Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2009RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin` August 17, 2009 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, August 17 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Mr. Foegler, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Earman, Ms. Ott, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Thurman, Mr. Gunderman, Ms. Nardecchia, Ms. Rauch and Ms. Adkins. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of August 3, 2009 Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes, Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority - Change of Corporate Stock Ownership for D5 and D6 Liquor Permits for 3880 Hard Road, Inc., 3880 Hard Road & Patio There were no objections to this action. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS • Dublin Counseling Center Kathryn Mihelich-Helms, Director noted that, as Council is aware, she is leaving Dublin and moving to Colorado to be closer to family. She thanked Council for their support and for their recognition of the value of what the Counseling Center provides to the community. She introduced Julie Rinaldi, the new Director. Ms. Rinaldi has served as the Vice President of Network Services at the Franklin County ADAMH Board and is well poised to lead the Dublin Counseling Center forward in these challenging times. She also introduced Dr. Kathy Ritchey, a psychologist who is returning to the Counseling Center as the Clinical Director. She leaves the agency in good hands, and thanked Council again for their support. On behalf of Council, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Ms. Mihelich-Helms for her leadership, both of the agency and in the community. She welcomed Ms. Rinaldi and Dr. Ritchey to Dublin. • Dublin Teen Corps Max Pyles, 5515 Classics Court, Dublin; Suhas Gudhe, 8172 Campden Lakes Boulevard, Dublin; and Kathy Granite, 6490 Ponset, Dublin School District resident addressed Council regarding the program. It consists of high school sophomores, juniors and seniors and is in its second year. A variety of learning experiences took place with City staff, and the group engaged in volunteer service of more than 1,200 hours. In addition, they surveyed Dublin's non-profit organizations to learn whether they had youth members on their boards. This project will continue in the fall. They are now planning the 2010 Dublin Teen Corps, which will have a limited enrollment. The group will implement peer leadership by electing a Dublin Teen Corps "city council," similar to this body. In addition, a Teen Corps manager and Teen Corps clerk will be appointed. They will examine local government on a regional basis, including Franklin, Delaware and Union counties. They thanked City staff and Council for their support. They introduced the entire Teen Corps membership present at the meeting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked them for their participation and contributions to the community this summer. She encouraged them to volunteer throughout the year. CITIZEN COMMENTS David Guion, Executive Director, Dublin Arts Council noted that they received a request from Taiwan in July in regard to hosting interns who are pursuing arts administration education degrees. (He read the e-mail from Chen Ying Chen, Assistant Professor of Graduate Programs of Arts Administration at a university in Taiwan.) He introduced Chen RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeti,n~ August 17, 2009 Page 2 Held 2U Ying Chen, Landy Wang, and Fancy Jhong. He noted they will work on the art in public places bicentennial project, and the concert series. On behalf of City Council, the Mayor welcomed them to Dublin. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road relayed a recent experience in late afternoon while he was driving south on Dublin Road near the Brand Road roundabout. He encountered two Canadian geese ahead of him who, without warning, decided not to move from the roadway. After a quick review of the options, he made a moral choice to save a human live versus the geese. He heard a thunk. He came by later and saw no debris on the road. Since the time of the invention of the airplane, man has invaded the realm of flying creatures and has generally made a choice in favor of human beings and not Canadian geese. The recent jet landing on the Hudson River after the encounter with Canadian geese is an example of the continuing conflicts in the air space. A few days after the incident on Dublin Road, a formation of about 26 Canadian geese flew over his yard. As they came close to him, they made a downward movement, which he interpreted by their body language as possible retaliation! LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 41-09 Amending Sections 153.019 through 153.025 (Residential Districts) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) regarding Conditional and Permitted Uses. (Case 09-042ADM) Mr. Smith requested that Ordinances 41-09 and 42-09 be postponed until September 8 in order to clarify some language in the documents. Mr. Gerber moved to postpone Ordinance 41-09 to the September 8 Council meeting. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 42-09 -Amending Section 153.002 and Creating Section 153.099 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) regarding Outdoor Seasonal Plant Display. (Case 09-045ADM) Mr. Gerber moved to postpone Ordinance 42-09 to the September 8 Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 43-09 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Economic Development Agreement with the City of Columbus, Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Foegler noted that an overview of this legislation was provided to Council at the last reading. It provides for the addition of acreage to the exclusive water and sewer service area of Dublin. A companion piece of legislation follows, which is an agreement with the City of Columbus whereby a revenue sharing arrangement would occur, if property is annexed to the City of Dublin and economic development takes place on the property. He offered to respond to any questions. The Mayor invited public testimony. Marian Vordermark, 6834 Stillhouse Lane, Post Preserve asked if the density of this acreage will be reviewed, upon Dublin entering into this agreement -specifically, the land east of 33 and north of 161, which borders the Post Preserve neighborhood. The Post Preserve and Park Place Homeowners Association is concerned because this is a residential area and traffic could impact the neighborhood. With Columbus involved in the agreement, will a low density office park be reviewed and reconsidered? Mr. Foegler noted that, generally, the economic development agreement and part of the rationale for the City's involvement in this provides for annexation to the City of Dublin where Dublin would control all the land use decisions. Columbus would not participate in any of the land use decisions. Clearly, Dublin's goal would be to produce development in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 Page 3 accordance with the Community Plan and try to maximize compatibility with the surrounding areas. There was no further discussion Mr. Reiner moved to treat the ordinance as emergency legislation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Ordinance 44-09 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Modification of Water and Sewer Contracts with the City of Columbus, Ohio in Order to Include Approximately 277 Acres Located North of State Route 161/Post Road and West of Hyland-Croy Road in the Exclusive Dublin Expansion Area, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Foegler noted this is the companion piece of legislation to Ordinance 43-09. Ordinance 43-09 provides for revenue sharing arrangements; this piece authorizes an amendment to the current water and sewer agreements so that the 277 acres becomes part of the exclusive Dublin service area. The land is identified in the current agreement as negotiated area and not exclusive Dublin expansion area. Staff recommends approval of this legislation. Ms. Salay moved for emergency passage. