Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2004 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 July 6, 2004 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the regular meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at the Dublin Municipal Building. ROLL CALL Present were: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, ~ Mr. McCash, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Reiner arrived at 7:10 p.m. Staff members present were: Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Hammersmith, Chief Epperson, Mr. Harding, Ms. Richison, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Combs, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Heal and Ms. Devlin. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Keenan led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the minutes of June 7, 2004. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Salay noted a correction to her comments on Page 9. She clarified that she stated, I only a small portion relates to the City. She also asked that the record reflect that she I mentioned the staff's guidebook regarding taxes to be used as an educational tool for citizens. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Approval of the minutes of June 21, 2004 was delayed until August 2. CORRESPONDENCE The clerk reported that no correspondence requiring Council action had been received. CITIZEN COMMENTS Judqe Scott Van der Karr, reoresentinq Dublin Kiwanis thanked City Council for their continued support of the Dublin Kiwanis Frog Jump, held on June 26. He suggested that Council mark their calendars for next year's event on June 25. He commended the staff members who assisted them, particularly Barb Burkholder, Vince Vanicelli, Buddy Caplinger and Sandra Puskarcik, and the staff from Community Relations, Recreation and the Department of Service. Their assistance has been outstanding and is greatly appreciated. Carol Rittenburq, 4347 Shannon Park Drive stated that she has read in the newspaper and heard about the studies for speed humps on Tara Hill Drive. She is concerned that consideration has not been given to Shannon Park Drive. There are already many speeders in their neighborhood, and many small children. She is concerned that people driving on Tara Hill will move over to Shannon Park Drive to avoid traffic calming devices. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the dates of the upcoming Task Force meetings so that Ms. Rittenburg could attend. Ms. Salay invited her to attend the next Task Force meeting at 6 p.m. on July 14 that will consist of a field trip in vans to view the various traffic calming devices available. The story in the paper was inaccurate, as it reported an idea that was proposed by the consultant. The Task Force has not made any decisions about any type of traffic calming, and based upon the discussion at the last meeting with staff and the consultant, they are leaning away from speed humps as an appropriate device for Tara Hill. Tara Hill is too heavily traveled, and the Fire Department has urged the City to avoid using vertical traffic calming devices in excess. The study of the area is only beginning and she urged her to attend the meetings. The next meetings are on Wednesday, July 14 and Wednesday, July 28. The Task Force does understand that what is done on Tara Hill will impact neighboring streets. She urged her to contact the Council representatives if she has further questions or wants to discuss the issues. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road: 1. Noted that a presentation was made at the last Council meeting regarding the Holder property and the Indian mounds. He asked what had prompted the presentation of this matter to Council. Ms. Brautigam stated that sometime ago, the family of the property owner came to the City to discuss the possibility of the City's acquisition of the property. Staff felt it appropriate to give Council a presentation of the information about the property, as it had been last RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL B.LANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 .. July 6, 2004 Page 2 Held 20 presented to Council several years ago. The family members were visiting from out of town and it was scheduled to accommodate their visit. It will be Council's decision whether to pursue this land acquisition. He stated that he is not certain whether this property is on the list of protected, desecrated areas of the Indian nations. Ms. Brautigam responded that in the initial conversation, staff considered all of the stakeholders. Any Native Americans in the area or Associations were listed as part of this group. Any efforts hereafter would involve them. 2. Reported that he learned recently from the newspaper clippings that the City now has a new Planning Director, Daniel Bird. He recalls that some Council Members expressed dismay that they were not involved in some manner in the selection process. He asked if the new Director has been asked about conservation design principles during the interview. Ms. Brautigam responded affirmatively. 3. Commented that a letter he had written to the local newspaper recently was not included in the packet. 4. Stated that he wants to comment at a future meeting about the firing of Bobbie Clarke. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the five minutes has now expired. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLlC HEARING - ORDINANCES LAND PURCHASE Ordinance 45-04 Authorizing the Purchase of a 0.92 Acre, More or Less, Tract of Land, from Theodore M. Daroski and Kimberly A. Daroski, Located West of Dublin Road and North of Brand Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Brautigam stated that there is no further information to report. Ms. Salay asked about the estimated timetable for construction of this roundabout. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the intent is to begin construction after the Tournament next year, due to the traffic maintenance issues associated with the other roundabout construction currently underway. Mr. Lecklider asked when the closing on the property is scheduled. Mr. Smith responded that the closing is scheduled within 10 days to accommodate the terms of the agreement and therefore, staff is requesting emergency action. Mr. McCash moved to treat this as emergency legislation. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING - ORDINANCES ANNEXA TION Ordinance 47-04 Accepting the Annexation of 76.884 Acres, More or Less, from Washington Township to the City of Dublin, Ohio. (Petitioner Robert W. Rings) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam reported that this annexation relates to property directly across from the Service Center. Staff is recommending that this be held over for public hearing on August 2. There will be a second reading/public hearing on August 2,2004. BID ACCEPTANCE Ordinance 48-04 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for Rock Salt and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Procurement of Said Commodity. