Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2004 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council ._ _Meeting --- -.-....--.-.-- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 . 11----------- May 3, 2004 I Held 20 , ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr, Keenan, Mr. McCash, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Reiner arrived at 7:05 p.m, Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr, Ciarochi, Mr, Harding, Mr, Stevens, Ms, Puskarcik, Ms. Crandall, Mr, Gunderman, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Wanner, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hahn, and Mr. Villareale. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mrs. Boring led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of April 5, 2004. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Salay noted a correction to page 3, second paragraph, where her comments should be clarified to read, "including landmark trees." Vote on the minutes as amended: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Approval of the minutes of April 19 was delayed until May 17. CORRESPONDENCE The clerk reported that there was no correspondence requiring action from Council. SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher read a proclamation in recognition of National Public Works Week and presented it to Mr. McDaniel. Mr. McDaniel thanked the Mayor for this recognition on behalf of the Service Department and Engineering Division. He recognized several Service Department employees in the audience, who are present with United Steelworkers Local 9110. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road commented that he has not decided whether he will continue his citizen comments, as the last meeting represented a "crossroads" for him. As a result of the last meeting, he will not speak here tonight. Instead, he has written a letter, which will be made public this week. He believes that he has demonstrated over the years that he has the interests of everyone here in mind - Council, staff - as well as former City Engineer Kindra. He has nothing against anyone, After the Council meeting ended on April 19, Mr. Reiner confronted him, describing what Mr, Maurer does as "vacuous pithy," and that he would have a blistering exchange over lunch on this topic. Mr. Maurer noted that he is ready to have such an exchange, upon Mr. Reiner's naming the time and date. This is a departure from his insistence on having everyone present when the issue is being discussed, but he is willing to repeat everything said in the exchange that is to occur. Scott Harinq. 3282 LilvMar Court noted that street construction began two weeks ago on Braxmar Place, Martin Place and LilyMar Court. However, since the first two days, little has happened and the work remains unfinished and has many defects. He is surprised that the project has languished and wants Council to be aware of this, He asked about the I I status, Ii 'I I Mr. Reiner commented that he is in the contracting business as well, and the tremendous rains over the past two weeks have delayed construction work, The asphalt is both rain and temperature sensitive. Mr. Hammersmith noted that rain has aggravated an existing subgrade problem that was discovered in the course of the project. Staff has stopped the work and is assessing the conditions so that corrective measures can be taken, and so that the work can be done properly. He encouraged Mr. Haring to contact the Division directly if he has further concerns about the project. LEGISLATION CODE AMENDMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Me~lilliL-__ ----------------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FO~ N~~~ May 3, 2004 Pay~ 2 II- i' Held 20 - Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Sections 153.050 through 153.058 - Planned District Regulations, and Section 153.234 - Procedure Regulations (Case No. 03-013). Mr. Gunderman stated that this is a continuation of the review of the planned districts sections of the zoning code. Planning Commission has reviewed this ordinance, and he provided a brief recap of the process. 1. The project began with the creation of the Development Code Revision Task Force. The sections involved are 153,050 through 153.058 of the Code, the Planned District regulations and 153.234 - Procedure regulations. 2. He showed a map delineating the four planned districts in use throughout the City, and added that there are four other districts in the Code which are not in use. Each district currently has a different set of steps and processes which causes much confusion, 3. The proposed planned district regulations provide a framework for how the process is completed. It does not include any design elements. 4. He delineated the major points of the current development process, including submission of rezoning/preliminary development plan, followed by first reading of the ordinance, then staff review, hearings and reviews with Planning Commission, and second reading/public hearing before Council. The platting process includes submission of final engineering/construction plans, final developments plans, and building review process. The various districts have slight differentiations, but have many of the same characteristics, 5. Major policy topics in the Code were the number of planned districts to be included in the new Code; which of the Code's current districts should be included in the Code; and the process to be used in each district and the various steps. The final recommendation is to keep the four districts named in the Code; to delete those not used; and to make the process for each of the retained districts identical. I 6. The revised outline for the new sections of the Code include a purpose and application section; status of previously approved planned districts, and establishment of new planned districts; procedures; submission requirements; plan approval criteria; and definitions. 