Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~s of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, June 16, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Ott, Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Phillabaum, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Earman, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Worstall, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Husak, and Ms. Fessler. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of June 2, 2008 Mr. Gerber moved to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2008 Regular Meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that there was no correspondence requiring Council action. PROCLAMATIONS/SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a proclamation to Mr. Langworthy and Mr. Combs, Land Use and Long Range Plannning declaring the week as "Community Plan Week" in the City. Mr. Combs acknowledged the work of the Planning team, particularly Justin Goodwin and Jamie Adkins. In addition, he acknowledged Michael Curtis, former Planning Assistant who did the layout for the document. The input and participation from all of the citizens throughout the process will make the Plan Dublin's for a long time to come. Mr. Langworthy thanked Mr. Combs for his work, and especially for his good humor and patience which contributed to the process and to the team. He thanked City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission for all of their efforts and support. CITIZEN COMMENTS Tom Holton, Executive Director, Leadership Dublin stated that he is representing Diane Seiple, Board President who is out of town tonight. He noted that the Shillelagh Award is a leadership award given annually by Leadership Dublin. It is presented by the previous year's recipient to a champion whose leadership has benefitted the Leadership Dublin program and the community. It was presented this year by Diane Seiple, last year's recipient to Mayor Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher. She is the 8~h recipient of the award. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher is a founding member of Leadership in 1994, and is an active participant. She has been an inspiration and a visionary for the organization, which is why she was selected. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Leadership Dublin for this honor. Paula Brooks, Franklin County Commissioner addressed Council. 1. Ms. Brooks congratulated the City on the completion of the updated Community Plan. 2. She commended Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher on the Shillelagh award, a well deserved recognition. 3. She thanked Ms. Brautigam for her leadership at the Franklin County Emergency Management Agency. On behalf of all Franklin county citizens, Ms. Brautigam has worked very hard to shepherd the Board through a difficult time. Anew Executive Director of EMA has now been selected, a Marine Corps colonel who will join EMA in a couple of weeks. She thanked Ms. Brautigam for all of her work on the EMA Board. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road continued his comments from the last meeting- He recalled that a Council Member has charged him with wasting the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Council and the citizens' time in bringing up the Kindra firing repeatedly during the Citizen Comment portion of the meetings. He reiterated that based upon the Council Rules approved by a previous Council, any citizen can discuss any topic, and there is no restriction on frequency. The Council who established this was not concerned with the consequences. If the consequences are not tolerable, there is a way of stopping this, which is by taking away the Citizen Comment opportunity at the Council meeting. It cannot be taken away selectively and it can be restored. He predicts that if it were taken away, it would become an issue on the ballot in the next election cycle. At the second October meeting of 2006, a Council Member asked the Law Director if Mr. Maurer is correct in believing the Citizen Comment portion was given out of generosity and that it can be taken away. The Law Director confirmed this is correct. The Council Member drew a curious conclusion, stating that because the motion to restrict the citizen from speaking about the Kindra firing was done in public view in a televised meeting, it is acceptable. The Law Director did not comment in response. At this point, he presumes Council does not want to restore his free speech because Council is not sure what he would do with it - specifically, with request to the firing. He leaves it to Council to either handle this by rescinding the action or he will meet the City in court. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action). Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, abstain; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7:38 p.m. LEGISLATION Page 2 Ordinance 31-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aPre-Annexation Agreement Describing the Intentions of the Parties to Annex Certain Real Property Owned by BVH Associates, Located in Perry Township. Mr. Gunderman noted that the applicant has obtained their plan approval from the state. Otherwise, most of the information from the previous hearing is still accurate. Some changes were made to the pre-annexation agreement regarding signage, landscaping, and combining the parcels into one parcel. He reviewed the new information in the packet. 1. The buildings are extremely close to the property line on both the north and south sides, and at the parking lot area. 2. The cell tower is located just inside the north property line. 3. Right-of-way of approximately 50 feet would be newly dedicated; there is some existing right-of-way that would be changed on the title. 4. He shared drawings of the changes that will take place with the development, noting that changes are outlined in red and blue. 5. Additional parking area would be added to the west side. 6. He noted that the most northerly of the support facilities for the cell tower are on the adjacent property. 7. The drawings show the changes in the elevations under the construction modifications. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the staff report indicates that limited code enforcement is possible for the landscaping due to the setback limitations. Is dumpster screening and utility box screening contained in the landscape code? Mr. Gunderman responded that these are addressed in the landscape code. They could be included as a requirement per the pre-annexation agreement. The mechanicals on one side are at the property line or beyond it, but they also have asphalt up to the edge of it on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetit~ June 16, 2008 Page 3 the other sides. Given the fact that parking spaces are located immediately adjacent, it would be difficult to remove that asphalt to allow for landscaping. Out of the seven sections of landscaping code identified, there are two that cannot be complied with effectively -perimeter landscaping and cell tower area. There are two where partial compliance is possible -the vehicle use area on the west side and in the interior landscaping, provided the applicant will agree to work with staff regarding an island area in the parking lot. In the other areas, compliance can be achieved. In regard to inch for inch tree replacement, it can be complied with, but there is a limit to the number of trees that can physically be accommodated on the western end of that property. To meet Code, they would have to pay a fee for those inches that cannot be replaced on the site. Much of this depends on whether a very large tree on the property will need to be removed. Vice Mayor Boring noted that on points 6, 7 and 8 in the agreement, is it assumed these will be done upon execution of the annexation agreement, or should a date be specified by which these will be accomplished? Mr. Gunderman responded that for item 6, there would be no practical way to address it until the parking lot is constructed. The signs could be done at any time, but construction will be required for them. The lot combination could be done at any time. Vice Mayor Boring stated that number 8 already indicates 30 days for completion. Would it be practical to state "upon completion of the addition" in regard to numbers 6 and 7? Mr. Smith suggested that the language indicate "within 30 days after completion of construction." Vice Mayor Boring noted that many times when developed properties are annexed to the City, there are concerns over grandfathering. Properties are typically brought in as a Rural zoning. What will be done with the zoning on this property after it is annexed? Mr. Smith responded that the policy has been that land annexed to the City is brought in as a Rural zoning and is then rezoned into the closest City zoning category to what exists in the township. The policy would not be changed for this land. Mr. Gunderman added that in the past couple of years, area rezonings have been done in an effort to clarify the zoning for properties that were annexed to the City before the policy was in place. Mr. Smith noted that he anticipates that a rezoning would be filed for this property once it is annexed to the City. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she had asked Ms. Grigsby about the rental income from the cell tower on this property and whether that income would be taxable. Ms. Grigsby responded that rental income is taxable for City income tax purposes. Mr. Reiner noted that with the addition of the parking area, the applicant will meet the landscaping Code to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Planning staff. He assumes that the screening will be done along the side facing Riverside Drive. