Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 February 21, 2006 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the February 21, 2006 regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mrs. Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. ~ ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Hoyle and Mr. Earman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Keenan moved to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2006 Council meeting. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Ms. Salay requested that on page six, in the fifth paragraph, the statement "Post Road is two lanes north and south," should be corrected to "Post Road is two lanes east and west. " Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested the vote on the minutes as corrected. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2006 City Council meeting. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. "",. Mrs. Boring requested a correction on page 14 regarding joint workshops with Planning Commission. It should state, "The Planning Commission has scheduled three workshop sessions throughout the year. They have also expressed a desire to periodically have - joint meetings with the Council regarding various topics." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested the vote on the minutes as corrected. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, abstain; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was received regarding a corporate stock transfer for Black Hills, Inc. dba Donerick's Pub at 6711 Dublin Center Drive and patio. Council had no objection to the transfer of permits. CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road, stated he would like to address the issue of potential revenue related to three earlier proposals he has suggested to Council: (1) Instead of the square mile that was transformed into a golf course, he had suggested the alternative of a theater similar to the one in Stratford, Ontario. He has no doubt that such a theater in Dublin would have enjoyed a similar popularity and financial prosperity. (2) That the pattern of the Irish Festival be developed into a monthly festival for other ethnic backgrounds. The fact is, the ethnic proportion of Irish Americans is no greater in Dublin than any other ethnic group. (3) In his letter to the editor that was published last week in the Dublin Villager, he asked again that the City correct its earlier wrongful firing of the City Engineer by offering a reinstatement. Of course, that would require a Council that is not afraid to be challenged. He asks Council not to drive him to national commentary on this issue. If Council were to correct this situation, there is no way to foretell the positive national feedback that could result. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Maurer for his comments. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher welcomed The Honorable Charles Buck, Norwich Township Trustee, who is in attendance tonight. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO. 10148 February 21,2006 Page 2 Held 20 LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLlC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 05-06 Accepting the Annexation of 71.3, More or Less, Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (Applicant: Liggett & Buck) Mr. Gunderman stated that the annexation of this property, which is located on the west side of Cosgray Road was approved by the Franklin County Commissioners on November 15, 2005. Following the required timeframe per statute, a first reading of the ordinance took place on January 23. Mr. Reiner inquired if the issue concerning the railroad tracks and the road has been resolved. Will access to part of this site be cut off, if the potential development plan proposed is approved? Mr. Gunderman responded this site would have access via the roadway paralleling the railroad track. Mr. Reiner inquired if the anticipated development is residential. Mr. Gunderman responded the Community Plan provides for development of this area at two units/acre residential. Mrs. Boring stated that she will not vote to approve the annexation. At this point in time, the City's focus should be on the Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC). Previously, when there were development timing issues, the City essentially called for a "time out" from development. The Community Plan details the financial impact of this development. It is important that the City carefully evaluate the direction it is heading, particularly the impact of the COIC. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the site is within the City's exclusive water and sewer service area. Mr. Gunderman responded that the entire area from Houchard to the east is within the City's exclusive service area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what effect this annexation could have on the ultimate negotiations for the road. Mr. Gunderman stated that he does not know if there would be a direct impact. However, if the City wanted the road but it were not annexed, there would be significantly less ability to negotiate. If the area is annexed, there will likely be proposals for development. As those proposals proceed, there will be the usual opportunities to deal with right-of-ways, etc. Mrs. Boring inquired on what basis it would be easier to negotiate if the road is within the City boundaries. Mr. Gunderman stated that if the land is within the City, the property will be subject to the City's zoning, development and review process. Mr. Keenan inquired what has changed subsequent to the time the City passed resolutions indicating it could serve the property. Mr. Smith responded that nothing has changed. The City has the ability to serve the area, and if there are found to be certain incompatible land uses, those would be resolved during the zoning and development process. Mrs. Boring responded that her issue is not the City's ability to serve the land. The issue is that the COIC should be the number one priority at this time, and the City should concentrate all of its resources on the COIC. Mr. Keenan inquired if this annexation would have any impact on the City's water/sewer service contract with Columbus. Mr. Smith responded the City's contract allows it to serve an exclusive area that no other entity is permitted to serve. All of the Columbus suburbs have similar contracts, and there N has never been an occurrence of a municipality refusing to accept an annexation of land within its exclusive service area. ,,,.. Mrs. Boring stated that Dublin has, however refused an annexation in the past. Mr. Smith responded that occurred in 1994, and the City did not have the ability to provide infrastructure at that time. That is not now the case. If Dublin were to refuse to accept the land at this time, the landowners could pursue a third party beneficiary lawsuit to break the contract so that service could be sought elsewhere. Mrs. Boring inquired if exclusive also implies mandatory. Mr. Smith responded that it does not, but the landowner has some right to services. Columbus would certainly have a position on the matter. He does not know what a court would rule, as there has not been a similar situation. Mrs. Boring inquired at what point a township would decide it is necessary to build another fire station. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC. FORM NO. 10148 February 21, 2006 Page 3 Held 20 Mr. Smith responded that the township conducts studies to identify when there is a need for additional physical assets to provide adequate services. If the suggestion is that residential development will create a need for another fire station, that issue should be considered - but it is a township issue, not the City's. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if in the review process, Dublin staff routinely contacts the fire department of the township. Mr. Gunderman stated that during the annexation process, that discussion does not occur. It does occur during the development process. Mr. Keenan noted that a site at the corner of Cosgray and Rings Road, which is currently used as a park, was purchased several years ago by Washington Township as an additional firehouse site. Mr. Reiner asked about the triangular site next to the railroad tracks. If the road will be curved and directed to the COIC, how is access provided to that site and to the City? Mr. Gunderman stated that there are options for changing railroad crossings. One option is to remove the crossing on Cosgray. However, the issue concerning the triangular site would remain. It is anticipated that the development that will occur will resolve the access and connection issues. Mr. Reiner stated that the ultimate end product is the issue, unless one developer develops both sections of the site. Mr. Gunderman responded that one developer is attempting to do a master plan. If that effort isn't successful, the City would need to create a master plan. Charles Buck. 4814 Canterwood Court. Hilliard, stated that a large wooded area exists on one side of the railroad track that will tie in to Darree Fields to the north. Years ago, he served as the Washington Township representative during the Dublin/Washington Township merger process which was not successful. If the merger had occurred, the high density development would not be occurring on Cosgray Road and Hayden Run. Dublin is recognized for its planning and quality development. That is the reason his family desires to remain in the area. However, if Dublin prefers not to annex the area, it is probably possible to have Columbus do so. Columbus is currently developing around the west side and moving to the north. They would certainly be interested in obtaining some of that commercial development and some of the technology park that Dublin is trying to develop. His goal is to see a very nice development on this site, something superior to that which is occurring to the south of this area. The developer has come up with a plan that would provide a gateway entry into the community from the south and the west that would be in keeping with the City's high standards of development. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no. Mr. Reiner noted that he agrees with Mrs. Boring that it is time for the City to evaluate the financial impact of the rezonings that have recently occurred. This parcel will complete the development site. He is concerned about the financial impact on the City of the large number or rezonings, primarily residential, which have recently been approved. This may well be his last affirmative vote on continued residential development. Ordinance 07-06 Rezoning Approximately 8.8 Acres, Generally Located on the West Side of Emerald Parkway, at the Intersection of Innovation Drive, From RI, Restricted Industrial District, To PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Schoedinger Funeral Home _ 6055 Emerald Parkway - Case No. 05-182Z) Mr. Gunderman stated this is a site located at the northwestern corner of Innovation Drive and Emerald Parkway. The site is currently vacant as are the properties to the south and to the east. He displayed the preliminary site plan for the project. Subarea A will contain the funeral home and reception center. The building is located to the rear of the property, which is surrounded by the parking lot, which sits diagonally on the corner. Located to the west of this site is Subarea B, the office area. The arrangement for the office buildings was given additional flexibility in the site plan so that some of the buildings could be re-arranged, potentially moved closer to the street right-of-way, if desired. He displayed the preliminary architecture for the proposed funeral home. At their January 5 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the project subject to the 14 conditions listed in the Record of Action. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one of the conditions related to a five-story building. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO 10148 February 21, 2006 Page 4 Held 20 Mr. Gunderman noted that there was a condition that clarified that the overall height must be limited to 38 feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the height of the 5800 Building. Mr. Gunderman estimated its height at 25 feet. Ms. Salay inquired about the access point on Emerald Parkway. Mr. Gunderman stated that staff and the applicant discussed this issue extensively. The applicant eventually agreed to dispense with the access point, so it has been removed from the recommended plan. Ms. Salay asked for clarification of the sign locations, directional and business. Mr. Gunderman noted that the plan deviates slightly from the usual sign policy due to the corner location. They are permitted to have three, rather than two signs. Ms. Salay inquired if there would be only one driveway onto Innovation Drive. Mr. Gunderman responded that this is the only driveway in the plan. It is staffs expectation that there would eventually be a drive at another access point on the other side. Ms. Salay inquired if that would be where the soccer field is. Mr. Gunderman stated that he is not certain. It is a vacant site about which there have been discussions related to warehouse space. Ms. Salay stated if that is the only entrance, she is concerned about a proliferation of signs. If it is the only drive, is the directional sign necessary? Upon entering, the only option is to travel around Innovation Drive. Mrs. Boring responded that the argument was made that when approaching from the north, a driver would pass by Innovation Drive before seeing the road sign. Ms. Salay responded that she is not referring to the signs on Emerald Parkway. She is referring to the directional sign that says "Schoedinger." Mr. Gunderman noted that this sign is larger than a directional sign, which would not have a corporate name or logo. On this sign, the applicant specifically desired the name so that drivers would recognize the entry point. Ms. Salay referred to the color rendering in her packet, which indicates a stone sign with a band of stucco. The other drawings are black and white, and she cannot determine what the building materials are. It may be a watercourse of stone topped with stucco. Mr. Gunderman stated that the applicant's representative is present. Ms. Salay responded that she would direct the remainder of her questions to the applicant. Mrs. Boring referred to the architectural renderings and stated that the issue of the cupola was discussed extensively at the P&Z hearing. She believed it was to have been removed. Mr. Gunderman stated that the discussion focused on its removal; however, it was not made a condition for approval by the Commission. Mrs. Boring stated that a previous Planning Commission opposed cupolas as an acceptable architectural feature. In keeping with that position, she requested that the feature be removed, thereby maintaining a more residential appearance. She requested Council's input on the matter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the reason that was not added as a condition. Ms. Adkins responded that staff had drafted a broad condition that the architecture would be addressed at the final development plan, taking into consideration the staff report and the P&Z discussion. Mr. Lecklider inquired if different opinions were expressed regarding this feature. Ms. Adkins responded that some considered it appropriate. Mrs. Boring recalled one member had no objection. Ms. Salay noted that the draft minutes indicate one expression of support for the cupola and the other members concurred with Mrs. Boring, but no final direction was given. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the basis for Mrs. Boring's concern is that a cupola does not lend itself to the residential character of the area. Mrs. Boring confirmed that is her concern. She is also concerned about its interior lighting at night. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the final resolution concerning a previous application by a day care center in that area that had also requested a cupola. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes the feature was eliminated. Ms. Salay confirmed that fact. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired Council's position on the issue. Mr. Reiner stated that he would prefer to see the cupola eliminated in keeping with the surrounding residential community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148 February 21, 2006 Page 5 Held 20 Mr. Keenan stated that he does not have a preference regarding the cupola feature. However, it would appear to exceed the typical height expectations. Ms. Salay stated that she concurs with the opinion that the cupola should be eliminated for the reasons stated. Mr. Lecklider concurred. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council agrees that the cupola architectural feature should be eliminated from the Final Development Plan as a condition of acceptance. Mr. Lecklider inquired the explanation for stacks in the rendering. Ms. Salay responded that they appear to be chimneys. There is a minimum height requirement triggered by proximity to a sloped roof. That could be the reason for the height of these chimneys. Mrs. Boring stated she believes that the chimneys are also required to be brick. Ms. Salay noted that is for a residential development. If the cupola is eliminated, perhaps other changes would be made to the roof line. Mr. Lecklider inquired if there is a preference that the chimneys be brick and not stucco. If so, Council should give direction to that effect. Mrs. Boring stated that with the rezoning, the Planning Commission's focus is on the text. With the final development plan, the actual materials are specified. Mr. Lecklider responded that other than making their preference known, no other Council action would then be necessary at this time. Therefore, for the record, his preference is that the chimneys be brick or another material other than stucco. Ms. Salay expressed the same preference for the record. Mr. Lecklider referred to #7 and inquired if the need for signalization has been determined. Mr. Gunderman responded that it is a future issue. The traffic studies were completed. The traffic that will eventually be generated from all the uses could warrant signalization. However, the impact of the initial construction phase will not require signalization. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the opportunity was left open to seek contribution from the developer. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that it was. Mr. Lecklider stated that the text indicates a 25-foot pavement setback on the northeastern corner of the parking lot. Is that consistent with the area on the east side of Emerald Parkway? Mr. Gunderman stated that it is. Mr. Lecklider indicated it should be consistent with existing development on both the east and west sides. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited the applicant to comment. Nick Cavalaris. Smith & Hale, representing the applicant, stated that this site is located next to the AEP substation and is a compatible rezoning. The original plan has evolved - eliminating the curb cut and a bell tower, which was replaced with the cupola with a low- intensity lantern. The Schoedinger logo is a bell tower, which is the reason it was included in the original plan. The Schoedingers have enjoyed a positive reception in Dublin. They have met with the Heather Glen Homeowners Association Board and with many of the residents. They have the neighborhood's approval as well as the formal approval of the Planning Commission. The materials are conceptual at this point, but will be finalized in the final development plan. On this particular site, the funeral home component, excluding the offices, represents a $4.5 million investment. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the design of the proposed structure does not remind her of an existing Schoedinger Funeral Home. Is there a similar one she could observe, although perhaps made of different materials? Mr. Cavalaris stated that the architectural firm is Meacham and Ape!. They also worked on the latest Schoedinger building, which is in Gahanna. It is constructed of brick. They were instructed by Dublin's planning staff to mimic the materials in the Thomas-Kohler rezoning to the south. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 February 21,2006 Page 6 Held 20 Ms. Salay inquired if the materials are brick and stone. Dan Pease. Meacham & Apel. architect. 2251 Star Leaf Lane, stated the materials are very *.. '-1 similar to those depicted in the plan originally submitted - a cultured stone water table surrounds the building. The lighter material above that is stucco. The application of stucco to the chimneys rather than stone is consistent with the English arts and crafts style that has iiiM._. ...., been used for this building. That is the reason heavy timber has also been used. Ms. Salay stated that Dublin's preference in building materials is less stucco, and more brick and stone. Mr. Pease stated that these are preliminary elevations, so the issue is open to further review at this point. Ms. Salay stated that Council's opportunity for meaningful input is with the rezoning. The final development plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. When the rezoning text is particularly detailed, it is preferable for Council to articulate clear direction at this point. The original application for the Thomas Kohler rezoning to the south proposed more stucco on the buildings. The Planning Commission required them to replace much of the stucco with stone. That is also her preference. Mr. Lecklider inquired what the motivation was for condition #2, that "the text be modified to include brick as a permitted building material." Mr. Gunderman stated that was an attempt to ensure this building maintains consistency with the buildings south of the site that have a mix of brick. Mrs. Boring stated that the underlying issue is that although the applicant has proposed a plan for this building, he is actually submitting the text for an unknown quantity of buildings. So it is important for the text to be applicable to the other buildings that will ultimately be built. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that page 4 of the text covers the building materials. ~~, Ms. Salay stated the text indicates "permitted," not "required." Mr. Reiner stated that the architectural style of this building is English Arts and Crafts. ft.' "'; Therefore, the architect cannot be satisfied with suggestions that would compromise the integrity of that style. One material - brick, has been emphasized. Since both stone and brick are acceptable building materials, he would assume that fellow Council members would not object to the use of cultured stone, rather than brick, on this building. Stone is more consistent with the English Arts and Craft style. Ms. Salay responded that the use of stone or brick as the primary surface material is acceptable; however, stucco should be used only as an accent. Ms. Salay referred to Item A 1.11-1, page 4 of the text which states, "the architecture and color palette will be similar to the styles permitted by the Thomas/Kohler development plan to the south of the site and shall consist of earthen tones with a preference for muted and natural tones. Accent colors in brighter hues are permitted for building accent features only, such as signage, awnings, doors, limited trim, etc...." She suggested that the last sentence be removed. Although the Thomas Kohler text included a reference to the use of high chromo colors, there was a particular product that was envisioned for a building in that development plan that has since disappeared. In more recent years, City Council has required the use of only muted color palettes. Although this use will be consistent with that intent, future office buildings may not. Mrs. Boring suggested that the last sentence not be entirely deleted, rather, that it be amended to state: "Accent colors for building accent features will be submitted with the final development plan." Ms. Salay concurred. Ms. Salay referred to Item 3-c, page 4 of the text, which states: "Flat roofs are permitted provided they are proportionately integrated with parapets that adequately screen mechanical rooftop equipment." That is not consistent with the abutting Thomas Kohler rezoning. Flat roofs are permitted on the east side of Emerald Parkway, but not on the west side. Mrs. Boring responded that this issue was also mentioned at the P&Z hearing, but it was explained. She asked Mr. Gunderman to expand. Mr. Gunderman stated that the issue was discussed. The resolution was to be covered by Condition #4. Ms. Salay responded that the text will govern this development. She would prefer issues be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes~________ Dublin City CounciL___ _____ MeetiJ].L__ --DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ---------- -------...--- ----,- 11------------------- -_._-----_._-~.- _.~---_._- II Held February 21, 2006 Page 7 20 I' specifically clarified. She suggested that Item 3-c on page 4 be eliminated. Mrs. Boring stated that it would be a condition of this rezoning that the text be changed accordingly. Ms. Salay referred to Item A 1.12-1, third sentence, page 5 of the text, which states: "One (1) monumental sign shall be externally illuminated." Are the signs lit from behind? Mr. Gunderman responded that the light fixture would be located in front of the sign with the light shining on the sign to illuminate it. Ms. Salay referred to Item B1.08, page 7 of the text, which states: "All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid brick wall, wood fence or materials consistent with the building materials," and Item B1.09-2, which states: "All refuse, trash, and garbage collection shall be enclosed or not visible from the street or adjoining property." Is it to be fully screened from view or is it to be fully enclosed and not visible? The latter is preferable. Mr. Lecklider inquired what type of dumpster enclosures are in the office development to the south. Ms. Salay responded that the enclosures are brick and stone with stucco and have wood gates. The building materials match the office buildings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired Ms. Salay's preference. Ms. Salay requested that the trash receptacles should be fully enclosed and not visible. Ms. Salay referred to Item B 1.11-1, sentence 2, page 8 of the text which states: "Accent colors in brighter hues are permitted...." She requested that the revised sentence in Item A 1.11-1 on page 4 also replaces this sentence. Ms. Salay referred to Item B1.10-5, page 8, which states: "As many existing trees as possible will be preserved." Is the anticipation that some trees will be lost and the tree preservation ordinance will be utilized? Mr. Gunderman responded that not many landmark trees are at risk. Most of the trees are at the northern edge of the property. A floodway is adjacent, so there will be minimal tree loss. Ms. Salay requested that staff incorporate consistent text changes in any subsequent references to colors, roof tops, trash enclosures and the other items already addressed in this discussion. Mrs. Boring referred to Item B1-06-2 on page 6 of the text, which states, "Building setbacks from Innovation Drive shall be 100 feet; however, building setbacks may be reduced to a distance no closer than 25 feet upon approval of the Final Development Plan." She would prefer to substitute the absolute term "shall" with more flexible language that would not pose a conflict with the adopted Community Plan. Mr. Lecklider responded that the second half of that sentence supplies the flexibility by providing the Planning department the discretion to alter the amount up to a minimum of 25 feet. Ms. Brautigam suggested that the language state, "Building setbacks from Innovation Drive shall be 100 feet; however, building setbacks may be reduced to a distance less than 100 feet, but not less than 25 feet upon approval of the final development plan." This language was acceptable to Council. Mrs. Boring stated that she has a difficult time viewing a cupola as a logo for a funeral home. The other Schoedinger funeral homes do not look like this. She reiterated her position that the cupola is inappropriate and should be removed from the plan. Ms. Salay agreed. But as it is not addressed in the text, it should be sufficient for Council to express its preference that the cupola be eliminated from the final development plan to be submitted to Planning Commission. It was the consensus of Council that the following condition No. 15 was appended by Council, based upon this discussion: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City CounciL_~____________ M~~tillK. _ ----DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ------------ --------- r:------- ------------- --- ----..- .._----- --_._-~---~--- -~-.--.-.--- ----rr-------- February 21, 2006 Page 8 i II Held 20 Condition 15: a. That the text language on page 4, Section A 1.11 Architecture: 1. and page 8, Section B 1.11 Architecture: 1. be amended by removing the second sentence and replacing it with the following sentence: "Accent colors will be submitted with the final development plan." b. That the text language on page 4, Section A 1.11 Architecture: 3. c. and page 8, Section B1.11 Architecture: 3. c. be deleted in its entirety. c. That the text language on page 7, Section B1.09: 2. be revised to read, "All refuse, trash, and garbage collection shall be fully enclosed and not visible from the street." d. That the text language on page 6, Section B1.06 2. be revised to read, "Building setbacks from Innovation Drive shall be 100 feet; however, building setbacks may be reduced to a distance less than 100 feet, but not less than 25 feet upon approval of the final development plan." Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ms. Salay welcomed Schoedinger Funeral Home to the community. The beautiful facility will be a welcome addition. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher also extended a welcome, noting that there are many opportunities for involvement in the community. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 08-06 Rezoning Approximately 0.148 Acres, Generally Located on the South Side of West Bridge Street, 100 Feet West of South High Street, from CCC, Central Community Commercial District, to: HB, Historic Business District. (Bassett Property - 41 West Bridge Street - Case No. 05-151 Z) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated that is the first reading for a rezoning of the Basset property at 41 West Bridge Street, which is approximately 300 feet west of South High Street. It is a standard rezoning in the Historic District - a straight rezoning to the new Historic Business District. At the February 2,2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. Tom Bassett. 41 West Bridqe Street. stated that he owns the property. This is a highly visible site and he is attempting to upgrade the property. The renovation plans include the elimination of the curb cut and the driveway off of Bridge Street. A small outbuilding, which will resemble other buildings in the district, will be added at the rear. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a second reading/public hearing is scheduled for the March 6 Council meeting. Ordinance 09-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a License Agreement and Related Purchase and Fiber Optical Use Agreements for Wi-Fi Services with Wireless Events, Inc., dba DHB Networks, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that in the fall, Council approved a proposal by Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Dunn that this project be handled through the RFP process and be awarded to a particular vendor. Since then, Mr. Dunn has been negotiating the three necessary agreements. Mr. Dunn stated DHB was selected from the RFP applications. He explained the three agreements: 1. Initially, there will be a license agreement, which will allow DHB to place their wireless facilities in the City. The agreement is non-exclusive, which will not prohibit the City granting right-of-way access to another technology or vendor, if it should later desire to do so. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Qublin City Council ~ -~--- Me~lil1g_ ._ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 .----- -rr-----------..-...--- ---.------------ --- ---- i i February 21, 2006 Page 9 II Held 20 I 2. The purchase agreement provides for purchase of a virtual private network, or 25 percent of the available bandwidth of the Wi-Fi network that will be built. The remaining 75 percent may be used by the vendor as they choose. 3. The fiber use agreement. The City possesses 96 fibers of the DubLink system. DHB will be permitted to use 6 of those fibers for a technical purpose - backhaul. Allowing backhaul on the fiber optics will allow more efficient use of the Wi-Fi network. Other specifics of the agreement are: 1. The cost to the City will be $406,000. The five-year agreement to purchase the connectivity includes an initial partial payment followed by 24 monthly payments. There will also be a capital cost of $150,000 for the City to expand the DubLink laterals. The City will own the laterals, which will probably carry the 96 fibers. 2. If DHB should fail to deliver the bandwidth, the equipment will revert to the City. Cisco equipment has been required, as it is consistent with existing City equipment. If the equipment would revert to the City through some circumstance, it would not be a loss. He clarified that the City will not be an internet service provider, nor a phone company or a Wi-Fi operator. The City is enabling the operation of a private Wi-Fi company in the City's right-of-way by being the anchor tenant. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the completion date of the project. Mr. Dunn responded that it is October 31, 2006. Construction will be conducted in the summer months. The primary impediment is trees, as they retain water, which can affect radio waves. Trees will not be cut down, but the system will be routed around them. Ms. Salay noted that the City is purchasing 25 percent of the bandwidth; it is also providing use of six fibers to DHB. Is a trade off built into the agreements? Mr. Dunn responded that DHB's total investment far exceeds the cost of the City's purchase. Initially, the City considered purchase of 100 percent of the bandwidth. The estimated cost was a $1 million. The proposed purchase agreement is considered mutually beneficial. Ms. Salay suggested this would be an excellent topic for a future City Manager's column. Typically, when municipalities take on Wi-Fi projects, the expectation is that the city will make the internet available to all its residents. Since this is not part of the City's investment, it should be clarified from the outset. Mr. Dunn's noted that there are different models, and different points of view for usage. The City will learn what works best for Dublin. Mr. Keenan stated that in light of what is occurring in the world today, he would like an overview of how surveillance will play into Wi-Fi access. Mr. Dunn responded that one of the vast uses of Wi-Fi is for the purpose of surveillance. However, there is a disadvantage with surveillance if the location of the equipment is known. With a Wi-Fi network, the location of surveillance cameras can be constantly changed. The police would have the ability to view events as they happen. For instance, police cruisers could be equipped with visual access to cameras located in the schools. Mr. Keenan stated that he would be interested in knowing the oversight of that use. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, adding it is likely a policy issue. Therefore, she requests that in the future, the City Manager's office submit a draft policy for Council approval that proposes how those decisions will be made and including Council in the decision-making process. Mr. Lecklider stated the information indicates that the City would pay DHB $261,000 upon receiving an engineering study and $5,000 per month for a total of 24 months for a total of $406,000. According to his math, the total is $381,000. Mr. Dunn responded that the total is correct, so the monthly amount must be incorrect. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the $406,000 figure is close to the anticipated cost. Mr. Dunn noted that at one point, $1 million was discussed; at another point $500,000 was discussed. When the estimate of the project was submitted in September, it was $440,000. The total will exceed $440,000 when the cost of extending the DubLink laterals RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ._-----~--_. Dublin City Council~u__u__ __MeetillL~ -DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 -~-- ---_.._-~--~~._-_..._-----~._--_.._- " ---------------~- February 21, 2006 Page 10 II Ii Held 20 and service fees are incorporated, but it is "in the ballpark." This was not in the 2006 CIP. It was included in an earlier CIP with a figure of $1 million. Mr. Lecklider inquired what will occur after the 24 months of payments are completed. Mr. Dunn stated that the total amount of five years of payments has been front loaded into the contract. Mr. Lecklider stated that the City will then be compiling five years of lease payments into a total amount to be paid off in 24 months. Mr. Dunn stated that this arrangement was part of the bid application. The cost to the City is less if it is paid up front. Mr. Lecklider stated that at the end of five years, he assumes a new agreement will be necessary. Mr. Dunn responded that the necessity of an option was discussed, but it is difficult to predict what technology will be in five years. The thought is that the City will be providing the location and the electricity. If the arrangement has provided value for five years, both parties will likely desire to renew the agreement. Mr. Reiner inquired if the original consideration was that the City would own its own Wi-Fi at the cost of $1 million. Mr. Dunn responded that $1 million would have bought 100% of the bandwidth. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City could buyout the remaining interests from DHB during the five-year period. Mr. Dunn responded that if the City made an acceptable offer for the equipment, it probably would be possible. The City would already own the site, laterals and electricity, so if the City added its own equipment, either by buying out DHB, or otherwise, the City could run its own network. Mr. Reiner expressed support for the current arrangement, which allows time to assess the situation. Mr. Dunn responded that as partners in the effort, DHB shares in the risk. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 6 Council meeting with emergency action requested. INTRODUCTIONIPUBLlC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 16-06 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2006 Pond Maintenance Project. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Reiner stated that many residents fish in the City ponds. What chemicals will be used to treat the ponds - copper sulfate? Mr. Hahn stated that the chemicals used for the treatment of algae and broad leaf are those pre-approved by the regulatory agencies. Mr. Reiner asked if there could be potential City liability if people eat the fish from the ponds. Mr. Hahn stated that the Department of Agriculture requires that information be posted regarding the chemical treatment of the pond and providing a phone number for questions regarding the application. Mr. Reiner stated that he recently attended an OSU seminar on this subject. There are not that many options available for the treatment of stream algae. Mr. Hahn agreed that algae growth is the primary problem. Mr. Reiner requested that steps be taken to guard the City against liability, perhaps a public notice. Mr. McCash inquired if larvicide is added to deal with the mosquito populations. Or is that a separate application? Mr. Hahn responded that most of the ponds are not treated with larvicide due to the presence of the fish population, which is in itself a form of mosquito control. Larvicides are applied to basins that are not deep enough to sustain a fish population. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Resolution 17-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the Construction of Improvements to the US 33/SR 161 Post Road Interchange and to SR 161. (ODOT PID No. 80748) Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of .--- Dublin City CounciL___________ __ Me~lil1R- DAYTON LEGAL.llLANK, INc,,!:ORM NO-,-,-0148 -_._-------~ --- -_._-.------- ------- February 21, 2006 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated an agreement with ODOT is necessary to construct the interchange improvements at U.S. 33/S.R. 161/Post Road. The draft agreement is 90 percent complete. It remains necessary to define the project limits and complete details on the escrow account. Mr. Keenan referred to Item 3.4, which states that "the City agrees to grant to any utility a reasonable easement to occupy City-owned property as needed." Could a cell tower potentially be constructed in that location? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the language would be revised to eliminate that possibility. Mr. Lecklider noted that the language in Schedule B of the agreement reflects ODOT District 3 instead of District 6. Mr. Hammersmith responded that will be corrected in the final document. He noted that a second public meeting with Post Preserve residents was held February 16 to discuss the elimination of their access to Post Road. ODOT has indicated that the limited access right-of-way will extend sufficiently east to be past their current entrance; therefore, a new entrance must be created elsewhere. Options are constructing an entrance further east at the Post Road/Perimeter Drive intersection or that one of the two stub roads could be extended to the west of Hyland-Croy Road. A staff presentation on this topic will be made at the March 6 Council meeting. OTHER . Dublin Soccer League Facility Fund Use Request Mr. Hahn stated that at the last Council meeting, Council requested additional information regarding DSL's request to use the Facilities Fund for construction of a concession stand/storage unit. Mr. McCash noted that if DSL is funding the project and then donating or turning the facility over to the City, he believes they will be required to pay prevailing wage on the project. Mr. Smith stated that per the terms of the agreement, DSL will not have to pay prevailing wage on the project. Mr. Keenan referred to Item 9 regarding liability and casualty insurance. Is property coverage discussed as well as liability? Mr. Hahn responded that when the City receives ownership of the building, it would then assume the responsibility of property coverage. Mr. Keenan requested that the language be clarified; casualty and liability are essentially the same. Mr. Hahn responded that an amended agreement will be provided to Council at the March 6 Council meeting. Mr. Maurer inquired if City possession of the building occurs if DSL is no longer using it. Mr. Smith responded that upon completion, the City will assume ownership of the building. DSL will then have the right to use the building. If it is used improperly by DSL, that right will be forfeited. Mr. Maurer inquired the meaning of the last sentence in #1 of the Recitals which states, "All improvements so made or permitted by the City.. .shall revert to the City once the facility is constructed. " Mr. Hahn responded that an example would be installation of an awning - that item would then become City property. . Dublin Web Site Redesign Presentation Bruce Edwards, City website designer, compared the previous and the new website layout. The front page of the website is now much more user-friendly. The website is in compliance with the Federal Rehabilitation Act which requires that all federal websites be compliant for use by persons with disabilities. A blind person could access the City's new website, and their Braille web browser could convert the information. Another component of the City's front web page is the City calendar. The calendar provides links to specific information about the events. The web page also provides the user the ability to increase/decrease the font size. Two components are critical to the success of every website. (1) Bandwidth - the City's website does not require the user to have a lot of bandwidth to use, and (2) Content - the City of Dublin staff excels in providing up-to-date information to Community Relations to be posted at the City website, and so the website is truly the City's website, not only Community Relation's. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ------~. Dublin City CounciL _______m M~~tinz_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO~--~ ----,_.._---~------ ----------- I [-....~-------------- ----- ._-------.._---~~-~- -.- ,--- February 21, 2006 Page 12 ji Held 20 i' Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is impressed with the website's compliance with disability guidelines. She encouraged Mr. Edwards to contact the Ohio Department of Aging, Department of Developmental Disabilities, as their website provides the ability to be linked to other websites for the disabled community. She also suggested he contact The Miracle League to make them aware of this capability. Mr. Edwards indicated he would do so. . Update on Wayside Automated Horn System Mr. Hammersmith stated that in June 2005, staff presented a report on the Wayside Automated Horn System. The report was produced in response to residents expressing a concern regarding the overly intrusive effect of the train horns at the railway crossings at Cosgray Road/Rings Road southwest of the Ballantrae subdivision. The residents requested that the City establish a "quiet zone." Staff was directed to pursue the "quiet zone" risk index requirement. Per Council's request, an update is being provided. A staff report was provided in Council's packet, and staff is seeking Council direction concerning their desire to pursue this initiative. If so, staff would further refine the cost estimate. They will also continue their discussions with the Franklin County Engineer's office concerning one crossing of concern that is within the county's jurisdiction -- the Rings Road crossing east of Amlin. The staff report also provides feedback received from the County's Engineer's office. Franklin County Engineer's office is interested in the initiative but is not interested in paying for upfront installation costs or perpetual maintenance costs. He added that the City of Worthington has decided to proceed with installations at a couple of the rail crossings within their City. Ms. Salay inquired if the identified crossings are likely to be there for a period of time, or are they likely to be eliminated with future development. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the most current information on development plans in that area is a factor that would be considered during CIP prioritization of projects. Ms. Salay reminded Council that this project was initially proposed as a result of concerns expressed to her by several Ballantrae residents. As the staff report indicates, there are a couple of intervention options available. According to her calculations, a total investment of $140,000 would pay for remedies at the two closest crossings. She would not be in favor of this investment if the Community Plan or road network plan were to reveal that the crossings would be eliminated in the near future. However, if the crossings will remain, this investment would improve the quality of life for the residents in that area. Mr. Lecklider inquired what the investment would entail. Ms. Salay responded that it would require $50-60,000 per crossing for automated horn devices and $20,000 per crossing for channelization devices. This could be programmed within the CIP. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the financial details of Worthington's in-house design and installation of the automated horn system would be obtained by staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher states that #3 in the staff report indicates that the cost of installation of medians or channelization devices in conjunction with single gates is $20,000. Are there costs in addition to that of installation? Mr. Hammersmith responded that is the cost of installation only. There may also be costs related to mitigating residents' driveways. Upon direction from Council, staff would further refine the cost estimate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she would need to have the additional level of detail before making a determination whether it is an appropriate expenditure. The additional issue is whether the crossings are anticipated to remain for some time, as development is encroaching in that area. When this issue was previously discussed, staff indicated that the railroad company does not participate in such costs. What is the theory behind that? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the railroad company is satisfied with the crossings as they exist. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that although she can understand that when the crossings were installed 100 years ago across a cornfield the railroad was satisfied, do they not reevaluate the crossings in view of later significant changes in the area? Many years later, the crossings may be insufficient in relation to the land use within the area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes QL__________ Dublin City CounciL_ ____ ___ Metj:inR-__ --- DAYTONLEGAL_ElLANK,INC"f'~~_NC>'-'-"'-~_-======-__~=_=_____n_-=------ _________ -- - ---- February 21, 2006 Page 13 Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith responded that the railroad company would be of the opinion that if the area had not developed, there would not be an issue. The railroad has unique and fixed positions on these matters. Mr. Reiner requested that the Planning staff assess the future impact of the development planned for this area. He would prefer to avoid a scenario in 5-7 years where 200 -""'" residents come before Council asking the City to invest $2 million to build a noise barrier along the freeway or adjacent to the railroad in this area. He would prefer that these issues are carefully evaluated and addressed in the development stage so that future taxpayers are not footing the bill to fix these problems. Mr. Hammersmith responded that matter has been addressed in the discussions regarding various development proposals that have occurred, particularly regarding development along U.S. 33. Mr. McCash suggested that the costs of these items could be reimbursed from the developers who will be developing along the railroad. The City could also study the regulations in place near airports - sound barriers or structures that are placed in zones with sound issues. For instance, triple glazing is required as opposed to double glazing. These items can be required of the developer. Mr. Keenan stated that there are federal regulations on limited access around the interstate roads that, in effect, protect the residential areas adjacent to the freeways. Have related issues been addressed in the Erickson proposal at Post Road, or is US 33 unique? Is it subject to the same regulations as an interstate road? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the adjacent use of the area does not fall within the guidelines that govern sound mitigation along interstate roads. Certain uses are covered, such as schools, hotels, hospitals, churches and limited residential. Mr. Keenan inquired if the Erickson development would be considered a residential use under those guidelines. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff checked on this and it is not. In addition, the "," property owner must specifically request the mitigation. Mr. Reiner inquired if there are any other sound mitigation techniques available other than those suggested in the staff report. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the staff recommendation is the newest initiative available. It has been approved just within the last 18-24 months. Mr. Reiner stated that he empathizes with the situation of the railroad companies and the airports. He does not empathize with the developers who crowd these particular areas with subdivisions and place the unknowing home buyers in the position of trying to find solutions. A good government prevents those situations from occurring from the outset through zoning and regulation. Mr. Lecklider stated that not only is he concerned with quality of life issues, but as the City grows westward, there are safety issues the City is obligated to address. As the community grows and, correspondingly, the traffic issues, the risk also increases. On the basis that the sound warning is more effective than a train horn, he would support the proposal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the safety issue is best addressed through proper planning of how development will occur in these areas. She agrees with Mr. Reiner that is important that the City be more cognizant of these issues as planning occurs for the west side where the railroad track exists. Mr. Lecklider noted that the safety issue exists whether there is residential or commercial development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is in agreement. As Mr. Reiner has noted, the Planning Department needs to address that issue more aggressively with the developer, whether it is residential or commercial. Mr. Reiner stated that the City should make clear to the developer that the value of the land is impacted by how these issues are addressed, and the City cannot let the developer have a certain zoning if those problems will occur. It is the developer's responsibility not to option the land and bring it into the City with that type of situation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ________ Dublin City CounciL_______ ___Me~ti!lg- __ -DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM Nci~TOi~- - - ~------_._----- --r:------ ------- ----------February 21 ,2006----------------Pa-ge~-- ---- I Held 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff has noted Council's concerns. They are also seeking Council's direction of whether to further refine the financial estimate for the automated horn system proposal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that Council would like staff to refine the cost estimate for Council's consideration, but a decision will not be made until more detail is known regarding the impact of future development on the roads in the area. CITY MANAGER REPORT/ST AFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam introduced the new Streets and Utilities Director, Ron Burns. Mr. Burns has been employed with the City for 14 years. He started employment as crew leader and has served as the Parks Supervisor for several years. When the Streets and Utilities Director resigned, Mr. Burns assumed the role as Interim Director. After completing the interview process, he has been named as the new Director. Mr. Burns stated that he was hired by the City in 1992 and has enjoyed the past 14 years of working with the City. He appreciates the confidence shown in him to allow him the opportunity to now serve as the Streets and Utilities Director. He looks forward to serving the City to the best of his ability. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher congratulated Mr. Burns on his promotion. Ms. Brautigam requested that Chief Epperson provide Council with an update on the condition of Officer Wright. Chief Epperson reported that Officer John Wright was involved in a high-impact rear-end collision yesterday while doing speed enforcement along 1-270 and suffered a head injury. He was released from the hospital today. He provided brief details regarding the accident. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that Chief Epperson convey Council's well wishes to Officer Wright. She also recognized Chief Epperson and his staff for the excellent level of protective services provided by the Police Division during President Bush's visit to the City of Dublin last week. She is aware of the effort involved to ensure that the President's visit occurred without incident. Chief Epperson responded that the Dublin Police Division has prior experience as former presidents have also visited Dublin. The Secret Service expressed appreciation for the assistance provided by the Dublin Police Division. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan: 1. Inquired about the fire incident in Historic Dublin earlier today. Chief Woo responded that the fire occurred at Biddie's Coach House. The fire started in the sub flooring of the first floor and traveled to the attic. It appears to have been accidental, but unfortunately there was extensive damage to one of the City's historical buildings. 2. Stated that the Finance Committee met before the Council meeting tonight to consider staff's request that the bidding threshold be increased from $30,000 to $75,000. The Committee voted to recommend the item for Council approval with certain provisos, which Ms. Grigsby will explain. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff will provide quarterly reports to Council for the next year to identify those items that would have been bid under the current bidding threshold but will not be under the new threshold. Staff will also provide public notices of intent to acquire supplies and services, thereby providing the opportunity to vendors to submit statements of interest. Staff will review the statements and select vendors to contact for price negotiation. Legislation authorizing the increased bidding threshold will be prepared for the next Council meeting. Ms. Salay: 1. Noted that BZA has received an application for a special permit for the Villas at Glenealy, the official name of what has been referred to as the Avery Road Condo Project. The application address is 6355 Innovation Drive. She recalls that during the rezoning and in subsequent discussions she had made the observation that this road should not be named Innovation Drive, as it will result in cut-through traffic through the area. She realizes this is problematic because the street names are already identified on the plat. However, it is absolutely essential that this street be named something other RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ___~_______ Dublin City Council ._._-----~ ~ec;~tj~-- DAYToN LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 ---------- ~--~-~------~- Ud _._.~--_._.~~---- February 21, 2006 Page 15 I' Held 20 ! than Innovation Drive at the location where it connects with Avery Road. Drivers unfamiliar with the area would be misled by the Innovation Drive sign. Mrs. Boring stated that before staff is directed to rename that road section, she would request copies of the background information. She recalls that staff offered an opposing viewpoint. Citizens usually object when the name of a road is changed to something else in the middle of the road. That results in confusion as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that staff study the background on the issue, and bring back a recommendation for Council. 