate the square footage of the assembly area. The Code does not have a limitation in terms of maximum number of spaces, so the parking that is developed is based upon the need of the congregation as opposed to the size of the facility. Often, a church will have more parking spaces than required. If this is submitted for a conditional use, Planning Commission would review that matter. Mr. Foegler clarified that nothing related to a development plan is being presented to Council tonight. However, this is the type of issue that will be addressed when the conditional use regulations are put into place. Mr. Lecklider asked if the installation of a crosswalk on Brand Road is part of the City's bikepath plan, or is it the church's proposal. Ms. Adkins responded that extending the bikepath along their Brand Road frontage would be cost prohibitive for the church. Therefore, the church looked at connecting to the existing bikepath on the north side of Brand Road. This solution would provide the bikepath connection on the north side of the road, and it would be necessary to work with Engineering on any road crossing issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the solution was suggested as a result of the neighbors' interest in having the bikepath connection. It was not initially part of the church's plan. Mr. Lecklider asked if it is the City's expectation that, eventually, the bikepath will extend eastward to connect to the bikepath that extends along the west side of Avery Road. Ms. Adkins deferred that question to the Parks Director. Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Joseph raises a legitimate concern about having a crosswalk on Brand Road. The speed limit is 35 mph, but he is not sure the City wants to encourage crossing the road in that location. RECOR® OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council _ Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Foegler noted that staff concurs on those issues, but it is not possible to address the issues by imposing conditions on this rezoning. It would be possible, however, to state that the issues need to be studied as part of the conditional use process moving forward. Mr. Lecklider noted that it is possible that language may need to be added to the conditional use portion of the straight zoning districts that addresses the desire to have high quality architecture coordinated with existing buildings and compatible with the area. He would support proceeding with staff's recommendation, keeping that particular statement in mind. He, too, would prefer to have this amendment drafted and considered by P&Z as quickly as possible. Mr. Reiner referred to the two parking spaces the applicant is willing to relocate. Is it staff's belief that approximately 400 square feet of parking could be moved elsewhere on the site, in view of the floodplain issues involved? Ms. Adkins responded that it is possible. It would be necessary to consider creative solutions to shift those parking spaces. Vice Mayor Boring moved approval of Ordinance 24-09. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Gerber moved to direct staff to draft a Code amendment establishing a conditional use review process for institutional uses. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 27-09 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aPre-Annexation Agreement Describing the Intentions of the Parties to Annex Certain Real Property Owned by Celtic Capital LLC, Located in Jerome Township, Union County. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Mr. Foegler stated that the annexation petition has been before Council for some period of time. There is a four-year history associated with the petition. It has been subject to many special circumstances and issues throughout the process, including some concerns related to uniform coverage on the right-of-way associated with Hyland- Croy Road. A second issue is a recent interpretation in regard to fire and life safety levies in Jerome Township for the property, which significantly complicate the reparations discussion. Staff has considered a variety of mechanisms to ensure that reparations are provided and collected in a reasonably straightforward manner, and to minimize the risk for double taxation on future residents of this area. At the same time, there is a need to maintain some level of flexibility, given the uncertainty of some of the pending interpretations by Union County related to the recently discovered levy language issues. Based on staff's review, the Administration and the applicant believe the ordinance provides mechanisms for either of the scenarios which could result. Jack Reynolds, Smith & Hale, representative for the applicant stated that what is before Council tonight is the result of a long process of working with the landowners. The applicant has been working with Jerome Township as well as with the City. A reasonable compromise has been reached that will provide flexibility as the process moves forward. This was, unfortunately, uncharted area in terms of the new annexation law, how regular versus expedited annexations are handled, and how the reparations are handled. There were no questions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council June 1, 2009 Page 5 There will be a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 27-09 at the June 15 Council meeting. Ordinance 28-09 Amending Section 153.078 -153.083 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) regarding Nonconforming Fences (Case No. 09-031ADM). Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated that this Code amendment is presented in response to direction given by Council at their May 18th meeting. This legislation will amend Sections 153.078 - 083. The proposed text changes are noted in the redlined version of the ordinance provided in Council packets. The basic intent of the amendment is defined on page 6, item C, which is to permit fences that were erected prior to the effective date of Ordinance 75-98 (4/19/00) to be replaced in the same location and at the same or lesser height as existed on the effective date of Ordinance 75-98. In addition, the replacement fence shall be of the same materials as the existing fence or other materials permitted in §153.079, except as provided in §153.080(C). A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be required. This is a first reading of the legislation, and the Code requires referral of the proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and recommendation to Council. Mr. Gerber requested that the proposed Code amendment be scheduled for a Commission hearing as soon as possible and that a recommendation be forwarded for Council's June 15th Council meeting. Mr. Foegler stated that Mr. Langworthy has indicated that, based on Council's discussion regarding the urgency of this matter, this item could be scheduled for the June 11 Planning Commission agenda. In regard to the last paragraph's reference to fence materials, Vice Boring indicated that she believes Council had specified that the revised language should not permit all previous materials, but should read, "as specified by Code." This would avoid the possibility of permitting the continued use of chain link fencing material. Mr. Gunderman stated that maintenance of an existing chain link fence has always been permitted, and maintenance of an existing fence would continue to be permitted with this Code amendment. However, if a property owner changes out the fencing material for an existing fence, it must be comply with current Code requirements. The City's Code does not permit chain link fencing in a residential area. Mr. Keenan asked if wrought iron is a permitted fence material. Mr. Gunderman responded that the permitted materials are listed in Section 153.079, which begins on page one. Section 153.080 covers the use regulations, which provide additional restrictions to Section 153.079. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification of the word "or" used in the proposed amendments, which state: "In addition, the replacement fence shall be of the same materials as the existing fence or other materials permitted in §153.079." This indicates that there is an option of replacing a chain link fence with a chain link fence. However, the intent is that if the entire fence is being replaced, it cannot be replaced with the previous material if it is no longer permitted by current Code. Only for a repair can the same materials be used. Ms. Readier agreed that the language does indicate that an existing chain link fence could be replaced with another fence of the same material or with different materials. To ensure that a full replacement fence is constructed only of materials permitted by current Code, the language will need to be revised. Ms. Salay stated that, typically, when a certain percentage of a structure is being remodeled, compliance with current Code is required. Shouldn't this language contain a percentage requirement? Otherwise, it would be possible to replace an entire fence in a piecemeal fashion and continue to use the existing materials. Mr. Foegler responded that is the method that has typically been used to replace non- conforming fences with the same non-conforming materials - by replacing a section at RECORD ®F PR®CEEDINGS Minutes ~f _ Dublin City Council Meetinv June 1, 2009 Page 6 a time. However, there is a section of the Code that addresses abandoning the right to use anon-conforming material when a certain percent is replaced. Staff will review that section in conjunction with this amendment to determine if it creates challenges or obstacles. Ms. Salay asked about the language regarding "hedges." The Community Development Committee has a pending item relating to the use of landscaping as fences. Nearly every lot in Dublin has some level of landscaping that is used as a privacy fence or perimeter fence. Committee members believed it would be problematic to keep the current Code requirements, because there are so many cases in which landscape material is used as fencing. Because Council desired a change, this seemed to be a way to achieve that. However, addressing that issue with this Code change may delay the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Gunderman stated that the issues of hedges and other landscaping used as a fences does need to be addressed. However, he understands that the objective of this amendment is to address the fence issue raised at the last Council meeting. Future legislation will be necessary to address other related issues. Mr. Keenan reiterated that the intent is to have this Code change adopted and effective for the 2009 construction season. Mr. Gerber moved to refer Ordinance 28-09 as modified tonight to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a clarification of the time frame in which the Planning and Zoning Commission would review the amendment. Mr. Foegler responded that it would be scheduled for the June 11 Commission meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 24-09 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Avery Road Widening Project (Irelan Place to Shier Rings Road). Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is a scheduled 2009 capital improvements project. During the CIP discussion two years ago, the right-of-way impacts were discussed. At that time, the City was proceeding with the Avery/Tuswell/Innovation Drive roundabout. As that project moved forward, it was determined that the widening of this section of road to a four-lane section with medians should be accelerated. However, it has now been determined that there is no need for permanent right-of way. There is a need, however, for temporary construction easements along the west side of Avery Road and for some temporary construction and sidewalk easements along the east side of Avery Road. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $630,000. Of the nine bids received, The Shelley Company was the lowest and best bidder with a bid of $484,454. The completion date for the project is October 15, and construction will begin in June. Traffic will be maintained through the work zone. This will complete the widening of Avery Road from Shier Rings to Woerner-Temple Road. The next section to be completed will be the portion south of Woerner Temple Road to Tuttle Crossing. Ms. Salay stated that there is some continued confusion for her associated with the project. Avery Road will be widened and the bikepath will be extended to Shier Rings Road. The Ballantrae bikepath will also be extended to Shier Rings Road, but the section in front of the DBS-owned parcel on the corner will not be completed. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. There is an existing bikepath along the west side of Avery Road that was recently installed with the Avery/Tuswell project. RECORD ®P PR®CEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council June 1, 2009 Page 7 That section of the bikepath will be relocated. It currently extends across the frontage of the DBS property. Ms. Salay requested that staff provide her with an update that she can share at the Ballantrae residents' meeting next week. Mr. Hammersmith noted that he has spoken with DBS. They have indicated that they do not intend to proceed with their development project this year. Ms. Salay asked for confirmation that it is staff's view that it would not be appropriate to construct the section of bikepath along Shier Rings Road, due to the fact that it would be torn up again when the DBS project ensues. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct, but in addition to the normal requirements, there are several driveway cuts. An estimate for installing that section of sidewalk was developed, and installing that section along the DBS frontage would be quite expensive. Ms. Salay requested that staff provide the additional information to her for the meeting next week. Mr. Keenan inquired if the issues with the corporate residents in the area concerning this project have been resolved. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Boring stated that no map has been provided with this legislation, and she has difficulty visualizing the project. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a set of construction drawings has been placed in Council's Planning Room and it does include a map. Staff will provide aerial maps for projects in the packet in the future. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Resolution 25-09 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Post Road/Commerce Parkway Intersection Improvements Project. Ms. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is an approved 2009 CIP project. It is part of the Coffman Park Expansion Plan. The project was initiated last year with the closure of Post Road from the Recreation Center entrance to Emerald Parkway. This section of Post Road has now been converted to a bikepath. This portion of the project will complete the redirection of Post Road onto Commerce Parkway with a horizontal curve. The existing portion of Post Road between the Rec Center driveway and the present Commerce/Post intersection will be used as the new Rec Center entrance. Ir conjunction with this project, some improvements will be made to Perimeter Drive to provide a full, three-lane roadway section between Emerald Parkway and Post Road. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $650,000. Six bids were received; the lowest and best bid was submitted by The Shelley Company for $499,169. The project completion date is scheduled for September 30, as the project will not be initiated until after the Dublin Irish Festival. Mr. Lecklider asked if the construction can actually be completed in that timeframe. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the project is not difficult, and so that is the expectation. This intersection will be completely closed during the construction, as well as the Post Road access to the Recreation Center. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Tara Hill entrance would be utilized for access during the closure, as well as Coffman Park Drive. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the preferred public access for the Rec Center is from Coffman Park Drive. Ms. Salay suggested the information be posted inside the Rec Center and signage provided. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1.2009 Page 8 Mr. Lecklider asked if traffic counts have been done subsequent to the Post Road redirection to determine how many vehicle use the Post Road access each day. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this has not been done. Mr. Lecklider stated that he anticipates concerns from Tara Hill residents about ar increase in traffic in their neighborhood during this construction period. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff is also anticipating this. Mr. Keenan stated that for this and other projects, the Engineer's estimate is typically higher than all the bids actually received. Does that practice impact the bids? Is there a reason the City is consistently estimating on the high end? In his previous experience with public projects, it was more typical for the estimate to fall in the mid- range of the bids. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, currently, it is difficult to predict asphalt prices for the project, which are impacted by fuel costs. Trucking and equipment are a major part of the program costs as well. Vice Mayor Boring asked which TIF district includes the project. Ms. Grigsby responded this was part of the Cardinal Health site development project. With the second Cardinal building construction, there was the need for lane modifications at the intersection of Post and Emerald Parkway, resulting in the redirection of the Post/Commerce intersection. The recently completed Cardinal building triggered this roadway project. Vice Mayor Boring stated that although the bid was lower that the estimate, the project will be done with tax increment financing. Ms. Grigsby responded that it was part of the projections for the McKitrick TIF. The fact that the bid came in lower is beneficial to the overall repayment of the TIF district. Mr. Maurer inquired if Mr. Hammersmith detected any "corner cutting" by