Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 March 14, 2005 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 14, 2005 at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Avery Smith, three-year old Dublin resident, granddaughter of Law Director Steve Smith and daughter of Prosecutor Stephen Smith recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Mrs. Boring then led the audience in reciting 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, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Bird, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Chief Epperson, Ms. Hoyle, Ms. Crandall, and Ms. Heal. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 7, 2005. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. McCash noted a correction on page five, fourth paragraph, where it should state that staff made a determination, not a recommendation. Vote on the minutes as corrected: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The clerk reported that there was no correspondence requiring Council action. CITIZEN COMMENTS (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Amy Keller, 10542 MacKenzie Way noted that she is a senior at Dublin Coffman High and is a participant in the Young Professionals Academy. She has enjoyed a valuable learning experience in working with the Community Relations staff. She thanked Council for their continued support of this program that provides students with excellent opportunities for hands-on experience in business. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated: 1. This is the night that Council will give him the date for the reinstatement of the City Engineer. He noted that he would give up any ten of his podium speaking opportunities to join Council in one executive session. If a date has not been set for the reinstatement of the Engineer, he plans to return on Wednesday, or between now and the next Council meeting to undertake a constitutional movement. 2. He did not finish his comments at a previous meeting regarding a response to the City Manager's reorganization of the administration of the City. He recalled that long ago, President Kennedy had a press conference and a reporter asked a very long question with many preambles to which President Kennedy responded, "yes." Mr. Maurer personally posed a similarly long question to the City Manager regarding the usefulness of the City's reorganization and she responded, "yes." 3. He yielded his remaining time. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING REZONING Ordinance 13-04 Providing for a Change in Zoning For 22.657 Acres Located on the Southeast Corner of Metatec Boulevard (now known as Discovery Boulevard) and Post RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 70148 March 14, 2005 Page 2 Held 20 Road, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 04-0282 - Homestead at Coffman Park) Mr. Bird stated that this is an amended preliminary development plan and zoning adjustment for the Homestead at Coffman Park. A memo in the packet contains the plans and development plan approval history for the project. He provided a brief overview of the project, noting that the applicant is present. The site is L-shaped and is bordered on the north by residential use, to the south by commercial and vacant property, and to the west and east by office use. The property is zoned planned unit development and was rezoned in 2000 by Council for residential use. The site plan shows 63 single-family units and 3 units on the northwest portion called "live/work" units. The proposed public open space is located along Post Road and around the detention pond. The open space is approximately 4.4 acres, and the requirement is 4.25 acres. He showed a map with the extensive landscape features, including stonewalls and a gazebo. The live/work units would provide for a small shop on the first floor, with a residential unit on the second floor. The architecture is a combination of traditional stone and wood, with a majority of 1-1/2 to two-story traditionally styled homes. It includes a community center facility of less than 5,000 square feet for use by the residents, located on the north side of the pond. The Planning Commission recommended approval with seven conditions, six of which have already been addressed. The type of fencing around the periphery of the development will be addressed at the final development plan stage. The development is consistent with the principles contained in the Community Plan, is an appropriate transition from residential to office use, and provides alternative housing types along Post Road. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, Columbus noted he represents the applicant, Pat Grabill, a principal with Homestead Communities. After reviewing the site plan following his purchase of Homestead, Mr. Grabill retained Jim Burkhart, local landscape architect to make some improvements to the site plan. The differences were substantial enough to require a rezoning process. The previous plan had issues related to fire department access to the site. With all of these revisions, eight units were eliminated. He invited Mr. Grabill to speak about the product and the market. Pat Grabill, 182 South High Street, Dublin stated that he is pleased with the final evolution of the floor plans. They all include first floor master bedrooms and are designed for those who want to downsize, yet want the independence of a detached home with atwo-car garage in the Dublin area, and want to be within walking distance of the Rec Center. This provides another housing alternative for those who want to stay in the Dublin community when their families are grown. Mr. Reiner stated that he was not present at Council for the vote on the first rezoning of this property. This represents a change from the Community Plan designation of income producing office use to residential - an extraordinary action. At this point, there is nothing that can be done to change that decision. From the legal opinion, he understands that the conservation design resolution does not apply to this site. He is almost certain he would not have voted in favor of changing commercial office zoning to residential zoning. There is nothing to be done at this point. Mr. McCash noted that on Danielle Court, it appears that there is asphalt loop for two parallel parking spaces. Does it make sense to have all of this asphalt for two parking spaces versus having more greenspace for the front entries of those four units? Mr. Hale responded that there are actually four parking spaces in that location. The desire is to have guest parking in front of these units. Mr. Grabill added that this might also relate to discussions with the fire department regarding equipment access. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 3 Held 20 Mr. McCash stated that this seems too tight of a radius for fire equipment. This seems an ideal place to add more greenspace between the units. Mr. Grabill commented that this could be reviewed in conjunction with preparation of the final development plan. Mr. McCash asked if elevators are required for the live/work units. Under the fair housing guidelines, he believes this would be required. The HUD guidelines are fairly clear. Mr. Grabill responded that their architect has indicated that elevators are not required. Mr. McCash asked if the live/work units were a key part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's support of the project. Mr. Hale stated that there was some discussion about eliminating these units, but some Commission Members wanted them left in. One live/work unit was dropped for parking space, resulting in three live/work units. Mr. McCash does not foresee that the live/work units can actually be built there. Mr. Grabill stated that they were part of the original approval and were subsequently relocated. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff review the HUD requirements and report back to Council. Mr. Bird agreed to do so. Mr. Keenan asked about the timeline for build out. When will the project be completed? Mr. Grabill responded that following the approval process, they hope to initiate the project this fall. Completion is scheduled no later than three years out. Mr. Keenan asked staff about the timing for the Avery-Muirfield/Post Road intersection improvements. There is much traffic congestion already in this location. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the improvements are scheduled for the summer of 2006. Ms. Salay commented that her understanding is that a residential use of this site versus office will actually have positive impacts from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, generally speaking, the trip generation from residential zoning is actually less than office use. That information was provided to the Commission. Ms. Salay disclosed that she met previously with Mr. Grabill and the landscape architect to discuss this project. She served on Planning Commission at the time the project first came through under the previous rezoning. The landscaping along Post Road is very nice as proposed. She pointed out that it is important for staff to focus on the elements in terms of serving as the gateway location into Coffman Park. This development will be a nice addition to the area. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has been generally supportive of this project from the outset. He likes the concept of the live/work units, which have been successful in other locations. The proposed development lends to the residential character of this portion of Post Road. It provides alternative housing stock for the community. Given the capacity to handle traffic in the area, it is positive. Regarding the conversion from commercial use, it may prove to be a positive in terms of the traffic generation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she met in January with Mr. Grabill and his associates to review the project. She is very supportive of the provision of diverse housing. She is hopeful that the live/work units can be included, as they will be a good addition where currently proposed. She appreciates Mr. Refiner's comments RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 4 Held 20 about the loss of income tax revenue, but the transition from the residential across the street is better with this type of residential units versus traditional businesses. She invited public testimony. Edith Driscoll, 6230 Post Road stated that she has lived in her home for 46 years next month. She keeps a diary and noticed that ten years ago, Dublin was in the process of updating its Community Plan, approved in 1997. She recently reviewed the Post Road portion. In Chapter 2 of the Plan, "Environment" it lists scenic roads to be maintained, including Avery, Brand and post Road. The proposed development will add to this feel for Post Road, with mounding, water features, fencing, and bikepath. It will fulfill the vision of the Community Plan for this area. The neighbors along Post Road are in support of the proposal that will help to maintain the character of Post Road. She urged Council to approve the proposed rezoning. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked about the ownership of the development company listed as Continental/NRI Ventures Ltd. Mr. Grabill responded that the land is owned currently by Nationwide Insurance. The development is a joint venture with partners of his and Continental Real Estate. Mr. Maurer noted that he was concerned with whether there was a "cookie-cutter" principle involved here. In reading the materials, however, he noticed that Mr. Grabill is targeting variation. The materials refer to a community center. With the location across from the Dublin Community Rec Center, is there any possibility that it will take overflow from the DCRC? Mr. Grabill noted that this center is for the exclusive use of the owners of the units in the development. Mr. Maurer noted that it has been determined that this development is not subject to the conservation design principles. From here on out, there are apt to be more developments with conservation design development involved. Will there be some clashes between the character of this and future development, or will it be a healthy diversity? If Dublin has remaining land not amenable to conservation design, the City should consider another sector of buyers. The Minerva Park area strikes him as an amazing feat, with an arresting and magnetic diversity. The homes are only 20-30 feet apart, and it is a model of high-density development. Chris Cline, 6060 Post Road noted that their home is one of the two remaining residential neighbors of the subject property. They are in favor of this project. This is the original Wellington School site, which then became the Dublin Tech Park. At the time of the Perimeter Center zoning, they lobbied and were successful in changing the zoning for this section. That was back in the 1980's and the site never sold. They view this as appropriate for residential zoning, although the market didn't view it this way. It became apparent that it was a third tier site, and that what was proposed to be built there in recent years was not of high quality. They are very pleased that the direction has changed. This development is more compatible with the view along Post Road. The Coffman Park Task Force felt that this was an important entry for the municipal complex at Coffman Park. This will be a much better view along Post Road for the residents as well as for those who travel along Post Road. They strongly support this rezoning. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr. Reiner stated that Mr. Grabill has done many wonderful projects in Dublin, but personally, he remains concerned about residential development on the south side of Post Road, invading a commercially zoned area. He would have opposed this if he were present at the time of the original vote. He does not see this as a positive RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 for the citizens of Dublin from a tax base perspective, as it constitutes tightly packed residential development amidst commercial zoning. BID ACCEPTANCE Ordinance 16-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the North East Quad Park North Paving Project, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and Declaring an Emergency. There were no questions of staff. Ms. Salay moved for emergency passage. Mr. Lecklider 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. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 17-05 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Stormwater Management System Maintenance Program -General Construction Service Contract 2005, and Declaring an Emergency. There were no questions of staff. Mr. Lecklider moved for emergency passage. Mr. Reiner 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. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Mr. Maurer had requested to testify. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that the formula used in the bid is $918 per hour for labor and machinery. What about the total number of hours for the overall program? Mr. Hammersmith stated that the hourly estimate given is a total of all items included in the bid - backhoe, labor and other equipment. It provides a unit basis on which to compare bids. For any activity or task a contractor is asked to perform, they must provide a quote that is reviewed and approved by staff before work commences on that particular task. Mrs. Boring asked if staff has set a cap for this project, per the budget. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is an annual cap for maintenance activities of $250,000. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. 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. Brautigam stated that this relates to the final acquisition of property in connection with the southwest traffic-calming project. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 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. Ms. Brautigam stated that this ordinance updates the land values for purposes of establishing a fee in lieu of land dedication. It is based on an appraisal and is done each two years, in accordance with the Code. It was last done in 2003. It provides for an average land value of residential property of $41,500, $2,000 greater than the valuation in 2003 of $39,500. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES LAND ACQUISITION Ordinance 21-05 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Assignment of Real Estate Purchase Agreement between Franklin-Union Real Estate LLC, as Seller, and Duke Realty, Ohio, as Buyer, for the Purpose of Acquiring a 74 Plus or Minus Acre Tract of Land at the Southwest Corner of Eiterman Road and Post/State Route 161, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the acquisition of property that the City is targeting for technology and knowledge-based technology development. The property is needed for economic development purposes and the price is very favorable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that the owner of the property is Franklin- Union Real Estate, and Duke has a first option on the property. His question is why Duke is ready to sell now rather than to wait speculatively? Mr. Smith responded that this property has been in contract off and on for 2-1/2 years. The City administration persuaded Duke that the property is needed by the City and Duke has have given up their rights as a result and wilt develop in another location. The adjacent property was purchased recently by the City from DBS. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Resolution 03-05 Appointing Members to the Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Dublin. Mr. McCash introduced the resolution. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the resolution was not included in the packet. Mr. Keenan noted that it was distributed on the dais tonight. Mr. McCash reported that the Administrative Committee met and interviewed candidates for boards and commissions on February 28. Based upon the interviews and discussions that followed on March 7, the recommendation is to appoint the following: Rick Gerber and Rayna Jones to four-year terms on the Planning & Zoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Ci~r Council Meeting DAYTON LEOAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 7 Held 20 Commission; Clayton Bryan to a three-year term on the Architectural Review Board; Bangalore Shankar to a three-year term on the Board of Zoning Appeals; Tom Merritt and Randy Roth to three-year terms on the Community Services Advisory Commission; Anthony Collins, Tim May and Chi Weber to three-year terms on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission; Mark Stemm to a three- year term on the Personnel Board of Review; and Ed Ostrowski, Jr. to a three-year term on the Records Commission. Mrs. Boring noted that she had understood that further discussion would take place in executive session before making a recommendation. Therefore, she will not support this resolution. Mr. Reiner stated that he, too, thought further discussion was to take place and he is surprised that a recommendation is being made at this time. Mr. Keenan commented that he understood that there would be an additional review of one or two candidates, but he never heard anything further and presumed that the process was concluded. Mr. McCash stated that apparently, a meeting with some Council Members did take place this earlier this week. He has not heard any other concerns. There was discussion on March 7 about the interviews and the status of the appointments, and afollow-up meeting took place. Following that meeting, there was no further input provided from any Council Members. Mrs. Boring responded that the reason there was no follow-up was that this is generally done in an executive session with everyone present. She is somewhat confused. Mr. Reiner assumed the same, that there would be further discussion of the candidates. Last he heard, there was afollow-up interview scheduled with one of the candidates. After that, he has heard nothing and he presumed there was no recommendation for action tonight. Mr. McCash stated that the resolution was included on the agenda for tonight's meeting. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keenan, yes. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Resolution 04-05 Adopting the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that Ms. Lozier is present to respond to any questions. Ms. Salay commented that staff has done a great job in moving the yard waste collection day back to Monday. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. GRANT APPLICATION Resolution 05-05 Designating the City Manager as the City's Authorized Agent to Apply for and Accept a Grant from the Public Assistance Grant Program under the Federal Emergency Management Program (FEMA). Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that this relates to the holiday snowstorm and will allow her to apply and receive any available funding from FEMA. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 8 Held 20 Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER • Proposed Assignment for Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Mr. Hahn stated that a Dublin resident, Kevin Torrico has approached staff about the possibility of constructing an in-line skate park in a Dublin park. In view of the design project underway for the south end of Avery Park, staff is recommending that Kevin speak to PRAC about this concept for their further review and recommendation to Council. There was no objection to this matter being reviewed by PRAC. Mr. McCash asked if the existing skate park allows for in-line skating. Mr. Hahn stated that this would be for hockey-type skating, which requires a flat surface. • Dublin Arts Council Report -David Guion, Executive Director David Guion, Executive Director of Dublin Arts Council gave a PowerPoint presentation to Council regarding their programs and events, and their contributions to the Dublin community. He noted the following: • The DAC was incorporated in 1984 with the mission of enriching the community by striving to provide the highest caliber arts and arts education experiences. • The organization moved to the offices on Bridge Street in 1996 and began operation at the Dublin Arts Center in March of 2002. • The staff and Board have identified four key criteria for all events and programs, based on the mission statement. These are to enrich the community, to develop audiences, to provide educational opportunities and to support artists. • DAC is committed to maximizing resources and they are reducing expenses to balance the budget, monitoring expenditures without sacrificing the impact of programming, increasing and diversifying revenue streams, and looking for ways to bring a variety of earned and contributed revenue streams to support programming. • DAC has developed and is executing a development plan that incorporates government grants, corporate grants and sponsorships, foundation grants and individual cultivation. • The hotel/motel tax distribution comprises 68 percent of the DAC's operating budget. The additional 32 percent must be raised from contributed, earned income and in-kind contributions. • He showed a number of charts and graphs reflecting the expenses and revenues, both current and projected. • He shared the findings of a 2001 study conducted by Americans for the Arts. Non-profit arts organizations in Dublin generate close to $1 million in local economic activity, over $422,000 in events related spending, and $90,000 in local and state revenue. Dublin resident arts attendees spend an average of $14.50 per event and non- residents $19.50 per event. • There is also exposure for the City of Dublin within the quarterly activity guides and brochures, the web site and media coverage. • He provided statistics on participation in their programs during 2004, with 726 attending classes, 5,000 at the Arts & Music Festival, 5,000 at the Celebration of Japan Festival, 9,000 for Sundays at Scioto concert series, 3,000 students in the Arts Education in Schools program, and over 700 people visited the gallery at the Dublin Arts Center. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 9 Held 20 • This continuing participation has led to an interest in volunteering with the DAC. They have a committed Board of 18 members and 151 volunteers that help with programs and events. They provide over 900 hours of service each year. • They have a Flapjacks and Family Fun Fundraiser open house which supports educational programs and is underwritten by Bob Evans with volunteer support from the Moms Club Central, attracting over 450 children and adults to the Center. An upcoming event is on May 21, and he invited Council to attend. • The DAC provides grants to arts organizations in Dublin, keeping them vibrant and fiscally sound. Over $172,000 has been provided to community arts organizations in Dublin since 1998. • In terms of the community arts education program, the Center features ceramics, pottery, painting, drawing, creative writing, multimedia arts, performing arts, language instruction and photography, among many others. • -Art Ventures began in September of 2002 to engage young audiences of the community in the arts. Sixteen programs are offered this year that will serve 200 children. • Arts camps are designed to offer more in depth, weeklong arts experiences. This year, the program will impact over 130 young people. • They also offer classes for Girl Scouts and Brownies. Dublin has the highest concentration of girl scouts in the Columbus region and this is an excellent partnership that has resulted in the completion of six badge requirements for over 325 scouts. In 2005-2006, they hope to introduce arts programs for boy scouts. • There is a community of men and women who participate in ceramics class. It reaches out to the Japanese population of Dublin. • The Moms' Club Central partnership is critical to the DAC. All monies raised through this partnership support the educational programs. They have supported the DAC for two consecutive years. They provide volunteers for many DAC events. • The Arts Education in Schools program is quite extensive. The Hayashi residency of taiko drummers is a partnership with the Ohio Arts Council and Arts Midwest. The program has had an impact on over 500 Davis Middle School students. Tickets to the Coffman performances are sold out with a waiting list of 200. This residency has broadened the DAC audience to a greater constituency. • Another program is the Theater Enrichment for Youth, a collaboration with Phoenix Theater for Children offering free performances and workshops to fourth grade students. It has impacted over 3,000 fourth grade students since its inception. • An Arts Education in Schools outreach tool is the Art Connection Teachers Resource guide, linking DAC programs to the classroom. Art in Public Places is an example of these curricular units. This unit is directly tied to the third grade requirement to study the history of Dublin. • The Art Education in School grants are for projects that fall outside the regular classroom activities. Over $30,000 has been granted to Dublin Schools since 1998. One example is the St. Brigid of Kildare mural project that involved over 450 students and their families. Another example is the seed money provided by DAC for the Wyandotte Elementary Schools graffiti day that took place in 2001- 2002. Seed money for the Scottish Corners Drum Ensemble was provided, allowing for purchase of drums from around the world. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., f-0RM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 10 Held 20 • A business partnership exists with the Borders Books Music and Exhibition that occurs monthly and involves 350 students and families annually. • This is the 7th annual Arts and Music Festival that brings in over 5,000 people to Historic Dublin. Over 70 artists participate, with live music ` on two stages. • The Celebration of Japan Festival began in 1995 and was moved to Scioto High School to accommodate the crowds. • The visual arts series consists of eight exhibitions this year that will drawn over 700 visitors to the DAC gallery. • "Emerging" is an exhibition of student artwork at the DAC gallery and is an annual event, allowing a forum for student artists to exhibit and sell their work. It is a juried exhibition and they anticipate over 100 entries this year. • The Sundays at Scioto concert series is a free outdoor concert and attracts over 8,000 people. In an ongoing effort to achieve fiscal responsibility as well as provide opportunities for local arts, the series has been reduced from 10 to 8 performances and will feature all Ohio artists. • The Art in Public Places is one of the most visible programs of the DAC. They are included in brochures distributed by the DCVB and the DAC. Teacher resource guides are produced in conjunction with the Art in Public Places program. Presentations have been made by staff at national conferences regarding Dublin's Art in Public Places program. In conclusion, Mr. Guion stated that the DAC is committed to the Dublin community in its programs and events and provides cultural experiences for Dublin, the state of Ohio and beyond. With the ongoing financial support of the City of Dublin bed tax, the DAC is able to continue to offer diverse and varied programs and events. They look forward to expanding relationships with the Dublin community by developing audiences, enriching the community, supporting artists and offering educational activities for everyone. Mr. Guion acknowledged the Board members present: Jack Pigman, President; Glory Sumka-Stack, President-Elect; Jefferey Gerberry, Treasurer; Kevin Denny, Secretary; and Paul Buchanan. Staff members present were Jerad Groves, Missy Donovan, Michele Gatz, Christine Langston, Jessica Fagan, and Carol Argiro. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Guion for the comprehensive presentation. She noted that Dublin is most fortunate to have bed tax revenues that can support an arts council in the community. Part of the discussion at the recent goal setting session was the importance of art and culture for a healthy community. Council looks forward to working closely with the DAC as programs move forward. Mr. McCash, Council's representative to the Arts Council Board praised the efforts of the DAC Board and staff in providing the many programs that positively impact the quality of life in Dublin. In view of the essentially flat bed tax revenues, they have had to consider making some difficult decisions. The impact they have had in Dublin is unparalleled to arts councils in most other suburban areas around Central Ohio. Ms. Salay thanked the Board and staff for attending tonight. She noted that she hopes that it is possible to have a second performance of the Hayashi concert to accommodate the demand. • Follow Up Concerning Citizen Question on Applicability of Conservation Design Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at the March 7 Council meeting, Mr. Cline posed some questions to Council regarding the Avondale Woods development and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 11 Held 20 Council agreed to have the staff provide information regarding the applicability of conservation design principles to that site. Further discussion was to take place tonight, followed by direction to staff or a decision by Council. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff prepared a spreadsheet for the packet that shows the relevant history of each of the projects discussed at the last meeting -Avery Road condos, Avondale Woods, Riverside Woods and the Homestead at Coffman Park in an effort to help Council understand the timeline for the review of each of them in relation to the two conservation design resolutions approved by Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited Council Members to comment. Mr. McCash stated that Council approved two conservation design resolutions previously. While looking at the timeline of events for the four projects, he finds it interesting that a rezoning becomes a potential vesting issue. Having said that, Avondale Woods filed for rezoning in December of 2002 and has been going through the process, trying to comply with all of the City's new regulations. They were directed to provide concept plans to P&Z so that P&Z could determine if the conservation design legislation applied. They did so and as a result of the direction given by P&Z, proceeded to develop plans for the site. They were then caught up in the conservation subdivision design fray. To a certain extent, they may be very well be "vested" -although it is probably not the appropriate legal term -because there are various different provisions of what "vesting" means. It doesn't mean in a rezoning process. They have tried to comply with the City's provisions and continue to meet roadblocks. They are now being asked to go back again to revise plans, after expending considerable planning dollars. Mr. McCash moved that Avondale Woods be permitted to proceed, without requiring compliance with the conservation subdivision design provisions, based upon the fact that they have already received direction under the prior resolution, that conservation subdivision design does not apply to them, with the caveat that to the extent they can at least look at the guidelines and understand the concepts behind them, see to what extent they may or may not be able to incorporate those into their final development plan, but those would not be mandated as part of the requirements. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Reiner stated that the memo from the Law Director indicates that he agrees that the applicant was not vested and that the conservation design resolution could legally be applied to Avondale Woods. This project is appropriate for this design, as it has amenities that are worthy of preservation. He believes that the applicant did not agree with the provisions of the conservation design; however, that doesn't warrant waiving the provisions. This is one of the first projects subject to the resolution, and waiving the rules would set a poor precedent that would undo the Council's previous efforts to set up new housing stock, to maintain the rural aspects while encouraging the kind of housing development which will make Dublin unique. It would be poor policy to waive the provisions in place for the first application to come through the process. Mrs. Boring stated that the applicant has accused the City of delaying, but there were things out of the City's control, i.e., the Columbus planning efforts and access issues related to the Hayden Run corridor. She appreciates the legal memo. When she reread the minutes of Planning Commission, she recalled that there was not a clear understanding of conservation design at that time. With more education, the Commissioners had a better understanding and were supportive. The memo initiated by Mr. Bird states that the applicant has the option to appeal the staff's determination that the site is a prime candidate for conservation design RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 13 Held Zp would be to focus on the future development around the woods. Other applicants who want to develop along the border of the woods could be asked to preserve the natural feature of the woods. This would result in having the woods preserved and the desired parkland. Mr. Bird stated that staff considered that. They also considered the other features in laying out the plan and working with the applicant to achieve the conservation design guidelines. He understands that this has nearly been achieved at this point. It is not only the woods feature, but also the access to the woods, the open space network, and the mixture of units. They are close to achieving this with the applicant. There was a focus in late 2004 on issues that required negotiation with Columbus. His opinion is that they are now close to achieving the conservation design guidelines on this site. Mrs. Boring states that what she has heard now from Mr. Bird is that although the applicant has been working on the plan all of this time, they have been working in concert with Planning staff toward meeting the conservation design requirements. Mr. Bird concurred. Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Bird if Council were to approve the motion on the table, and in view of where the project is in terms of meeting the standards, does staff see a potential for the project to go backwards? Mr. Bird responded that he is not certain he can answer the question. But in terms of the opportunity to work with the applicant to strive to meet the conservation design guidelines, staff has made the determination that the site is appropriate for conservation design development and has been working on that assumption with the applicant. As to Mr. McCash's motion, to the extent that they can be , incorporated into the development, staff would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to meet the conservation design guidelines. They are very close. If the applicant believes they are not close to achieving this, that is a different issue. At the crux of this is striving to meet the conservation design guidelines, and he would like the opportunity to do so. Mr. Lecklider responded that he is bothered by the term, "strive" which presents a dilemma for several Council Members. For him personally, this comes down to an issue of fairness in light of how this has been handled. He does not believe the misunderstanding was intentional on anyone's part. Is there a way to clearly state the motion to guard against any "backsliding" from what staff has indicated has been achieved to this point? There have been several iterations of the plan, and at a minimum, he would not want to see any retraction from what has been achieved to this point. Mr. McCash commented that "backsliding" is not the appropriate word, as it has a negative connotation. The intention of his motion is for the applicant to incorporate as many elements as possible without requiring the applicant to meet all guidelines. He has not viewed the plan recently and is not familiar with the layout. To the extent possible, he would want them to incorporate the conservation design principles. If Council determines that conservation design guidelines do not apply, there may be some potential for regression from the guidelines themselves, but he does not believe that the Commission would accept substandard design for this or any other project. Mr. Lecklider noted that he can live with conservation design to the extent that staff has the discretion the resolution allows. If and when staff does determine a site is appropriate for conservation design, the charge is to strive for adherence to the standards. His recollection is that in this case, the applicant has nearly achieved compliance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 12 Held 20 to the Planning & Zoning Commission. To date, the applicant has not pursued such an appeal. She asked staff to comment. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Cline is requesting that Avondale Woods be exempt from the provisions of the conservation design because of the work done on the project in reliance upon the previous direction from the Commission. This is a different matter than appealing the staff's determination. In addition, there was discussion at the time the resolution was passed of compiling a list of potential exemptions for applications within the system. Mr. Cline believes that he has the right to come to Council and request an exemption, based upon the history of the project. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with Mr. Refiner's comments. Further, if Council takes action tonight on this motion, what kind of flexibility does the Commission have in considering the project? Mr. Smith responded that if Council chooses to exempt the project from the conservation design resolution, it will be exempt. What would occur then is that it would be submitted as a revised plan and could not be disapproved by P&Z for reasons of not meeting the requirements of the conservation design principles. Mr. McCash's motion calls for them to meet as many conservation design principles as possible within the plan. If Council decides not to exempt this application, the applicant must comply with the conservation design resolution. Ms. Salay stated that it is her understanding that the staff position for most of 2004 was that the Avondale Woods was exempt because of the March 4, 2004 decision by the Planning Commission. Is that correct? Ms. Brautigam responded that in March of 2004, at the time the guidelines of the first conservation design resolution were in place, the Commission determined that it did not apply. The second conservation design resolution was approved in June of 2004. By that time, the project had moved along and was in a stage where the access to Avery Road had become a major issue. Staff was focusing all of its energies on this project with regard to negotiation with Columbus about appropriate access and who was responsible for funding it. At that point in time, it did not rise to the surface that under the new resolution, conservation design would apply to this site. For a period of months after June until mid-November, staff was not focused on this site with regard to conservation design. During that interim period of time, when the resolution probably did apply, staff was not making it known verbally or in writing to the applicant. Staff was not focused on that aspect of the project. In November, in a series of meetings about conservation design relating to the Avery Road condos, it became clear that the condos were being treated differently under the new resolution than Avondale Woods. So an in-house meeting took place regarding the new resolution and how it would apply to both Avery Road condos and Avondale. At that point, it became clear to staff that Avondale Woods was subject to the second resolution and there was a need to inform the applicant immediately of this. Mr. Bird did proceed to notify the applicant by phone of this information. To summarize, there was a period of time in 2004 when staff was not focused on conservation design with regard to this subdivision for all of the reasons cited. Ms. Salay stated that the applicant was therefore continuing to work on the application and was then told by staff in November that the conservation design resolution did apply. Ms. Brautigam confirmed this. Ms. Salay asked if the woods are actually the most significant portion of the site to be preserved. Mr. Bird agreed that it is a significant natural feature to be preserved. Ms. Salay stated that the woods is located in the northwest corner of the site, so perhaps a better application of the conservation design resolution in this case RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 14 Held 20 Mr. McCash stated that the issue is that the applicant can meet 80 to 90 percent, not 100 percent of the guidelines. He believes that his motion which indicates incorporating as many guidelines as possible and working with staff, yet not requiring the applicant to meet 100 percent of the requirements results in a fairly balanced approach. The wording in the present resolution indicates that staff makes a determination, not a recommendation. This has resulted in some confusion in interpretation. Maybe copies of these minutes should be provided to the Commission, simply stating that it is not a requirement that the applicant complies with all provisions of the conservation design resolution -whether it is this provision or the provisions of the last conservation design resolution. Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Smith to again respond to Mrs. Boring's question of whether Council is potentially circumventing the process if Council were to act on Mr. McCash's motion. Mr. Smith responded that Council would not be circumventing the process. His interpretation is that Mr. Cline has asked to be exempted from the conservation design resolution upfront. The issue is that the applicant has the right to come to Council and ask to be exempted from any ordinance. If Council denies the request, the appeal process within the resolution remains available to the applicant. The question becomes what happens if an applicant is 80 or 90 percent compliant. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked questions in follow-up, in the case the applicant was exempted from the conservation design guidelines as Mr. McCash has proposed. If the applicant were to meet 25 out of 29, and the Commission - indicates that they can achieve 26, including something important to the Commission which would have been included as a condition, does the applicant have the right to pick and choose which elements they will comply with? Where does the authority of the Commission lie at this point? Mr. Smith responded that this is a good question. Perhaps Council will choose not to act on the motion tonight. If Mr. Bird indicates to the Commission that the applicant has met 27 of 28 guidelines and has done everything they can do on the site, the question then becomes if that is adequate. It essentially becomes a future question for a court to decide -what does it mean to "strive for" or to "meet the determination of." He is not certain Mr. McCash stated that aside from the conservation subdivision design issue, in reference to new residential development, where does the Planning & Zoning Commission derive their authority in requiring additional open space, trees or water features beyond what Code requires? This has been standard practice for years. Mr. Smith responded that this has been Dublin's practice for years and it will continue. This is how the process works. While it works, it does take a long time and requires give and take. Council has the right and the power to request or demand these things. As it applies to conservation design, the question becomes whether meeting 28 out of 29 is acceptable, if the applicant has strived for meeting 29. Mr. McCash stated that with his motion, he envisions a plan undergoing the regular process, but the conservation design principles not becoming the total measurement for the project. Mr. Smith stated that it could be one of the measurement tools, but not the superceding tool. Mr. McCash clarified that that is the intent of his motion. Mr. Reiner stated that the problem with the motion is that it sends the wrong signal to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission was established as an appointed review body, but this would establish Council as another level of review. It would be undesirable, and would result in Council not supporting the recommendations of the Commission. Under this recommendation, acertain RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 15 Held 20 amount of ambivalence would be created along with uncertainty about the final outcome. It would be a judgment call by the Planning Director in the end, and it would not clarify anything. Staff is asking for the opportunity to work with the applicant on this rezoning and indicates they have nearly achieved the requirements. It would not give the City the chance to see how effective this legislation could be. It would effectively kill the possibilities of creating a better city and it not a fair suggestion for the citizenry. Mr. Lecklider responded that he is puzzled by Mr. Refiner's comments. The resolution currently allows for an appeal to City Council. Mr. Smith stated that it allows for appeal of the staff determination to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In this case, the applicant has not done that. He is not before Council asking for a determination from Council regarding Mr. Bird's opinion that it is appropriate for conservation design; rather, the applicant is asking for a motion from Council to be exempted from the conservation design resolution. Mr. Lecklider stated that it was his understanding that an applicant could appeal the staff determination regarding a parcel's conduciveness to the application of conservation subdivision design. Can that be appealed to either Planning Commission or to City Council? Mr. McCash responded that under the current resolution, that was the direction given per last week's discussion. Mr. Lecklider stated that, theoretically, staff having now made a later determination that conservation subdivision design should apply in this instance, the applicant could appeal this to City Council. Mr. Smith agreed that this is the direction given by Council at last Monday's meeting. However, this is not the issue before Council tonight. Mr. Lecklider stated that if Mr. McCash's motion fails and the applicant continues to work with staff, and if they reach a point where they cannot meet 100 percent of the requirements, then what will happen? Mr. Smith responded that he does not know, as there is not a process. Ultimately, if P&Z turns down a zoning that does not meet 100 percent of the requirements, and it is brought to Council, it requires a super majority of Council or five votes for approval. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that at this time, the case has not come before Planning Commission and they have not voted upon it in the context that is being discussed tonight. Mr. Bird stated that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher emphasized that neither Planning Commission nor Council has any application on which to make a decision at this time. Mr. Keenan asked for clarification. Whether the topic is Avondale Woods or Avery Road condos, in the end, the topic is conservation design. That is the crux of this issue and he asked for clarification. The procedures are not in place and the process has not been thought through. Council needs to come together and decide on the language of the legislation, the procedures, and how it will be acted upon. Mrs. Boring disagreed. The City knows what conservation design is, yet this applicant does not want to follow it. The applicant wants to appeal the application of conservation design being appropriate to his site. This discussion relates to Avondale Woods in particular. For years, Planning Commission has asked for something different and finally, there is the opportunity for something different. The concept was to enact legislation in order that the remainder of the undeveloped land is developed in this way. It is disappointing that Council would now consider not giving the new design a chance, when staff has indicated they are working with the applicant and are close to meeting the guidelines. Council does not know if RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 16 Held 20 P&Z will determine that the plan meets the intent of the guidelines. Council knew ahead of time that developers would resist this design and that it would be difficult to implement. This is the first case out and it is important to be firm and give it a chance. Mr. McCash stated that Mrs. Boring has brought up the perfect point of why Council is here discussing this case. It does not relate to conservation subdivision design, but is instead related to the fact that they do not like this applicant's legal counsel. He then directed Council's attention to page 11 of the minutes of June 21, 2004 attached to the discussion. It indicates that, " Mr. Reiner thanked Planning Commission Members Gerber, Reiss and Zimmerman and Council Members Lecklider, Salay and Boring who attended a lengthy meeting. The concept pursued was to come to consensus and meld together two pieces of legislation. There was unanimous support from both bodies at the end of this meeting. The benefit of this is that Council and the Planning Commission are now on the same page in terms of this legislation. The Committee recommends that Council adopt this legislation as revised and thanked the Planning & Zoning Commission for their assistance." The plan under discussion tonight went through the process. The adopted legislation indicates that staff makes the determination regarding applicability of conservation subdivision design. There is another case pending in which staff made the determination that conservation design did not apply. Planning & Zoning Commission proceeded to review it under the conservation design guidelines. Therefore, Council and Planning Commission apparently are not on the same page. His second motion will be that Council proceeds with a discussion on the conservation subdivision design to clarify exactly what "page" Council is on. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is a motion on the table at this time. She noted that Mr. John Bain has signed in to testify on this item. Chris Cline, Blaugrund, Herbert and Martin, 5455 Rings Road, noted that he is accompanied tonight by John Bain, President of Homewood and land planner Linda Menery. He clarified that up to the point in time he received materials today from the City Manager's office, no one has ever conveyed to him that staff has made a determination that conservation design applies under the second resolution. The first they heard of it was when they had a meeting with staff on December 16 and Mr. Bird indicated a need for them to include conservation design principles. They did so. But neither he, his client, nor the land planner ever knew that a determination had been made under the other resolution. There was a request made of them to incorporate conservation design into the plan. They have been working diligently with staff, and the planning aspects of this were not bypassed because of the roadway issues. He added that they believe that Dublin has created the roadway issues, not Columbus. Multiple iterations of the plan have been done and tremendous amounts of money expended to meet the concerns raised by staff. They had a good plan in December and were asked to revise that plan. They did some things, but found they could meet only 43 percent of the open space without making lots as small as the surrounding developments in Columbus. There are significant planning limitations, based upon the tremendous mass of woods that is untouchable, limiting the options. Because of the planning limitations, they cannot meet the open space requirement or some of the other conservation design guidelines. They will not retreat from the plan already provided to staff, however he does not want to be in a position of apologizing to the Commission for what they have not been able to do. He would prefer to go before them and indicate what they have been able to achieve in conservation design, even though they have been exempted from the resolution by Council. He believes they deserve that merit and consideration in view of the fact that his client spent a lot of money and time following the direction of P&Z only to have the game rules changed. It was not a positive thing for the City's reputation in the development community, which does not include only residential development. There is a need RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 17 Held Zp for certainty and fair treatment. They are not making an appeal or talking about legalities, but believe that neither resolution was specific in regard to projects already filed and in the process. They are asking Council to clarify by stating that in view of all of the things that have happened with this project over the last five years, it was not Council's intent that this project meets conservation design a-.~ requirements. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for any further comments prior to a vote on the motion. Ms. Salay clarified that this is not a vote in opposition to conservation design. She agrees with Mr. McCash and Mr. Keenan that there is a need for further discussion of the application of conservation design. This project is outside of that, however, and relates to fairness to the applicant. To have them labor under the assumption that they were exempted, and to then inform them in December, nine months later, that they were not is not fair nor the right thing to do. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mr. Reiner; no; Mr. Keenan, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no. (Motion failed 2-5) Mr. Lecklider noted that he has voted "no" with the understanding that Mr. McCash will bring forward a second motion. He believes that in his interpretation and with the language "strive for," this project would substantially have met the requirements r of the conservation design resolution. Mr. Reiner noted that this matter has been lobbied by the development community to bring down the standards of the City. Council has set high standards and the citizens have high expectations of a city that is rural, green, beautiful and different from all of the surrounding cities. This Council is giving in to the developers. Mr. Keenan stated that he has voted against the motion -this is in support of the legislation previously approved by Council, until such time as it is further clarified or amended. Mr. McCash commented that he believes Council is totally confusing two separate issues, but he supports the motion. Mr. McCash moved that Council have a lengthy and extensive discussion regarding what the current conservation subdivision design resolution means purposes of clarification. He noted that it is fairly clear that what was intended, what was brought before Council, what was approved, and what is occurring are different. It was the direction in the resolution that staff makes the determination that a design did not necessarily apply to every site. However, if staff in fact makes that determination that it does not apply, the Commission seems to be on a different page. There is much confusion. There is a need to have a meeting to determine what conservation design is and what it is not, and that meeting may or may not include Planning Commission. Ms. Salay suggested a modification to the motion, that at the study session or meeting that staff provide Council with information such as scaled drawings in order to help educate Council in conservation design. She has heard staff planners indicate that it is possible to meet the 50 percent open space and 75 percent adjacency rule, but what results is meaningless fingers of open space that don't further the goals of Council. If professional staff is indicating that conservation design does not apply and bodies such as Planning Commission and RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 18 Held 20 Council then go against that, this is problematic. She would like to invite Planning Commission to attend and participate in that discussion. Mr. McCash modified his motion per the comments of Ms. Salay. He added that there is a need to view this in a holistic approach -not only from gland-planning standpoint, but also in view of the City's appearance code standards, traffic .,y calming, etc. So many requirements have been added for subdivision design that it is not workable from a financial standpoint. Ms. Salay seconded the modified motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. (Motion carried 4-3) Mr. Reiner added that he has never encountered a site that could not meet conservation design guidelines. But if a land planner is not instructed by the developer to do so, they will not design in this manner. This legislation has been approved in other states and has been accepted. While this is the first time an Ohio city has approved this legislation, he hates to see the possibilities of a unique city diminished by the modification of this law. Mr. McCash added that he is not changing the law, but rather, calling for discussion of what "page" Council and Planning Commission are on. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that staff identify a date where Council, Planning Commission and staff can meet for this discussion. It may require meeting on a Saturday, if necessary. Mrs. Boring stated that materials have previously been distributed regarding this topic. She has them in her files and can share them. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS There were no reports from staff. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan, Finance Committee reported that the Committee met at 6 p.m. tonight to discuss the continuation of the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau grant, over and above the statutorily required 25 percent distribution of hotel/motel tax revenues. The Committee recommends that Council consider a grant, the amount of which is to be determined after the DCVB completes negotiations of their lease renewal. Mr. Keenan moved adoption of the recommendation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mrs. Boring asked why the City does not maintain minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and if desired by Council, can staff do so? Mr. Smith responded that minutes are in fact maintained. Mrs. Boring stated that only a Record of Action is maintained, according to her discussions with a Board of Zoning Appeals member. There are no minutes maintained regarding previous actions of the Board. Ms. Salay agreed that only Board Orders and Records of Action are maintained. The staff report for the case does include the background for the case, but there are no actual minutes of previous meetings provided. Mrs. Boring stated that if an item is tabled and then brought back, there are no minutes of the previous discussion available. She requests that in the future, minutes are provided from the Board of Zoning Appeals and included in the council packet. Mr. Smith stated that staff will do so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reported: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10748 March 14, 2005 Page 19 Held 20 1. The US 33 Corridor group met last week. She was very encouraged by the tenor of the meeting. The group wants to continue to exist and is setting up a more formal organizational structure, staffed by the regional ~ planning commission in that area. Future meetings of the various subcommittees will be scheduled ~w ~ 2. She noticed that on the west side of Sawmill Road, just south of Summitview, there are a number of signs advertising the development. These are likely in violation of the sign code. Ms. Brautigam responded that Mrs. Boring has already spoken to Greg Jones regarding this situation. It will be addressed. 3. The Miracle League came to Council last fall, and she has continued to work with Mr. Lyden to connect with other organizations who will help with development of the baseball field. There is an opportunity to visit the field in Birmingham, Alabama, a primary field for the Miracle League. Duke is the construction superintendent for the project and they have offered to take a group who has been working on the project to view the Alabama site. She has been advised by legal staff that it is permissible for her to be included in the group traveling on March 30. Mr. Hahn is also in the group. There may be another seat available should anyone on Council be interested in joining them. 4. As Mr. Ball's memo has indicated, the organ donor percentage in Dublin is remarkable. She noted that on Monday, April 11, there will be a tree planting in Coffman Park at 6 p.m. on behalf of the Lifeline of Ohio program. She urged Council Members to attend. 5. The Tax Incentive Review Council meets on Wednesday, and Mr. Lecklider and Mrs. Boring will attend to represent Council. , 6. The St. Patrick's Day Parade, Grand Leprechaun luncheon and Blarney Bash will take place on Saturday. She asked that all Council Members ensure that their information has been faxed or e-mailed to Community Relations. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION There being no further business, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition, legal and personnel matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Mrs. Boring asked that the motions for each topic be handfed separately. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher withdrew her motion. Mrs. Boring moved to adjourn to executive session for land acquisition. Mr. Reiner 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. Mrs. Boring moved to adjourn to executive session for legal matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mr. McCash moved to adjourn to executive session for personnel matters. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, no. Mrs. Boring commented that last week, there was a breach of confidentiality that has been very cruel, hurtful and contained untruths. At this time, it is not advisable for her to join in an executive session on a personnel topic. She has consulted with legal staff and does not known how to address this matter. Therefore, the best course of action at this point for her is to refuse to enter into executive session for personnel matters. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of__ _ Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FOAM NO. 10148 March 14, 2005 Page 20 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the legal and land acquisition matters will therefore be addressed at the outset so that Mrs. Boring can then leave the executive session. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher state that following the executive sessions, the Council meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be ° taken. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10:30 p.m. r ~.c„} Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council