2. Stated that there is a pending item listed for Community Development Committee review - topsoil management. She requested the status of the item. Mr. Reiner responded the consultant on the issue is no longer with The Ohio State University. As the issue cannot be pursued at this time without the consultant, he recommended that the issue be removed from the Committee's list of pending items. It was the consensus of Council to remove this item from the list. Mr. Reiner noted that he is looking forward to the approaching St. Patrick's Day festivities. He is hoping for good weather for the event! Mr. McCash noted that several weeks ago, he advised City staff that off-premises graphic signage for Sycamore Ridge had been posted at an intersection. The City Code Enforcement Officer had the sign removed. A few days later, it was replaced with metal signage anchored in a cement block. He did not contact City staff again, assuming that City Code Enforcement would address the issue. However, the issue has not been addressed. This type of violation is becoming commonplace. The BP station at Perimeter Loop has placed massive murals of advertisement in their store windows. Mrs. Boring agreed. She has noticed "Going Out of Business" temporary signs posted in several locations. She inquired about the status of an anticipated report from the Law Director regarding a movable truck billboard situation. Ms. Brautigam responded that the Law Director's office has provided a report to the City Manager's office. That will be forwarded to City Council. The report contains a recommendation for legislation. This item will be on the March 6 Council agenda. Mrs. Borinq: 1. Inquired about a pending item listed for Administrative Committee review - reporting requirements for political action committees. Does Council continue to desire that this issue be reviewed by the Committee? Mr. Lecklider responded that he would like the item to be addressed, but only after the more pressing issues, such as goal setting and dental insurance benefit review. Mrs. Boring stated that the next few weeks are heavily scheduled, but she would like to set a tentative date in late spring to ensure that this item is addressed. Mr. McCash requested that copies of the legal opinion prepared 8-9 months ago by the Assistant Law Director be forwarded to Council. Legal had also requested additional direction re Council's intent, but that has not occurred. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Lecklider requested that the Committee review this item two years ago, but she does not recall the memo from the Law Director's office on the topic. Staff will research the issue and forward a response to Council. 2. Stated that there is a need to re-define a current City process. Consideration of issues with major financial impact, such as the natatorium proposal recently brought to PRAC should be addressed by City Council, not PRAC. PRAC's role is to seek or recommend action to Council. It seems that clarification of PRAC's role needs to be made. In addition, the City staff liaison to PRAC needs to provide guidance to the Commission about when it is appropriate for them to bring an item to Council for further direction. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the issue that has triggered this discussion was placed on the PRAC agenda. Mr. Hahn responded that a citizen group contacted PRAC and requested the opportunity to make a presentation regarding a natatorium. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the general practice is to permit citizens or citizen groups to contact PRAC and request placement on their agenda. Mr. Hahn responded that it is not the general practice. This request was an anomaly. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ---_.~_..- Dublin City Council_____ ______ _ .Me~ting--- DAYTON LEGAL Il~N~~C.. FORM N(~c'0148 _____ _n________ ---_._~----- -------1-- February 21,2006 Page 16 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is her understanding that the PRAC agenda is set by Council. Are they being provided agenda items by sources other than Council? Mr. Hahn stated that PRAC does study issues referred to them by Council. But traditionally, they have not been limited to only items referred by Council. They have been encouraged to serve as a liaison body between the community and the City on parks and recreation issues. For instance, this past summer a resident requested discussion of park security issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in reading the PRAC minutes, it does not appear that any City conclusion or direction regarding a natatorium was given. Mr. Hahn stated that is correct. The group was advised that because the issue concerned space needs of the Dublin Schools swim teams, it should be addressed by the Dublin School Board. Mrs. Boring said that the minutes state that PRAC would speak with a group which provides feasibility studies. Although a Council board or commission can serve as a sounding board, City funding issues should not be pursued by these bodies. Mr. Hahn responded that staff is not pursuing the feasibility study suggested, as it is necessary for the governing entity to request the feasibility study. Mrs. Boring reminded Council that in the late 1980's a natatorium was placed on the ballot. It was turned down by the voters. Ms. Salay stated that she was contacted by the citizen group. They are very committed to gaining more lane space. She discussed this issue with Mr. Earman when he was the Aquatics Director. These parents are very passionate about the opportunity for their children to pursue their sport in Dublin. Recently, the sport has grown from one school with a swim team to two schools with both swimming and diving teams. The children all ... need to practice indoors, and they are limited to pool lanes at the Rec Center. This a problem related to the growth of the community. The group is pursuing every possible angle, and that is the reason PRAC was contacted. The group has discussed the issue ~_n__~ with Dublin Schools, and the Schools asked what the City's response to the issue has been. The group has suggested either a City facility that the school teams can use or a School facility that the City could use for programming options during off hours. With either option, more water space would be provided to meet the needs of the community. She advised the group to pursue all their options. She also advised them that the City had recently studied a natatorium option during the planning stage of the second outdoor pool. It is not likely that the group would have success in convincing the City to pursue a facility that would satisfy what could be considered a school issue. Mrs. Boring stated that her position is two-fold: (1) at this moment in time the City must limit its financial focus to development of the technology park; (2) as the parent of a former swim team participant, she is aware of this need in the Dublin community. This is the reason she earlier brought up the issue of Community Recreation Center memberships and the various categories of users. If the City continues to annex land within the Hilliard School District, the Rec Center will be attempting to meet the needs of even more than three high schools and several parochial schools. Her focus tonight, however, is to provide staff policy direction for all of Council's boards and commissions. Ms. Salay inquired Mrs. Boring's recommendation regarding a policy position. Mrs. Boring responded that if an issue would require significant expenditure of City resources -- staff, finances or consulting fees - she believes that issue should be referred to Council for direction. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff was placed in a difficult position when the citizen group requested the opportunity to present to PRAC, and PRAC was willing to hear their presentation. Perhaps PRAC's response should have been that the group must make its wishes known to City Council. Does Council want the City to proactively inform the parents to discuss the issue with City Council? Mr. Reiner inquired if this issue is a school issue. Council and staff concurred that it is a school issue. Mr. Reiner stated that if this is a school issue, it would be inappropriate to invite them to come before Council and plead their case. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council .._____________ .0- __MeetiQR-_ .. -DAYTON LE.~AI,BLAN~NC::'cFO~M N~.48____._. ---------~--_.__._- - -----_.