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 45-09 Amending the City of Dublin Residential Building Code to Comply with State Law. Mr. Tyler reported that there are no updates regarding this ordinance. There were no further questions or comments. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 46-09 Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Union County, Ohio to Adjust the Boundary Lines of Jerome Township so as to Exclude That Territory Which, as a Result of Annexation, Now Lies within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Emergency. (Celtic Capital LLC Annexation of 39.8+/- Acres - Ordinance 08-09) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that this legislation relates to the boundary adjustment for the Stavroff piece, and was part of the pre-annexation agreement approved by Council. The applicant will pay all of the reparations due the township. He recommended that Council approve this on September 8~h. There is no necessity for emergency passage tonight. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the Tuesday, September 8 Council meeting. Ordinance 47-09 Rezoning Approximately 4.18 Acres, Located on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Shier Rings Road and Eiterman Road, from R, Rural District to HDP, High Density POD District within the future Central Ohio Innovation Center. {Case 08-1072) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Rauch stated that the application was reviewed by Planning & Zoning Commission on June 18, 2009. Staff had recommended disapproval of the application. Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the rezoning was appropriate and recommended approval to City Council. She noted the following: • The four-acre site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Shier- Rings and Eiterman Roads. It is currently undeveloped and contains atree-lined creek along the northern border with a 100-foot stream corridor zone associated with it. • The parcel is zoned Rural, as are the properties far to the east and to the north. The properties to the east and to the west of Eiterman Road are within Washington Township; to the south are parcels and properties zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential, within the Ballantrae subdivision. • The site is part of the US 33 Corridor Area Plan within the Community Plan. The site is located along the southern edge of the planned Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC). The main goal as expressed in the area plan is to enhance the area as a significant research and development center with support services. It is also seen as a prominent gateway to Dublin, incorporating high quality development and design standards. • The Community Plan designates this particular site as a high density office and research development use, which includes multi-story buildings with gross densities of 16,500 square feet per acre, and allows for commercial uses integrated as a secondary component. • The long-term vision for the COIC intends that the implementation of the Community Plan's future land use will take place over time, which is predicated on the creation of a more comprehensive and supporting development within this area. • There is currently no development proposal for this site. However, the high density POD permits uses that include research and development, technology-based uses, medical, manufacturing, educational, administrative, commercial services, accessory support and limited personal services. • With regard to site development, there are a number of constraints existing for the parcel that may limit the area for development. In addition, the corner lot requires right-of-way dedication of 100 feet for Eiterman and Shier Rings Roads. There is also the presence of the 100-foot stream corridor protection zone, which is measured from a high bank of the creek. These factors make this site more likely to have an isolated, small development -either of a commercial or small office nature. • It is Planning staff's determination that rezoning this parcel at this time would result in an isolated use that is not compatible with the surrounding residential and rural area, and does not meet the long-term vision of creating a comprehensive development. Based on this analysis, Planning staff cannot recommend approval at this time and recommends Council disapprove the rezoning application at the second reading/public hearing on September 8. She offered to respond to questions, noting that the applicant is present as well. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who is requesting rezoning of the property and for what purpose. Ms. Rauch responded that the property owner is requesting rezoning, and at this point, there is no development proposal associated with the parcel. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff's position, as she understands it, is that the hope was for property owners to come together and assemble a larger parcel for rezoning at one time. Ms. Rauch responded that the goal for the COIC is for a larger, comprehensive development to be utilized. This is the first proposal for the COIC area to date. Ms. Salay asked what design materials, height requirements and other standards would govern this site. Ms. Rauch responded that within the COIC districts in the zoning code, there are detailed standards a development proposal must meet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Salay asked if the application met those requirements, would they be granted a building permit. Ms. Rauch responded that if the site is rezoned and the applicant submits a development application that meets the requirements of the Code, they could receive a building permit. Ms. Salay asked if that is likely to occur, based upon the size of the site and what adjoins it. Ms. Rauch responded that if the requirements were met, it is possible. She does not know how likely it is to occur. Ms. Salay stated she would like more information about some scenarios that could occur. She understands and agrees with staff's recommendation for disapproval. However, she understands the landowner's position. When the City rezoned the COIC area, was it anticipated that small parcels could be proposed for rezoning in this fashion? If the City did anticipate this, what will the outcome be? There are other similar properties that could come forward, resulting in the same situation. Ms. Rauch responded that a goal of the COIC was to have supporting uses, and at this time, staff does not believe there is anything in place to support at the COIC. The timing is the main issue. Ms. Salay asked if staff would be more comfortable with a development plan being proposed for the site versus only a rezoning. Ms. Rauch responded that, ultimately, staff would like to see a comprehensive development plan for this area. The COIC's intent is for such a comprehensive plan. Ms. Salay stated that the City is not in a good position, given all of this. She asked the Law Director for input, given there will likely be more small parcels brought forward for rezoning. Mr. Smith responded that prior to the second reading, he can provide some materials from the COIC rezoning history, and some scenarios and how they could work. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked how many land owners there are in the COIC area. Ms. Rauch responded that staff can provide this information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that because the City established standards for the COIC area, there would have been some anticipation at the time that property owners could come forward individually and not collectively. At this time, a plan of action is needed in order to move forward. Mr. Keenan asked about the zoning process for the COIC and text in place. Mr. Smith responded that the text allows for a more efficient process for the COIC zonings. In addition, there are many development standards in place. The concept was to streamline the process and to include the development standards in the text in order to speed the process for a user. Ms. Salay stated that she does not recall the reasons for placing this level of density across the street from the residential area of Ballantrae. Perhaps the density could be reduced for this area, and the high density areas pushed further to the north. Mr. Langworthy responded that he and Mr. McDaniel have discussed the possibility of placing this area to the south in the low density classification, both to serve as a transition and to provide for some additional flexibility in terms of types of uses in the area. Mr. Keenan recalled a lengthy discussion regarding the property along 33, which was at one time proposed for low density. Council changed it to high density, recognizing the potential high value for development. [Mr. Langworthy pointed out the area he is addressing, which is further to the south.] Ms. Salay stated that there is adequate space in the crescent-shaped piece up to 33 to allow for step down in densities -the area along Shier-Rings could be more compatible to the residential to the south. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that at one time, there was a widened Shier-Rings Road on the plans. Mr. Langworthy agreed that is a plan for the future. There is also a road network planned to front development on the interior streets and not on Shier-Rings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetinv August 17, 2009 Page 6 Vice Mayor Boring stated that she does not support the spot rezonings, but the COIC overlay was done with the intent of facilitating development review. She is interested in hearing about how the City can manage the process, which is what staff has alluded to. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if such a plan will be available prior to the next hearing of this rezoning. Mr. Langworthy responded it will not. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that this is problematic, in view of a rezoning submitted, based upon what is in the adopted Code at this time. Mr. Foegler noted that all of the City's planning to date with regard to the COIC research park and surrounding areas has contemplated a highly master planned approach to the development. What does not exist is unified ownership and control of that park area, but rather highly fragmented ownership. Either there is an option whereby the City incentivizes the higher level of control of more real estate to master plan it, or provides for a more parcel by parcel approach integrated as best one can with the City plan. Staff will meet and discuss this in order to provide further guidance to Council at the next hearing. Mr. Reiner stated that it would also be helpful to see the potential final use of the land proposed for rezoning. In some cases, it may not be necessary to integrate the entire parcel, if what will occur on the land is known. Ms. Salay noted that once the land is rezoned, there is no further discretion for Council. Ben Hale, Jr., Smith & Hale, 37 W. Broad noted that he represents the property owner. This property owner approached the City first in 2004 for input about the appropriate uses for the land. The City staff responded that office-type uses were envisioned for the land. They waited until the planning process was completed for the COIC and then submitted their rezoning application. He spoke of the process used for Cardinal Health and for the Dublin Methodist Hospital that included key staff members and worked well. The results were exceptional. The COIC district took this process and institutionalized it. This is a PUD, with very strict standards regarding architecture, landscaping, lighting, etc. There is also a provision in the back of the COIC rezoning that includes development plan application standards and approval, which are very subjective design criteria addressing environmental issues. If the staff cannot reach agreement with the applicant, they have the right to send this to the Planning Commission. If all of the criteria and the standards can be met, the staff has an obligation to approve it. If they do not, they have the duty to send this to the Planning Commission. The low density POD is intended for very large projects. The high density POD has a limit of 30 acres of development and is for smaller projects. His calculation on this four acres is that the usable land is 2.5 acres. The owners understand the requirements and the constraints. Dublin's process does take a long time, and to be competitive in today's environment, the applicant must know upfront the rules and the time requirements. He is a strong supporter of this COIC district. In fact, he had advocated zoning the entire area versus piece by piece. The closer to the freeway and the better the access, the more valuable a property. In looking at the COIC district, the entire area south of 33 is the freeway access area and should already be zoned. It would constitute job-ready sites and would eliminate much uncertainty -giving the City an edge in the marketplace. Vice Mayor Boring stated that if the buildable area of the four acres is truly 2.5 acres, and if there are parking requirements in addition, what would the maximum height be for an office building in order to provide adequate parking? Ms. Rauch responded that it would be multiple stories, but she does not have the specific number at this time. Mr. McDaniel commented that staff has been actively engaging a number of the property owners in this area in regard to master planning and potential zoning. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 8 Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetino__ August 17, 2009 Page 7 Ordinance 48-09 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Attracting an Office of the Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition (OFCC) Within the City of Dublin's Entrepreneurial Center, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel noted that staff has been in discussion with the Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition, a member-driven organization working to make Ohio the center of the emerging global fuel cell industry. The OFCC is the largest state fuel cell association in the nation, with more than 100 members, including industry, academic, and non-profit sectors. The OFCC desires to locate in the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center. He described the various amenities available to them at the DEC, as well as the services they will provide. The ordinance would authorize an economic development agreement providing an incentive to OFCC in the form of one office within the DEC at 7003 Post Road for use by its executive director. OFCC is headquartered in Cleveland, and this would serve as their Central Ohio office. The incentive consists of $5,000 per year over atwo-year period for a total $10,000. This initiative would support the City's desire to pursue research and technology development and will add to the DEC. Staff encourages passage at the second reading/public hearing on September 8. Mr. Keenan noted there is an attachment related to fiber use, but it is not referenced in the EDA. Mr. McDaniel stated that this was not to be included in this agreement. They are not being given any fiber use with this EDA. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is another excellent opportunity, and congratulated Mr. McDaniel for his work on this. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 8 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 37-09 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) Agreements for the Purpose of Leasing Certain Dark Optical Fibers. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. McDaniel stated that for over 12 years, the City of Dublin has been a global leader as an owner and operator of its own optical fiber system. The City was one of the first to develop aright-of-way ordinance that allowed for the development of amulti-conduit bank system to be built throughout the commercial areas of Dublin. As a result, the City was able to rapidly deploy optical fiber throughout the area, resulting in significant bandwidth capability. This system has been commonly referred to as "Dublink." The City later invested $3.3 million to build out an optical fiber system within the Dublink conduit in the City of Dublin and throughout the Central Ohio area via the Columbus Fibernet (CFN) conduit system. Collectively, this is a 96 optical fiber system stretching over 120 miles. Of the 96 fibers, 45 are allocated. Eighteen are allocated to the City of Dublin and 50 fibers, or 25 pairs, are unallocated. Recently, the City has received requests to sublease the fiber. That has not been the City's practice, as fibers were allocated for institutional uses, economic development purposes and for the COIC. Now, however, there is the opportunity to allocate some of the fiber for the purpose of generating revenue for the City. Staff requests Council's authorization to allocate 12 of the remaining 50 fibers (or six of the available 25 pairs) for the purpose of leasing. That would generate revenues of approximately $216,000/year to a high of $504,000/year. A 10-year agreement for six pair of fibers could therefore generate approximately $5.4 million. Staff proposes that the fibers be leased for a monthly fee of no less than $6,000/pair, looped. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification about the City competing with other entities by entering into this business. Greq Dunn, Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn stated that the City would not be lighting the fiber and selling services on it. The City would instead lease the fiber to those who would light it. Potential lessees may be previous customers, competitors, or even carriers. Although the City would not be operating in a competitive mode, it will be `touching" upon it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 ~^ Page 8 Previously, it was essential to obtain service from a carrier. However, with the reduction in cost for electronics, it is now feasible for a business to connect into a data center and buy the desired services. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the industry and the environment has changed substantially and therefore, an expansion of the City's policy may be appropriate. Mr. Reiner asked if leasing the fiber could result in any loss of future economic development. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes that the fiber optic infrastructure does provide the City with an economic development advantage. Therefore, the City will carefully scrutinize potential lessees. Mr. Reiner asked if the City could potentially exhaust its supply of fiber. Mr. McDaniel responded that he is confident the remaining 19 pair would be sufficient for some time into the future. In addition, the City can easily recover its initial investment and more. With that revenue, the City could purchase additional fiber, which is now less expensive, and pull an additional 96 - 144 fibers through the existing conduit. Mr. Reiner asked about the projected life of the fiber optic system. Could another technology displace it? Mr. McDaniel responded that the capacity of the fiber itself is limitless; it is only limited by the end equipment pushing data and light through it. Multiplexors are achieving great success in adding capacity to existing fiber. Mr. Dunn stated that it is also possible to place up to 64 lasers on the end of a single fiber and sell light waves. With the other strategies available, it is worthwhile to monetize the investment at this time as there will be sufficient capacity in the future. The projected life of the fiber is uncertain, but it is likely 40 additional years. Mr. McDaniel stated that the City would not likely lease fiber on a point-to-point basis but rather by the loop. Ms. Salay asked about the length of term of a lease agreement. Mr. McDaniel responded that the terms could vary, but would not likely be less than three years. Mr. Keenan asked how this would compare with T-1 fiber. Mr. Dunn responded that several T-1 s could be placed on a fiber or a copper line. T-1 is a phone mode. Most of the electronic connections today are using Ethernet, which uses an Internet protocol and is more efficient. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Resolution 38-09 Adopting a Statement of Services for a Proposed Annexation of 5.660 Acres, More or Less, from Jerome Township, Union County, to the City of Dublin. (Petitioners: Kevin and Jocelyn Mullins, 8600 Hyland-Croy Road) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated this is a regular annexation and was anticipated by the pre- annexation agreement that City Council approved in March. The agreement dealt primarily with the reparations and included a waiver of the filing fee. This statement of services is the first step in the annexation process whereby the City indicates to the Union County Commissioners the services Dublin is able to provide for the property upon annexation. The Union County Commissioners hearing is scheduled for October. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the area adjacent to this property has already been annexed to the City. Mr. Smith responded that this is an island area within an existing annexed area. Mr. Gunderman indicated that there are two remaining properties within that general area that have not been annexed. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 _ Page 9 Resolution 39-09 Authorizing the Addition of Two New Member Cities to the Central Ohio Risk Management Association (CORMA), Pursuant to Article V, Paragraph (I) of the Central Ohio Risk Management Association Bylaws. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Harding stated that the two new member cities proposed for addition are Grove City and Powell. CORMA is the joint self insurance pool of which Dublin has been a member since its creation in 1997. The pool provides a variety of property and liability coverages for its members. The membership also includes the cities of Upper Arlington, Westerville and Pickerington. The CORMA bylaws require that atwo-thirds majority of the member cities' governing bodies approve the addition of the new members. Within the past year, the CORMA Board has worked to identify prospective cities with a healthy risk profile for membership. The cities of Upper Arlington and Powell are financially strong cities with a reputation for professional local government management and a commitment to sound risk management practices. Mr. Keenan asked how the contribution amount is determined. Is it based on property values or budget? What is the "ratable exp." category? Jay Hutchinson, Wicker Insurance Services responded that there are six criteria with which all members of the CORMA group are measured. These are common denominators in normal risk profiling of commercial risk. The "ratable exp." is the ratable expenditures of each individual city. Mr. Keenan asked what type of expenditures are included. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the amount given is actual, year-end expenditures. A calculation is made to separate out transfers, capital expenditures and independent contractors to define the actual operating expenditures. Mr. Keenan asked about the loss experience. Grove City appears to be low in property values but high in loss experience. Their risk appears to be higher than other members. Could the recent failure of their school levy have impacted this? Mr. Hutchinson responded that the calculation is based upon common denominators, so it is not likely to be the reason. In regard to the loss history rating, Grove City is being compared to the overall loss history of a group that is exceptional. As a stand-alone entity, Grove City has a very low loss ratio compared to what their total premiums would be. Another note is that the property values for the City of Westerville are somewhat inflated, because they do have utilities; the other member cities do not. Mr. Keenan asked about the limit on the umbrella. Mr. Harding responded that it is $10 million with a $20 million aggregate. Mr. Keenan inquired if that amount is spread over all the entities. Mr. Harding responded that it currently is, but that will change. Mr. Hutchinson stated that as of October 1, 2009, there will be a stand-alone $10 million limit for each city. Mr. Keenan stated that he has no concerns with adding Powell. His only concern is with Grove City, due to the recent defeat of their school levy. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked what the impact of the levy failure could be on their rating. Mr. Hutchinson responded that it will affect only the tax base of their community. With 200 municipalities represented in Ohio, they do not see a direct connection from that. Any impact would be delayed and difficult to quantify. Mr. Lecklider stated that in comparing property values with losses, he does not understand why Powell would be more attractive. Mr. Keenan responded that the more members there are in the group, the more viable the group becomes. The broader the exposure, the less the impact of a catastrophic event. Therefore, including Grove City is likely to everyone's advantage. Mr. Harding added that CORMA anticipates a reduction in fixed costs. Dublin's proportionate share would decrease from 34% to 27.5%. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ___ Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meetin August 17, 2009 _ Page 10 Mr. Keenan noted that in terms of number of members, this is probably the smallest public entity pool within the state. He is comfortable with the proposal. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. OTHER • Amended Final Plat -Lot 74, Coventry Woods Subdivision Vice Mayor Boring noted for the record that she met with the applicant and discussed the application. Ms. Rauch stated that this is a request to amend an approved final plat for Lot 74 within the Coventry Woods subdivision. The proposal would decrease a platted 100-foot buffer adjacent to Dublin Road to 80 feet, allowing the applicant to build an addition to the home. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, and the motion to approve it resulted in a tie vote of 3-3. • The approved development text states that a 100-foot no build zone has been provided along Dublin Road. Although the approved plat does not indicate a no- build zone, it does reflect a 100-foot buffer along Dublin Road. • Asingle-family home is sited on this lot, just outside of the buffer. Extensive landscaping and the subdivision entry feature are located within the buffer area. To the south of this lot is City-owned and maintained reserve, which is part of the subdivision. • The applicant's proposal would decrease the buffer off of the Dublin Road right-of- way to allow the applicant to shift the garage east to accommodate a room addition. There are no changes to the lot line or to the area of the reserve. • The subdivision plat also indicates 100-foot buffers from Dublin Road for all four adjacent lots along Dublin Road. Although Lot 74 fronts on Dublin Road, the rear yard of the three lots to the north face Dublin Road. • There are four lots along the south side of Brand Road that have a 100-foot buffer as well. • The approved development text states that a 100-foot no-build zone has been provided along Dublin Road. However, neither the text nor the plat indicates any regulations for the buffer or the no-build zone. Planning determined that a generous setback was provided, considering the scenic character of both roadways, with the intention to not obstruct view sheds. • The Commission discussed the request at the July 16 meeting as an amendment to the final development plan and amendment to the final plat. Some Commissioners were concerned that allowing a decrease in the buffer would indicate support for other lots to decrease setbacks off scenic roadways. Other Commissioners felt that Lot 74 is special, due to the lot fronting onto Dublin Road. Concerns were expressed about changing the 100-foot buffer approved by a previous Commission and Council. • The Commission's motion to recommend approval to Council of the amendment to the final plat resulted in a tie vote of 3-3. The Commission is therefore forwarding the plat to Council without a recommendation. • At the request of the applicant, the Commission tabled the amended final development plan portion of the application, pending Council's decision