Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of__ Dublin City Council -----~- Meeting _ ---------- DAYTON LEGAL B~K, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 2005 at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. McCash led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. McCash, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readier, Mr. Bird, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Chief Epperson, Ms. Hoyle, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Heal and Mr. McDaniel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Salay moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 31,2005. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ms. Salay moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 7, 2005. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain. Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 22, 2005. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, abstain; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE A Notice to Legislative Authority was sent to Council regarding a stock transfer for Tommy's Pizza, 4279 W. Dublin Granville Road, holder of D1, D2 and D6 permits. There was no objection. SPECIAL PRESENT A TIONS Dr. Linda Fenner, Superintendent of Dublin City Schools addressed Council regarding the Dublin Schools draft Strategic Vision and Plan for Excellence and Equity. She first thanked the City for their assistance with the infrastructure necessary to open the next elementary school. She noted that the Dublin Schools are seeking feedback and participation from Council on the draft plan. In August of 2004, she had the opportunity to serve as Interim Superintendent for the District and there were many major projects and initiatives in process. In meeting with administrators, one of their questions was about the focus of the initiatives and the need to have all "arrows pointed in the same direction." '" . There was agreement regarding Result #1, an "Instructional Vision, " similar to a mission statement. It was agreed that all students can and must learn at high levels of achievement and that it is the District's job to create an environment in the classrooms that results in this high level of performance. . A second result of the August deliberation was to look at some case studies of how highly successful school districts had taken a quantum leap into a different level of achievement. They looked at Rockville Centre Free Union in New York in this investigation. After ten years of very hard work, the system has made remarkable progress in achieving the goals set regarding Regents diploma and AP calculus for all students, narrowing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council ---------.- Meeting DAYTON LE~AL BLANK, INC" F9RM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 2 Held 20 the gap in achievement of all levels of students - regardless of what group they belong to. . A third result was a set of norms/agreements, including working as a team; demonstrating optimism about humans as learners; using conversations to increase the capacity as a learning organization; sharing information in order to make good decisions; building a climate in which good ideas prevail; and working with a mixture of skill and heart. . The district focus then is on excellence and equity that is seen in high achieving districts. They want to become a world-class learning organization. . Case studies have shown that some school districts, including Rockville Centre and Bellevue, Washington are already succeeding in developing excellence with equity. . From the August meeting, they moved to simplified department and building improvement plans that had an excellence and equity goal, an action plan, measures of progress and administrators' and Superintendent's individual goals aligned with improvement plans. . After a decision to pursue this vision of excellence and equity, it was necessary to revise the 5-6 year old strategic plan and to consolidate five strategies into three important areas, including a focus on learning, on collaboration, and building system capacity. . The short-term excellence goal is to increase achievement for all students through standards-based teaching and learning. . The equity goal is very high achievement for all students, closing the gap between high and low performing groups through access to high quality learning opportunities. . The structure of the strategic plan (copies were distributed) includes vision, norms, goals, strategies, action plans, action steps and indicators of success. They would like Council to provide feedback on the action plans, steps and indicators of success. She described examples of action plans aligned with excellence and equity that the district has implemented, such as the Early Literacy Initiative and the International Baccalaureate. They have essentially repurposed existing resources in these action plans. . In terms of indicators of success, the District has received state report cards for several years, but is now discussing what practices the district can engage in that will actually influence the indicators. The district will provide selected trend data to the community on improvements in excellence and equity. Through the state testing system, the district can track how many students score in the top levels of that test and can have a goal of having all students score at the accelerated and advanced level. . The Plan timeline involves stakeholder involvement through April; Board adoption shortly thereafter; and with the budget process in June, redirecting resources around the goal and plan, asking if each expenditure helps to accomplish equity and excellence for the district. . Questions for Council are: 1) Is the district is on the right track? 2) Does ..-" infusing excellence and equity into a Strategic Plan make sense? What action plans or action steps should be added? Are the indicators measuring the right things? How can Dublin City Schools collaborate with the City of Dublin in its efforts to become a world-class learning organization? She suggested that Council direct their feedback to Ms. Brautigam. Dr. Fenner offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked her for the excellent presentation and for including Council as a stakeholder group. She acknowledged the presence of School Board President Tom Fries, School Board Member Steve Gyuro, and District Treasurer Chris Mohr. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes oL____ Dublin City Council ------... Meeting ------.