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that is correct. The current parking lot and the extension are up against the south property line. The landscaping that can be done is to the west toward Riverside. Ms. Salay stated that when this is brought into a Dublin zoning category, there will be much that must be grandfathered in, as its appearance is not like a Dublin project. She is somewhat disappointed, although it is nice to bring this property into the City. She was surprised that the cell tower was found to be on this property, as Council was lead to believe otherwise. She summarized that what Dublin receives in return for this pre- annexation agreement is essentially the right-of-way. Mr. Gunderman responded that Dublin receives the right-of-way and the property is in place with water and sewer which helps long-term for other future development on this property. Vice Mayor Boring stated that her understanding is that this business cannot expand without water and sewer. Mr. Gunderman responded that no one knows precisely. The memo indicated that without City water and sewer, they would have to relocate a well and accommodate a private sewage system on the property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Mitt-utes cf Dublin City Council Meetit~ June 16, 2008 Page 4 Vice Mayor Boring stated that would be possible only with the combination of the parcels. Mr. Gunderman responded that this is regulated by the county. Vice Mayor Boring added that at the time this cell tower was built, the City was actively involved with cell tower legislation. In view of the fact that this business has long benefitted from Dublin's services, including street maintenance, it was very offensive that the cell tower was erected in the face of the cell tower regulations being developed in Dublin. Mike Close, representing the applicant stated the following: 1. In terms of sewage systems, the county does not insist on combining the lots where there is commonality of ownership. However, the applicant does not have an issue with combining the lots. 2. He apologized for his statement about the cell tower not being located on this property. He had reviewed the survey for the Thomas property and inferred the cell tower was also on the Thomas property. He spoke with the surveyor after the last meeting and corrected that information. 3. In addition to the right-of-way the City will obtain, there are 60 employees in this location which will generate income tax revenues. The principals for this project are present tonight. 4. The applicant has discussed the dumpster screening with staff. They will discuss landscaping as requested with City staff and will do their best to "Dublinize" this property. 5. In terms of the timing, the annexation process and construction process will likely take about the same time. With Council's support of this tonight, they will break ground in 30 days and will simultaneously begin the annexation process. He expects the entire project to be completed within five to six months. 6. In regard to zoning, this matter has not been discussed. The reality is that for developed land being brought in, a rezoning is done as a matter of course, at which time it becomes anon-conforming use. They will continue to work with staff on this to identify the appropriate zoning category, as a Rural zoning will not work and cannot be complied with. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that on page 2 of the annexation agreement, item 6, under "Landscaping" -the sentence reads, "BVH agrees to bring the property into compliance with the Dublin landscaping code to the extent possible and to the satisfaction of the Planning staff." Does the application of the phrase "to the extent possible" involve any kind of compromising of the application of the landscape code up to this point and/or does it create any undesirable precedence? Mr. Gunderman responded he is not aware of any undesirable precedence. Any effort that moves the project closer to compliance with the landscape code is a positive thing. As he indicated, there are several areas of the landscape code that cannot be complied with in total or in part. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher urged the applicants to comply with the landscape code as much as possible in keeping with the remainder of Dublin. SECOND READINGIPUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 36-08 Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam noted there are no changes since the first reading. Mr. Reiner moved to treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~s~f Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 5 Ordinance 37-08 Rezoning Approximately 16.17 Acres, Located on the East Side of Emerald Parkway at Intersection of Innovation Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Tuttle North -IGS -Case No. 08-0202) Mr. Langworthy noted that Council had requested information at the northern Reserve area of the property. Included in the packet is a memo from Mr. McDaniel regarding a paragraph in the economic development agreement that describes what will occur in that area. A bikepath connection would be made or an easement for a bikepath connection would be provided. The City would provide funding for the construction and maintenance of a footbridge, bikepath and other park-like amenities, similar to a park within the area of the easement. There were no further questions from Council Members. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that on page 1 of the memo, in the four recommendations, the last recommendation is preceded by the word "that" and the first three are not. Is there something special about the last recommendation? Ms. Brautigam stated there was no intent to make this one stand out by using the word "that." Mr. Maurer asked if the expansion of IGS is a result in recent years of the increasing aggregation of customers from Dublin and surrounding suburbs and municipalities. Ms. Brautigam responded affirmatively. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 38-08 Rezoning Approximately 0.7 Acres, Located at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Bridge Street and High Street, to Amend a Previously Approved PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Bridge & High Streets Development -Case No. 08-0342) Mr. Phillabaum noted that there have been no changes since the first reading on June 2. Ms. Salay asked about the proposed basement additions to the project, and where the functions were to have been located absent the basements. Mr. Phillabaum responded that portions of the mechanicals would have been on the roof or in the crawl space. The newly created space was not anticipated at the outset of the project. Ms. Salay asked by what method the basements will be excavated. Mr. Phillabaum responded that blasting will be prohibited in this location, due to the age and proximity of surrounding structures. He understands it will be excavated with rock hammer, saw cut and taken out in a manual fashion. Ms. Salay asked if this will add considerable time to the construction. Mo Dioun, Stonehenge Company, 147 N. High, Gahanna stated that this modification will add some time to the construction. They will try to coordinate some of the excavation activity with the infrastructure work in the public areas in order to minimize time impact on the project schedule. Ms. Salay asked if the City will participate in the inspections of the surrounding buildings referenced in the staff report. Mr. Dioun responded it will be a joint effort. Similar inspections will be done for part of the infrastructure, including the overhead utility lines. They will collaborate with the City on these inspections. Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that they will perform inspections, take photos and produce reports on the affected properties surrounding the area. Mr. Dioun responded that is correct. They will identify the properties in the vicinity and will videotape and take digital photos of both the interior and exterior of the properties to the extent the owners will allow it. Mr. Reiner commented that he spoke with the City staff in Gahanna regarding the project done at Creekside by Mr. Dioun. They indicated he went above and beyond in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council M~tint June 16, 2008 Page 6 architectural detailing to make the project very nice. This brings to mind the steps and the finish materials for them. Limestone had been discussed previously. Mr. Dioun responded that he cannot commit to limestone, but they have every intention of having a consistent level of material applications used to make this project fit well in the Historic District. The project will be exemplary. Currently, the steps are defined as being concrete. He predicts they may be limestone, but he cannot commit to that. Mr. Keenan commented that he had the opportunity recently to visit Creekside which is very well done. He is aware that there are some areas where Stonehenge went above and beyond the original scope to add to the design and materials. He is looking forward to the Dublin project. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road noted that when Council had a discussion on the general analysis of the Stonehenge project, he had a question about the green standards to which Stonehenge might have been held. He was asked at that time to hold this question until Mr. Dioun could address it. His question remains of whether the project will be held to any such standards. Mr. Dioun responded that is not part of the architectural specifications at this time. If there is an opportunity in the project scope, both in terms of design and the financial aspects, to incorporate these standards, they would do so. There is not a specific plan at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 39-08 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Locating and Expanding Manning & Napier Advisors, Inc. and its Operations and Workforce in the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. McDaniel introduced David Royer, the Midwest Regional Vice President and an equity owner of the firm. He is also a 20-year Dublin resident. He congratulated him on bringing this business into Dublin. Mr. Royer thanked Council for the incentives and noted they are excited about the move. The Metro Center provides better access for their clientele, and is closer to restaurants and banquet facilities. They have 28 employees working from this office and have been at one location in Columbus for 24 years. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher welcomed the company to Dublin and noted Council looks forward to their participation in the community activities. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 40-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amended Development Agreement with the Stonehenge Company for the Bridge and High Development. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Ott stated that this amendment provides for the addition of 10,500 square feet sub grade in basement space for support services to the building. It includes a good faith statement about the Stonehenge Company and the City of Dublin working together on the placement of the water wall mechanicals. The design is not yet far enough along to understand details of how this will be accommodated in the space. Staff will be requesting emergency passage at the second reading in order to expedite the construction process for the project. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the July 1 Council meeting Ordinance 41-08 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 7 Amending Chapter 37 ("Contracting and Competitive Bidding") of the Dublin Codified Ordinances to Include Reverse Auction as a Method of Competitive Bidding. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is requesting this change to accommodate the reverse auctions that the City has had much success with. She offered to have staff respond to any questions. Mr. Keenan asked who will determine when this process would be used. Ms. Grigsby responded that the discussion at staff level indicates that some small items would be handled in this way to assess how well this works. Staff may use this for the salt bids, as there is a lot of comparative information available. It may also be implemented for some of the larger vehicles for which the state contract would be the highest dollar amount accepted. Before doing contracts for construction or other items, staff would bring information back to Council about the process and how it has worked to date. Mr. Keenan asked if staff foresees any potential for compromising bids on larger construction-type projects. He can understand using this for rock salt or vehicles, but believes it would be more complicated for other projects. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff would do additional research on this, but other cities who have implemented this process have not had problems. It works much the same as a formal bidding process, and in most cases results in lower bids, according to others staff has contacted. The legislation would provide the authority to use this process in the City. Mr. Lecklider asked about Council's role in the revised process. He understands a maximum threshold amount the City would be willing to pay is established. Does that then come back to Council? Ms. Grigsby responded that the process is set up so that once the best bid is received, staff has the ability to award that contract. If there are certain types of contracts, such as construction, where Council prefers this process not be used, staff will not do so. Initially, the process would be used for supply type items such as salt and vehicles. These items are fairly easy to obtain bids for and monitor before moving forward with other types of items. Mr. Lecklider noted that for salt purchases, Council has approved bids in the past. In this process, what is Council's role? Mr. Keenan asked how the threshold or maximum bid for an item is determined. Ms. Grigsby responded that research is done in the market, review of other competitive bid processes, Dublin's past bids, in order to determine the threshold where the bidding process would begin. Salt bids typically are initiated in the month of August. With this process, competitive quotes would be obtained from the suppliers online. The difference would be that City staff would award the contract to that company versus bringing this to Council, identifying it as the lowest/best bid and Council awarding it. Mr. Lecklider stated that prior to using this process, would staff envision a presentation to Council with respect to the thresholds? This is a change, obviously, to what currently takes place and he wants to be comfortable with it. Ms. Grigsby responded that it is similar to the online auction, where items are sold by the City in that it is used in the reverse to purchase items based on quotes from suppliers online. If Council prefers ,staff can bring information to Council in advance of the first time the process is used and can follow up once quotes are received. Mr. Keenan asked how many bidders the City would anticipate for an average process. Ms. Grigsby stated that other communities indicate they have had more bids and from a wider range. For vehicles, it is likely additional bids would come in, and the state term would be used as a cap. If the bids are not less than state term, the City would purchase the trucks through state term process. Mr. Keenan stated that this process could open up the opportunity for collusion with bidders talking with one another versus a sealed bid process. Vice Mayor Boring asked how the legitimacy of a bidder can be verified from an online process. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 8 Ms. Grigsby stated that for salt, there are only a few suppliers. The individuals at the online auction have knowledge of many bidders and information to share. At staff level, they are aware of those the City has done business with in the past who would likely continue to do business through this process. Mr. Gerber stated that the documents indicate there is apre-qualification process and that some municipalities actually charge a fee for these individuals who are interested in submitting quotes online. It seems that there are safeguards in place. Mr. Keenan asked if there are other vendors who run online auctions. Ms. Grigsby responded that there are likely others. The company identified is one that staff researched and obtained information about, including reference checks from other cities and companies who have used them. If the program is not successful with this company, staff can look at others. Mr. Keenan would be interested in seeing this process from beginning to completion for one project versus approving it for all projects. Mr. Gerber suggested this may be a good project for the Finance Committee to review. Mr. Keenan agreed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Council give permission for staff to do the salt bid with this process and report back to Council about how the threshold was established, the response received, and the outcome. Ms. Grigsby pointed out that Legal staff has advised that the Code must be amended in order to use this process. Ms. Brautigam stated that Council needs to amend the Code to allow the process, with the understanding that only the salt bid will be done with this process. After reporting back to Council about the salt bid experience, Council can give direction about using the process in the future or, if not satisfied, can repeal the ordinance. Mr. Smith responded that the ordinance could be amended at second reading to restrict the use of the process to the salt bid. Council does not seem completely comfortable with this new process, based on tonight's comments. Mr. Gerber stated that it does not make sense to approve a Code amendment, given the uncertainty Council has expressed. Mr. Smith responded that legally, this cannot be done -even on a trial basis -without amending the Code. Mr. Gerber suggested that Council amend the Code to allow this process, with the provision it only be used for the salt purchase. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is comfortable with what staff has presented and their representations of reporting back to Council. Any Council member can raise the potential for repeal at some point, if necessary. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, adding that very good records should be kept about how the threshold is established and about the entire process. There have been challenges in recent times with county decisions in regard to bidding. For this reason, it is good for the documentation to be very thorough. Mr. Keenan stated that he is somewhat reluctant to relinquish this authority without better understanding the process. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the July 1 Council meeting. Ordinance 42-08 Rezoning Approximately 5.5 Acres, Located on the South Side of West Bridge Street on the East and West Sides of Monterey Drive from: R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District and CC, Community Commercial District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District . (Waterford Commons -Case No. 07-084CP/Z). Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Ms. Husak noted that this proposal rezones 5.5 acres comprised of 10 parcels. She described the site and surrounding properties. There are existing two-family dwellings on the site and vacant land at the corner of Monterey and West Bridge. The site is relatively flat with mature trees along the perimeter and center of the site. The Dublin Cemetery is located immediately to the east. 1. The site plan includes 12,000 square feet of commercial space along Bridge Street and 25 townhome units. There is .8 acres of open space provided. 2. Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on February 7 at a work session and a revised plan at the May 15 meeting. They recommended approval to City Council at that time. 3. She described the proposal in the context of the Historic District Area Plan. 4. There are three subareas proposed and the development text and preliminary development plan provide an explanation of the uses and basic development standards for each of the subareas. 5. Subarea A is the largest and accommodates 25 townhome units on 3.7 acres. There are nine proposed on the east side of Monterey and 16 on the west side of Monterey. It is one unit less than what was proposed at the February 7 work session. 6. Subarea B has frontage along West Bridge and includes approximately 1.3 acres. The preliminary development plan indicates a 12,000 square foot commercial building oriented toward West Bridge Street to the north. There is parking to the east and to the south of that subarea. 7. Subarea C is a .5 acre site immediately adjacent to the cemetery. The development text permits this area to be used as either open space or an expansion of the current Dublin Cemetery. 8. She shared a site plan with more details. The townhome units are all accessed by rear-loaded garages which are served by an internal access drive. There is access to those drives from Monterey and also to the north from Subarea B. 9. There are internal pedestrian paths included in this proposal and there are sidewalks currently existing on both Monterey and West Bridge. There is a pedestrian connection proposed to a path to the south that exists within Monterey Park. 10. The Commission had some concerns about pedestrian connectivity to the north and there is a condition 13 that would enable a pedestrian path to the north if that site were developed. The location of that would be determined as part of the development for the parcel to the north. 11. For the Subarea B, there are three access points proposed: full access from Monterey Drive; a right in only from West Bridge; and limited access to the south to Subarea A. The plan shows a gate that will restrict access for all but emergency vehicles or residents of that subarea. 12. In order to address Condition 9 from P&Z, the applicant has included in the development text additional information about the gate, the maintenance and the working order, and the 24/7 controlled access. 13. The development text permits uses in the CC and Neighborhood Commercial of the zoning code. It was also amended to include the Historic District permitted uses. Based on discussion at P&Z, all restaurants, taverns, lounges, dance halls and patios require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. 14. The proposal for Subarea B also includes 3,000 square feet of patio space. Some of these are located in the right-of-way, which will require encroachment . approval from City Council. 15. Parking for the subarea is provided as one space per 200 square feet of building. Excluding the patios, this would provide 60 spaces for this development. The plan can accommodate 70. One space was removed in the northeastern corner, based on a condition from P&Z. The dumpster location was changed as well. 16. The preliminary development plan includes fairly detailed architectural elevations for both the residential and commercial subareas. The primary building materials are brick, stone and siding. The colors proposed are generally muted to match what exists in the Waterford Village neighborhood to the south. 17. The Commission also had concerns about how the garages and sides of the units will appear and asked that the applicant pay particular attention to that at the final development plan stage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minut~s~f Dublin City Council Me~Tin~_ June 16, 2008 Page 10 18. There are privacy fences proposed between the garages and the main building to enclose the patio areas located within them. 19. The Commission also had concerns about the garage elevations and breaking them up. The applicant has proposed cupolas and more decorative garage doors to make them more interesting. 20. She shared views/renderings of what the buildings could look like. The applicant also included some relief in the roof lines in response to a request at the work session. 21. For the commercial architecture, the development text requires a building that appears to be two-story, with architecture reminiscent of the Historic District. The commercial elevations maintain the two-story appearance for the majority of the building. They include varied roof lines and differing materials. There are building materials on all sides repeated as well as the fenestration. Planning has reviewed this proposal based on the review criteria for the rezoning/preliminary development plan. In staff's opinion, almost all of the criteria can be met with conditions. The open space requirement has been met, and it is consistent with the land use principles and the Historic Dublin Area Plan. Planning and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval with the 18 conditions summarized in the materials. Many of the conditions have been satisfied, while the remaining ones will be monitored at either the building permitting stage or final development plan stage. Mr. Reiner asked why the applicant did not do a full two-story building. Ms. Husak responded that the main concern is the parking. There was initially 16,000 square feet proposed. Having enough parking on the site was a main concern and resulted in reduction of the square footage. Mr. Reiner commented regarding the residential component. The scale of the porches is well done in relationship to the structures. He is hopeful that the staff will ensure that on the elevations done by the architect. Ms. Husak noted that the Commission had an additional concern regarding decorative front doors and the desire to have a variety versus repetitive doors. Mr. Reiner commented that staff should ensure that the scale does not shrink on these important features. Ms. Salay asked why the Planning Commission wanted restaurants to be a conditional use for this project. Ms. Husak responded that the initial discussion focused on parking. The rate of parking is somewhat less than Code typically requires. By making them a conditional use, it would trigger an automatic review of valet options or alternative parking options. The language used is straight from the Code. Another discussion also related to noise levels or odors that could result from restaurant uses. Ms. Salay noted that both vinyl siding and hardiplank are options. Is the developer resistant to keeping this as only hardiplank? The costs of higher grade vinyl are very comparable to hardiplank. Ms. Husak stated that staff has encouraged the applicant to use the higher quality, thicker vinyl products. Ms. Salay added that the vinyl option is in the text, but she would prefer to limit this to hardiplank. Ms. Salay asked about the bio-retention basin and its appearance. It appears as a nice perennial bed, and she is not certain how that will work with the retention basin. Is it a depressed area? Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. This is an educational process for staff as well, and will be considered with the final development plan. Staff can provide additional information at the second reading. Ms. Salay responded that photos would be very helpful for the bio-retention basin. Ms. Salay requested that staff be prepared to address the signal at Monterey Drive at the next hearing. There is a fair amount of support of that concept in the neighborhood, but she is also aware the signals can draw traffic as well. She is interested in the traffic impacts of that in view of the commercial areas that surround Waterford Village. Perhaps discussion of some potential future plans for 161 and Bridge Street throughout the entire RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 11 area -from Frantz Road east through the Historic District -could take place. She is interested in learning how all of that will work together in the District. Mr. Keenan noted that he is interested in information about the spacing issues regarding traffic signals -the one at Kroger and at the school. It appears to be very close. He assumes a warrant would be required to install a signal at Monterey. He would like information about the traffic numbers in that area. Most importantly, he is interested in how signal spacing information for signals and how it would impact traffic along the corridor, especially with the school zone. Ms. Husak responded that Planning will work with Engineering to provide additional information on these matters. Mr. Gerber stated that he agrees with Ms. Salay in the desire to better understand how all of that traffic will flow. A little further to the east are shops where pedestrian crossings for 161 have been requested. As more mass comes to Historic Dublin, the traffic -both vehicular and pedestrian -will have to be closely monitored. In addition, will this project result in additional cemetery space? Ms. Husak responded that the Law Director can respond to this. Mr. Smith stated that a land exchange proposal will be brought to Council on July 1St as previously discussed. The City will obtain land to add on to the cemetery or to keep as green space in exchange for the commercial land, with monies owed to the City. A first reading will take place of this legislation on July 1St Ben Hale attorney and Linda MeneN, EMH&T, representing the applicant came forward to testify. Mr. Hale noted that at the next meeting, they will bring their traffic engineer. They did a traffic study, and the signal will be warranted once this project is built. At the previous meetings, the neighborhoods have been strongly supportive of the signal. He commented as follows: 1. The City owns part of this land and the commercial portion of the project cannot move forward unless Council agrees to do the land exchange. 