on the plat. • As part of the packet, the applicant has submitted 124 signatures from property owners and neighbors within the subdivision. Based upon Planning staff's analysis, the proposed amendment to the final plat does not conform to the requirements of the development text, which requires an adequate buffer between the lots and Dublin Road. On the approved final plat, this requirement was reflected as a 100-foot buffer and was applied to all lots adjacent to either Dublin or Brand Roads. A change in this requirement would grant an exception that would not be allowed for other lots. Therefore, Planning staff recommends Council disapprove this amendment to the final plat. Mr. Reiner complimented the Commission for adhering to the setbacks imposed on this lot. However, in reviewing this specific case for Lot 74, with the extensive screening and landscape barriers in place, he does not believe the modification to the setback would impact the visual aspects of the buffer. He would not oppose this amendment, noting that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _Mi,nutes ~f Dublin City Council Meetin_ Q August 17, 2009 Page 11 does indicate it should be adequate to provide a buffer and setback from Dublin Road. The question becomes what is considered to be adequate. • The Community Plan calls for a river character along Dublin Road, with modest setbacks of 60-100 feet. There are other designations in the Plan in rural areas, calling for 100-200 foot setbacks. • The presence of an opaque screen makes this property distinct from other properties in the immediate area. This is a single-story home in a neighborhood mostly comprised of two-story homes. With asingle-story layout, there is less property available on which to build an addition to the home. • Making this addition to the rear of the property is nearly impossible, due to the severe 20-30 foot drop-off at the rear of the lot. It was determined to be appropriate to make an addition to the side as shown in the drawings. • In addition, there is a petition in support of this application signed by nearly 75 percent of the neighbors and a unanimous vote from the Board of the Homeowners Association in favor of this proposal. Further, there are letters in the packet, including one from a property owner to the south, Mrs. Wagner, who indicate support. The neighbors to the north also voiced support for the proposal at the Commission meeting. • The buffering and screening will help to hide this addition. He offered to respond to questions. he does appreciate the Commission's upholding of City standards. He will support this amendment. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited testimony Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale, 37 W. Broad Street represented the applicant and property owner, Robert Fiorita. He shared photos that illustrate the buffering and the proposed modification to the setback to accommodate the addition to the home. He noted the following: • The applicant planted a significant stand of trees 15-20 years ago, which are now approximately 30 feet in height. They screen the building from the roadway currently, and will continue to do so after the addition is built. • The plat is silent in terms of what this buffer is intended to do; however, the text Mr. Reiner asked if the existing tree line as depicted will be preserved. Mr. Underhill responded affirmatively. Mr. Reiner noted that the drawings reflect a change in the roof line on the existing part of the house. The addition is the small portion to the left, correct? Robert Fiorita, applicant responded affirmatively, confirming that the roof line of the existing home will be two stories. This will be needed to gain access to the addition to the home. Vice Mayor Boring asked about the square footage of the addition. Mr. Fiorita responded that it is 1,000 square feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for confirmation that there is no change in the driveway being proposed. Mr. Underhill responded that is correct. Mr. Gerber noted that the purpose of the setback was to establish a view shed. He is not certain whether 90 to 120 feet of setback is the appropriate amount, but in reviewing this application, he believes the view shed is maintained and can therefore support the application. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is struggling with this application. The other properties in this vicinity have rear yards facing the roadway, and they may want to request similar consideration in the future if this setback change is granted. Therefore, approving this could potentially have an impact in the future. This is not a small addition to the home at 1,000 square feet with a roof line change to two stories. Although the applicant has planted a significant tree buffer, this is a talented builder who has lived in the community for a long time. Had she retained him to build a home addition and made him aware of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Mee_tinQ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 August 17, 2009 12 City restrictions on the property, she would be disappointed to have to undergo this process. For this reason, she is struggling with the request and wonders why the addition could not be designed to fit within the existing setbacks. Mr. Fiorita noted that they moved to Dublin 16 years ago and found Coventry Woods to be a wonderful neighborhood. He began planting trees in front of his property along Dublin Road 16 years ago, and the trees have grown into a nice buffer. This is the only area on their site where the addition can occur, due to an existing Swale and drainage easement. If they are to remain in the house and accommodate their family's needs, the addition is necessary in this location. Vice Boring asked why a smaller addition could not accommodate their needs. A smaller addition could be done within the setback restrictions. Mr. Fiorita responded that the space needed is a bedroom, and the only means to do this without losing current space is to go through the garage. The only way to provide access is with stairs in the garage. In order to maintain the house value, another garage is necessary and it must be located in the area shown on the drawings. Aesthetic reasons drove the decision for a larger addition to the home. Mr. Lecklider asked if the 1,000 square foot addition includes the garage, or is it only the livable space. Mr. Fiorita responded the 1,000 square feet includes only livable space. Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Reiner his opinion regarding the projected life of the trees planted on the site. Mr. Reiner responded that they are currently 30-40 feet in height. There are likely another 20-30 years of life for the existing trees. He asked about the width of the end piece of the addition? Is it 10 or 20 feet? Mr. Underhill responded that it is 14 feet. Mr. Reiner noted that this discussion involves 14 feet of encroachment, and there is existing buffer and screening in place. In this case, the actual addition is minimal in width and won't likely impact the view shed. Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Reiner has visited the site to view the trees. Mr. Reiner responded that the visuals shown by the applicant show the age of the trees and their health. He assumes the owner will continue to maintain the trees so that the trees will survive for another 20-30 years. Mr. Lecklider asked about the total height of the addition. Mr. Fiorita responded that it is two stories plus the roof, which translates to a total of about 30 feet. Mr. Lecklider stated that it would have been helpful to have acomputer-generated view to envision the extent of which, if at all, the roof line at 30 feet in height will be visible to drivers along Dublin Road. Mr. Fiorita responded that a picture in the packet depicted a view from the east looking due west across Dublin Road. Any vantage point to the east is lower in elevation than where the trees are planted. The trees are approximately 30 feet in height. He planted two more rows of a variety of spruce and hemlock trees in the last two years. There were materials in the Planning Commission packet, which demonstrate the height of the addition. Ms. Salay asked staff about the size of the setbacks along Dublin Road in the area. Ms. Rauch responded that the Coventry Woods lots that front on Dublin Road have a 100- foot setback. There are larger parcels intermixed along Dublin Road that are not part of the subdivision, and they have substantial setbacks as well. There are many large lot residential parcels to the south with substantial setbacks. The 100-foot setback for the subdivision is comparable to the other areas nearby. Mr. Underhill pointed out that the parcel directly south of the subdivision reserve area has a home which is has a setback of 35-40 feet from the roadway. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS __ __ ____ _ Minutes ~f __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ Dublin City Council __ ___ Meeting.. August 17, 2009 Page 13 Held 20 Mr. Keenan asked about the setbacks along Brand Road, which is designated as a scenic roadway. He believes the Community Plan calls for a setback on scenic roadways of 80 feet. Ms. Rauch responded that both Brand and Dublin Roads are scenic roadways, and the setbacks are to range between 60 and 100 feet. Vice Mayor Boring asked whether the homeowner could secure a building permit for a two-story addition without this review, if the proposed addition was not encroaching into the 100-foot buffer. Ms. Rauch responded the applicant could secure a building permit for an addition to the house, assuming it met the development text requirements and lot coverage restrictions. The requested decrease in the buffer to accommodate the addition is what has prompted the need for this review. Vice Mayor Boring emphasized that the only reason Council is reviewing this is because of the setback issue, not the height of the addition. Ms. Salay stated that what she understands is that the setbacks along Dublin Road do vary, based on Mr. Underhill's testimony. She is wrestling with this decision, as it will constitute essentially abandoning the standards. The more senior members of the Commission were interested in preserving the setback. She noted that she is surprised with Mr. Refiner's support of this. Mr. Reiner responded that it is based on an analysis of the site, the vegetation, and the small reduction in the buffer area. He would not advocate changing the setbacks on any other parcel. Ms. Salay stated that this could set a precedent for others to the north. Mr. Reiner responded that Council would only consider such a request if the conditions warranted it, as they do in this case. Ms. Salay summarized that he believes that there are exceptions, given a particular site and constraints. Mr. Reiner noted that the stringent enforcement of the Code is what has made Dublin exceptional, but in this case, an exception is warranted. The visual corridor of the City will not be damaged. He does not want to create a hardship for the applicant by denying this request. Ms. Salay noted that if there were not a substantial tree stand on the property, this would likely not be considered or approved. Is there a way to put a restriction on the property for any future owner requiring that they maintain the landscape screening? Mr. Smith responded that the development text requires a buffer. The entire subdivision text is not being amended. Perhaps a deed restriction could be considered, if that is Council's desire. Mr. Underhill added that if Council would approve this amended final plat, the applicant must return to the Planning Commission for an amended final development plan review. Although Council cannot bind the Commission in regard to the final development plan review, the applicant could agree to such a condition with the final development plan. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Underhill noted that this could include a minimum opacity level and minimum height. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that for the most part, the discussion relates to the landscaping in place on the site. Because of this landscaping in place, this change to the setback would not be visually apparent to the roadway. Mr. Smith responded that the enforceability of a restriction for an opaque and certain level of height screening may be difficult. Ms. Salay noted that the City frequently requires such screening, especially for office buildings bordering residential. Over time, if the landscaping material dies, the City requires that the owner replace it. Mr. Gerber stated that this is a standard requirement in final development plans. When this returns to the Commission for review, they can add that requirement. Ms. Salay noted that her issue relates to whether a new owner would have to maintain the screening, per the development text. Is there a way to put this restriction in place? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 _ Page 14 Mr. Smith responded that the applicant can agree as part of the approval of the final development plan to maintain the screening. Ms. Salay noted it is important to have specific language in the condition so that it can be enforced for a future property owner. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would not consider approving this, but for the existing screening in place. The screening benefits both the property owner and the community. But the prospect of the community looking at the home addition 20 feet closer to the roadway without the screening would likely be unacceptable to a majority of Council. He would want a condition imposed to ensure that the landscape screening remains into the future. Mr. Underhill noted that he will defer to Mr. Reiner regarding the minimum opacity and height of the trees to be maintained as screening. Mr. Reiner stated that the 90 percent opacity would be optimal. It appears that the applicant has already planted two more rows of trees to ensure the screen remains into the next 40-50 years at the height desired. He agrees that setting an opacity and height standard would be acceptable, and could be done with the final development plan approval. Mr. Lecklider stated that perhaps the City would allow the property owner to plant additional trees, with City approval, in the public land as needed. Ms. Salay stated that it is rare for an entire neighborhood to petition the City to lower a development standard; to her knowledge, this is without precedent. Mr. Keenan added that the City exists to serve the residents, and the residents have provided their