Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2006 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the March 6, 2006 regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Smith 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, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ciarochi, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Mr. Earman, Ms. Cox, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Combs, Ms. Readier, Mr. Burns and Ms. Lozier. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Council postponed approval of the February 21, 2006 Council minutes to the March 20 Council meeting. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was received regarding a new D5 permit for Pei Wei Asian Diner, to be located on the west side of Sawmill near the Kroger Centre. Council had no objection to the issuance of the permit. PROCLAMATIONS/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Grand Leprechauns 2006 -Tom and Gayle Holton Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher read a proclamation, recognizing Tom and Gayle's volunteer community service which was key in their being named Grand Leprechauns for 2006 and proclaiming Saturday, March 18 as "Tom and Gayle Holton Day" in the City of Dublin. The Holtons thanked the City for this great honor. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked all past Leprechauns present at the meeting to stand and be recognized. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that he listened carefully to the City Manager's State of the City address tonight. His one criticism would be that she does not give enough credit to herself and the entire Dublin governance. Miracles don't just happen, they are made. He is working on a "miracle" too, yet he has been met with uniform silence in response. He commented in regard to the future funeral home in Dublin and the various comments made about how to accelerate business for that project. He has a great funeral home story, but time will not allow telling it tonight. He will save that for another meeting. AGENDA MODIFICATION It was the consensus of Council to consider the right-of-way encroachment for Town Center II at this point on the agenda. • Right-of-Way Encroachment (Town Center II -R.O.W. Encroachment -Case No. 06-036ROW) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a proposed site plan for Town Center II. A feature included is a patio located on the west side of the building. The 374 square feet of patio area would encroach upon the right-of-way. As in past practice, this is coming to Council before being reviewed by P&Z. The Architectural Review Board has recommended approval with several conditions listed in the memo. He shared a landscape plan of the same site and elevations. Mr. Reiner asked if the City envisions any future expansion of Franklin Street. Mr. Gunderman responded that Franklin Street was platted as a full size street, so there is not concern about this. Mrs. Boring asked if there will be sidewalks. Mr. Gunderman responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay moved to approve the encroachment upon the right-of-way for Town Center II. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 2 Held 20 McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Grabill, property owner to invite the owners of LaChatelaine forward to introduce them to Council. Mr. Grabill commented that he has been working for a number of years to attract LaChatelaine Restaurant to Historic Dublin and they plan to locate in Town Center II. 4 GiGi Wielezynski, introduced herself and her husband, Stan and noted they are excited to come to Dublin. She introduced her daughter, Marie-Charlotte who will operate the restaurant in Dublin. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEM 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 ordinance. Ms. Cox stated that as indicated at the first reading, there were a few issues in the contract that have now been resolved. The details of the escrow account have been worked out. The City will have an interest-bearing account on which a draw schedule will be worked out with ODOT. Regarding the cell tower issue that was raised at the last Council meeting, staff spoke with the local ODOT staff who contacted the central office. That issue will be handled on a case-by-case basis through deed restrictions versus structuring it into the contract. Mr. Smith stated that his staff is drafting a letter for the City Manager to Gordon Proctor, Director of ODOT who would make that decision. He is confident that the issue will be resolved. Mr. Keenan inquired about Item 5.2 on page four, "If change orders are necessary on the City's phase of the project...." With a project of this scope, totaling $20 million, change orders could be significant. Has a contingency fund been set up for this project? Ms. Cox responded that is the reason for the interest bearing account. Language has been added so that ODOT cannot create a change order without discussing it first with the Dublin Engineer's office and gaining their consent. Mr. Keenan noted that the agreement for a project of this magnitude must be painstakingly reviewed. He inquired about Item 6.2, "Maintenance of certain landscaping or aesthetic features will be covered under a separate agreement if necessary." Has there not been money programmed for landscaping? Ms. Cox responded that the money has been programmed for the landscaping, but a separate agreement would cover the maintenance of the landscaping. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, inquired about the broad rationale of this agreement. The City is constructing the interchange, and ODOT is overseeing/ administering the execution of it. Is the City paying for it because it initiated the project, and is ODOT overseeing it because it has the ultimate liability for it as part of the State highway system? Mr. Smith indicted that is correct. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES ~ Ordinance 08-06 j 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) Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a rezoning of property located on Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of High Street. The current use is office and retail. The new zoning designation of HB is intended to promote the scale and character of original Historic Dublin by allowing appropriate development standards for the redevelopment and preservation of the District's historic character. On February 2, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning with one condition: that the applicant apply for all necessary building permits prior to construction of any approved site modifications. The Architectural Review Board also reviewed this case in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit~Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 3 Held 20 conjunction with a proposed addition to the structure, and approved the application with the six conditions outlined in the January 25, 2006 ARB Board Order. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how much parking would be eliminated with this change. Mr. Gunderman responded that six spaces will remain. Approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals was required for the reduction of parking spaces. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the parking is being replaced somewhere else in the district. Mr. Gunderman responded that it is not. Ms. Salay inquired what about the uses of the new area. Mr. Gunderman responded that the new use will be office. Mr. Reiner inquired if City staff is confident that six parking spaces are sufficient for the needs of this building. Ms. Salay noted that there is a large parking lot immediately to the south of this building. Mr. Gunderman responded that there are other businesses in the area using that parking lot. It is essential not to negatively impact them. Ms. Salay inquired if this would be daytime office use, which would therefore impact parking during daytime hours only. Mr. Gunderman stated that the adjacent business would have high lunch hour patronage, so it would not have unused parking spaces to share. Mrs. Boring stated it was her understanding that this is a rezoning issue only. If it is rezoned to HB, ARB would work out the other issues regarding the use. Mr. Gunderman responded this is a straight district rezoning, which is not the typical rezoning in Dublin. However, there have been three or four recent straight rezonings in the historic section of Dublin. The City is trying to move from the current commercial district zoning that is not well suited to Historic Dublin to a new commercial district that has been established with Historic Dublin in mind. Because this project has already been reviewed and approved by the ARB and BZA, it is ready to move forward. The rezoning is essentially a housekeeping issue as the City attempts to bring everything in that area into the HB zoning category. Mr. McCash inquired if there would be one or two additions to the existing structure. There are two different site plans included in the packet. Mr. Gunderman stated that there is only one addition to the rear. The original application proposed a staircase on the side of the structure. That was eliminated from the plan, and landscaping provided in that area. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 09-06 (Amended) 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 Ltd., and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Dunn stated that nothing has changed subsequent to the first reading. The ordinance would approve three separate agreements with DHB Networks. The principals of DHB, a local company, are present tonight and would like to address Council Doug Harmon, DHB Networks, Ltd. thanked the City for the opportunity to implement a world class, wireless network in Dublin. Many cities are implementing wireless networks for economic development, security, data transfer and quality of life. Dublin's network will be superior to any other municipal networks he has observed. He was originally with ~ KarlNet, a Dublin-based company that developed the software for the very first wireless ~ Wi-Fi system. He has sold thousands of wireless systems worldwide. The best of everything has been incorporated into the system developed for Dublin. It will be very robust with many applications. He thanked the City for selecting DHB Networks. David Haimbaugh. DHB Networks, stated that he has been in the wireless business for 18 i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 4 Held 20 years in Dublin. In 1985, he purchased an RF microwave company. Their company has had an RF microwave/wireless product from inception. The business covers five states. They work with engineers wiring RF/wireless solutions into future technical products. They assist in design of future products and solve technical issues that can be improved with wireless design. Some of their customers are Lucent and Cisco; they have a partnership with the latter. Mr. Keenan referred to the License Agreement, Appendix A. What is the significance of the blue versus green color distinctions in the map? Mr. Harmon responded that the difference in radio signal strength is shown on the map of Dublin; the green area will have better coverage. Mr. Keenan noted a typo exists on page 3 of the Purchase Agreement, Item VIII.B. The "spelled out" and numerical versions of the annual aggregate amount do not match. Mr. Dunn responded that a correction will be made in the signed contract. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road inquired how DHB Network benefits from this agreement, other than the fact the City will pay for the construction of the network. Are there periodic user fees? Mr. Dunn responded that DHB has a contract with the City for $400-$500,000 for repurchase of services from them. DHB also plans to sell some services to local businesses. Not only can these services be used with a wireless card in a cell phone or laptop, they can connect point to point inside a building or building to building. Mr. Maurer inquired if there is a user's fee involved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the City will pay a fee for services. Mr. Maurer inquired if the residents would also pay a fee or is the City providing this to residents? Mr. Dunn responded that there is no application for general use at this time. The method of distribution or sale of the business application has not been identified at this time. Multiple business models are being evaluated, and that information will be announced later. As the anchor tenant, the City of Dublin will have the service. The City can use it and its citizenry, but how that is achieved is up to DHB. Mr. Keenan asked if there would be a profit for the vendor in the initial installation. Mr. Dunn responded that if DHB does not acquire another business, they will not generate any profit. The City has not purchased the entire system so has not paid the full cost for constructing the system. Hopefully, DHB will develop a successful business plan. Ms. Salay moved for emergency passage. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 10-06 Accepting the Annexation of 207.9 More or Less Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners: David Howard Gease and Freida B. Whitmer, Trustee) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated that the proposed annexation is for 207.9 acres located between Cosgray and Houchard roads. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 11-06 Rezoning Approximately 112.5 Acres, Located Southwest of the Intersection of US 33/SR 161 and Post Road, from: RI, Restricted Industrial District and R, Rural District, to: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (UMC Partners -The Ohio State University Health and Innovation Park -Case No. 05-1872) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Combs stated that this is a rezoning of 111 acres at the southwest corner of US 33 and Post Road/SR 161 for The Ohio State University Health & Innovation Park. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOflM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 5 Held 24 change in zoning from RI (Restricted Industrial District) and R(Rural) to SO (Suburban Office and Institutional District) will accommodate the development of a specialized medical treatment and research facility comprised of three components -the James Care Facility, particle therapy center and imaging hub. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on February 2, 2006. The Commission also . approved a conditional use request for (1) research development and testing laboratories and (2) anon-profit educational and scientific research use that is contingent upon the rezoning and subject to 13 conditions as noted in the Record of Action from that meeting. Previously, a commitment was made to present preliminary architecture back to the Council. NBBJ is present to provide that tonight. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of Condition #10: "That proposed lighting conform as practicable to the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, subject to staff approval." Mr. Combs responded this is a straight zoning. Therefore, the applicant is asked to conform to the City's Lighting Guidelines, which provide general parameters not in the City Code. The details of the landscaping and entry feature designs are still being worked on. If the design concept varies slightly from the Lighting Guidelines, it is desirable to keep that as an option. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of Condition #13: "That UMC provide a suitable `end of life' facility plan for the particle therapy center that will address long-term impacts within the COIC, subject to staff approval." Mr. Combs responded that the consultant who is looking at the facility from a technical standpoint recommended that condition be added. Because medical technology does not have a limitless lifespan, it is desirable to have a plan or procedures in place to deal with the equipment when it reaches the end of its functional life. It is anticipated that the City will retain someone to review this facility from the design phase through the construction phase. Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale, representing the applicant stated that a commitment was made to bring back the architectural aspects of the plan to Council for a periodic review. The Planning Commission voted at its February 2, 2006 meeting to recommend approval of the rezoning. Site planning is currently underway. A.J. Monterro, NBBJ, design principal of the OSU Health and Innovation Park, stated that tonight's presentation will bring Council up to date on progress made subsequent to their last presentation. This project strives for two goals: (1) connectivity; and (2) visibility creation of an image that portrays the science, technology, health care and healing that occurs in a facility like this -the ability to see the architecture of the buildings as the total design of an environment. He reviewed the site location of the particle therapy building; the imaging facility; the James Care facility; the entry/drop-off facility with atrium and garden; lowered parking deck to the east and landscaped parking facility to the west. The three building are interconnected, with the profile of the James Care facility emphasized. The cutting edge technology of this site will be portrayed in the "forward looking" architecture. He displayed and then described the different architectural materials that will be used and their purpose/impact upon the total site. The buildings will be a visual icon during the day. At night, the elements of lighting and transparency will project the image of safety and security. Possible decorations of the wall facade have been studied. The patchwork overview of the aerial view of Dublin and landscape of the surrounding area could be incorporated into the facade - a mural or portrait of the area. The signage will be tastefully articulated into sculptural art. A sculptural sign lit at night can serve as an icon or symbol for the facility. Sustainability will work in tandem with the architecture. The architecture of the environment is intended to be intriguing yet lend itself to the total program -the treatment and healing of cancer. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Monterro for the presentation. She especially likes the green roof, wave of the future features and the wall concept, which could perhaps be a public art project. She supports the idea of engaging the citizens in that area in some way. Mr. Reiner inquired if the building is designed so it can be expanded in the future. Mr. Underhill responded affirmatively. The east edge is the hard edge - no growth will occur toward Eiterman and U.S. 33. Phase 1 has been set up as growth to the west. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 6 Held 20 Mr. Reiner inquired about the anticipated level of patient treatment that will occur in the particle therapy building. Mr. Monterro stated he does not have a firm number at this time, but the last he heard was approximately 2,500 patients per year. The treatment can be extensive, so the patients' stays would vary in length. The average treatment will take 60 days, and the patient will come to the center every day during that time period. Mr. Reiner suggested that if there is the opportunity, the healing experience would be greatly enhanced if the rooms were opened up to the outside. This would not only reduce the smell and physical impact of the chemicals on the patients, but it would improve the healing environment. Mr. Monterro agreed. Maintaining the quality of life for patients is critical to their healing. Mr. Reiner noted that there is an ambulance entrance -obviously for later stage cancer patients. Mr. Monterro responded that most of the patients will be ambulatory, but there will be others who are not. Some pediatric patients will not be ambulatory, but that will be a very small number of patients. Mr. Keenan commented regarding the Mayor's suggestion for a potential Arts in Public Places site. He encouraged investigation of that idea. He also forwarded a news article to staff regarding runoffs in parking lots where the runoff of carbons and oils is filtered before it is permitted to move on. Ms. Brautigam responded that she spoke with Mr. Hammersmith, who indicates the idea has already been utilized by the Engineering division. Mr. Keenan asked if special emergency response training will be necessary for workers. Mr. Underhill responded they are working closely with city and county officials on those issues. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 6 City Council meeting. Ordinance 12-06 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging Medco Health Solutions to Retain Its Workforce Within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that staff has been working with Medco to retain their facility in Dublin after the expiration of their existing lease at 5151 Blazer Memorial Parkway. The proposed economic development agreement calls for a retention and technology grant of $120,000 that would be used for space renovation and technology upgrades to the Medco facility, and afour-year, 20 percent withholding equivalent should Medco meet predetermined payroll growth projections. This would retain 720 jobs in Dublin. Mr. Lecklider inquired about item (f) on page 3 of the agreement, which indicates Medco will be entitled to an incentive payment in year 2010 if they renew or extend their lease of the Medco facility through 2015. Ms. Gilger responded that in the industry, most companies sign five-year leases. The City hopes to persuade companies to commit to ten-year leases. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 13-06 -Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Encouraging Kinetics Noise Control to Expand its Operations within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that Kinetics Noise Control desires to expand their product line and needs additional room to accommodate this growth. Staff has been working with them and Washington Township in an effort to locate Kinetics in the former Washington Township Administration building on Shier Rings Road. The proposed agreement calls for a technology grant up to $10,000 fora 50 percent reimbursement to Kinetics for any telecommunications upgrades needed to connect their current facility to the township building, in addition to expedited reimbursement of the cost they incurred for the installation RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 7 Held 20 of the main waterline along Irelan Place. Instead of the eight to nine year payback for that TIF, it would be provided in two lump sums so that the company has more capital to invest into the facility. The City would then be reimbursed through service payments for the TIF district. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 20 Council meeting. Ordinance 14-06 Amending Section 37.03 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances to Increase the Competitive Bidding Threshold to $75,000. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this proposal was reviewed by the Finance Committee on February 21, prior to the City Council meeting. Ms. Grigsby was present at that meeting and was able to respond to Council's questions. The Committee recommended approval of the increase in the bidding threshold to $75,000 with the addition of some reporting procedures. Those are described in the staff memo. One proviso requires that a comparison report will be provided periodically to Council. This will enable Council to evaluate the impact of the change. The second proviso will encourage special opportunities for small businesses to do business with the City. Mr. Keenan inquired if a requirement for a quarterly report should be included in the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam responded that she does not believe it needs to be part of the ordinance. It would suffice as direction to staff. Mr. Keenan stated that his interest is in preserving the ability to continue to receive quarterly reports after the first year, if it is Council's desire. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 20 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 18-06 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Muirfield Turf Maintenance Project. Mr. Hahn stated this a contract for mowing the City's right-of-way areas within the Muirfield Village subdivision. It is bid separately from the previous turf maintenance project awarded earlier this year. Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that the Muirfield Association maintained the right-of- way areas within the Muirfield subdivision up to 2004, receiving minimal payments of $1,000 - $4,000 for doing so. Mr. Hahn responded that is correct. In 2004, the Muirfield Association notified the City that they would no longer be able to do this maintenance. In 2005, the City assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the Muirfield rights-of-way at a cost of $50,000. Later in 2005, the Association approached the City with an offer to resume the maintenance responsibility in 2006, with the City's reimbursement to the Muirfield Association based upon the actual cost in 2005 of $50,000. At the time, the City anticipated that the 2006 bids for the project would exceed 2005 costs, due to rising fuel costs. That assumption, however, was incorrect. When the bids were received for the 2006 turf maintenance, the costs were less than those in 2005. Upon notification of the Muirfield Association that the estimated costs for 2006 were approximately $37,000, the Association responded that they were not interested in providing the service for that amount. ~ Mr. Keenan stated that, historically, Dublin has pursued bikepath connectivity. If the Muirfield rights-of-way are the City's responsibility to maintain, could the City extend the bikepath through those areas? Mr. Hahn responded that is the case, and two years ago, he informed the Muirfield Association that if the City were to assume the right-of-way responsibility, the City's bikepath master plan could ultimately be re-evaluated. Mr. Keenan stated that would be consistent with the City's policy to provide bikepath ~ connectivity to the entire community. If the Muirfield Association would have any objection ~ to that occurring, they should carefully consider whether they really want the City to assume the financial responsibility and other responsibilities with this area. He would prefer to have these issues considered now, versus in six to twelve months. Mr. Reiner stated that several years ago, City Council discussed the extension of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 8 Held 20 City's bikepath along the east side of Muirfield Drive past the Muirfield subdivision. Mr. Hahn stated that he did not recall any decision to do so. The last official bikepath master plan was silent regarding Muirfield Drive. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated the issue was discussed during the planning of the Brand- Avery-Muirfield Roads roundabout. She recalls that Mr. Reiner, speaking on behalf of the " Association, took the position that connectivity was not to be pursued as the bikepaths within Muirfield were a private system. Mr. Reiner responded that they are two separate issues. A discussion occurred regarding the extension of the public bikepath north and south along Muirfield Drive. However, the inner bikepath system within the subdivision could not be connected to the public bikepath. Muirfield's internal bikepath does not meet federal/state standards regarding width, grade, etc., and the Association carries additional liability insurance which restricts it to use by the residents. For it to become part of a public bikepath system, the City would need to bring it up to standard. Mr. Keenan stated that he is not aware of such an exclusionary insurance standard. Mr. Reiner responded that it is an exclusionary policy to protect Muirfield from lawsuits. Mr. Keenan stated that his objective was to make the Association aware of the possible ramifications of the City assuming the right-of-way maintenance. Mr. McCash inquired to what a bikepath along Muirfield Drive would connect to, if it did not connect to the Muirfield bikepath system? Mr. Keenan responded that it would connect to Glick Road perhaps to the elementary school. Mr. Hahn noted that a Muirfield Drive bikepath would have connectivity. The future bikepath map shows a continuous bikepath on the south side of Glick Road, from Avery Road to Dublin Road within the right-of-way. Mr. McCash noted that it would be interesting to see how a bikepath would cross the tunnels under Muirfield Drive. Mr. Hahn stated that the updated Community Plan will focus more on bike lanes within the City of Dublin as opposed to bikepaths. In this application, it may make sense to use bike lanes. Mr. Reiner recalled that was part of the earlier discussion about a bikepath through Muirfield, whether the City would take part of the street or move it to the right and create a bike lane. Mr. Hahn stated that only discussion occurred. Nothing was finalized. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road inquired if the Muirfield Association was willing to perform the maintenance for the amount of $50,000, but not for $37,000. Mr. Hahn responded that is correct. Mr. Reiner clarified the Muirfield Association had intended to contract the work to a known source to return the maintenance to a higher level. They anticipated being able to achieve that if the amount remained the same as what the City had paid in 2005. When the bid came in at $37,000, however, the Muirfield Association acknowledged that they would not be able to hire the desired contractor for that amount. They conceded the responsibility to the City. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution 19-06 A Resolution Waiving Competitive Bidding for the Emerald Fields Restroom Facility. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that bids were solicited for this project a few months ago. The City received one bid, which exceeded the City's estimates and budget. Because staff believed the project estimate was accurate, additional price quotes were solicited on the project, including a quote from the sole bidder whose bid had exceeded the City's budget. The result of the second effort was that the original bidder submitted the lowest and best quote. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 9 Held 20 Mrs. Boring inquired how the contractor came to submit such different bids. Mr. Hahn stated that in addition to allowing for the prevailing wage to be paid, the practice of bidders is to include a premium in their bids for government contracts. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Smith stated that the following four resolutions relate to land acquisition along Tuttle Crossing Boulevard in preparation for the road widening project. The legislation can be voted on by one action. Mr. Keenan moved to waive the rules of order and to have the Clerk read the names of the property owners into the record. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution 20-06 Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a Combined 0.499 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a Combined 0.152 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Utility Easement, from Judy Lee Corbett and Duane R. Corbett, Located South of Tuttle Crossing Boulevard, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 21-06 Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.316 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.097 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Utility Easement, from Russell Duemmel and Carol Leah Duemmel, Located South of Tuttle Crossing Boulevard, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 22-06 Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 1.275 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.058 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Utility Easement, from Robert G. Eickholt, Jane M. Eickholt and David Eickholt, Located South of Tuttle Crossing Boulevard, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 23-06 Resolution of Intent to Appropriate a 0.454 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.138 Acre, More or Less, Permanent Utility Easement, from Donald S. Lowery and Dianne L. Lowery, Located South of Tuttle Crossing Boulevard, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Vote on Resolutions 20-06, 21-06, 22-06 and 23-06: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER • Informal Review -Tartan West Mr. Gunderman stated that staff is seeking feedback from Council regarding a potential second phase of the Tartan West development. As this project has progressed, densities have been altered between different subareas. The applicant's concept plan is under the approved density -seven lots less than the number the rezoning text permits. In addition, the plan provides 109 acres of open space, which exceeds the 100 acres of open space required by the text. To recoup some of the lost potential, the applicant has requested permission to transfer five single-family units remaining in Subarea I to Subarea D. These new lots would be developed in an area that was previously platted as open space on - Corazon Drive west of Roma Drive. The informal plan maintains an overall decrease in the approved density and the minimum open space required for the development. The applicant went before the Planning Commission on February 2, 2006 for an informal review to learn if they would have any objections to the proposal. There are three alternatives of the proposal. Concept "A" indicates all lots east of the existing tree stand. The other two concepts indicate one lot adjacent to an existing lot and located within the existing trees. Staff prefers Concept "A" as it best retains the existing natural features. If the applicant were to proceed, the plan would come back as an amended Final Development Plan to the Planning Commission and as a Final Plat to Council. It would require Council approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 10 Held 20 Mrs. Boring noted that she met with Mr. Simonetti to view the site and discuss the options as well as his position. They also viewed other sites where she pointed out problems resulting from prior City decisions, as these sites influence her viewpoint on the current proposal. There were five Commissioners present at the February 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and she was concerned that there is some conflict between the Commissioners' discussions and the direction she had perceived to be Council's. s' Therefore, she requested that Mr. Simonetti present the concept to Council for their input before he invests additional financial resources. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how much acreage would remain for the park. Mr. Gunderman stated that would depend upon how the lots were configured. Approximately four acres would be removed, leaving 105 acres from the current 109 acres. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if staff is considering all of the scenarios, or is staff making a recommendation. Mr. Gunderman stated that in looking at the three scenarios, Option "A" would be staff's preference. Steve Simonetti, Tartan Development Company, stated that he believes P&Z had identified Option "C" as the preferred option, and he has brought a presentation on that concept with him tonight. He thanked Council for the opportunity of an informal review before investing money in developing a concept. The Tartan West development is a high- end development that has received a lot of accolades and has been tremendously successful to date. A large amount of time, effort and money has been spent on this project. In their opinion, if ever a project deserved the density that was approved at a preliminary development plan, it is this plan. They are still asking for less than the density approved. The maximum density they would have if given these five lots would be 437 units. With 439 approved, he still believes the result would be something less than 435 for various reasons. Staff has stated that the five lots would look better in the northeast { corner. However, his preference is to place four lots in that location. The emphasis is not on obtaining the maximum number of units; each of the lots must be the right size for the type of home that will be constructed on it. Dividing the area into five lots does not result in lots appropriate for the estate homes that fit in that section. Limiting the area to four lots would accommodate the $900,000 plus homes to be built there. He understands concerns have been expressed about maintaining the open area. However, from Roma Drive on the north end to this first lot is a total of nine acres. If the City does not believe homes should be placed along Roma Road, the homes could be placed in the treed area. The three lots in the treed area are a total of 1.6 acres. The four lots that are not in the treed area total 3.3 acres. There are 109-1/2 acres of open space. Only three landmark trees would be removed if the three lots in the treed area were approved. Either the four lots in the open space area or the three lots in the treed area will leave the development under the approved density and with five percent more open space than required. Mr. Reiner asked what happened to the seven lots originally approved? Why is the project now below the approved density? Mr. Simonetti responded that the PUD is designed to have flexibility based on marketplace and demand. In the southernmost portion of the community, 106 70-foot lots were set aside for high end patio homes, which were targeted to sell for $600,000 to $800,000. Sixteen of those homes are under contract -all averaging over $850,000 each. In the developer's opinion, 106 $850,000 plus patio homes should not be placed there, as it would result in saturation. The developer also recognized there was a demand for a more traditional, single-family lot, so 46 of the 70-foot lots were converted into 34 100-foot lots, reducing the density in the southern section by 12 units. Via density transfer, seven of those units were moved up to the condominium area on the water due to the demand for the waterfront mid-rise condominiums. In addition, an area executive bought one of the patio homes, then purchased the lot next door so that a home would not be built there. In short, some shuffling has occurred, but most of that has been in reaction to demand and the developer's desire to avoid saturating the marketplace with a certain type/price of home. Mr. McCash stated that Council approved the rezoning of this area for a particular concept that included 106 patio homes. Due to the market, some of the patio homes have now been eliminated. The property was rezoned based on that particular concept. Now, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minute of ~ ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 - March 6, 2006 Page 11 Held 20 developer has changed the concept to include more traditional, single-family homes, although the change will result in the loss of twelve units. The developer now wants to make those units up, but in making up those units, the City will lose one of the key factors of support for the project -the amount of open space and the vista drive into the development off of Jerome and Manley. This would destroy that look. If the market conditions translate to a net loss of five sales out of this area, this is a small amount in the entire scheme. There is no guarantee of a particular number of lots with a rezoning. Mr. Simonetti responded that the developer respects the Council's position. They do not have any expectation of being guaranteed the density. They have simply made a request for Council to consider. If Council prefers the open space not be altered, but would not object to three lots in the wooded area, they would be appreciative. They did not present their case to staff or the Commission on the basis of expectation. They do not unreasonably expect a certain density, but certain changes were made to the plan. However, a significant amount of cost went into this project and a significant improvement was made to the surrounding Dublin infrastructure. Many of those costs far exceeded initial expectations on both sides. They are simply requesting that the City permit them to recover some of the loss of density. Mr. McCash responded that, nevertheless, it was a change the developer made with the decision to adjust from the patio home units to the single-family homes. The four lots in the front do not fit with the scheme, and he would not support taking out any of the wooded area to achieve three more homes. If the net five lots could be made up somewhere else in a less impacting area, he would consider that. However, this plan is not consistent with what Council had expressed was important at the time of the rezoning. Ms. Salay concurred. She would not support anything constructed in the woods. One lot is a stretch, and three lots is not reasonable. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes it is reasonable for the developer to ask Council to consider a proposal to make up lost lots somewhere within the development. He would not begrudge anyone the opportunity to ask for consideration. In this case, however, he agrees that it would detract from what the City was trying to achieve with the rezoning. If there were somewhere else within the development where the lots could be recovered with less impact, he would consider that; he cannot support any of the options presented. Mr. Keenan stated that he would agree with Mr. McCash and Ms. Salay that he could support a plan to recover lots if it were somewhere else within this development. He noted that the City has expressed the need for higher level executive housing within the framework of the Central Ohio Innovation Center and some of the other anticipated development. Mr. Reiner stated that this level of housing is needed in the community. He agrees with his colleagues that if there were somewhere else within the development to recover the lots without sacrificing the ambience and view of the development, he would consider it. Robert Fathman, Muirfield Village stated that he attended the Planning Commission meeting at which this proposal was made. He was very concerned about the request. As chair of the Muirfield Civic Action Committee, he forwarded a letter to the Planning Commission and City Council. He has spoken with many people about it, and there is universal opposition to the idea of suddenly changing the small footprint condos into large footprint homes in the middle of parkland. Tartan West is a beautiful development and Mr. • Simonetti and his colleagues have done a great job. It is a value to the community. It is important that Council not set a precedent of allowing developers to come back when they have made a change in the approved plans to benefit the marketing of their properties. He believes it would be wrong to give parkland back to the developer and give them the ability to revert it to housing sites. He thanked Council for their support. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she drove by Tartan West recently. It truly has a fabulous entrance, and she also does not believe it should be forfeited. This is a "catch 22" situation, as the City does need additional estate-type housing, and would be interested in a proposal that would not sacrifice the overall impact. She believes the developer would regret doing so. Presently, the view of the development makes such a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ C1#~~1 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 12 Held 2~ statement. She recognizes the economics of the development, but in the long term, keeping the entranceway will benefit the developer financially. Mrs. Boring stated that this is her position as well, as she indicated to Mr. Simonetti during their site review. In the long term, this is a better project without adding the lots as proposed. Mr. Simonetti thanked Council for their input. He shared that because of Council's stated interest in high-end empty nester housing, they would appreciate learning that 15 of the 16 patio homes that have sold were sold to empty nesters. Truberry Homes also has both condos and patio homes planned. Twenty-five units have been sold, and 18 of those are empty nesters. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Simonetti for the update on their development. • Post Preserve Boulevard Access Modifications Barb Cox. Assistant City Engineer, stated that she will provide an update on one of the projects involved with the modifications at US 33/SR 161/Post Road. A public meeting was held on February 16 with the Post Preserve residents at their subdivision, located at the northeast corner of Hyland-Croy and Post Road. ODOT representatives, Dirk Gross and Mandy Kisling, joined City staff members to speak to the residents. At a January meeting, the residents were apprised of the anticipated modifications, which would necessitate some changes to the entrance to their subdivision. The residents had requested an update on that project, information on traffic enforcement and a decision that had been made regarding the limited access right-of-way location on Post Road. Traffic Enforcement Issues • The residents reported a problem with speeding on Post Preserve Boulevard. Two traffic enforcement checks were performed there in January, which revealed that speed violations were primarily by the residents of the area. • There was also a question concerning the need for traffic to stop on the opposite side of the boulevard when a school bus had stopped on the other side. The Code addresses a divided, four-lane roadway but does not address a roadway with one lane on either side of the median. Staff is seeking the answer to that question. They have discussed the issue with the School's transportation director. Ms. Salay inquired what the expectation of the bus driver is in that situation, as it exists in a couple of other areas. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Ms. Willis talked with the School Transportation Director to ensure that children were not crossing the boulevard to board/exit the bus. There was one situation in which that was occurring, but that child is now picked up on the other side. • In the middle of the Post Preserve subdivision there is a traffic circle. A large volume of traffic is tracking over the curb that creates the island. Staff will investigate solutions - perhaps a truck apron such as that used on roundabouts. • The residents had requested a study for afour-way stop at Post Preserve Boulevard and Springview Lane. They were informed that the warrants were not met, however, which precludes afour-way stop being installed. Update on Interchange Project The residents had inquired how the site of the Post Preserve entrance had been selected. They were informed that in December 2001, the original interchange modification study presented to Council showed this type of configuration for the interchange. The difference between that and what is being built now is the location of the Marysville ramp off the interchange. Instead of coming off Industrial Parkway, it will now be brought down to the current intersection location of Industrial Parkway and SR 161. This particular study provided a concept, but did not provide detail regarding location of limited access right-of- way. It shows Liggett Road being adjusted to halfway between the access points at Post Road and Hyland-Croy. Staff will return final comments to ODOT on the interchange modification study early next week for their review and approval. Stage 1 plans for the interchange itself have been submitted to ODOT and reviewed by ODOT. Last week, a compliance notice was sent to ODOT showing the changes that were needed. Staff has been working in close concert with the UMC Partners project to define the Eiterman relocation and the north and south connection into the UMC development. Utilities will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ `;i;~Cyty-CST Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 13 Held 20 relocated and construction initiated this fall. Limited Access Right-of--Way Post Preserve is impacted by the ODOT guideline that requires a distance of 600 feet past the ramps to be reserved as limited access right-of-way along the arterial system. The 600 feet ends just east of the Post Preserve Boulevard intersection with Post Road. Staff submitted a request to ODOT that the requirement for 600 feet be reduced, and included several analyses to aid them in their decision. ODOT responded that due to the volume of traffic that is anticipated by 2030, the safety of the intersection at Post Road, afour-lane facility, would be jeopardized by reducing the limited access. Alternatives Staff is exploring ways to mitigate the impact on the subdivision. Several alternatives have been studied and costs estimates calculated. The estimates include engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction, but not landscaping costs. • Alternative 1 -the extension of Stillhouse Lane -has been considered since early in the project. The estimated cost of the extension is $750,000. The cost of a roundabout at the intersection would be approximately $1.3 million. It would be a one-lane roundabout built on a two-lane footprint, which could be widened in the future. • Alternative 2 is the extension of Holbein Drive, which is north of the creek. The Post Preserve subdivision has three stubs to the west Springview, Stillhouse and Holbein. Extending Springview is not feasible due to the conflict with some of the turning movements and stacking lanes. The estimated cost of extending Holbein Drive is $800,000, and a roundabout at that intersection would be approximately $1.3 million. At the residents' requests, other alternatives have been reviewed. • Alternative 3 - a roundabout at Post Road and Perimeter Drive with Post Lake extended. The current cul de sac in front of the model homes would be extended to the current intersection with Post Road and Perimeter. Liggett Road would also need to be moved to create afive-leg, two-lane roundabout. The estimated cost is $2.4 million. • Alternative 4 would provide a roundabout on Perimeter Drive with Post Lake Court extended and Post Road realigned. This would require relocating Post Road to the north and bringing it into the five-leg roundabout, at a cost of $3.2 million. Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would require extensive reworking of the existing ponds that create the landscape in front of the subdivision, and those costs are included in the estimate. • Alternative 5 -anew public road from Post Preserve Boulevard through the church property to Post Road. A 60-foot reserve was left along Post Preserve Boulevard between two homes to provide secondary access to the parking lot currently being built by Radiant Life Church. The reserve contains enough space to build a public road. The estimated cost is $1.4 million. Staff has not discussed this option with the church. It is the residents' least preferred option. Alternative Selection Criteria Several criteria will be used in evaluating and recommending the best course of action for mitigating/removing the Post Preserve Boulevard entrance, including: community benefit, construction cost, long-term safety, minimalization of potential cut-through traffic, neighborhood input, operational efficiency, preservation of entry feature character and right-of-way acquisition costs. The input of the residents was collected via comment sheets and will be considered in determining the mitigation method. Bill Razor, 5750 Gaelic Court stated he is building a home in the Post Preserve neighborhood. He is concerned about the first two alternatives that would connect either Stillhouse Lane or Holbein Drive to Hyland-Croy. Council discussion just focused on the importance of the entry way to the Tartan West neighborhood. If this neighborhood is connected to Hyland-Croy, the entrance to the subdivision will be immediately next to a farmhouse. That would not be the same effect as the neighborhood currently has with the nice ponds in front. He would prefer to keep the overall design and "feel" of the neighborhood ,and alternative 3 would best do that. It is also his understanding that the land at the potential entrances off Hyland-Croy is in Jerome Township. One of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .n Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 14 Held 20 reasons he has chosen to live in Dublin is the amount of control the City has over potential development around his home. Stillhouse Lane and Holbein Drive are very narrow streets, not intended to be main entrances to a neighborhood. In 2001, the City attempted to determine how this interchange would look. Yet the entrance to a relatively new neighborhood must now be re-structured. At a minimum, the City should ensure that the neighborhood is left in as good a state as when the project was built. Making sure the entrance to Post Preserve is acceptable to the residents is as important as any other component of the interchange modifications. What is the approval process for this project? Does Council make the final decision, or does it go to the Planning Commission for review? Ms. Cox responded that staff will develop a recommendation for Council. Council will make the final decision. Mr. McCash inquired if the property to the west of Post Preserve that extends to Hyland- Croy is within the City limits. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is not; it is within Jerome Township. Ms. Salay inquired if it is within the City's exclusive water and sewer service area or future annexation area. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is. Mr. McCash inquired if Mr. Razor was aware at the time of purchase of his property which land was not within the City of Dublin. Mr. Razor responded that he did, but there is a difference between the main entrance of the subdivision being located there or whether the area is simply adjacent to the subdivision. Mr. McCash agreed that there is a difference, however, building next to an open field that may or may not be annexed has some inherent risk. There is a stub street existing which indicates a strong possibility that it could be extended to Hyland-Croy. Mr. Razor responded that the street was never intended to be a main entrance; if so, the road would have been wider. Mr. McCash stated that whatever happens with the main entrance, that stub street could still be extended to Hyland-Croy. Mr. Razor responded that he was aware that stub streets are built with the intention of being extended at some later date. However, that street was never intended to be the main entrance he was also certain of that. Mr. Keenan stated that because that specific area is located in Jerome Township, it could be developed with big box retail or a strip mall. He then requested that Engineering compile an executive summary of the resident surveys. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff would do so. Kevin Porter, 6842 Stillhouse Lane stated he lives across the creek from Mr. Razor's lot, on the northwest corner of Stillhouse Lane next to the farmland. Since the January meeting, 32 homeowners in the Post Preserve have signed a petition to the City that a southern entrance to the subdivision continue to exist, even if the current one must be closed. He urged the City to consider that request, even if the cost of extending the street would be less. The residents also propose that if the street is ever extended, it circle around from Stillhouse to Springview. Three of the houses on Stillhouse were built such that their side yards border Stillhouse. That would seem to indicate the intention was never to make Stillhouse the main entrance to the subdivision. Post Preserve is likely the one subdivision that will be impacted by the interchange reconstruction. He is certain Council will make the right decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would also prefer to have an accurate and clear executive summary of the residents' comments. The residents are obviously involved and desirous of participating in a solution that will be beneficial to all the parties. As a result of participating in discussions, the residents recognize that a solution is negotiated, and they understand the factors that influenced the decision. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the analysis could include estimates of the anticipated traffic volume on the extended stub streets as compared with the roundabout. Mr. Hammersmith responded that projections of how the traffic would change on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of vu$rrrrC~t~~saa~r Meeting DAVTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 15 Held 20 Stillhouse and Holbein can be provided. Mr. Lecklider also requested that an analysis of the functionality of a roundabout at Post Road also be evaluated and provided to Council. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is staff's next step. The geographical components of the intersection have been completed. An operation analysis will now be done. Mr. McCash inquired if it were essential to connect Liggett Road to Perimeter Drive. If it were instead made into a cul de sac, it would save right-of-way land acquisition costs. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is already stubbed to the south, so the only end that can connect to the road system is at Post Road. • Automated Recycling Program Presentation Ron Burns. Streets & Utilities Director, stated staff is seeking authorization from Council to initiate a program providing the community with large, wheeled recycling containers. Beth Lozier, Streets & Utilities, stated that last year, the City received over 3,000 large, wheeled recycling containers through a grant from the Solid Waste Authority of Ohio (SWACO) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. As City staff attempts to manage the rising cost of solid waste services, it is financially advantageous to increase the tonnage of recycling, thereby reducing the tonnage of refuse. However, the containers received through the grant differ from the containers used in the pilot recycling program -they are blue versus green and brown. SWACO wants to regionalize the color of the containers so that they match the national color of recycling -blue. The cans can be provided in varying sizes of 32, 64 or 96 gallons. The programs will be initiated in select areas of the City - 1,500 residents in June and 1,500 residents in September. Mr. Reiner inquired the significance of the different sizes. Mr. Burns responded that the City is proposing to offer only the 64-gallon blue container at the onset of the program. Residents could request the other sizes later. Ms. Salay asked for clarification that only the recycling program is being automated, and that the trash collection will remain the same. Ms. Lozier indicated that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher referred to the recent news article regarding Columbus recycling and inquired if Dublin staff is certain that Rumpke is truly recycling this material. Ms. Lozier responded that Dublin is confident in Rumpke, and the company has another incentive in that they operate the local materials recycling facility. Ms. Salay inquired if an option is available to a resident if the 64-gallon can does not fit in a garage. Mr. Burns responded that, initially, the City will provide 64-gallon cans, but that will be followed by the option for customization. Ms. Salay inquired about the response to the pilot program. Ms. Lozier responded that the residents in the selected pilot program area were initially hesitant to participate. At the end of the program, however, surveys indicated that the vast majority of the residents did not want to give up their roll carts. Mr. Lecklider stated that presently he has one green and one brown container to distinguish the trash from the recycling. Will both containers now be blue? Mr. Burns responded that all the recycling containers will be blue. The trash containers will be either brown or green. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the new areas will receive a recycling container only. Ms. Lozier indicated that is correct. These residents will need to provide their own trash containers. Mr. Lecklider inquired why the pilot program was reduced to recycling containers only. Ms. Lozier responded that it was changed because the City was provided the recycling containers at no charge, a value of approximately $162,000. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Burns and Ms. Lozier for the presentation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ ~ Meeting EitSrC-varr- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 16 Held 20 • Woods of Indian Run Bikepath Lighting Mr. Hahn stated that staff is prepared to proceed with installation of the bollard lights along the bikepath. The aerial photo in Council's packet shows the installation locations with red dots. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what the original cost estimate was. Mr. Hahn responded that it was $12,000-$14,000. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if AEP's charge is a one-time fee. Mr. Hahn stated that this is the fee to initialize the service. There is also the standard ongoing usage fee. Mr. Reiner inquired if the lights would include timers. Mr. Hahn responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan asked if any of the lights would be placed closer to the cul de sac. Mr. Hahn responded that the Homeowners Association requested that the westernmost light be placed slightly up the path and away from the fence line. • Funding of Employee Leadership Development Program Ms. Brautigam stated that the original 2006 operating budget request for $186,000 for the Leadership Development Program did not include certain items including the management staff retreat, some management staff training and the City Manager leadership coaching by Mr. Latshaw. Therefore, she is requesting an additional $30,000 appropriation for these purposes to be authorized for the City Manager's budget. She will continue to work with the Administrative Committee regarding the other items that were discussed with Mr. Latshaw. Mrs. Boring inquired if the staff retreat is an annual event. Ms. Brautigam indicated that it is. Mrs. Boring inquired why that had then been separated into a special budget. Ms. Brautigam stated that last fall when Council had requested information regarding expenditures for consultants for the leadership training program, she had identified the consulting fees for Mr. Herrlein. At that time, the intent was to retain Mr. Herrlein for the management staff retreat. However, now that Council has engaged Mr. Latshaw as the facilitator for Council's retreat, the $12,500 budgeted for the management retreat facilitation should be added back. Mrs. Boring inquired if the item listed as management staff training is the one that involves travel. Ms. Brautigam responded that it is. Her understanding from Mr. Latshaw is that Council did not object to funding leadership training for high-level management members that report directly to the City Manager. She has not yet determined whether this training will occur locally or out of town. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification of whether this amount is in addition to the amount set aside for the typical professional travel and training, such as the APA Conference for the Planning Director. Ms. Brautigam confirmed that it is additional. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to authorize staff to prepare an ordinance amending the budget to include the additional $30,000 in the City Manager's budget as outlined in the staff memo. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan reported that he attended the US 33 Corridor Executive Committee meeting last week. There was an excellent presentation done by MSI Consultants. The Committee decided to explore the benefits of establishing an accord for the participants in the US 33 Corridor group. Ms. Salay: 1. Reported she was recently contacted by some school parents who are forming a group called, "PERC" -Parents Encouraging Responsible Choices. The purpose of the group is to open a dialogue between Dublin parents on issues related to their RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mint~te~ of ~ _ C7tq-C-varrcit Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 17 Held 20 children, specifically on raising children who are free of alcohol and drug abuse. This is an outreach of the Healthy Community/Healthy Youth initiative. A town hall meeting is scheduled on Monday, April 24 at the DCRC for the Dublin community to kick off the program locally. They are requesting a resolution of support from Council for the local initiative. They would also appreciate the assistance of the City Community Relations Division with publicity for the town hall meeting and space at the City's website to promote the town hall meeting and the future bimonthly meetings. She noted that the school drug and alcohol counselors are serving as point persons for the town hall meeting although this is not aschool-sponsored effort. She inquired what type of assistance Community Relations could provide. Ms. Brautigam responded that currently there are two to three City staff members involved with the Healthy Community initiative. She will speak with them and with Ms. Puskarcik regarding how the City can be of help. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the City's policy regarding local groups posting promotions at the City's website. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the City website is limited to City-sponsored events; however, links to other sites are permitted. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification of what the group is seeking from Council in terms of legislation. Ms. Salay responded that they are seeking a statement indicating they have the support of the City in this endeavor. Ms. Puskarcik stated that the City's website can provide a link to PERC on the Dublin School's website. Ms. Salay stated that the intent is to involve the entire community in this effort. They will be contacting local churches as well. Mr. Reiner asked Chief Epperson about the policy or protocol for officers when making a traffic stop and issuing a citation. He was traveling on Hard Road today and a Dublin police officer had made a traffic stop and was issuing a ticket, blocking the right turn lane and backing up traffic. Is it necessary for the officer to issue the ticket in the busy roadway, or could they request the driver to pull into a nearby parking lot? If that is legal, the policy should be to do so wherever and whenever possible. Chief Epperson responded that there is no established policy. It is the discretion of the officer. Depending upon the circumstances, officers can and do ask drivers to pull off into a side street or a private driveway. At times, stopping a vehicle and then asking the driver to move can put the officer at risk. Police officers are trained to plan a stop in a safe area before making a traffic stop. Mrs. Boring: 1. Noted that she really enjoyed the State of the City address and thanked Community Relations staff for an excellent presentation. The annual report is very well done. 2. Noted that she had recently requested Ms. Puskarcik's staff's assistance in nominating Terry Lyden for the Jefferson award. Last Friday, she received notice that he has been named a finalist. Mr. Lecklider: 1. Noted that he will not be able to attend the joint Council & Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening due to a family commitment related to his daughter's 16'h birthday. 2. Reminded Council members of the board and commission candidate interviews on Wednesday evening beginning at 6 p.m. A list of suggested questions was formulated by the Administrative Committee and copies were provided to Council members. These are a good starting point for the interviews. 3. Stated that prior to the interviews, it is desirable to clarify the available number of board and commission positions open, particularly for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, he moved to appoint Council member Tom McCash as Council's representative on the Planning & Zoning Commission for atwo-year term beginning April 1, 2006. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 18 Held 20 Ms. Salay seconded the motion. There being no discussion, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the question. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, no. Mr. Keenan added that he has expressed his opinion on several occasions that a Council member should not serve as a representative on the Commission, but that all the positions should be filled by members of the community. The vote continued: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is a difficult situation. Council has discussed the issue several times. Other communities have different approaches and most do not have a Council representative on their Planning Commission. Mr. Keenan has shared his opinion several times that there may be a conflict of interest, as the Council representative has essentially a "double vote" on an issue. She has been of the opinion that it would be reasonable to try a year without a Council representative on the Commission to see how that worked. However, she hesitates to vote when Council has not had time to adequately consider the issue. Her issue is not related to Mr. McCash's appointment per se, but whether there should be a Council member representative on the Commission. Perhaps there is another model that is more effective than the one Council has been using. She asked Mr. Lecklider to provide clarification of why he would not advocate trying another model as Council has discussed. Mr. Lecklider stated the suggestion to try another model for a year is not permitted by the City Charter. The term for a Commissioner is four years. Mrs. Boring responded it was her understanding that the Charter provided that one of the Planning and Zoning Commission members may be a Council member who would serve at the pleasure of Council. Mr. Smith responded that the Charter states that, "the composition of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of seven electors of this City who shall serve over- lapping four terms..." Therefore, Mr. Lecklider is correct about the four-year term. In reference to a Council member representative, it states, "....one of which may be a Council member who shall serve at the pleasure of Council." Mr. Keenan inquired if the practice has been, historically, that Council has appointed a Council representative every two years. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that is clearly Council's discretion. Ms. Salay pointed out that her understanding is that if a citizen were appointed, it would be required to be a four-year term under the Charter. Mr. Keenan stated that the expiration of terms on the Planning Commission are staggered, so it would be possible to use one of those positions to appoint a Council Member representative in the future, if desired. Mr. Lecklider stated that under the current circumstances with relative inexperience on the Commission due to the turnover and very significant cases on the immediate horizon it is important to have a Commissioner with experience. In addition, Council has expressed several times over the last four years during interviews for board and commission members that it would be desirable to have someone with an architectural background on the Commission. Mr. McCash has extensive experience and he is an architect. There are several reasons for maintaining the status quo of having a Council Member serve on the Planning Commission. Ms. Salay stated that because communication between the two bodies is so important, she would prefer that a Council member serve on the Planning Commission. That has been the tradition in Dublin for many years. The Council representative is able to clarify the reasoning or position of one body to the other. Given the nature, growth and pace of the development that the City is faced with over the next few years, maintaining that level of communication and continuity is vital. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 19 Held Zp Mr. Keenan stated the difficulty is that the Council representative must interpret the views of six others on both sides. It is a difficult task. Ms. Salay responded that both the Commission and Council understand that and it has worked well. It is a valuable position in terms of communication. There is too much that can be "lost," as information that cannot always be derived from meeting minutes. There have been occasions when an applicant has represented a meeting discussion to Council in one way, but the Council representative was able to clarify the discussion if questions arose. Mrs. Boring stated that in the P&Z workshop conducted by Greg Dale, the topic of ex parte communications came up. Mr. Dale recommended that the Commissioners talk to no one -not to residents and not to developers, and acknowledged that a Council representative would have to "wear two entirely different hats." She expressed to him that would be difficult as the cases heard by the Commission and Council often overlap. His response was that is the exact reason most City Councils do not appoint Council Members to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Salay responded that she believes it would be a disservice to the citizenry if the Planning Commission is off limits to City Council. They should be able to express their views to one another. Mrs. Boring stated that she was surprised the motion was brought forward tonight. She had anticipated the opportunity to discuss these issues in executive session. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council has discussed this issue for several weeks, and a decision needs to be made before the board and commission interviews begin this week. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she understands Mr. Keenan's logic, however, the issue is whether Council needs to have representation on the Commission. Perhaps the communication goal is sufficient reason to continue with the practice. If Council desires to have an architect on the Commission, however, that can be accomplished with a citizen representative who has such a background. Mr. Lecklider noted that being an architect would be an ancillary benefit of Mr. McCash serving in that position. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is true, but it could also be a conflict of interest at times for Mr. McCash. Mrs. Boring suggested that Council first determine whether it will continue to have a Council representative on the Planning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it appears she needs to cast the final vote on this motion. She inquired what would occur if she were to abstain from the vote. Mr. Smith responded that nothing would change at this time, but on April 1, there would be a vacant seat on the Planning Commission. Mr. Reiner noted that Mrs. Boring indicated she had some information to discuss in executive session on this topic. He would prefer to have an opportunity to hear that information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that an executive session has not been scheduled for tonight, ,and the hour is already late. Mr. Keenan noted that the issue of whether Council should retain a representative on the Commission is an item for public discussion. Discussion about an individual would be a subject for executive session. Mr. Reiner stated he agrees with Mr. Keenan that the Council representative position should become a citizen representative. In the past, there have been Council representatives who did not accurately portray Council's views to the Planning Commission. Obviously, there are pro and cons to having a Council representative on the Commission. He would support trying a different model for two years. Discussion continued. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~ Meetin DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 20 Held Zp Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired Mr. McCash's view concerning Council representation based on the arguments for and against. Mr. McCash responded that the best time for Council to change the structure of the Planning Commission would be in two years. At that time, the City will have a new Planning Director and additional staff in place. Currently, it is critical to have a Council representative to serve as a liaison and provide communication to Council. In Worthington, a Council member serves as a representative to their Planning Commission, but it is not a voting position. In Hilliard, the Mayor serves on the Planning Commission. The Mayor does not have a vote on the Commission, but serves as a liaison between the two bodies. He believes that communication is needed among the bodies. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she supports the idea of making a change in the structure two years from now, but with the benefit of a formalized evaluation taking place during the next two years. Serving as the Council representative on the Planning Commission is a major time commitment for a Council member in addition to the significant time involved with the Council member role. The benefits of that representation should be obvious in the decision-making process and for Council. Council should identify several key points on which the process would be evaluated, and the representative should keep Council regularly apprised of their observations in those areas. In two years, Council would be able to make an informed decision on this issue. Mr. Lecklider stated that in addition to the evaluation described by the Mayor, he would prefer to have input from the public about their opinion and their expectations. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes that a Council representative should not have two votes on the same issue and that it constitutes a conflict. Mr. Lecklider inquired Mr. Smith's opinion on the ethical issue. Mr. Smith responded that there is no ethical issue. Other charter cities have structured their Planning Commissions in a similar manner. Mr. Keenan stated that to overturn a negative Planning Commission vote, it would require a super majority, or five votes of Council. If the representative has already voted a certain way, it is necessary, in essence, to obtain five of the other six votes of Council to overturn the decision. He holds to his view that it is a conflict of interest. Ms. Salay responded that she believes this issue is a personal viewpoint, not an ethical issue. She agrees with the Mayor's suggestion to have benchmarks to use in evaluating the process. She also agrees with Mr. Lecklider that the citizens' expectations should be considered. She represents a ward in which much development is occurring and the residents have frequent concerns. They support the concept of having a Council representative on the Planning Commission; it provides them some security. She believes Council should not eliminate that representation without asking the residents' opinion. Perhaps this would be a good topic for a community survey. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she will vote in favor of the motion to appoint Mr. McCash as Council's representative on the Planning Commission with the proviso that the Administrative Committee establish criteria that Mr. McCash and Council can use to evaluate the benefit of that representation. It was the consensus of Council to accept this proviso. The vote continued: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (Motion carried 4-3) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Stated that she attended a wonderful meeting today with Congressman Tiberi. Senators Voinovich and DeWine and Congresswoman Pryce also had representatives at the meeting, which was a presentation regarding the Post Road interchange. The purpose of the meeting was to apprise them of the status of the UMC project and to request federal funding. The presentation was well received. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of i-~~~_:~ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 March 6, 2006 Page 21 Held 20 Congressman Tiberi recommended that Dave Robinson, City legal staff speak with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and the State representatives. She asked about the timeframe for submitting the funding requests. Mr. Smith responded that he believes the deadline for the federal line item appropriation budget is in May. He will check on that and forward the information to Council. 2. Congratulated Community Relations staff on receiving the Expy Award. Council appreciates the many recognitions earned by the Community Relations staff on a regular basis. 3. Thanked fellow Council members and staff for the positive dialogue that occurred at Council's retreat about the future size of the City. There will be a six-month follow-up session to answer the questions that were posed. She requested that the Council Clerk tentatively schedule such afollow-up session on the Council calendar. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There being no further business, Mr. McCash moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. T e meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council