contractors. Mr. Hammersmith responded that contractors are keeping their margins rather tight, due to the fact that there are a limited number of projects available to bid on. The bids were very close, which indicates the bids were competitive and that the project was well defined. Mr. Reiner stated that he remains opposed to this redirection project. He believes the closure of Post Road is an extremely poor idea. Post Road is one of the City's major east-west connectors north of S.R. 161. To modify the roadway in a manner to make i ineffective is not prudent. In addition, he is concerned that much more traffic will be redirected to residential roads within the adjacent neighborhoods. After spending nearly $1 million on the speed humps for the neighborhood, it makes no sense to move traffic off of the obvious east-west connector to the new potential freeway exit and close the road. He does like the central Coffman Park concept, but he believes that could have been accomplished with a tunnel under Post Road, similar to that at the Columbus Zoo. That would have preserved the east-west connectivity and still allowed for the utilization of the land for Coffman Park. He will be voting against this bid. Mr. Gerber stated that he did not serve on Council when previous votes were taken on matters related to this project. However, since 1996, he has been involved with the Traffic Task Force, Community Services Advisory Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission when the issue of this east-west connector roadway arose. At each of those times, the consensus of the members was that it would be a very bad idea to close this roadway. From an Engineering standpoint, he does not understand why this is being done. He agrees with Mr. Reiner that it will cause more traffic problems and will bottleneck traffic for a park. He does support the central park concept, but he believes there are more creative ways to accomplish it. He, too, will not vote in favor of this bid award. RECORD ®F PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meet Page 9 June 1.2009 Ms. Salay stated that Post Road has been redirected for 10 months. For the record, there are no speed humps on Tara Hill Drive, and the cost of the traffic calming program was $500,000. She noted that in the past, there was not necessarily support for redirecting Post Road. The support came later in relation to the Cardinal Health TIF. This closure will allow for double left turn lanes from southbound Emerald Parkway onto eastbound Post Road and will move the Cardinal Health traffic to the freeway more quickly. This was the reason the Post Road redirection was approved. This redirection will also enable Coffman Park to become a unified central park for the community. Further, traffic counts indicate that the previous Post Road and Tara Hill traffic is being carried by Perimeter Drive. The intersection improvement that will occur with the approval of Resolution 25-09 will improve the functionality of Post Road in carrying traffic. The opportunity to oppose the Post Road redirection would have been with the vote on the Cardinal Health TIF. Mr. Reiner responded that Post Road is the one City road that has setbacks, which allow a higher traffic speed and allow the City to move traffic through the community at a much faster pace. This road change was incorporated into the Cardinal Health TIF, but that was not the original concept. It occurred later, as the redirection effort progressed. The greatest concern of citizens is with traffic. This closure is an impediment to good planning and good engineering. He would not have been opposed to other modifications to the intersection to better accommodate the Cardinal Health traffic. However, other options were not offered. He summarized that he will not support and does not agree with this closure, because Post Road is a major connector. This is a big mistake. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she admires Mr. Reiner for standing by his convictions. She, too, believed closing Post Road was not the best decision. However, the majority of Council did vote to approve that closure, and the effort has already been initiated. Unless a majority of Council now desire to reconsider this plan, the bid for the project should be accepted. Mr. Gerber stated that he respectfully disagrees with Council's vote on the closure of Post Road, although he was not serving on Council at the time. There were better and more creative ways to address the intersection needs. Council has now invested $850,000 on Tara Hill; $283,000 per acre in land, which is excessive; and now, another $500,000 for Commerce/Post. This decision will bottleneck that whole area, handicap future develop as well as day-to-day traffic. Council can respectfully disagree. However, if Council would consent to revisiting their previous decision, it is clear what his vote would be. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, abstain; Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vice Mayor Boring asked Mr. Keenan's reason for abstaining. Mr. Keenan responded that this discussion concerns Post Road, and he obviously has a personal business interest in Post Road. He feels very strongly about this closure as well, and he has stated that in numerous previous discussions. Resolution 26-09 Intent to Appropriate Fee Simple Interests of 0.238 Acres, 0.025 Acres, 0.053 Acres (with 0.016 Acres as Present Road Occupied), and 0.197 Acres, More or Less, as Well as a Bikepath Easement of 0.210 Acres, More or Less and Temporary Construction Easements of 0.027 Acres, 0.089 Acres, and 0.025 Acres, More or Less, from Peter M. Klein and the Jentgen-Klein Company, Said Acreage Located in Close Proximity to the Intersection of Post Road and Commerce Parkway, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated that this is the only parcel impacted by the Commerce/Post project. Appropriation of various small portions of the parcel is necessary, and an offer has RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 10 been made to Mr. Klein. He has indicated a willingness to cooperate, but he is waiting for an appraisal to be completed. Staff is hopeful the case will be settled. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. OTHER • Fee Waiver Request for Amended Final Development Plan for Dublin Professional Center Condo Association (6805 Avery-Muirfield Drive) Mr. Keenan recused himself. Ms. Martin stated that the homeowner association intends to file an amended final development plan for modification to the existing ground sign on Avery-Muirfield Road and addition of amulti-tenant sign on Post Road. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Amended Final Development Plan application fee based upon hardship. The applicant indicates that the hardship resulted from the construction of the roundabout, which has altered the sight lines to the existing ground sign on Avery-Muirfield Drive and made their building more difficult to find. Therefore, the existing sign must be raised to a greater height. Ms. Martin noted that Planning and Engineering's evaluation and findings do not support the applicant's claim of hardship, and therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the fee waiver request. Ms. Salay inquired if there is a precedent for this situation in which a business has been impacted by a City project and requested a fee waiver. Mr. Smith responded that there was a similar situation with La Scala's when the City improved S.R. 161 and impacted the access to their property. It was necessary to remove their sign, and therefore, a new sign was needed. Vice Mayor Boring stated that they actually requested that the City replace their sign, versus submitting an application to replace it themselves. Mr. Hammersmith added that in the past, such as with the Tuttle Crossing widening project, the City reconstructed the signs, moved and replaced them at no cost to the property owners. With the present fee waiver request, nothing was done to or near their sign. The roadway was actually moved further away from the sign. The actual curb line of Avery-Muirfield Drive moved to the east. The owners believe, however, that the roundabout impacted the visibility of their sign. Mr. Reiner inquired if the sight line to the sign had been impacted. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff does not believe so. Vehicles are actually closer to the sign than prior to the roundabout construction. Ms. Salay inquired if there is any evidence supporting this request, other than the perceptions of the owners. Mr. Hammersmith responded that much of the visibility is a function of the sign face itself, the lighting and relates to the type of vehicle. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked what documentation has been provided in the past to demonstrate a hardship. Ms. Martin responded that she believes this is the first such fee waiver request for an amended final development plan application that the City has received. The criteria for hardship would be to demonstrate that there has been an impact to the sight visibility, and staff has not been able to confirm that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, based on the materials, the sight visibility impact was not due to the location but rather to the greater speed at which the vehicles are now driving. Previously, vehicles were required to stop at this intersection. Ms. Martin responded that the argument is that the northbound traffic is now required to veer slightly to the east in order to slow the traffic as it enters the roundabout. The property owner indicates that the traffic is not able to view the sign as clearly. What occurs now is that all northbound traffic must yield. Previously, they would stop for a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 11 red light or to make a westbound turn onto Post Road. With the roundabout installed, drivers entering the roundabout must look over their left shoulder in a northwest direction and toward the building. Furthermore, as vehicles travel in the roundabout, they cannot exceed 25 mph. Before this improvement, the speeds through the intersection were 35-40 mph. Mr. Lecklider asked if the property owner would have been eligible for a wall sign -not one with copy as on the mounted ground sign - but a wall sign with the address numbers - "6805." Ms. Martin responded that the development text for this site, which lies in the Lowell Trace planned unit development, addresses ground signs only. It doesn't address wall signs. Mr. Lecklider responded that the preferred solution would be to pin-mount the numbers on the building to identify it as the "6805 Building" for patients and clients. Mr. Gerber stated that the development text likely did not contemplate that type of signage. Ms. Adkins responded that the text does not provide for it. However, the Code does contain specifications regarding addresses on buildings. Through the amended final development plan process, the Planning Commission could approve awall-mounted address. Chris Testa, 6805 Aver-Muirfield Drive, Suite 100 stated that he represents the Dublin Professional Center. Their building contains 50 percent medical services, including OSU Eye Physicians and Surgeons. They have received complaints from patients that they are unable to locate the building. The problem is not with the ability to see the building, but with identifying the building. When northbound traffic approaches the roundabout and stops at the yield sign, they look north and northwest and can see the building. They believe the sight lines to the sign are hindered. [He showed pictures of the existing signage, including a photo taken at driver level looking north/northwest towards the sign.] In one photo, the landscape mound within the center of the roundabout hinders visibility, and the number on the sign is not visible whatsoever. In the second photo, the sign is completely obscured by the landscaping within the roundabout. It is also important to remember that drivers within the roundabout must pay attention to the need to yield to other drivers in the roundabout; that is not the time a driver would attempt