7. The new Code permits all previously approved planned projects to continue with unchanged expectations. They may have to adjust procedures for final development plans to complete projects, but in terms of expectations, those set at the rezoning will not change. 8. The new Code requires both old and new applications to follow the new procedures. The basic approach incorporated into the Code is similar to the current planned district process. 9. Among issues reviewed and refined was the changed concept plan process. This ordinance is not much different from the current planned district process. But, to the extent that other planned districts had no concept plan review, the change permits the concept plan to stop at the staff level for a small project. There is no minimum size, which allows more flexibility. There is language regarding minor changes after the P&Z action. The timeline for processing applications and submission to P&Z is within 90 days, and should the item be tabled by Planning Commission, a process is also established for placing it on their agenda within 60 to 90 days, 10. At the first reading, a section was included that created categories A and B to help define the major change process, The Planning Commission deleted this section. 11, The role of consultants is unchanged, The Code provides that the City can continue to bring in consultants to use them in the process. 12. Conditional uses are still possible in the planned districts. 13. In regard to termination of zoning due to inaction, this received a lot of discussion. The Code does not require or make any automatic changes when PUD projects stop entirely, Discussion took place regarding the option of automatic termination of those planned districts, but for a variety of reasons, the Code includes an opportunity for the City Council and Planning Commission to rezone those projects when they do not move along. 14. The Code clarifies that there is a default to regular sections of the Code in the absence of text alternatives. 15. Language is included requiring new City standards when practical. Over the course of the life of a project, should basic City standards for some design RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council MeelinK_ n DAYTON LEGAL B~K. INC.. FORM N()c2t'l48 --..--- -...- II May 3, 2004 Paye 3 -.-----.-. I' Held 20 I , , where practical, reasonable and where it would not impose an undue hardship on the applicant. 16. For all rezonings, including planned districts, the current Code requires a first reading prior to referral to Planning Commission. Following Planning Commission's review, a recommendation is sent to Council and the public hearing/second reading is scheduled, The language in this update provides that the first and second reading of the ordinance take place after the Planning Commission review, due to the fact that projects change during the process. To compensate for the public notice that previously occurred in the newspaper advertising of first readings, staff would advertise in local newspapers a list of all development applications submitted each month. 17. The final and most difficult issue, and the only issue where there was no absolute consensus from the Task Force or from Planning Commission, is the appeal process. The current draft does not include any provision for appeal at the final development plan stage. The preliminary plan approval is a legislative action, and therefore an appeal would automatically come before Council. With a final development plan, in the PUD process, there was not an appeal process included in the Code, However, in some other planned districts, an appeal process was possible, There was much debate on this, but the final recommendation of the majority was not to include a specific appeal process for final development plans to Council. By default, this allows an applicant to take the matter as an administrative appeal to the court system. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited questions from Council for staff. Ms. Salay asked about the application notices in the newspapers. Are these notices currently mailed to homeowner association presidents? Mr. Gunderman responded that they are not. Currently, at the first reading of the ordinance, the notice is provided by the Council agenda published in the newspaper. This recommendation provides parity to the current notification process for first reading. Ms. Salay suggested that a letter be mailed to homeowner association presidents regarding the change in process for notification, Le., the list of development applications submitted which are published in the newspaper. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher and Mr. Lecklider agreed that the homeowner association presidents should be provided a letter with notification of the process change so that they know where to look for this information. Ms. Salay asked for clarification of the termination of a zoning due to inactivity. Mr. Gunderman responded that there was concern about some projects with zoning and preliminary plat approval where nothing progressed. The discussion was whether something could be included in the Code to automatically terminate such an approval, taking it back to its previous zoning. Ms. Salay summarized that after a period of time, for example five years, absent a building permit application, the zoning approval would then lapse? Mr. Gunderman explained that the final recommendation recognized the fact that there are some cases in which this would not be desirable. There would be an issue of notification of the property owner. Therefore, three criteria were listed under which the City could consider such a rezoning, The City would have to sponsor the application and take it through the entire process as any other rezoning. Essentially, the Code would put applicants on notice of the expected actions which could occur if the project does not proceed within a reasonable timeframe. Mr. Keenan noted that in some portions of the ordinance, there is mention of the PUD being consistent with the Community Plan. In view of the recent struggles with this matter, he asked staff what they consider as "consistent with the Community Plan?" Mr. Gunderman responded that there are a number of broad policy statements and goals that do not arise in reviewing a land use map. This is instead a recognition that the City desires to implement the concepts and ideas included within the Community Plan. In City zonings, it is recognized that a property will be within a planned district or a straight zoning district. For a straight district, the rules are very precise. For a planned district, the expectation is that the concepts of the Community Plan will be incorporated into a development plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meetil1~_ -.. -------------~~-- DAYTON LEGALBLANI(, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ----------_._--_._~_.- -- il May 3, 2004 Page 4 !I Held 20 Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road stated that he has a conceptual question regarding the phrase, "imaginative architectural design," He is curious about the flexibility in that phrase, and how that would be manifested in designs which would be acceptable to Council. Perhaps the spectrum is narrower than a design which would include one such as a very contemporary house which exists on Limerick Lane. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the intent is that the type of architecture would change to be appropriate for the location of the house. Mr. Keenan added that another reference indicates, "proper relationships between the building, structures and the land." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called for Council discussion of the options of the appeal process for final development plans, The options are to leave it as drafted, which would by default permit an applicant to have an appeal heard by the court; to have an appeal to City Council for an application which Planning Commission has rejected; or permitting Council to hear an appeal, with a super majority required to change the decision of Planning Commission. Ms. Salay stated that, based upon her experience, the best option would be for Council to have the option to hear an appeal if they so choose. This would not be automatic, but Council could choose under certain circumstances whether or not to hear an appeal. She would advocate that a simple majority of Council could make this determination. Much of the angst resulting from a situation last fall could have been avoided if the citizens had been able to have Council hear the appeal versus the courts. It would be preferable to have the hearing in Dublin versus downtown Columbus. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that her understanding is that the appeal process under discussion is for the applicant, not for citizens. Mr, Gunderman stated that he does not know if a distinction would be possible. The Task Force did not enter into discussion on that aspect. Mr. Smith stated that as a home rule city, Council could set this up to permit an applicant as well as a citizen to have the right of appeal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her concern with an appeal process coming to Council is that it would be advisable to establish clear and objective criteria about the conditions under which Council would hear such an appeal to avoid any appearance of favoritism. Mr. Smith stated that all of the rules regarding arbitrary and capricious behavior would apply. Hearing an appeal of the decision by Planning Commission for or against a project - a non-legislative action the Commission has taken - would only constitute reviewing what someone else has done - not reviewing any new evidence. An administrative hearing for a final development plan has certain rules related to conditions established at the time of the rezoning, If the conditions have been met, there is no discretion for the court to turn it down. Mr. McCash asked if Council could set up an appeal process where the criteria are similar to a 2506 appeal? Mr. Smith responded that for a 2506 appeal, in 99 percent of the cases, there is no hearing. The record is typed up, given to a magistrate for review, and only rarely is additional information requested. It does not matter what criteria are established by the City. He acknowledged that as a home rule city, Dublin could approve an ordinance that could withstand the test, if that is Council's desire. Mr. McCash added that if Council were to hear an appeal and reverse a decision, it might be safer for