input and support for this. He, too, supports this application. The screening is in place, the residents are supportive, and there is no harm to the community in approving this change to the setback. Mr. Lecklider commented that the staff recommendation was in keeping with what is expected in their role. This is a unique situation, and consideration is given solely due to existing landscaping. The addition will not be visible as described in the testimony, and the home addition would have been approved administratively, but for this setback change. He emphasized that, personally, he does not view this as precedent setting in any way. The case is unique because of the existing tree screening, and any future applicant along any scenic road in the community should not expect him to arrive at the same conclusion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that these are the kinds of standards that have made Dublin the community it is and are what attract people to Dublin. The application warranted a thorough discussion, both at the Commission and at Council. The City is fortunate that this family had the ability plant these trees to buffer their property, and this fact allowed the opportunity for this dialogue. Mr. Keenan noted that the 80-foot setback is recommended for the Brand Road corridor, and that is what this applicant is requesting. It is a reasonable request. Vice Mayor Boring stated that much of this discussion has focused on the two-story addition and its height, but the addition can be built on the site under the present development text without additional approval, but for the placement. She agreed that the City is fortunate that the trees already exist on the property. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher emphasized that this is not intended to be precedent setting, as reflected in the record of tonight's discussion. This is an important note in relation to any future cases reviewed by Council or the Commission. Mr. Gerber moved approval of the Amended Final Plat for Lot 74 of Coventry Woods. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f _ Dublin City Council Meeting August 17, 2009 Page 15 Tuesday nights. She suggested that Council first determine Mondays, or move the meetings to Tuesdays. would eliminate the need to change some meetings days to Tuesday. 2. There was a suggestion to change the regular meeting night from Monday to first and third Mondays of the month to the second and fourth Mondays. This • Adoption of Council Meeting Schedule for 2010 Vice Mayor Boring, Administrative Chair noted that there have been some suggestions circulated regarding the schedule: 1. Because some holidays are observed on Mondays, change the meetings from the whether they want to continue to meet on Ms. Salay stated that the public expectation is for a regular meeting schedule -whether that is Mondays or Tuesdays. The predictability allows for better planning. Mr. Keenan stated that for him, either Monday or Tuesday is acceptable. Council does have a number of additional meetings on the off-Mondays as well, based on his experience. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her concern with Tuesdays as a regular meeting date is that she often travels on business on Tuesdays. It is easier for her to plan to be in town on Monday. Mr. Gerber agreed that he often has business travel plans as the week progresses, so he would prefer staying with the Monday schedule, changing the date to another day when necessary to accommodate a holiday observed on a Monday. Vice Mayor Boring suggested that Council consider meeting on the 2~d and 4th Monday of the month. This would avoid a number of the holiday conflicts. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that everyone review their calendars with two options in mind: leaving the regular meetings on the first and third Mondays, with adjustment to Tuesday evenings for holiday observances as needed; or changing the meetings to the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Mr. Lecklider summarized that moving to the second and fourth Mondays will likely avoid the Monday holidays in 2010, but he would also be interested in what would occur in 2011. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff provide this schedule for 2010 and 2011 with the scenarios as outlined. Ms. Salay noted that the Thanksgiving month may require a change to avoid meeting the holiday week. Vice Mayor Boring asked for Council's input about the date of the first January meeting in view of past experience. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested moving it to the second Monday in January. She agrees with Mr. Lecklider that the swearing in of those elected to Council can take place at a short meeting in early January and the first Regular meeting can be held the second week. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she consulted with the Law Director about the need to have the oath of office administered to newly elected members, and unless there is a need for an emergency meeting, this can be postponed until the second week of January. It was the consensus of Council not to have a Regular meeting during the first week of January and to maintain a recess after the first meeting in July. Vice Mayor Boring asked Council to be prepared to decide at the next meeting about the July meeting date in 2010. Based upon Council's desired meeting dates as determined at the next meeting, staff can adjust the dates for the CIP and budget workshops. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that under any scenario, Monday, January 11 will be the first meeting date in 2010. Council concurred. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes_of Dublin City Council Meeting- August 17, 2009 16 STAFF COMMENTS There were no further comments from staff. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Salay stated that an invitation was forwarded by the Dublin Arts Council in regard to a benefit being held on Saturday, September 19 from 6 to 10 p.m. at the Center. All the proceeds will benefit the DAC, and a dance performance will be included in the event. Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Asked staff for a report regarding the Teen Movie Night. Mr. Edwards responded that it was successful, with 150 attending. He thanked Scott Hanks and Christine Nardecchia for their support. Vice Mayor Boring summarized that Council will consider future such programs in the operating budget. Ms. Salay stated that the attendance was double what was expected. 2. Reported that an excellent response was received from the solicitation of applications for the Bicycle Advisory Task Force. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she has been invited by the National Guard to participate in an upcoming KC-135R flight taking off from Rickenbacker. It should be an exciting opportunity! ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:22 p.m. for discussion of legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action), land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes), and personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official) Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. meeting was reconvened at 10:40 p.m. and formally adjourned. ~ „ ., _ Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council