2. He noted that infill sites are challenging, in terms of providing buyers with desirable units, while addressing issues such as stormwater. The engineer can attend the public hearing, if Council desires, to provide information about some of the innovations they are implementing with this project. Edward Feher, Glavin Feher Architects, 2 Miranova Place, Columbus explained that in developing the architecture, they have studied the scale of buildings in the Historic District and the Waterford area, taken the scale of those buildings, breaking down multiple unit buildings as much a possible, and breaking the facades down to appear as individual townhomes. A lot of attention is paid to front entries to each townhome, making them a little different, yet with unity across the project. Muted earth tones will be used, predominately brick and stone on the facades. The roof lines are staggered. For the commercial building, they struggled with what the market can bear and what the site can park. There may be some retailers who can use a loft space. They looked closely at Town Center I, which has a nice scale. They are using the same eave heights and some of the same window elevation head heights to carry that look further to the west. Mr. Reiner stated that the explanation of parking suffices for him. There has been discussion of town centers with residential units above, and that is why he raised this issue. He was somewhat surprised that the elevations were shrunk. They have done a nice job with breaking up the roof lines for the rest of the units. Mr. Lecklider stated that he not per se opposed to the use of vinyl. It was allowed in some portions of Ballantrae, and his recollection is that the result was a similar appearance to hardiplank. In reviewing the text where it indicates vinyl is allowed, there does not seem to be a percentage limitation. What assurance can be given that the result will not be a predominantly vinyl project? Mr. Hale responded that they could devise some language to address this by the final hearing. Council Members were in agreement with this request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miat~es of Dublin City Council Meeting. June 16, 2008 Page 12 Mr. Reiner asked if the stone would be limestone or applied stone. Mr. Feher responded it would include both. Mr. Reiner asked about the bio-detention system. Will the down spouts from all the units and the hard surface areas drain into this system? Ms. Menery, EMH&T stated that the alley is actually permeable pavers. There is storage underneath. Into the rear permeable pavement will be taken the downspouts, lawn and sidewalk, all of which will drain into the bio-basin. It is a relatively new concept, and is a scaled-down version from the one being built in Tartan. There is an amended soil installed, and the stormwater is retained in that storage area for 24 hours and dissipates. There is a detailed landscape plan provided. It is intended to appear as an English garden, which will serve as the centerpiece of this development. Mr. Reiner asked if the grades will be set so that the permeable pavers sheet in a certain direction in order to have aback-up in the case of malfunctions of the system. Ms. Menery responded that this is a more detailed question for the engineer who will be present at the next hearing. Mr. Reiner stated that the Engineering indicates that this relatively contained flower bed will be able to hold the drainage. Ms. Menery responded that they will hold the drainage from the front yards. The back area will hold the other drainage. Mr. Reiner suggested that they check the plant list to determine if they can retain this volume of moisture. Ms. Menery agreed that more work is needed on these elements. Mr. Lecklider asked how the text ensures diversity in terms of exterior materials. What will happen if all the buyers want brick or all stone? Mr. Hale responded that they talked extensively at the Planning Commission about the exteriors. This discussion will continue at the final development plan stage. They will have building detail at the final development plan, and buyers will not have choices in exteriors. They will only have options for the interiors. These will be very nice units, and with options will bring the price point to $400,000 and up. They will provide detail on percentages of brick and stone. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that this is a very exciting project and an area which is in need of a new entry. She is certain that the Waterford area, the Schools and Historic Dublin will be delighted with this entrance area. She suggested that the applicant work with staff to address the issues raised tonight prior to the second reading on July 1. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the July 1St Council meeting. Ordinance 43-08 Rezoning Approximately 1.48 Acres Located on the North Side of Cromdale Drive, Approximately 500 Feet West of Memorial Drive to Amend a Previously Approved PUD, Planned Unit Development. (Dublin Learning Academy -Case No. 08-029Z/FDP) Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy stated this is a proposed development for the Dublin Learning Academy, located just north of Memorial Drive with access from Cromdale Drive. 1. Two phases of the previously approved development of four phases have been constructed. 2. The purpose of the rezoning is to add daycare as a permitted use and to approve the construction of a playground of 3,600 square feet. 3. The playground equipment colors as indicated in the text will be browns and greens, which is generally what is required in Dublin. 4. Portions of the proposed fencing connect to an existing stone wall, as shown on the slides. The fence is four feet in height of wrought iron with black matte finish. 5. The criteria for the rezoning and preliminary development plan have all been met with one condition requested, that an access easement be provided for the vacant parcel to the east. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the distance of the playground to Memorial Drive. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 13 Mr. Langworthy responded that there is substantial mounding separating the playground from the roadway. The playground is not located along the existing roadways. Mr. Keenan noted that the memo indicates the development is 500 feet east of the intersection of Memorial and Muirfield Drives. It is actually north and west, correct? Mr. Langworthy concurred. this development. Mr. Langworthy responded there are not. playground. Mr. Reiner asked if there will be any changes to the exterior of the existing building with They will utilize what is existing and add a Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this development was required to have Design Review Board approval from Muirfield Association. Mr. Langworthy responded that the applicant received approval from the Design Review Board of Muirfield. Vice Mayor Boring asked if the Board has established color palettes for playground equipment. If so, the playground equipment colors are mandated by Muirfield, not by the City. Mr. Reiner stated that is correct. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the July 1 S` Council meeting. Ordinance 44-OS Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to 7001 Post Road, LLC for the Purposes of Establishing an Entrepreneurial Center at 7003 Post Road and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff recommends passage of this Ordinance. The staff report addressed several items: 1. A report from TechColumbus was included, outlining TechStart activities relative to the business creation component of the economic development efforts. 2. This economic development agreement is presented for consideration in order to establish a Center for Entrepreneurship at the 7003 Post Road building. 3. The TechColumbus report in the packet was written by Rick Coplin of the Dublin TechStart office. He will be at the July 15` meeting. He is the designated TechColumbus representative for Dublin. His report outlines activities conducted and planned, and highlights some of the successes. 4. Currently, there are 19 Dublin-based businesses engaged with TechColumbus for various levels of service, including business plan development, market assessment and/or access to grants and capital. These businesses represent 45 full-time and seven part-time employees. 5. Two of these companies are competing in the current round of regional commercialization funds to receive up to $5,000 each of investment. A third Dublin-based company was permitted to present to this committee for this round of funding, but is not being considered at this time. 6. One company received $50,000 in Tech Genesis funding in late 2007. Two companies have received funding for Ohio IT Alliance Consulting, valued at $5- 6,000. 