__._,-~ February 21,2006 Page 17 Held 20 Mr. Keenan noted that is a "slippery slope." Whatever the school attended -- Dublin, Hilliard or private, the residents are all City of Dublin residents and should be treated equally. Mr. Lecklider stated that some of the leaders of the parent group are not City residents, although they reside within the school district. Mr. Keenan responded that the City cannot provide pool time and services to Dublin residents without also considering the school district issue. Mr. Reiner stated that the City has provided a public swimming facility for its citizens. Likewise, it is the schools' responsibility to provide a facility for its sports programs. Mr. Keenan noted that there are several school systems in Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Dublin Schools could provide a natatorium that serves the needs of all the Dublin schools. Mr. Keenan stated that other City residents or groups have a need for additional indoor pool time. The current Rec Center policy is likely inequitable. Mrs. Boring noted that is exactly the point she made the last time Council reviewed the fee structure. Ms. Brautigam stated that although all of Council is in agreement that this is a school issue, the Schools do not agree with that position. Therefore, when Dublin parents take the issue before the School Board, the Schools will likely want to know of the City's response. She asked for specific direction from Council for staff. Is the staff response to be this is a school issue and that Council will not consider this? On the other hand, all citizens have the right to present their case to City Council. Mr. McCash inquired how the Dublin Schools could take the position that this is not a School issue. The need is related to the Schools' swim teams. Ms. Brautigam responded that their argument is that the City is the owner of the swim league, the Sea Dragons. Mr. Keenan stated that City of Columbus residents who have children at Dublin Scioto are using the City facilities because it was determined this was a school issue. At the same time, some City of Dublin residents are not permitted access because their children are in a private school or Hilliard School. Therefore, City of Columbus residents are essentially being given preference over City of Dublin residents. Ms. Salay inquired if a lack of swim lanes would exist for the Sea Dragons if the high school swim teams no longer were to use the Rec Center. Mr. Earman responded that would no longer be an issue, as two hours of lane space per day would then be available for City use. The only issue that would remain is the fact that the swim league also holds a session during the summer months that requires a 50-meter pool, which the City does not have. The team must travel outside of Dublin for these facilities. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council made the decision when the second outdoor pool was constructed that the City would not pursue an interest in providing competitive lanes - that lane time could be purchased elsewhere. City residents have complained throughout the year that the pool is not available for recreational use because the lanes are rented to the Schools for competition practice. Over time, Dublin City Schools have also opted not to build a school natatorium. Instead, permission was obtained to rent lanes from the Dublin Recreation Center. Ms. Salay suggested that the City suggest to the Schools that perhaps it would be feasible for them to explore the option of constructing a school natatorium to meet their rapidly increasing need for swim lanes. Mr. Hahn stated that chapter 5 of the Community Plan, "Community Facilities," addresses both City facilities and school facilities. Perhaps that is the appropriate place to identify a need for an additional facility within the City of Dublin, not necessarily to be a City facility. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this group has already presented their case to the Board of Education subsequent to the presentation to PRAC. Has the City Manager been contacted by the Superintendent? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~____m___ Dublin City Council___ _Me~~tinK- .~ --OAYTONLEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148-- --------- ... -------- ------------------- II-------------------------February 21, 2006-- Page 18 Held 20 Ms. Brautigam responded that Ms. Fenner has not contacted her about this. However, this item will be on her list of issues to address with Ms. Fenner in an upcoming meeting. Mrs. Boring stated that she and former Council Member Kranstuber served on a joint City- School Third High School Committee when Jerome High School was being built. The need for a natatorium was discussed, and it was made clear to the Dublin Schools at that time that the City could not assume the responsibility for such a facility. Mr. Lecklider stated that very recently, during the construction of the Dublin South Pool, a detailed proposal was made to the City to build a City natatorium. The City did agree to change the design of the south pool to better accommodate their needs, including different water temperatures for competitive swimmers. He believes the issue has been exhausted before Council. Ms. Brautigam stated that the direction she hears for staff is that the City has made a policy decision not to build a natatorium. Therefore, there is no reason for a presentation to be made before Council. Staff will be consistent on this message. Mrs. Boring stated that the related issue is the role of boards and commissions. She suggested that in their training program, it be clarified that boards and commissions are not to address an issue that would require a commitment of time or money from the City without first having the issue reviewed by Council to seek direction. If the matter is then sent by Council to the board or commission for study, the issue can be further explored. Ms. Salay noted that lifeTime Fitness plans to build a very large indoor pool. Perhaps they would be willing to consider renting some lane space to the schools. Mrs. Boring responded that she discussed the issue with lifeTime Fitness. They do have facilities in other communities where there is a partnership in place between the local School Board and lifeTime Fitness. Dublin Schools should contact lifeTime Fitness regarding this possibility. Mr. Lecklider added that it is his understanding that lifeTime Fitness is designed to be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Lecklider stated: 1. In regard to Council's goal setting plans, a proposed agenda was faxed to Council from David Latshaw, the goal-setting facilitator. The Mayor, City Manager and he have spoken with Mr. Latshaw. The suggested theme of the goal-setting would be "How big do we want to be?" and the retreat would focus on growth issues. Council members can forward their individual suggestions to him or the Administrative Committee for additional discussion items for the agenda. His understanding is the session will focus on the expansion of the City's western border, and in this context would include discussion of the City annexation policy, the existing water/sewer agreement, options for residential and employment growth, roadway improvements and future development, such as the Central Ohio Innovation Center. Ms. Salay suggested that connectivity issues could be part of the discussion. Mrs. Boring noted that would actually be a Community Plan issue. She spoke to Mr. Lecklider briefly today and shared her concerns about the manner in which the goal- setting session has been planned. In terms of scheduling, she has changed her Saturday schedule twice to accommodate goal setting. When it was determined that the Friday session would go later into the evening in order to complete the agenda, she reconfirmed her Saturday plans. She cannot change her plans for Saturday at this point. She is very disappointed that the Committee process does not seem to be working. She had understood that the goal setting retreat planning would be a function of the Administrative Committee and she had noted her desire to be involved. The committee communication process needs to be addressed or the committee will be unable to successfully address the big issues that it will undertake. Mr. Lecklider acknowledged Mrs. Boring's concerns, but noted there were many scheduling issues and many contacts that were made the last ten days. The decision to extend the retreat to Saturday was the result of the recommendation of Mr. Latshaw. Because this discussion occurs only once a year, he believes it is important not to terminate the discussion too early. Ms. Salay stated that she understands the need for additional time. It would be difficult to cover the topics comprehensively in a half day discussion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of . Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INCH FORM NO. 10148 February 21, 2006 Page 19 Held 20 Discussion continued. Ms. Brautigam noted that Mr. Latshaw asked for input from Council about adding any other agenda items - perhaps updating the status of goals. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that those goals were established for two years - 2005- 2006. Council could re-affirm or revise those. She does not believe It is necessary to commit time at goal setting for that discussion. It could be accomplished at a Council meeting or study session already scheduled. Ms. Brautigam responded that this will be programmed for the April study session. Following discussion, Council consensus was that goal setting would begin at 10:30 a.m. and conclude at 5:30 pm on Friday, and begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at noon on Saturday. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Stated that Council met with the PAR representative to provide input for the Director of Planning position profile and recruitment. She requested an update. Mr. Harding responded that he expects to receive a draft from Greg Ford of the PAR group shortly. He will contact Mr. Ford to inquire about the expected timeframe and provide an update to Council. 2. Noted that she was saddened to hear about School Board President Chris Valentine's cancer. She requested staff to provide update to Council on his condition. 3. Noted that the School Board has requested that Council establish a liaison to the Board of Education. Lynn May has been appointed as the School Board's liaison to City Council. She has already expressed a desire to discuss the issue of a natatorium with Council's liaison. Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of Council that Mrs. Boring served as the Council liaison to the School Board. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she will contact Ms. May and notify her of this designation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:34 p.m. for discussion of legal matters. She announced the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11 p.m. ~C!-~ Clerk of Council