Dublin to take this course of action versus sending it down to the court system where a precedent setting decision could be entered on the court record. Mr. Smith stated that over his 25 plus years of service, there have not been many 2506 appeals. There are two pending cases now in the Court of Appeals. One possible advantage is it would provide Council with an opportunity at an earlier stage to control the cost of litigation. The disadvantage is that Council could potentially have a large number of administrative appeals filed. Mr. Reiner commented that, based upon his years of service as a Planning Commissioner and Council Member, he believes the City should maintain the current procedure. The procedures were set up over time with great wisdom, and the idea of politicizing the process every time something is rejected is not healthy, When he served on Planning Commission for 8 years, he did not want to see at the end of the process RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council __M~etiQ&___ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.,FORM NO. 10148 ----,. II May 3, 2004 -Page 5 II " II Held 20 , those who serve on the Planning Commission in an appointed capacity. He does not understand why Council would want to undermine the system that works and that is already in place. The prudent thing to do is to leave the existing rules in place in this matter with option #1. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that there are now two proposals before Council. She asked for further discussion. Mr. Lecklider stated that it had previously been discussed that the possibility of Council hearing an appeal could be discretionary. Mr. Smith replied that one of the discussions at the Task Force meeting was that Council, as a home rule city, could establish an appellate process for the applicant and/or the citizens to come to Council with an administrative appeal. That would not mean that Council would automatically hear such an appeal, but that a majority would be required to vote in favor of hearing such an appeal. The supermajority discussion was in regard to overturning a disapproval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible, assuming Council is interested in affirming what Planning Commission did rather than overturning it, that the record that ultimately would be sent to court would be improved with the Council hearing? Mr. Smith responded that the evidence for hearing would be the same, and so he is not certain if this would improve the City's position or not. Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr, Reiner's comments presuppose that an applicant would take his appeal to Council. While he is serving on Council, he does not believe that would be something desirable for an applicant to do. Mr. Reiner responded that these comments are not directed toward the present Council, but rather designed to protect the interests for the future by not making it a political process. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Lecklider stated that in some circumstances, there might be more risk for an applicant who decides to take an appeal to Council. Mr. McCash summarized that it is political in any case. However, he believes it would be preferable to have things decided on a local level versus downtown in the courts, where the decision is made by a judge who has interests outside of the City. Mr. Reiner stated that there is a point when working on a zoning case where an applicant decides whether to work with the City or whether to work through the court system to obtain approval. Generally, human nature would tend to agree to meet the higher standards versus threatening a lawsuit. The cost of litigation is enormous, not only financially, but psychologically in attacking a community, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited further comments from Council before asking for a motion. Mr. Keenan stated that in general, any opportunity for arbitration or mediation is a positive thing. But he also believes that Council sets the zoning policy and delegates that authority to Planning Commission and staff. In his opinion and to his regret, Council has not done a good job of delegating that authority in recent times. Ms, Salay moved to approve Ordinance 75-03 as drafted, and to request that Legal staff draft legislation for Council's consideration that would allow for an appeal process both by developers and by citizens and design it so that it is discretionary on Council's part to hear such appeals or decline those that Council believes are not in the community's best interests to hear. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr, Keenan, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. (Motion failed) Mr. Reiner moved to continue with the present policy in place for 20 years that the appeal process is heard by the court system. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that Ordinance 75-03 as drafted contains this language. Mr. Gunderman agreed, noting that the motion would actually be to approve the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Me~ting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 May 3, 2004 Page 6 Held 20 Mr. Reiner withdrew his motion and moved to approve Ordinance 75-03 as written. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, no; Mr. McCash, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr, Lecklider, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (Motion carried) SECOND READINGIPUBLlC HEARING - ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 52-03 Providing for a Change in Zoning for 40 Acres Located on the Northwest Corner of Sawmill and Hard Roads, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PUD, I' Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 03-045Z - NE Quad PUD, Subareas 5A, and 5B - Kroger Centre - Sawmill Road) Ms. Brautigam stated that some of the materials were not forwarded to Council in the packet last week, and she is not certain if Council wants to proceed with the hearing ,I tonight. Ms. Wanner stated that the development text for Ordinance 52-03 was inadvertently left out of the packet materials. Staff has placed a copy of the signed text as well as the site plans for the Kroger Centre on the dais tonight. Staff has spoken with the applicant who has agreed to postpone the hearing until May 17 to allow Council to review the materials. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that this hearing be postponed until May 17, as the development text is a critical part of the rezoning. Ms, Salay moved to postpone the public hearing until May 17. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr, McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms, Salay, yes; Mr, Lecklider, yes. Ms. Brautigam apologized to Council regarding the items not included in the packet and indicated that in the future, staff will not proceed with scheduling items on the agenda until all of the materials are submitted to the City. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE Ordinance 27-04 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives, Which Include the Provision of a i Municipal Income Tax Credit and Related Incentive Payments for Purposes of :1 Encouraging the Relocation of Boundtree Medical, LLC's Operations and Workforce Within the City and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development and Tax Credit Agreement. Mr. Stevens indicated that nothing has changed since the last reading. He offered to !I respond to questions. i Ms, Salay asked approximately how much income tax revenue would come to the City with this relocation. Mr. Stevens responded that the newspaper account reflected the maximum number. The I company will begin with 49 jobs at an average wage of $35-40,000 per year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the memo indicates they hope to add 54 more employees over three years. Mr, Lecklider noted that the ordinance references that a majority of the workforce will be relocated, Mr. Stevens responded that some distribution warehouses would remain in Galloway. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr, Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION IFIRST READING - ORDINANCES WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING Ordinance 30-04 Waiving Competitive Bidding Requirements, Pursuant to Section 8.04 ('Contracting Procedures'), Paragraph (C) ("Waiver Of Competitive Bidding") for Alcoholic Beverages, Soft Drinks and Bottled Water for the Dublin Irish Festival. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that the City has a sponsor who provides alcoholic beverages and soft drinks, Staff recommends waiving competitive bidding so that the sponsor can provide those drinks for the festival. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ------------ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC" FORM NO. 10148 May 3, 2004 age 7 Held 20 or ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS Ordinance 31-04 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Procurement of Said Services. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam offered that Mr. Villareale is available for questions. There were no questions, There will be a second reading/public hearing at the May 17 Council meeting. il I Ordinance 32-04 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Historic Dublin Storm Sewer Improvements Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the lowest/best bid was from Complete General at 42 percent less than the next highest bid. After review and investigation, staff is comfortable with their ability to perform the work at this price. They have some equipment at their disposal that will provide efficiency; they have added some efficiencies in the maintenance of traffic; and in terms of profit, and they have bid this project very competitively. The City has good experience with Complete General, although there were some past issues with timely completion. Staff's recommendation is to award the bid by emergency action to Complete General in order to initiate the project very soon. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a completion date is listed of November 22. The retail I I establishments in the area, while appreciative of the work being done to improve the i infrastructure, have concerns with the negative impact of the work on their businesses, Ii The holiday season is their largest sales period. She is concerned with this completion ,I Ii date, especially if it is not met due to unforeseen circumstances. I Mr. Hammersmith responded that this is very similar to the completion date of Phase 1, and the work is expected to be done earlier. Another consideration is that asphalt plants close around Thanksgiving time, and therefore the project timeframes are in keeping with that date, The other uncertainty is the actual start date for the project. Ms. Salay noted that the location of this work might not impact the businesses to such an extent as the previous phase. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this is correct - the project is generally out of the main flow of traffic and west of High Street near the school property. They want to complete the school area work prior to the start of the school year. Mr, Keenan asked if the contract calls for a specific completion date for this portion. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is not specified, but has been communicated to the contractor. That portion is the easiest component of the work, and staff has a good working relationship with Complete General. Mr. Keenan stated that in general, contracts specify a completion date as well as liquidated damages should the date not be met. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is true of the contract - it includes November 22 as the completion date. Mrs. Boring asked if there is a bonus offered to complete the project at an earlier date. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it was not included in the contract. Mrs. Boring asked if the work would cause problems during the Tournament traffic period. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the project likely would not begin until after that time. Mrs. Boring suggested that it would be prudent for the City to consider incentive clauses for early completion as well as penalty clauses for late completion. Mr. Smith noted that he and Mr. Hammersmith decided not to pursue this in the contract I :1 for a variety of reasons. There are some occasions when such a clause would impact the I bids. Ms. Salay moved to dispense with the public hearing and to treat this as emergency legislation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 May 3,2004 Paye 8 Held 20 IVII . L11<::;; IIIULlUI. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes, Ordinance 33-04 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Dublin Jerome High School Zone Flasher Project, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this project relates to the school zone flashers for the Dublin Jerome High School. It represents a City contribution to the school project, and solar i powered flashers will be implemented, Staff's recommendation is to accept the bid of Jess " I Howard with emergency action in order to complete the project prior to school opening. Mrs, Boring stated that in the future, she would prefer that staff provide a larger portion of the plans along with the ordinance. It is not always convenient to review the set of plans left in the conference room, Secondly, she noted that some other cities are doing a type of tri-fold school flashing signal that opens up when need and closes when not in use. She believes these are used in Kettering, Has this been considered? Mr. Hammersmith responded that for school zone signage, that would be an option. But in this case, for fixed illumination devices, the flashers and accompanying speed limits signs are needed. Staff can take a look at this option for the future where only signage is needed. Mrs. Boring asked about the third clause, which mentions relocation of utilities. Mr, Hammersmith responded that this is a general provision included in all bids for legal reasons. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and to treat this as emergency leg islation. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. J! Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms, Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr, Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr, Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. CODE SUPPLEMENT Ordinance 34-04 Enacting and Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dublin, Ohio. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is a pro forma ordinance where the legal publisher has updated the Code. Mrs. Boring moved to dispense with the public hearing and to approve the ordinance. Mr, Lecklider 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. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS MEMORIAL TOURNAMENT Resolution 21-04 Authorizing the Regulation of Traffic on Muirfield Drive and Other Roads in Muirfield Village and Waiving Certain Provisions of the Dublin Sign Code and Noise Ordinance in Conjunction with the Annual Memorial Tournament. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Chief Epperson stated that this is virtually the same traffic plan as in the previous few years. A flier in the packet details the routes. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms, Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. AGREEMENTS Resolution 22-04 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BlANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 May 3, 2004 Held 20 of Columbus for Change Orders Issued in the Construction of the West Branch of the Upper Scioto West Interceptor Sewer. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that there was some previous disagreement between Columbus and Dublin about payment of change orders, and this provides resolution by splitting them 50/50. Dublin's 50 percent would come off of a loan, so would save money in the long run in terms of interest. 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. Resolution 23-04 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Infrastructure Improvement Agreement for Emerald Parkway, Phase 5, with Sawmill Partners. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this relates to a cooperative agreement with Sawmill Partners as they develop the northeast quad PUD, It provides for the extension of Sawmill Parkway or Emerald Parkway Phase 5 - the portion between Hard Road and Sawmill Road. The developer's responsibility was for a three-lane section and the City is requested to cooperate with them to construct Emerald Parkway in a similar character to the other portions - a five-lane section with turn lanes and other typical amenities. Sawmill Partner's share is $1.4 million or 60 percent for three lanes of a five-lane section. Staff is recommending approval. He noted that a tree waiver related to this project was approved by Council on February 2. They are ready to go to bid on this project by the end of the month and hope to initiate construction in June. Mrs. Boring noted that in Section 1 of the resolution, it mentions Phase 5A - but this should be 5A and 5B. Mr, Hammersmith clarified that it should actually read, "located between Sawmill Road and Hard Road." He will make this correction, Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mr. Lecklider, yes. OTHER . Tree Waiver Request - NE Quad PUD, Subareas 5A and 5B - Kroger Centre - Sawmill Road Ms, Brautigam suggested that this be postponed until May 17 as well. I Ms. Wanner noted that Council has approved tree waivers previously prior to the zoning I I approval. This is consistent with those previously approved where the applicant is 1 I proposing to plant tree for tree for those six inches in diameter and larger, and inch for inch replacement for trees over 24 inches in diameter. Ms. Salay asked if their compliance with the rezoning would affect the necessity of this tree waiver. If the rezoning were to be modified in any way, is it possible that the tree waiver circumstances will change? Ms. Wanner responded that the overall numbers of trees may change, but they have agreed to preserve the major stand of trees at Hard and Sawmill, which is the bulk of the trees being preserved. Either way, in their text they have committed to meet the tree preservation requirements or to seek a waiver. The bulk of trees being preserved are old growth trees. The waiver is for some located on other portions of the site, Mr. Lecklider suggested postponing this item until the time of the rezoning hearing. It seems that the rezoning should be considered first. Ms. Salay agreed. Mr, Lecklider moved to postpone consideration of the tree waiver request until such time that the related rezoning can be considered, Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Brief discussion followed about the need to postpone this consideration. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. . Request to Serve Alcohol in Coffman Park during Dublin Irish Festival Ms. Brautigam stated that this is the annual request to Council to permit alcohol being served in Coffman Park. The City sponsors an extensive training program that servers il RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BlANK. INC" FORM NO. 10148 May 3, 2004 -- Held 20 alcohol to minors. Mr. Reiner moved approval of the request. Mr. Keenan 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. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS Ms. Brautigam reported: 1. She received a letter from Susie Wolfe, Jerome Township trustee regarding their discussions about working with Dublin to understand more about CEDA's and JEDD's. They are requesting a meeting with them and have suggested four possible dates of June 15, June 17, July 15 or July 20. Mrs. Boring asked if there is an outline of what will be covered in the meeting. Ms. Brautigam responded that there is not an outline at this point. They want to discuss the concepts of entering into a CEDA or JEDD with Dublin and what each would gain from such an arrangement. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer that Council have some discussion about this topic prior to a meeting with Jerome Township trustees. Ms. Brautigam stated that this could be discussed at the June study session. Mr, Keenan stated that it is an interesting opportunity to continue the dialogue, however he is not available on any June dates, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is available on July 15, but is not available on July 20. Mr. Lecklider indicated he is not available on either June 15 or July 15. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that after tonight's meeting, some alternative dates will be proposed. Ms. Brautigam continued: 2. Late today, she received a copy of the report from the facilitator of the Route 33 corridor meeting. She also received a letter from Union County Commissioners thanking the City of Dublin for hosting the meeting and asking for a copy of the minutes. She will provide this to all of the participants, 3, She has distributed a copy of a letter faxed on Friday to Mayor Pat Monahan of Shawnee Hills. A citizen from Shawnee Hills called her to ensure that the City of Dublin would enforce its noise ordinances, now that the Bogey Inn has been annexed. She advised him that the exact area from which the noise emanates is within the Village of Shawnee Hills. He expressed concern with that, and so she provided him with all of the materials related to Shawnee Hills and their consideration of a similar noise ordinance. She faxed the letter to the Mayor explaining that a draft agreement sent to her a couple of weeks ago and it was referred to Dublin's Law Director due to her many concerns with the proposal. Shawnee Hills had modified the agreement already signed by Dublin and had added two provisions that were completely unacceptable, She will work with the Law Director on this issue with Shawnee Hills. 