-- DAYTON LEGALB~K, INC" FO~~ NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 3 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the questions at the end of the presentation are the key areas where the District is seeking feedback, and Council Members should forward their feedback to Ms. Brautigam who will forward the comments to the District. Brief discussion followed about some of the technical information included in the presentation. In response to Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Dr. Fenner indicated that the District requests feedback within two weeks. CITIZEN COMMENTS (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Chris Cline, Blauqrund, Herbert and Martin, 5455 Rinqs Road noted that he is speaking tonight on behalf of Homewood Corporation. Because the conservation design resolutions are silent regarding existing projects and how they will be handled, he is requesting clarification from Council regarding its intentions about application of the conservation design resolutions to projects that already had rezoning applications filed when the first resolution was passed in December of 2003. . Homewood is the owner of a 140-acre tract of land along Avery Road, which is the southernmost point of Dublin, surrounded on three sides by the City of Columbus. Homewood has owned this tract since 1993. . In 2002, they began working in earnest with Planning staff and brought three site plans to the Commission in December of 2002 and received feedback. Shortly thereafter, the Planning Director asked Homewood to "soft pedal" it and not bring the project forward because of delicate negotiations ongoing between Dublin and Columbus with regard to the Hayden Run corridor. Homewood's principals agreed to do that. . Towards the end of 2003, they were told they could move forward and they proceeded with filing of the rezoning in November of 2003. That ordinance was introduced by Council on November 17, 2003 as Ordinance No. 133- 03. . On December 15, 2003, Council passed its first conservation design resolution. Staff and the applicant did not know if it applied to their project, as the resolution was silent on this. In order to move forward, the applicant prepared two plans, one under the conservation design guidelines and one with traditional design. It went before the P&Z on March 4, 2004. The Commission voted 6-1 that conservation design was not appropriate for this site, due to the large woods on the site of 30 acres. . Subsequent to the vote, for the next 10 months, the applicant has worked with staff, invested a lot of money, to respond to all of the feedback. Recently, however, the Planning staff is thinking that perhaps the resolution does apply to the site. . He is present tonight for clarification, as the resolutions did not address how existing projects would be affected. He understands, however, that there was discussion during the conservation design resolution deliberations of how existing projects would be affected. They would like some certainty in order to move forward. . He believes it would be appropriate for Council to clarify that the resolutions did not apply to existing plans that were already underway, rezonings that had been filed with plans. They have invested a tremendous amount of expense and delay in responding as the rules changed back and forth. He believes it would be appropriate for Council to advise Planning staff and the Commission that, in this case, conservation design is not required on this site. . The applicant has attempted to incorporate all of the conservation design principles into the site possible, but they will not be able to reach the 50 percent number. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting OAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 4 Held 20 . He does not believe there would be a problem with precedent, as there is no other project in Dublin with a pending rezoning filed before they filed this in November of 2003. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a letter of response would be sent to Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline commented that he was hoping to receive some feedback tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has not discussed this, but she understands that the Legal staff has responded on this question to the applicant. Ms. Readier stated that Legal staff met with the applicant and staff stated that they believe that the conservation design could be applied to this development. To her knowledge, nothing has been transmitted in writing to the applicant. Mr. Cline stated that his request to Council is purely political. What was Council's intention as to how this would apply to existing projects? It was not addressed in the resolution. The Law Department has ruled that for another project, because of the facts of that case, the conservation design did not apply. He has been discussing this with staff for months, but would now like clarification from Council. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification - did staff and the Legal Department tell him that the conservation design does apply? Mr. Cline responded that the Legal Department had made a ruling in another case that said that due to the facts of the case, the conservation design resolution did not apply. Legal staff saw that the Homewood project was a little bit different. He is asking again for Council's intention in the resolution. Mr. McCash noted that the Law Department cannot speak to what Council's intent was in passing the resolution. If the resolution did not clearly state whether it applies or does not apply, Council as a body would determine the intent. There was a case brought to Council where it was turned down because it did not conform to conservation subdivision design. Then Council reconsidered the case and voted on it because it was determined that conservation design should not have applied to that case, even though the application was in the pipeline at the time the resolutions were approved for conservation subdivision design. Ms. Salay stated that the issue should have been settled on March 4, 2004 with the Planning Commission's decision by a vote of 6 to 1 that conservation design should not apply to this site. Mrs. Boring questioned whether there was an actual vote on this. She recalls the discussion. Mr. Cline clarified that Mrs. Boring voted in favor of a motion that conservation design was not appropriate for the site. Ms. Reiss voted against the motion. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not recall this being a formal vote per se. Mr. Cline clarified that Ms. Readier had indicated to the Commission that a vote was necessary. Ms. Readier recalled that there was a vote, but this was an informal application and i therefore not binding upon the City or the applicant. ! Mrs. Boring stated that because it was an informal application, she was aware that things could change. Since that time, she has discussed the site with Mr. Combs who has indicated that the site is appropriate for conservation design. She believes she is not bound by a vote on an informal application. Subsequently, knowing more about the issue, she would have voted differently. The conservation subdivision design was new to Dublin at that time. Ms. Salay stated that the applicant received the informal direction and proceeded in that manner. It is an issue of fairness. II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO, 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 Mrs. Boring responded that if she had believed it was other than an informal application, she would not have voted. If such a vote is to be binding, the process should be changed. It is not an issue of fairness - it relates to the process. Mr. Cline