to focus on a building. They are not suggesting that a new sign at a higher elevation would completely solve the problem. Southbound traffic within the roundabout would completely block the view of the sign. If they have the ability under the PUD text to elevate the sign, it would enhance the ability for patient and clients to recognize the building and access it for emergency treatment. The landscaping within the roundabout is new, placed within the last two weeks, and hinders the view of the sign as well. It is their belief that the direction of the roundabout has resulted in a bend that hinders the sight lines for their sign. He continued to show photos of the view from vehicles driving in the roundabout area. They are not requesting movement of the location of their sign. They are asking for a fee waiver so they can go through the application process, meet the standards and guidelines of the City and the PUD, and have a sign that is compliant, yet improves the ability of patients to find their building. He added that there is a Brand Road intersection sign designating the roundabout at Avery-Muirfield/Brand Road. However, there is no sign designating the Post Road intersection at the Post/Avery-Muirfield roundabout. There is no indication until one enters into the roundabout that the driver is about to cross Post Road. Improved signage would also help their clients' ability to identify their building. Ms. Martin clarified that the applicant is requesting a fee waiver for an amendment to the final development plan. The hardship is based on the sight issues for the sign on Avery-Muirfield, which the applicant believes has been impacted by the roundabout. The applicant also intends to place a ground sign on Post Road, which would trigger the amended final development plan for that sign -even if the Avery-Muirfield signage RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 12 is not changed. They have not been able to identify a hardship for the Post Road location, and this was not impacted by the roundabout. Mr. Gerber stated he personally finds that the roundabout has impacted the sight line of a lot of signage in that area. Procedurally, he understands that the PUD text allows for two signs. At P&Z, typically, the sign package would be reviewed by them as an amended final development plan; if the applicant desired a fee waiver, they would bring the request to Council. This procedure seems to be in reverse. He also agrees with Mr. Lecklider's suggestion of mounting the address on the building itself. The sign code is not intended to advertise locations, but rather to identify locations. This sign may not be serving that purpose. He would prefer that a complete plan first go to P&Z with respect to signage, and then come to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there was a reason the fee waiver was requested at the outset. Ms. Martin responded that the applicant chose to ask for the waiver prior to submitting the application. Ms. Gerber noted that when P&Z hears the case, they could potentially add to or take away from the hardship. They are well-versed in hearing such cases. Therefore, it would be preferable to have the P&Z review take place at the outset. Ms. Salay stated that the design of the sign may be part of the problem. She agrees with Mr. Lecklider's suggestion to identify the building with the wall-mounted address. These are appointment-driven locations, where clients and patients are coming to the business for a service. A ground sign would not provide the same level of identification for their clients. She also agrees that overhead street signage identifying Post Road would be beneficial. She is not personally in favor of granting a fee waiver, because she does not believe there is a hardship. The design of the sign is what makes it problematic. It also would be difficult to provide a ground sign that lists all the tenants. Some of the issues relate to the building's location. There may be some other ways to help resolve the identification issues and provide better address information to the clients, such as providing them with a map. She does not agree with the hardship cited, and is not inclined to support a waiver of the fee. Vice Mayor Boring concurred. Previously, the traffic moved at a higher speed through this intersection, and so it would have been more difficult to identify the building. In her view, the City's has actually helped their location identification issue by providing them with a location identifier -the Post/Avery-Muirfield roundabout. Mr. Gerber stated that he disagrees. The City has made it more difficult to identify this building location. However, he is not prepared tonight to make a determination regarding the hardship. He believes the amended final development plan application should first be heard by P&Z. Perhaps P&Z will be able to devise a plan that will alleviate some of this hardship. Mr. Testa stated that they followed the advice of Ms. Martin and Ms. Husak regarding the process. Staff had indicated that the first step was submission of a fee waiver request to Council for consideration on June 1. If Council denied the fee waiver request, his client would then need to decide whether to pay the application fee and pursue the amended final development plan, by submitting an application for the June 11 meeting of Planning Commission. They are willing to follow whatever process and procedures are in place. He noted that he is accompanied tonight by two other tenants. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the issue of the signage was brought to Council long before the roundabout existed. As Ms. Salay pointed out, the tenants have had concerns about the sign from the outset. Some of their clients had difficulty finding the location. She requested Council's preference regarding taking a vote on staff's recommendation to deny the fee waiver. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council June 1.2009 Page 13 Mr. Gerber stated that when he served on P&Z, the Commission heard several requests for fee waivers for applications regarding signage issues. Most were related to homeowner association entries. P&Z worked with the applicants to abate much of the hardship related to each case. He would prefer to have this application first go to P&Z with a sign package for review. After P&Z has reviewed the case and worked with the applicant, if P&Z suggests the applicants seek a fee waiver from Council, or if the applicant wants to directly request a waiver, he would be willing to consider the waiver. Because he does not yet know what sign package is proposed, it seems premature to bring this to Council. Mr. Gerber moved to refer the amended final development plan to P&Z for consideration. Then, the applicant can either submit a fee waiver request to Council or P&Z can refer the request to Council. Mr. Smith stated that, legally, the applicant has made a request for a fee waiver from Council. Per the Code, if the request is not denied, it is considered pending. If this application is taken to P&Z for review, Council would subsequently consider a request for a refund of the fee paid, not a fee waiver. Is it Council's intent, should P&Z find that there is a hardship, to consider a fee waiver request? Mr. Gerber responded that is his intent. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Salay moved to approve the recommendation of staff to deny the request for a fee waiver. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. • Request from Building Industry Association of Central Ohio (BIA) to Serve Alcohol at Parade of Homes Event -July 10-26, 2009 Jim Hilz Executive Director, BIA of Central Ohio stated that the 2009 BIA Parade of Homes will be held in Tartan Ridge, with a preview party on July 10 and the Parade taking place from July 11 through 26. He noted that the Parade of Homes would not take place this year if not for the sponsorship by Union Savings Bank. Union Savings financed eight of the houses at a time when speculative lending was almost impossible to obtain. He is present tonight to request permission to serve beer and wine at the preview party and during the Parade of Homes. Beer and wine were served at two previous Parade of Homes held in Dublin - at Hawk's Nest and at Ballantrae. He is not aware that any alcohol-related incidents occurred at previous Parades. They offer a one drink option, and drinks cannot be taken into any of the houses. In addition to alcohol, food and other drinks are also offered. During the preview party, alcohol will be served in 3 or 4 locations. During the Parade, when the event is open to the public, alcohol will be served from only one location by trained alcohol servers from Cox Catering. Security will be located at the entrance and exit of the site. To provide additional security, special duty Dublin police officers will be on site the entire time the Parade is open. Ms. Salay stated that, generally, her position is one of opposition to serving alcohol on public property. However, she will vote in favor of this request for two reasons: (1) Mr. Hilz has provided thorough details of how the event will operate; and (2) this is primarily an adult-focused event. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she concurs. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to approve BIA's request to serve alcohol at the 2009 Parade of Homes event in Tartan Ridge. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 14 Mr. Hilz expressed appreciation for the cooperation and effort provided by staff. It is unprecedented in his experience in working on the Parade of Homes events. They are looking forward to a very successful parade. Request from Applicant to Postpone Second ReadinglPublic Hearing of Ordinance 25-09 (Master Maintenance) from June 15 to July 1, 2009 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a copy of the letter of request was provided to Council this evening. The letter indicates the reason for the request to postpone is that the applicant would like time to develop additional materials regarding the suitability of the rezoning for the site. Mr. Keenan moved to postpone the second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 25-09 to the July 1St Council meeting. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Foegler: 1. Noted that Council has been contacted regarding the need for a zoning amendment related to patio homes in the Muirfield subdivision. This particular zoning situation involves a patio home on Pitlochery Court. The City's current lot coverage ordinance limits lot coverage to 45 percent. All of the patio homes in this development significantly exceed that requirement. In this situation, the homeowner has removed a patio and would like to replace it with a deck of the same size, but is prohibited from doing so under the Code. Unless Council objects, staff would like to initiate a Code amendment for Council's consideration and referral to Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Gerber stated that he concurs with Mr. Foegler's suggestion to initiate a Code amendment. Mr. Reiner noted that this issue has been raised by a number of citizens. This subdivision has aCalifornia-type of architecture, with smaller setbacks, not common in the Dublin community. It is not reasonable for a homeowner not to be able to replace his patio or deck. Staff is appropriately attempting to follow Code, but this is another zoning anomaly that needs to be corrected. He would like to see this addressed expeditiously to enable this family to have their deck replaced. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is surprised. This subdivision was zoned for patio homes, and therefore she would expect the Code to provide that the lot coverage restriction does not apply in this case. The City anticipates having more patio homes in the future. Mr. Foegler responded that this situation is due to the age of the Muirfield text regulations. In the City's more recent developments, the appropriate text is in place. In condominium developments, there are not lots and therefore, no such lot coverage issues. The lot coverage regulations were adopted after the Muirfield development was approved. As those units age, driveways and patios will need to be replaced. The problem results from the City's current Code and the lack of specificity in the Muirfield development text. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated Council anticipates staff will expedite this process. Mr. Foegler responded that is staff's goal. 2. Stated that currently, a topic has not been identified for the Monday, June 8 Study Session. If there is not a need for a Study Session that evening, perhaps that would be an appropriate time to schedule the Community Development Committee meeting. Council has previously referred to the Committee the matter of a possible Code amendment related to seasonal outdoor display and storage areas. RECORD ®F PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting June 1.2009 Page 15 Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider indicated they would be available. Mr. Smith indicated that it would necessary for Mr. Reiner to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. The Community Development Committee meeting was scheduled for the evening of Monday, June 8 at a time to be determined. 3. Reported receipt of an Ohio Department of Development Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant award. Dublin and Westerville submitted a joint grant application. Dublin was awarded $400,000 for the replacement of six diesel vehicles. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner stated that if an effort has not yet been made to form a bicycle board, he would like to see that initiative begin. He has noticed an increase in numbers of citizens on the City's bikepaths -- either walking, jogging or biking. He would like Dublin to follow the example of a few other cities who take bicycle transportation seriously by installing bicycle racks downtown. On a recent trip to the west coast, he picked up some information on suggested bicycle rack accommodations/layouts housed within the dimensions of a single vehicle parking space. Dublin needs to create an environment that will encourage bicycle use within the City. Vice Mayor Boring concurred. She has observed serious cyclists on the roadways. They do not use bikepaths, so there seems to be a need for striped bike lanes on the City's roadways. She encouraged the staff members who attended the recent conference in Portland to lead this group. They could move forward with implementation of some of the bicycle programs Mr. Reiner is suggesting, based on the perspective of active users. Mr. Foegler responded that staff would provide a recommendation on this for the June 15 Council meeting. Mr. Reiner stated that he envisions some progressive cycling enthusiasts in the community becoming involved with staff in this planning effort. Mr. Keenan requested that staff obtain information regarding motion sensors for pedestrian crosswalks. He is concerned about pedestrian safety in Historic Dublin. At dusk and later, visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk is limited -even with the flashing lights in place. While in southwestern Florida, he observed a motion sensor system for the crosswalk, which detected the pedestrians approaching and triggered flashing lights. It provided excellent visibility at all times. Perhaps the vendor has a sample video of a system that Council could view at a future meeting. Ms. Salay stated that she received another citizen complaint about the appearance of the Monterey Drive duplexes. She shared the complaint with the Planning division, and was assured that staff would investigate the situation. She expects that there are some Code violations. She would like to have a report from staff as soon as possible, so that she can respond to the residents. Mr. Foegler responded that staff would provide this report to Council. He noted that he has met with staff exploring general Code enforcement issues, including strategies to provide coverage during off-peak hours. An update will be provided to Council in the near future regarding a broad Code enforcement strategy. Vice Mayor Boring. 1. Requested an update on the public attendance and response at the recent public meetings regarding the emerald ash borer and the Glacier Ridge/Hyland-Croy corridor. Ms. Martin responded that she attended both public meetings for the Hyland-Croy corridor. At the Tuesday evening meeting focused on the section of road between Post and Brand, 45 residents attended. At the Thursday evening meeting regarding the section of road from Brand to Brock, 25-30 residents attended. Much public input was received, and staff is compiling that information. A follow-up meeting is being RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 1, 2009 Page 16 planned for later in June. At that time, some photographic representations of what the citizens have indicated they would like to see in that corridor will be provided. Ms. Salay requested copies of the 11" x 17" maps distributed to residents. Ms. Martin indicated she would provide those copies. Mr. Hahn responded that staff has held one public meeting on the emerald ash borer, and another is scheduled for June 17. Approximately 40 residents attended the first meeting. 2. Reported that she attended the open house for the Standley Law offices. It is a magnificent building and a nice addition to the community. 3. Reminded Council of the Board and Commission Appreciation event at the Muirfield Pavilion on June 4. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that: 1. The Workforce Development Summit 2 will take place on Thursday, June 18 at the OCLC Conference Center. 2. The Finance Committee Bicentennial grant application reviews will take place at 6 p.m. on Monday, June 22. 3. The Tartan Ridge Parade of Homes preview party is scheduled for Friday, July 10 from 6-10 p.m. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:00 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. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, 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 9:45 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor -Presiding Officer