4. She noted that Mr. Hammersmith show a video tonight regarding an educational program for the new roundabouts. 5. She reported that a five-year lease has now been executed with the Dublin Village Tavern, 6. A hearing was held before the Division of Liquor Control last week regarding the issuance of the permits at the Sunoco station. The City's objections were presented, and the hearing officer is taking the case under advisement. 7. The asphalt for the parking lot has now been installed at the Golf Club of Dublin; the comfort stations are built and will need some plumbing work for completion; and the contract for construction of the cart barn was signed last week. Special Presentation Mr. Hammersmith then presented an educational video regarding the roundabout. A brief project update was provided in the packet, including some critical dates. Bids will be opened on May 12, and bid award by emergency action is requested for May 17. In the event there is a problem with the bid process, a special meeting may be needed in order RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 Held 20 men e cons ruc Ion on une e on ay 0 oWing e ournamen . e estimated completion date is August 20, which is the Friday before school opens. The project is estimated to take 11 weeks and will cost an estimated $1.6 million for the roadway portion. Due to the aggressive schedule, staff does not believe that incentives were applicable in this circumstance. They have also met with the Muirfield Civic Association representatives, the Civic Action Committee and the Muirfield Association. Staff has also met with the Lakes of Dunmere Civic Association to discuss the project and traffic maintenance during the project. The education component continues, and with the assistance of Community Relations, a video was produced regarding how to drive in a modern roundabout. It will be on the City's web site, and staff will visit the schools to present this video as well. Following the presentation, Mr. McCash noted that there might be new traffic regulations required for enforcement. Mr. Hammersmith responded that basic traffic rules would apply, with the key message being "yield to the left." Directional signage and pavement markings will help motorists maintain their lanes. There will be no regulated speed within the roundabout itself, as the geometrics lend it to 20-25 miles per hour maximum. Mr, Keenan noted that the crosswalks shown in the video were done in brick pavers, but were not well delineated. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this would be addressed, Mrs. Boring asked if traffic would be detoured off of Brand Road into the neighborhoods. Mr, Hammersmith responded that the detour routes will be posted, and the primary routes will be Dublin Road and Glick Road. During the project, there will be no through traffic on Brand with the exception of local traffic. During the last three weeks of construction, there will be complete closure, including Muirfield Drive, in order to finish all of the tie-ins to the existing roadways. A benefit of this is the ability to open up the roundabout in its i entirety versus in piecemeal fashion. jl I COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner thanked everyone for the cards and nice comments during his illness. Ms. Salav thanked everyone on staff who worked very hard on the AEP utility burial. The news to date has been very positive. Mr. Lecklider reported that during the APA conference in Washington, D.C., he had the opportunity to visit a nationally acclaimed development located in Kentlands, Maryland. He was joined on the field trip by Todd Zimmerman, Ruth Reiss and Gary Gunderman. He noted that many of the sessions at APA were very interesting, in particular the session focusing on the rebirth of a shopping center in Kettering, Ohio. He noted that another very thought provoking session was one presented by Fort Collins, Colorado regarding buildout. The City seemed stunned by their lack of anticipation of how quickly buildout descended upon them. Perhaps Dublin may be similar close to buildout. This is just something to contemplate. Mavor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Congratulated staff on the excellent turnout on Saturday for the Community Service Day. The program is sponsored by Leadership Dublin with support from the City. 2. Noted that in the packet is an RSVP for the Tournament events. She asked that this be returned as quickly as possible. It is desirable to have a Council Member present for greeting guests at the Tournament Hospitality tent throughout the week. 3. Commented that recently, there was a City senior citizen recognition program and several seniors had commented to her that they were surprised that Council Members were not present. She does not believe Council was made aware of this program. In the past, Council has been invited to such events. It is important to provide Council with this opportunity for participation in a program designed to express the City's appreciation to the seniors. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition, personnel and legal matters, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEa.~L BLANK. INC" FORM NO. 10148 May 3, 2004 Page 12 Held 20 Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be taken. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9: 10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor - Presiding Officer , ~~~ Clerk of Council , i I I I I ,i 'i il