7. TechColumbus assisted LSP Technologies, aDublin-based company in obtaining a $350,000 grant from the Ohio Research Commercialization Grant Program. 8. Depending upon the outcomes, these 19 start-up businesses could secure between $600-800,000 of funding. Given the success and momentum behind the business creation and TechStart efforts, staff is recommending an initiative somewhat similar to what was explored last year. Last year, the merits of a business incubator were discussed with Council. Instead, staff is recommending Ordinance 44-08, which authorizes an economic development agreement with the 7001 Post Road LLC. If authorized by Council, this agreement would enable establishment of a Center for Entrepreneurship within the Central Ohio Innovation Center. This type of service was recommended by the consultant as an anchor that should be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetintr DAYT N EOAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. ~0~ .o _ _ _ June 16, 2008 Page 14 Held 20 included in the COIC. This agreement is a first step toward establishing this anchor. The location for this center would be in the 7003 Post Road building. TechColumbus last week signed a lease and would establish its local Dublin office in that building. The economic development agreement will enable the City to secure space in which to create a local point of entrepreneurial activity within the COIC. It would become a dynamic hub of activity where new entrepreneurial companies and/or individuals can find assistance through TechColumbus, the Small Business Development Council, and other similar organizations. If approved, the proposed agreement will provide two offices, a large training room, access to a large area to host networking and future TechStart events, and the right to reference the entire building as the Center for Entrepreneurship or a similar name. The 7003 Building has already become somewhat of a magnet for entrepreneurial start-up companies. These companies are in addition to the 19 previously mentioned. Currently, there are five such companies located there and others who have expressed interest. The owner of the building has agreed to lease office space by the room or small suite. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. McDaniel to summarize the financial incentives being provided by the City. Mr. McDaniel clarified that they total $105,000 - $45,000 in year one, and $30,000 in years two and three. Mr. Reiner asked if this facility will be available to the entire region. Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively. It will be a base for service. The effort by TechColumbus is focused on Dublin. Rick Coplin is also working on behalf of the other counties assigned to him, but is primarily focused on Dublin. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that the Dublin facility would provide services to other areas in addition to Dublin. Mr. McDaniel confirmed that is correct. Mr. Reiner stated that his understanding is that this would serve any entrepreneurial businesses, not just technology focused ones. A person with a business idea could use the services provided by the center. Mr. McDaniel responded that it is not limited to technology start-up - it provides a broader support. The SBCD has agreed to have hours at the center as well. Having a local presence full-time where a person can access these services is the value of the center. Mr. Keenan noted that this agreement involves the property at 7003 Post Road, correct? Who comprises the 7001 Post Road LLC? Mr. McDaniel responded that the two buildings are owned by Buckeye Check Cashing. This is an LLC established within their corporation. Mr. Keenan asked for verification that both 7001 and 7003 are under the 7001 Post Road LLC. Mr. McDaniel responded that he is not certain of that. The 7003 building is under the 7001 Post Road LLC. Mr. Keenan stated that it appears that the 7001 Post Road LLC would receive some benefits of this as well. Mr. McDaniel clarified that it is the 7003 Post building that relates to this. Mr. Keenan noted that the EDA language indicates that, "The City will cause the existing Sonnet Ring conduit architecture between the 7001 and 7003 Post Road buildings to be repaired and restored." Mr. McDaniel stated that is correct, but the real beneficiary of that repair is the 7003 Building. Mr. Keenan explained that he asks the question because the City is purchasing land from the same entity for the interchange. He asked for confirmation that the majority of the improvements are to benefit the 7003 building. Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively. He added that the building has been empty for four years, as it is somewhat removed from the community in location and has some challenges in technology. Until the road improvements are done in the area, the fiber is available and upgrading of infrastructure completed, this is a good interim opportunity. The other improvements will not be completed for two to three years. Mr. Keenan asked if UMC Partners was housed in these buildings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page Mr. McDaniel responded that they were housed in the 4`h floor of the 7003 building. One of their start-up companies remains in this location. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the July 1S` Council meeting. INTRODUCTIONlPUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 38-08 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Liggett Road Realignment Project. Vice Mayor Boring introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that a favorable bid was received for this project. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this project represents the first construction project associated with the improvement of the US 33/State Route 161/Post Road interchange. It consists of construction of 1,000 feet of two-lane asphalt roadway, which would relocate existing Liggett Road. [He identified the location on a slide.] Four bids were received. The engineer's estimate was $300,000 and the lowest best bid received was from Strawser Paving in the amount of $285,390.80. The City has past favorable experience with Strawser, most recently in the 2007 Street Maintenance Program. Staff recommends acceptance of their bid. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Resolution 39-08 Intent to Appropriate a 0.010 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.075 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a 0.022 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Ronald E. and Gloria I. DeWolf, Located on the Southwest Corner of Memorial Drive and Industrial Parkway, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 40-08 Intent to Appropriate a 0.003 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.025 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a 0.022 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from the Asman Land Co. Ltd., Located West of Industrial Parkway and North of State Route 161, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 41-08 Intent to Appropriate 1.85 Net Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest with Present Road Occupying 1.115 Acres, More or Less, a 0.886 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a 0.021 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Pewamo, Ltd., Located South of State Route 161, City of Dublin, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 42-08 Intent to Appropriate a 0.054 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.049 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a 0.446 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from 7001 Post Road LLC, Located on Post Road, West of State Route 33, City of Dublin, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 43-08 Intent to Appropriate a 0.008 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.131 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a 0.446 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from 6969 Industrial Parkway LLC, Located North of State Route 161 and West of Industrial Parkway, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 44-08 Intent to Appropriate a Combined 0.712 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a Combined 0.5849 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a Combined 0.052 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from the Hawkins Family RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Nage 1 Partnership, Located North of Post Road and West of Hyland-Croy Road, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to introduce Resolutions 39-08 through 44-08, and to waive the Council Rules of Order, asking the Clerk to read the names of the property owners into the record. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mr. Smith stated that these resolutions relate to acquisitions for the US33/SR161/Post Road interchange project. Discussion is ongoing with the property owners, but staff is recommending initiation of the process. At the next meeting, staff will provide a status report on the land acquisitions needed for the project. Following these resolutions of intent, appropriation ordinances would be brought forward at a future meeting. Vote on Resolutions 39-08 through 44-08: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber; Lecklider, yes. Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Resolution 45-08 Acknowledging the "Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and VFW Ladies Auxiliary Week" in the City of Dublin, Ohio, Welcoming Members of Both Groups to the 88tH VFW State Convention Being Held in the City of Dublin, Ohio and Waiving the Requirements of Section 132.03 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that in order to have a 21-gun salute in the City, there is need to waive the requirements of the Code. The VFW and Ladies Auxiliary wish to have such a salute on June 28 in conjunction with their convention. Staff believes that they will conform with the requirements of the resolution and is recommending passage. Vice Mayor Boring asked for information about the law which relates to a 21-gun salute. Ms. Brautigam responded that discharging firearms is prohibited in the City. This group will be discharging firearms, but will be using blanks. Vice Mayor Boring noted that for various ceremonial functions and funerals in the Dublin cemetery, she recalls that firearms were discharged, but no approval was needed from Council. Ms. Brautigam responded that apparently this group is aware of the law and approached staff for this permission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that similar permission should then be obtained for the Memorial Day parade, as a similar gun salute takes place. Ms. Ott commented that the City is not involved in or sanctioning this event - it is a private event being held in the community. For this reason, the issue was brought up and the legislation was drafted by staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that the Memorial Day parade is not a City- sponsored event. Mr. Reiner noted that the 21-gun salute is to take place at 10:30 p.m. which will violate the City's noise ordinance. Ms. Ott responded that the VFW had originally requested a midnight 21-gun salute, but they compromised with a 10:30 p.m. timing. Mr. Smith stated that staff could provide a memo to Council regarding future exclusion of these types of activities from the provisions of the firearms law. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that in the memo, last paragraph, it states that, "The purpose of the memorial ceremony is to honor all of the veterans who have never been recovered and to provide closure to their families and loved ones." He pointed out that such `closure' never comes to families and loved ones who have had relatives who have never been recovered, and there is no surer way of awakening the horror of body annihilation and the hellfire of war than by the detonation of rounds of gunfire. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council June 16, 2008 Held 20 Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER • Tree Replacement Fee Waiver Request -Nicklaus Estates at Muirfield Village II (Muirfield Village Phase 46) Mr. Langworthy that the request is for a tree waiver as outlined in the staff report. There are 64 total trees identified, totaling 701 inches that are non-landmark trees to be removed. Per the ordinance, 701 inches or 280 2-1/2 inch trees would be required for replacement. At $100 per inch, that would total $70,100 without the waiver. With a waiver, the tree replacement would be at 160 inches for 64 2-1/2 inch trees or $16,000 or a combination thereof. The request from the applicant is that the tree waiver be considered as described. Brief discussion followed about how the calculations are done under the ordinance and adopted policy. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if the request meets the standard past minimum requirements. Council Members responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked for clarification. In order to construct the street, this waiver is required. Each individual home site could have additional waiver requests brought forward. Mr. Langworthy responded that the waiver relates to the street installation. The individual lots will be dealt with as needed in the future. Mr. Reiner moved approval. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Amended Final Plat -Oak Park (Case No. 07-001 FDP/FP) Mr. Langworthy reported this is a minor plat amendment for Oak Park residential, located along Hyland-Croy and Mitchell Dewitt. Lots 9 and 10 are the subject of the amendment. The amendment is needed because the plat was originally submitted at 115 feet of depth instead of the required 125 feet minimum in the development text. There was a drafting error in the original plat that was later discovered. The proposed amendment will even out the back of the lots to make them 130 feet in depth. When this was revised, it was determined that a number of trees, partially on lot 9 and partially on lot 10 would need protection and therefore a no disturb zone of 15 feet has been imposed on those lots. The purpose of the amendment is to make these minor adjustments in the lot dimensions. The final plat criteria have been met and staff recommends approval. Mr. Keenan moved approval. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Final Plat -Wyandotte Woods, Section 6 (Case No. 06-109FDP/FP) Lenell Sniechowski, Stantec Consulting Services, formerly R.D. Zande, representing the applicant, Homewood Corporation stated that they are requesting approval of the final plat for Wyandotte Woods, Section 6. Mr. Langworthy stated that the plat location is north of Summitview, west of Sawmill Road. It involves 13 lots ranging from .23 to .545 acres each, as described in the staff report. The final plat criteria have all been met and Planning recommends approval. Ms. Salay move approval. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 18 Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. • Right-of-Way Encroachment -Germain Lexus (Case No. 08-010AFDP/CDD) Mr. Langworthy noted that the plan was recently reviewed by Planning & Zoning Commission for some changes. In the plan review process, aright-of-way encroachment was discovered that requires approval of City Council. The encroachment of 1.12 feet into the right of way for a distance of 14 feet results from an existing stone wall. Both Engineering and Planning have reviewed this and are recommending approval. Vice Mayor Boring noted there were some changes to parking and discussion of vehicle display at P&Z. There is an ordinance regarding the percentage of what needs to be screened for automobile dealers. Mr. Langworthy responded that this was the subject of the Commission's review. He described the changes made and noted that the Commission dealt with the issues to bring it into compliance. Vice Mayor Boring asked if the development will adhere to the City's standards in regard to the percentage of screening. Mr. Langworthy responded that they will do so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this issue has been a challenge for the City with the auto dealerships. It will therefore be important to emphasize to this dealership and all others in the City the importance of compliance and to hold them accountable, based on the aesthetic impact to the community. Vice Mayor Boring asked that staff relay to the Commission the long-standing tradition the City has in regard to displays and percentages of screening as outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Reiner moved approval. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Update re Veterans Project Mr. Hahn noted that a memo in the packet details the bid results for the Grounds of Remembrance project. Based upon the results of the bid, staff has detailed plans to explore options to secure a construction contract for this project. Staff does not have a specific recommendation tonight, but plans to present viable options at the next Council meeting. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalls that she heard there was information circulating in the potential bidding community that was said to have influenced the number of bids received. She asked Mr. Hahn to comment. Mr. Hahn responded that staff heard from a bidder that the Dodge Report, a clearing house for public bids, posted the estimated construction costs for this project at $150,000. It was obviously an error. One bidder questioned why they should prepare a bid for such a low dollar project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how this could have occurred. Mr. Hahn responded that staff does not know. To his knowledge, this has not happened previously with a Dublin project. In response to an inquiry to the Dodge Report staff, they indicated the number seemed a reasonable one to them. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff will continue to do some research and will provide a formal recommendation for Council on July 1. Mr. Hahn confirmed this is correct. Mr. Keenan asked if staff plans to submit a correction to the Dodge Reports. Mr. Hahn responded that the asphalt paving contractor who had pointed out this error further indicated that there were such a variety of trades required, none of which would be work of great magnitude, and that there was not the quantity of work for their own forces in the project. Therefore, this contractor considered the project to potentially be not worth their while at whatever price. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS June 16, 2008 Page 19 I~ Held 20 ~,- -- - Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that Mr. Melville Swanson had signed up to speak on this item, but could not stay. In response to her request, no one present indicated they could speak on his behalf. • Appointment of Acting Clerk of Council Mr. Gerber moved to appoint Ms. Beal as Acting Clerk of Council from July 2 through July 11. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. STAFF COMMENTS There were no comments from staff COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council met in study session on June 9 for a presentation from National Church Residences and the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority. At the time, specific direction was not given to staff. She moved to direct staff to continue the discussion with National Church Residences and Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority to consider site options in Dublin and to determine what is being requested of Dublin in terms of commitments -financial or otherwise. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that she requested that Ms. Grigsby check with the City of Westerville regarding their participation in the project National Church Residences built in Westerville. She learned that Westerville did not financially participate in that project. There are a variety of options of municipal participation, including not participating financially, but still moving forward with the option of housing choice that would be available to citizens living in Dublin. Mr. Keenan commented that he was very impressed with what was shared with Council at the study session. He would encourage National Church Residences to be part of this community. The quality of the projects, the materials, the finishes, and what they have done for the communities where they have located is very positive. Vice Mayor Boring commented that she and Ms. Salay met with these groups prior to the study session. What she heard in the study session was that "political will" would be needed to make this project a reality in Dublin. She believes they are looking for a commitment from Council to support them when they come forward. Mr. Gerber stated acknowledged that political will was discussed at the study session, but he believes there is a public need for this type of housing. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she is very familiar with National Church Residences. They have an excellent reputation across the country, both in terms of the product and management of their facilities and treatment of their residents. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Reiner noted: 1. The Dublin Kiwanis Frog Jump takes place this weekend on Saturday, which is always afun-filled event for families. 2. The Relay for Life will be held at Dublin Jerome High School on Saturday, June 21 beginning at 4 p.m., continuing to 10 a.m. on Sunday, June 22. This is the American Cancer Society's premier event to raise funds to fight cancer. He asked that the Community Relations staff add this to the City `s website calendar. Vice Mayor Boring pointed out that Mr. Reiner is the Honorary Chair of the Relay for Life in Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher congratulated him on this honor and thanked him for taking this leadership role. Mr. Keenan reminded everyone that the Dublin Arts Council Sundays at Scioto Park RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin.ti June 16, 2008 Page 20 concerts are now taking place at 7 p.m. on Sunday evenings. Upcoming groups include Conspiracy on June 29; British Brass Band on July 6; Magia Tropical on July 13; Bryan Olsheski & Mark Flugge Trio on July 20; and British Invasion on July 27. He encouraged everyone to attend these great community events. Ms. Salay: 1. Noted that she has now attended several Board meetings of the Dublin Arts Council and noted that they are a very positive and engaged group. Several members' terms on the Board will expire soon, but the group is actively seeking replacements that have the needed skill sets. They are thinking very strategically for the future of the Arts Council Board and the leadership. In addition, Executive Director David Guion recently received his Ph.D., which was aseven-year effort on his part. Congratulations to him on this achievement! She appreciates the hard work of the Dublin Arts Council Board and staff. 2. Reminded everyone that the Community Development Committee will meet on Monday, June 23 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss fence Code and landscaping issues. Staff will be present as well, and the interested residents have been notified of this rescheduled meeting. 3. Thanked Council for their support of the National Church Residences project. It is a real community need and something she believes is very worthwhile to investigate. She is pleased this process will continue. Mr. Lecklider thanked Mr. Hahn and staff for the updated bikepath maps distributed. It indicates there are 88 plus miles of bikepaths. He looks forward to traveling all 88 miles before the end of summer! Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Noted that the Council calendar reflects meetings of the Tax Incentive Review Council and the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council on June 18. She is aware that the reappointments need to be done, as they expire in August. In addition, there is a staff member change that needs to be reflected in the updated appointments, as the City no longer has a Director of Public Service. Ms. Brautigam noted that staff will review this and make recommendation to Council. Vice Mayor Boring asked to make certain that all of the current members have been notified of the meeting on June 18. Ms. Brautigam responded that such notification was provided by Ms. Brown to the members. 2. Congratulated Mr. Reiner on being named Honorary Chair of the Relay for Life. 3. Congratulations to Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher on receipt of the Shillelagh Award. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Reported that the enforcement of two-hour parking restrictions in Historic Dublin continues to be raised by the businesses. She asked staff for information about how this enforcement is handled at present. Ms. Ott responded that staff has not issued citations at this point, but has issued warnings to violators. The enforcement is done by both Code Enforcement officers and Police officers who are on duty in that area. They have been observing the turnaround on parking in the area and investigating the number of complaints received and who is filing them. They have been focused on one particular lot at this point. At this time, there is not a long-term strategy in place for handling the enforcement for the area, which is experiencing significant growth in patrons. Staff has discussed this in preparation for the 2009 Operating Budget. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that there are signs in place regarding the restrictions, which gives the expectation of enforcement. In the absence of it being enforced and because this was a strategy to help the businesses draw more customers, what should the businesses do at this point? If staff is suggesting that a position will need to be created, resulting in additional costs for the City, she would like to understand how the businesses would share in this cost. The parking restrictions were instituted primarily to assist the businesses in attracting customers. She does not expect an answer tonight, but would like further information from staff about this. Ms. Ott responded that the Historic Dublin Business Association plays a big role in helping RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting June 16, 2008 Page 21 He with this issue. Staff has worked with them to address this and encourages employee parking further from the businesses to allow retail customers and clients to have closer parking. This will be considered in detail as operating budget requests are prepared for Council. 2. Council continues to receive letters from residents of Amberleigh Park about the park development issues, although the CIP hearings are not scheduled until August. Does staff know what generated these letters and has a response been made? Mr. Hahn responded that he met in the past couple of months with a representative of the Amberleigh Homeowners Association and shared the five-year CIP with them. He explained that Council updates the five-year CIP each summer and that it is subject to revision each year by Council. Perhaps the resident drew the conclusion that funding could be deferred for their park development. The letters to Council are likely supporting the Amberleigh park project as currently scheduled in the CIP. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Mr. Hahn have another conversation with the representative to clarify the process. 3. Noted that again this weekend, signs for Papa John's pizza were posted all along Muirfield Drive near the condominiums across from UDF. Ms. Salay commented that she observed a small truck on Friday evening with people distributing the signs. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that there had been previous discussion of this signage. When the City removes the signs, is a formal letter sent to follow up with the commercial vendor? Ms. Brautigam responded that it depends on the individual case. There have been formal meetings held in the past with the companies. Staff will follow up with this particular company regarding the sign violations. Mr. Lecklider added that the Papa John's signs were very prolific during Memorial Tournament week and were quite obnoxious. Mr. Gerber added that this situation has continued. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that at this point, a formal meeting should be held with the local owners of Papa John's as well as those who operate the business at the Shoppes at Athenry. Vice Mayor Boring concurred. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gerber moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor l~~ring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Presiding Officer Clerk of Council