responded that the original resolution approved in 2003 provided that Planning staff and the Commission would determine whether conservation subdivision design was appropriate for a site. The applicant asked staff to bring it to the Commission for a vote. They did not believe it was an informal application, but that the resolution was being put into operation. Mr. McCash stated that in the second iteration of the resolution, the process was that it would be brought to the Commission for an informal vote on whether the site was or was not a candidate for application of conservation subdivision design so they could proceed. It was always an informal vote, but provided direction on how to proceed with overall design to avoid having to generate and submit two fully developed separate plans, which would cost twice as much. Mr. Keenan asked how staff was then involved in the process - did their action precede the "formal" vote? Mr. McCash responded that they were working through the process of developing that issue and presenting it as part of the informal process to the Planning Commission. The process now calls for staff to make the determination of whether a site is appropriate for conservation subdivision design and bring that to the Commission. However, the staff determination that conservation design does not apply to the site is not used at the Commission as the determination. It still follows the conservation design process. In the example of another case to be tabled tonight, they have a similar issue. Staff made the determination about the appropriateness of the site for such design, but the Commission decided they wanted conservation subdivision design on the site regardless of the staff determination. Mrs. Boring stated that in any case, she would need more information to make any determination. She cannot recall all of the details of the various cases. It is prudent to review the history of the cases. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that, historically, when Council has a desire to grandfather certain applications with regard to a new law, they do so. In the absence of this, she recalls that Council had discussion about the fact that not much land remained undeveloped and that conservation subdivision design should be used when appropriate. For this reason, perhaps, development in the pipeline was not exempted or grandfathered. Mr. McCash asked for the minutes related to the Riverside Woods project. There was an effort to apply the principles to that project as well. Mr. Cline noted that the Homewood project was actually filed prior to the Riverside Woods project. Mr. McCash recalled that the Riverside Woods project was disapproved by Council because it was a heavily wooded site and ideal for conservation subdivision design. It was brought back under a reconsideration, and it was determined that the resolution did not apply, as they were already in the process. Ms. Brautigam stated that one of the issues is that each of the projects being discussed was at a different stage in the process. There original resolution was amended in 2004. Perhaps it would be helpful if staff created a timeline related to the projects being discussed tonight. Mr. McCash stated that if the rules are constantly changed during the process, the City could force people to "jump through hoops" over and over again. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting -- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 Mr. Reiner stated that he does not believe that is the intent. The intent was to adopt a law and ensure that it is followed. Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates the offer to provide a timeline. It would be important to know where these applications were in the process - the final development plan stage would obviously be much different than an earlier phase. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff could bring this back within a short time. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff could do so prior to the next meeting. Mr. Lecklider noted that someone mentioned another case where it was determined that conservation subdivision design did not apply. Will the materials include that case as well? Ms. Brautigam stated that it would include that case, Riverside Woods and Avondale Woods. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated: 1. For the first time since he has been a resident of Dublin, he attended a State of the City address. He found it a careful, graphic, thought out presentation. He was interested in what happened after the presentation. There were a series of questions after the address and his superficial response was the questions and comments were generally pointless and forgettable. But that is a function of the fact that there was no exercise of dialogue that took place. No derision is intended here, however staff responded with deservedly pointless and forgettable answers. It is not a criticism, but something that a society has to learn. 2. There was no question whatsoever from anyone regarding the Kindra matter. He indicated a need to now become risky and courageous. What is involved here is similar to what occurred after the horrific losses of September 11, in terms of an enormous pressure to see where the responsibility lay. In the investigations, a memorable moment was when Richard Clark responded to the Committee by saying, "We failed you and I apologize." There was an uncommon and spontaneous sweep of affection for that kind of candor. Similarly, in the Kindra matter, the City faces the same thing. He found nothing to justify the firing according to the City's constitution. A blunder was made and it needs to be corrected. The next Council meeting is March 14 and he would like to have a date from Council in which a reinstatement will occur. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING BID AWARD Ordinance 14-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2005 Scioto Park Shelter Replacement Project, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is recommending adoption by emergency at this time. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked for clarification regarding the discrepancy in the appropriations and the bid award. Ms. Grigsby provided this. Mr. Reiner moved for emergency passage. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC,. FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 7 Held 20 Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Ordinance 15-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2005 Right-of-Way Landscape Installation Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Hahn stated that staff is recommending adoption by emergency. Mr. Lecklider moved for emergency passage. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES BID ACCEPTANCE Ordinance 16-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the North East Quad Park North Paving Project and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hahn stated that the project would provide parking and an entry drive. The parking will serve an existing developed area of this park. It also provides access from Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, consistent with the rezoning for this park, which indicated this would be a main entry point. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification regarding the base bid and alternatives. In the total package, it seems another company would actually have submitted a lower bid. Mr. Hahn explained that currently, a bikepath extends north/south along the western property line. Alternative #1 would provide a 360-degree circumference bikepath around the park. Alternative #2 is a retaining wall in an area with grade difficulties. At this point, given the budget issues, staff is recommending acceptance of the base bid with the expectation that the bikepath will be installed in subsequent phases of the park. For the retaining wall, the plan is to work with the contractor to find a way to address the concerns through other grading measures. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 14 Council meeting. Ordinance 17-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Stormwater Management System Maintenance Program - General Construction Service Contract 2005. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. I Mr. Hammersmith stated that this would provide for the maintenance and repair of I storm sewers, curb inlets, catch basins, ditches, man-made channels and other structures that discharge stormwater. This year, $250,000 is budgeted and the George J. Igel Company provided the lowest and best bid at $918 per unit hour for labor and equipment. Staff is recommending passage by emergency at the next meeting. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 14 Council meeting. LAND ACQUISITION Ordinance 18-05 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.413 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.202 Acre, More or Less, Landscape Easement, and a 0.032 Acres, More or Less Drainage Easement, From RR Partners, Located West of Rings Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC,. FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 8 Held 20 Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to the southwest traffic-calming project. Ms. Salay asked for clarification that this involves the traffic circle at the easternmost end of Rings Road. Ms. Brautigam confirmed this. Mrs. Boring noted that the project is actually already completed. Ms. Brautigam confirmed this. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 14 Council meeting. RECODIFICA TION Ordinance 19-05 Enacting and Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this adopts a codification of the ordinances approved by Council through the end of 2004. Mr. Keenan moved to dispense with the public hearing. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. CODE AMENDMENT Ordinance 20-05 Amending Chapter 152 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Section 152.086(C)(6) Updating the Estimated Average Per Acre Value of Land for Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hahn stated that this update is required by ordinance each two years. The new fee will be in effect for 2005 and 2006. The summary of appraisals is included in the packet, and if Council would like a complete report, that can be provided. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 14 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 02-05 Expressing Concerns to State Legislators and State Executive Leaders on the Financial Impacts of the Proposed State of Ohio Biennial Budget. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that the city is a member of the Central Ohio Municipal Alliance (COMA) and they have been working with the legislators regarding the proposed state budget. The Alliance has asked its member constituency to pass a resolution to alert the legislators to the concerns about local government fund reductions and waste collection fees. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if the concerns expressed will have any "cash results" for the City. Ms. Grigsby responded that in the past, concerns expressed by municipal governments have resulted in less of a reduction than what was originally proposed by the state. What has been proposed is now less than what was originally contemplated by the state in terms of local government fund reductions. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER . Concept Plan - Avery Road Condominiums (Case 04-119CP) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 9 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a request was received from Joel Rhoades to table the concept plan as they are continuing to work on this plan. She asked for a motion from Council. Ms. Salay moved to table the concept plan, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. ""., Mrs. Boring noted that the applicant indicates they continue to work on the concept plan. The City has found itself in this "bind" previously. If the concept plan is different than what was presented to the Planning Commission, why is the applicant not returning to the Commission with a revised plan? Ms. Readier responded that concept plan decisions, as discussed, are not binding. She has not spoken to the applicant regarding what changes are contemplated. She envisions minor changes that would not necessarily need review by P&Z. She cannot articulate an opinion based on the information available. Mrs. Boring stated that the Council packet includes two plans, which was not the case when they came for P&Z review. Ms. Brautigam stated that she believes Mr. Bird has spoken with the applicant. She asked him to comment. Mr. Bird stated that when the concept plan was reviewed by the Commission, the staff had recommended approval with conditions, asking for additional detail. What the applicant has now done is appeal the decision of the Commission to reject the concept plan, but then opted to provide that additional detail stipulated. It is not so much changing the concept plan as it is providing additional detail to address conservation design issues. Mrs. Boring asked why the applicant would not return to P&Z if they had indeed addressed the issues and then continue to work with P&Z who would send the plan to Council. Mr. Reiner stated that from what staff has indicated, the applicant has addressed the issues. Why would it not be taken back to P&Z? It is not ready to be brought to Council. Mr. Bird responded that the applicant is not addressing all of the issues related to conservation design. The Commission denied approval on two bases: 1) conservation design; and 2) the quality of the units. The applicant has in essence tried to demonstrate how they can meet the conservation design issues. Nothing has really changed. Normally, they would not provide this information until the preliminary engineering stage and they are providing this at the concept stage. This fundamentally relates to the issue raised earlier in the meeting in terms of a resolution which provides that the staff makes a determination if a site is appropriate for conservation design. Over and above that, the applicant has wanted to demonstrate how they could meet 19 of the 20 criteria. That is why they are bringing it to City Council. Mr. Keenan stated that it seems that the City is very unclear in all of the language related to conservation design. The legislation was approved, but the law is not being followed. He believes that Council needs to discuss this matter again. Mr. Reiner noted that it seems that the applicant has met some of the criteria and is now asking Council to grant a waiver. He suggests that the applicant follows the law. Mr. McCash responded that the applicant did follow the law. Staff made the determination that this site was not conducive to conservation subdivision design. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 10 Held 20 Nonetheless, it sounds like the applicant has met most of the conservation subdivision design requirements. Planning Commission rejected the Plan because it does not conform to the conservation subdivision design requirements. He believes that the Commission is not following the conservation design law. Mr. Reiner asked why an exemption should be granted in this case and why the staff would have told the applicant that the design is not applicable to this development. Mr. McCash responded that the history indicates it is a flat site of 26 acres with no vegetation, no trees, and no significant land features and has infill development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it seems that in this case, the applicant did go back and identify ways to bring the plan into greater compliance with conservation subdivision design. Why would they not return to Planning Commission and demonstrate this so that the Commission could make a positive recommendation to Council? Mr. Bird responded that the resolution currently states that the application can be taken to Planning Commission or to City Council. They went to the Commission and now are requesting a review by City Council. Mrs. Boring stated that they are not bringing the same plan to Council that was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Keenan stated that at best, the conservation design law is confusing and unclear in terms of procedure. He believes in conservation design principles, but procedurally, no one knows what to do. -, Mr. McCash stated that unfortunately, the applicant is not present tonight and cannot testify to what has been changed in the plan. Mr. Reiner stated that this body does not review zoning, the Planning Commission is charged with that responsibility. Applications should be reviewed by the Commission; they should not be "skipped" in the process. If Council approves this maneuver by the applicant and his attorneys, Council will be lobbied similarly in the future. The rules are straightforward; they chose to come to Council. The revised plan should be taken back to Planning Commission for review and a decision. This constitutes another manipulation around a set tradition of the government body. They are turning this into a political process. Mr. McCash responded that what Mr. Reiner is suggesting is that it be sent back to Planning Commission who will then be lobbied by Council Members regarding their decision. Mr. Reiner responded that the Commission Members can make their own decision. Mr. Keenan stated that at the time the legislation was reviewed, the potential of the applicant coming to Council was discussed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the intention at that time was not that Council would get a different product, but that it could come to Council in an appeal process. What Mr. Bird is suggesting currently and what the applicant is indicating in the request for tabling is that they are going to present some additional changes to that which was voted on at Planning Commission. For her, that is a different Issue. Mr. McCash stated that the applicant needs direction, whether they bring a new or an existing concept plan that was disapproved by P&Z. They are trying to determine what Council wants. Does conservation subdivision design apply to this site or not? Staff has made the determination that it does not apply. This is in keeping with the resolution that was approved and is the law of the City. Staff made the determination, yet the Commission disregarded staff's determination and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC,. FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 11 Held 20 disapproved the plan. The applicant has an issue in relation to determining what rules are to be followed. Mr. Keenan stated that the Commission has the same issue. That is why it was sent back to Council. ... Mrs. Boring stated that if this is the case, the same plan turned down by P&Z should be the one brought to Council. Bringing an appeal forward to Council with anything other than exactly the same plan does not make sense and leads to later confusion at the rezoning stage. Mr. Lecklider stated that in reading the correspondence, it does not indicate that the revised plan is a better plan. Rather, they are demonstrating that in pursuing the conservation design, certain road connections, enhanced landscape features and water features will not be possible. Mrs. Boring responded that she does not believe this. Suddenly, the applicant indicates they cannot do these things. The applicant notes that the original plan came closer. She would not have an objection if they brought the original plan to Council. Ms. Salay stated that this application was rejected by the Planning Commission who overruled the staff recommendation. The applicant then has the right to come to Council to appeal the decision of the Commission. Mrs. Boring stated that they must bring the same plan to Council for such an appeal. ~, Ms. Readier stated that procedurally, the conservation design resolution states that staff makes a determination of whether the conservation subdivision design principles apply to the application. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the determination, they appeal to the Planning Commission. Theoretically, Planning Commission does not comment on it if staff denies it and the applicant agrees. The concept plan stage in the planned unit development regulations provides that the applicant can go to Planning Commission or to Council. Ms. Salay stated that the applicant is then well within his rights to come to Council and show the two plans. She believes that the applicant would likely prefer to build what was shown to the Planning Commission previously which they disapproved. Mrs. Boring clarified that a concept plan does not have to be reviewed by the Commission - it can be taken directly to Council. The applicant is therefore not requesting an appeal to Council. Ms. Readier concurred. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. Maurer had requested to testify. The case is not being heard tonight, however, so he may choose not to testify. .. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if this is the first project that has been proposed since the conservation subdivision design resolution was approved? Mr. Reiner responded affirmatively. Mr. Maurer commented that this case will set a precedent and will haye to be settled in accord with conservation design. Secondly, there are two plans - one of 88 units, which did not meet the criteria, and one with 76 units which comes closer, but which does not have the same amenities. Council must ensure that this first case meets the conservation design criteria 100 percent, however that occurs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, lNC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 12 Held 20 Mr. Reiner stated that the conservation design can be done on this site, but the applicant chooses not to do so. The City must make up its mind about adherence to its own laws. Vote on the motion to table: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if anyone wants to bring a motion to the table for a study session regarding conservation design. Mr. Keenan moved to schedule a study session regarding conservation design. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, no. (Motion failed) . Showmobile Fee Waiver - Arthritis Foundation Ms. Brautigam stated that the Foundation has an event each summer at Metro Center and requests that Council waive the rental fee of $750 for the use of the City's Showmobile. She has waived the fee for one day, but the Foundation is requesting an additional day waiver. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned with the costs of maintenance. Are those costs recovered? Ms. Brautigam responded that they are required to pay the set-up fee of $900 and this covers maintenance as well. Mrs. Boring moved to waive the $750 fee for the second day of rental. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan asked why this equipment is provided at no cost to other cities that compete with Dublin for economic development. Ms. Brautigam stated that it is in a spirit of regional partnership that the equipment is shared with other governmental entities. Mr. McCash added that the Showmobile actually provides advertising for the City at no cost to the City. Ms. Salay asked how this sharing of the equipment is consistent or inconsistent with previous discussion regarding fee waivers. Ms. Brautigam stated that the matrix relates to fee waivers at the Rec Center. These are exclusively events that occur in the summer in other events in the region and there is a neighborly aspect to sharing the equipment. They do pay for the costs of set-up. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the waiver being discussed by Council tonight relates to an event taking place in Dublin. Mr. Lecklider added that this event utilizes significant numbers of hotel rooms, generating hotel/motel tax revenues. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if other municipalities show any .. inclination to reciprocate on fee waivers. Ms. Brautigam stated that the Showmobile is owned by Dublin, and other municipalities do not have equipment which Dublin is in need of using. Mr. Maurer asked what is meant by "total waiver" as distinct from the waiver being discussed tonight. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Franklin County had requested a total waiver, which included waiving the set-up fee for their use of the Showmobile. This total waiver, however, was not granted. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 13 Held 20 . Stormwater Regulation Waiver Request - Jasons Restaurant, 50 W. Bridge Street Mr. McCash noted that there are two waivers for Historic Dublin and suggested that they be discussed at the same time. . Stormwater Regulation Waiver Request - Bassett Property, 39 S. High Street Mr. Hammersmith stated that the staff report provides details regarding each of the requests for waivers. Mr. Lecklider noted that the Bassett property case is a bit different from the others. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is a proposed addition and renovation to an existing building which involves removing a patio and adding on to the structure. It creates an additional impervious structure. Mr. Lecklider noted that there is some language that requires that the runoff is directed toward the public system without adversely impacting adjacent properties. How will this be monitored? Mr. Hammersmith stated that this detail will be required at the time of plan review. Mr. McCash moved to grant stormwater regulation detention waivers to Jasons Restaurant at 50 W. Bridge Street and to the Bassett property at 39 S. High Street. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. . Proposed Revisions to Chapter 53: Stormwater Management Regulations Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff is proposing revisions to the Chapter adopted in April of 1998. Significant revisions would include stronger requirements to regulate construction sites and stormwater runoff, and creation of stream corridor protection zones. In terms of significant changes to stormwater detention or the quality component of the ordinance, staff is not proposing wholesale changes to those areas. Staff is suggesting that the design requirements be incorporated into policy within the Division of Engineering, which would then not require Council action for modification in the future. Staff recommends that the Community Services Advisory Commission review the proposed revisions, and if needed, seek input from Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff will work closely with the Planning division on this matter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe for the review by CSAC. Would Planning Commission ultimately receive the document from CSAC for P&Z review, or would P&Z and CSAC review the document concurrently? Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff is recommending it be reviewed first by CSAC; depending upon the direction from Planning staff, it would then be decided whether it needed review by the Planning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the timeframe requested for completion of the review process. ,,*,,- Mr. Hammersmith responded that he is hopeful that it would be completed by the end of June. There was no objection from Council to submitting the revisions to CSAC for review and recommendations. The timeframe expected for this review is by the end of June, 2005. . Conceptual Plan and Cost Estimate - Tara Hill Drive Traffic Calming Mr. Hammersmith noted that the concept plan was inadvertently not attached to the staff report in the packet. The report responds to the issues raised at the last Council meeting regarding the Tara Hill traffic-calming program. He has also provided information regarding an additional sidewalk included within the concept RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC" FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 14 Held 20 plan, as well as information regarding the adjacent neighborhood streets. He offered to respond to questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she recalls at the time the Task Force was established that Mr. Lecklider had pushed for having the Task Force itself be broad in scope of membership in order to address the concerns of surrounding neighborhoods impacted with decisions about Tara Hill. She has since learned that the scope was narrowed and that there are potentially other projects contemplated for the future. When the original concept was in the air, was there an expectation that whatever might be done in the general vicinity of Tara Hill and other arterials impacted by those decisions would cost in the range of $1 million or more? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there was no definitive cost estimate ever provided for the adjacent streets, as there were no concept plans for those streets. It could be looked at on a length basis, given the length of Tara Hill. There was a newspaper article that described a million dollar project for Tara Hill alone. There is not a comprehensive estimate of the costs for the entire area. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that although there are no concept plans for the adjacent areas, when looked at comprehensively, one would expect these kind of numbers. Mr. Hammersmith stated that depending on the devices recommended, there is this potential. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked what measures the City is taking with projects to avoid the need for these expenses in the future. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff is reviewing geometrics of roadways, the width, and on street parking. Road curvature has the most impact in terms of altering the motorist's path. Curvilinear streets and traffic circles are being incorporated into neighborhood planning to avoid the need for future roadway mod ifications Ms. Salay stated that she recalls several applicants at Planning Commission who incorporated traffic calming into their design, such as Post Preserve. Mr. McCash commented that it appears that at the intersection of Fallen Timbers and Tara Hill there is a planned traffic circle. How will the operation of the traffic circle and the traffic signal at Tara Hill be handled? There is a large traffic back up on Tara Hill in this location each morning. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this was a topic of discussion at the Task Force. The motorists would have to leave a gap at the traffic circle, as is done currently. Theoretically, they are not permitted to block the Fallen Timbersrrara Hill intersection as traffic is waiting to proceed through the signal. Mr. Lecklider stated that long-term, as studies are done related to Tullymore, Valley Stream and Avery-Muirfield, and with the prospect of a signal at Sells Mill, it is hoped that the Tara Hill back up will be reduced. ~ Mr. McCash commented that it is currently not possible to turn left from Valley Stream onto Avery-Muirfield. He believes that the traffic back up on Tara Hill will continue due to the large number of residents south of Tara Hill who want to turn left onto Avery-Muirfield. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the impact is a difficult number to quantify. Mr. McCash noted that the amount of cut-through traffic indicated in the report was not significant. There are still a significant number of homes using Tara Hill as the collector road for exit as it was designed to be. Mr. Hammersmith responded that a significant portion of the neighborhood north of Tara Hill travels down to Tara Hill because there is no signal available at Sells Mill. Ms. Salay added that the signal draws traffic to Tara Hill. The traffic on Tara Hill increased significantly with the signal installation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 15 Held 20 Mr. McCash responded that the residents requested the signal. Ms. Salay noted that she had discussed with Mr. Hammersmith that at the time the concept plan is presented to the community and ultimately to Council, a big picture, long-term look at traffic in the area, showing how changes being made both outside the Tara Hill area and internal to Tara Hill will impact traffic on Emerald Parkway, Post Road and on Tara Hill. The potential of addressing the Valley Stream/Avery- Muirfield problems with intersection improvements and the signal at Sells Mill should be included. She encouraged Council to keep an open mind regarding the Tara Hill work, as the Task Force has worked hard to get to this point. Mr. Lecklider encouraged Council to keep in perspective that the City builds bikepath tunnels utilized by a very small number of residents for $400,000 and up. Compare this cost to the cost of one bikepath tunnel, and consider the number of people who would potentially benefit from the Tara Hill improvements. A major component - the Rec Center - was added by the City and contributes to the traffic issues. The homes existed prior to the Rec Center construction. While it is a great asset to the neighborhood, there is much controversy surrounding the Downpatrick Drive entrance and its impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Boring commented that much discussion took place regarding the Rec Center entrance at Downpatrick at the time the Rec Center was planned. It concerns her that the entrance is now dubbed a "shortcut" to the Rec Center. It should instead be referred to as an "access road" - it is not a private drive. Having this entry to "'"" the Rec Center is a safety measure, ensuring multiple access routes to the facility. These are public streets and it concerns her that modifying this access would be suggested. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is actually both an access point and a short cut. This was a reflection of the comments of some of the members of the Task Force who view this as a shortcut. The license plate survey is being done to address their concerns. Mrs. Boring noted she, too is also concerned about the traffic back up which could result with the traffic circle at Fallen Timbers. Is there a guideline regarding the distance between traffic circles and a traffic signal? Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is not such a guideline. It is based on engineering judgment and review of traffic volumes at the intersection. RD. Zande closely reviewed this aspect. The device could be modified to another option, but it was the desire of the Task Force to include that device at that particular intersection. Mrs. Boring asked why a sidewalk was not previously constructed along a portion of Tara Hill. Mr. McCash recalled that these were Parade of Homes models when the neighborhood was first built. ...... Mrs. Boring observed that as the community continues to grow, traffic movement is being restricted. What is being done to help move the traffic to its destination? It is '.or,.. often not possible to drive from point "A" to point "B" in a reasonable amount of time in Dublin. What is being done in this regard? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City is planning very proactively with the travel demand model update currently underway. The Thoroughfare Plan is being revisited to optimize the arterials throughout the City. The Muirfield/Brand roundabout is a great example of improving intersection capacity, and obtaining the most capacity out of the arterials. The Avery-Muirfield corridor between Post Road and the interchange is being reviewed; staff is evaluating the Valley StreamlTullymore/Avery intersection; staff will be looking at the Avery/Brand intersection. The goal is to maximize the arterials by improving intersection RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGALBLANK,INC., FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 16 Held 20 capacity. Another project close to completion is the signal progression study to coordinate signals throughout the community to provide for smooth traffic movement on the arterials. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she recognizes the tremendous amount of - work being done by the Task Force. However, she has long been concerned that people expect that the solution ultimately approved will answer everything. It will not, as there is a large volume of traffic generated by the residents of the neighborhood. In working with citizen groups, this should always be forefront in the minds of Council and staff. These are solutions that help, but the problems will not be 100 percent eliminated. That lends itself to deciding on the prioritization of what is implemented. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Tara Hill asked if any consideration has ever been given to establishing a speeding fine of $177 for exceeding the speed limit in any location. He received such a speeding fine 10 years ago in another state. Perhaps this level of fee would discourage any future speeding. Mr. McCash responded that Council did discuss previously a proposal of doubling speeding fines in neighborhoods. However, this was not supported. . Topsoil Management Guidelines - Recommendations from the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) Tom Merritt, Chair of CSAC addressed Council regarding their work on topsoil .~" management guidelines. A memo dated February 1 from the Commission identifies some recommendations for this policy. The citizen advisory group "'" wrestled with this issue for several months. They recommend adoption of some form of policy, recognizing the value and benefits of topsoil management. The Commission members shared concerns they had personally experienced in regard to topsoil and the need to augment the topsoil for landscaping installation. The problems arise with implementation of such a policy. City departments were brought in who would be responsible for overseeing this, and the Building Industry Association was involved in the review process. The draft guidelines are general, and the Commission believes more input from City staff and Council is needed regarding what direction to take. Where material is placed or how much material is to be placed back on the lots, whether it is compacted or not compacted, are all factors to be considered. CSAC believes there is a need for a topsoil management policy. In addition, they are looking for more information on the costs of implementation and its practical application in the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this may be appropriate to refer to the Community Development Committee of Council who could work with representatives of CSAC on the policy development. Mr. Reiner agreed, noting that he has reviewed the information from the BIA. They have raised some interesting points which he believes can be addressed. The ~. policy should relate to each site as it is developed. He noted that the BIA letter indicates that this policy is likely to increase the homeowner's costs. However, the homeowner who lays sod on top of clay - an impervious surface dug out from the 'IIiiit,;.,.,,,,, foundation - must then purchase an irrigation system at a cost of thousands of dollars. Trees will not grow well in clay, and plant materials will have slower growth. Laying sod on the clay results in sheeting water, creating drainage problems, sending more water downstream and causing flooding downstream. The yard acts like a roof or street versus a sponge. All of these are important considerations for further discussion. Jim Hilz, Executive Director, Buildinq Industry Association stated that during the process at the Commission, questions arose about how this process would work, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148 March 7, 2005 Page 17 Held 20 enforcement issues, applicability to residential and/or commercial and whether the developer or the builder is responsible for reapplying the topsoil. Other questions included a location for stockpiling; the requirements for stockpiling; the need to mulch the stockpile; remulching when topsoil is removed; and sifting out the mulch when topsoil is reapplied. Enforcement is another matter which needs ... consideration. In terms of the minimum depth requirement, discussion began with two inches and then grew to 4-6 inches. Is this measured before or after compaction? When there are new subdivisions versus existing subdivisions, how would it apply to lots in existing subdivisions? He looks forward to working with Council on the development of this policy. Mr. Reiner noted that 40-50 years ago, topsoil was set aside on a building site and spread back on the site against the foundation. There were many benefits to this practice. Now, basements are dug out and the clay is spread over the site, which leads to the problems already cited. He believes this is a simple matter. The topsoil should be pushed to the side and then spread again on the site after the building construction is completed. There are implications for the drainage systems, as he has described. Most importantly, the practice of stripping topsoil impedes tree quality and growth far into the future. The costs for a bulldozer to strip the topsoil would result in many savings for the homeowners and improvements in ecology. He is looking forward to the meeting. Hearing no objection, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is the consensus of Council that this matter be referred to the Community Development Committee. They will work with representatives of CSAC and the BIA as the process continues. She asked if a recommendation from the Community Development Committee ~' ':' could be brought back to Council in 2005, as this issue has been under discussion since November of 2003. ~ Mr. Reiner stated that he is confident this recommendation can be brought back to Council in the near future. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS There were no reports from staff. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Lecklider commented positively regarding Mr. Ciarochi's letter to residents about reporting power outages directly to AEP. The letter was timely and he is hopeful that residents will read and follow the recommendations to ensure prompt restoration of service. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she is aware that some portion of the east side of Dublin experienced a power outage last Sunday for over two hours. These ongoing issues should be addressed by AEP. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There being no further business, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition and personnel matters. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. '?\', Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be taken. .~ Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ~~~ {~c2.~' Clerk of Council