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. There were no questions. There will be a second reading/public hearing on August 2, 2004. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 _.~--- July 6, 2004 Page 3 Held 20 CODE AMENDMENT Ordinance 49-04 Amending Dublin Codified Ordinances, Chapter 152 - Subdivision Regulations. (Case No. 03-013 ADM) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Brautigam indicated that Mr. Gunderman could respond to any questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a work session was held regarding this topic. Ms. Salay moved referral to Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLlC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRA TEGY Resolution 30-04 Accepting an Economic Development Strategy Update for the City of Dublin. Mr. McCash introduced the resolution. Ms. Grigsby provided background information on the strategy update. . It was initiated in the 2003 operating budget. The first economic development strategy was adopted by the City in June of 1994 and needs to be updated. In February of 2003, a study session was held with Council to discuss the RFP and the process and to secure input from Council. The consultant was selected in the summer, and Council met with the consultant in October for roundtable discussions similar to those done with other groups involved in the effort. . In March of 2004, following completion of the steering committee work, a draft report was prepared and distributed to Council. A March study session was held i to review the information, and Council identified several elements as those they I I felt were critical to the economic development strategy for the City, specifically: customer service; having clear and consistent rules; the Planning process; incentives offered by the City; and the marketing plan that the City will have in place. . The strategy addresses these issues and provides general goals and objectives, with specific strategies and action plans to address the five areas. The goals and objectives identified in the strategy also are aligned with the goals identified by City Council at their last goal setting session. Specifically, one goal identified was adopting long-term fiscal policies to ensure the City's future solvency, and the action steps and strategies included in the report will do this. . The adoption of the strategy supports what the City has been doing in terms of economic development, and much of the information is similar to that included in the first strategy. . In terms of recommendations for incentives, there was much discussion on ways to help small businesses and revitalization efforts. The recent incentive packages approved by Council have been generally targeted toward small businesses. Other incentives were considered such as relocation assistance and upgrades to facilities, particularly in the areas of technology. . Three specific individual goals were identified: revenue enhancement, information resources and regional leadership. In addition to the general goal of long-term fiscal policies, there were other policies identified at goal setting that relate directly to the goals in the economic development strategy. . Under revenue enhancement, Council set as a high priority the revitalization of the Historic District, and as a medium priority, the need to look at renovation/rejuvenation of the Dublin Village Center. . For regional leadership, there was discussion of a high priority goal with regard to the US 33 corridor and the need to work with other jurisdictions. . In reviewing the goals, strategies and action steps, the majority relate to the goal of revenue enhancement. These include reviving the Community Improvement Corporation, improving the processes by working with the business community to identify their issues and concerns and enhancing technology infrastructure. . The adoption of this Plan is essentially a continuation of what has been underway in the last 10 years and will address some areas not fully implemented or achieved since the last Plan was done. . For timeframes, an implementation matrix was included in the packet, identifying a time period for addressing each action step. Staff will report back to Council with RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Coun~U MeetinK_ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 July 6, 2004 Page 4 Held 20 information as these items are addressed, as well as any policy direction needing the approval of Council. Staff believes that the adoption of the strategy will bring continued improvement in the City's economic development efforts and recommends the adoption of Resolution 30-04. She acknowledged the efforts of Mike Stevens for his leadership in the process that ensured completion in a timely manner, and for the assistance provided by Colleen Gilger and Marlaine Manus. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that this is the most critical issue facing the City in the future - ensuring that a sound tax base continues to support the services for a growing community. The aging of the City will also call for some revitalization efforts in the near future. The policy presented didn't necessarily provide any new information about doing business in Dublin. She does not personally have a concern with approving the Plan as presented, but suggests that the new Economic Development Director being hired be given an opportunity to come back to Council with his/her ideas about implementation. They may provide a different viewpoint on this. On this basis, she would vote to approve the Plan tonight as proposed. While much of the Plan includes what the City has done in practice over the past 10 years, many of the strategies into the future will have to be modified in view of the changing economic development environment. One question is the relationship to the regional economic development efforts. In recent times, businesses have relocated within the region versus new businesses being attracted to the region. Ms. Grigsby responded that regionalization has been a major topic over the past several months. Dublin has become proactive in its involvement with the Greater Columbus Chamber. One of the targeted industries for long-term financial benefit to the City has been identified as those categorized as life sciences. MORPC has also begun an economic development task force to initiate discussions on the issue of regionalism. She added that the matrix and the timeframe were set up based on a recommendation made ~. by the Steering Committee who identified the priority of some focus areas. She views this document as one that provides direction and guidance for the economic development program, but also as a document that would be subject to modification, based on Council's policies and economic conditions in the future. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she is pleased to hear of the active involvement with the Greater Columbus Chamber, as they have some excellent people involved in their Board. She is not as encouraged by MORPC's economic development direction, based on the City's recent experience with them in the Hayden Run corridor meetings. While it is important to participate in the MORPC effort, it is equally important to align with those outside of government agencies. Mr. McCash commented that Dublin is not the only "game" in town at this point in terms of economic development. In reading through the strategy, he is concerned with planning and zoning code issues and development process and procedures, based on the surveys done of businesses. There is a consistent theme that sets Dublin apart from other jurisdictions in Central Ohio. The City needs to recognize the desire to maintain high quality of life and development and its impact on economic development, the balance issues to be addressed, i.e., different zones of economic development in the community, and balancing what the City desires in the Community Plan versus what is contained in the strategy. If the City is not going to make changes, it needs to recognize that it will be a different day in Dublin, and given the choice, businesses may go elsewhere where it is easier to do business. Dublin has lost some of the marketplace advantage. The citizens expect a high quality of life and many services, events and functions, and if the revenue is not brought with economic development, it will not be possible to meet those expectations. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there are some objectives and strategies related to review of the zoning codes. Much work has been done over the past couple of years. While there are standards desired in terms of appearance and quality for the community, the issues for developers is not the standards - it is the process and lack of customer service. The relationships with developers are lacking, and in recent times, staff has I focused on this aspect. I Mr. McCash commented that with a new Economic Development Director, a new Planning Director, and in working with Commission and Council, it will be important to recognize that a 5-6 month development review process results in costs for the developer - money that could be better used to enhance the quality of the project. The review time is costly in I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148 --_.._._-~- ------ July 6, 2004 Page 5 Held 20 terms of monies tied up in land while reviewing development drawings. Six months is a long time for this process in the view of a business owner. Mr. Lecklider commented that it was the intent to address these issues with the Development Code Revision Task Force, and the development community had the opportunity to participate in that process. What they hoped to accomplish was a more streamlined, predictable process to address the criticisms voiced over the years. It may take some time to assess the effectiveness of those changes. Staff and Council should take credit for this undertaking. At the same time, there is a balance issue with the high standards expected in the community versus the reality of the economic development marketplace. He endorsed Ms. Grigsby's view of the document as one that is subject to change and modification as circumstances warrant, similar to the flexibility of the Community Plan document. Ms. Salay commented in regard to the business community not being opposed to standards. Over the years, she has heard much feedback from these groups. What she sees in the document are the same frustrations expressed by the development community - the response given to a development proposal in Dublin versus other communities. The sense is that Dublin is somewhat unwelcoming to businesses. She looks forward to the attitude change being implemented from the top down. She had hoped to have more concrete information in the document in terms of land use. There are some decisions to be made regarding the retail needs of the community and where that development should be located. For office, the focus has been on traffic and density. But in today's market, employees work in cubicles, not in large offices. This needs to be considered. Much more information will be needed to make some of these tough choices. She had also hoped to see information about the financial projections over the next 15 years at build out, although this may be addressed in the Community Plan update. Maintenance issues will be important in the future. As the capital needs change, maintenance needs will need to be determined. Perhaps the density will have to be increased for office uses because more revenue is needed to support services. It would be nice to have more projections on these. Another concern is with the "under appreciated corporate citizens." She does not know what prompts this feeling, and does not believe it can all come from the development process. She will be very interested in strategies to change this perception, as she does not believe it reflects the attitude of staff or Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the implementation of the economic development breakfasts was a way to provide an exchange of information and an opportunity for networking. She has often wondered about the relationship between the I' Chamber and the City, and whose role it is to perform certain functions, whether social or I business related. She wonders what exactly the corporate citizens do not receive from the City that they are seeking. There have been efforts to engage many corporate citizens in city activities in recent years. Ms. Grigsby commented that there has been progress and improvements have been made. Some suggestions for improvement are surveying the businesses as the residents are surveyed, and focus groups. There will likely always be some level of concern expressed from some corporate residents. In regard to the needs of commercial development at build out to support services, this document will tie in to the Community Plan update fiscal analysis chapter. The fiscal analysis will include information about the cost to the City for a single family resident, and the revenues generated by 1,000 square feet of commercial land use. These are the bases for the financial projections. She noted that as part of this process and the recent bond rating, it was identified that approximately 1,400 acres are available for future commercial development, and there are currently 1,600 acres of existing commercial development. Mrs. Boring noted that she has some concerns with the document. The goals are not enlightening. She is not confident that the input from the business community was balanced - there are always some who will criticize if given the opportunity. There are some actions included that are in direct conflict with the Community Plan, i.e., the traffic, the densities, the retail, signage, etc. The language did not indicate a need to review these, but rather gave specific direction for actions. She is concerned that if the City is not candid in their feedback on a project upfront, the message will not be valid. It is not always possible to be "welcoming" toward any and all proposals for development. In RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, lNC.. FORM NO. 10148 _._-.~-_.~-- --.------------- -~--_._-~ I! July 6, 2004 Page 6 !I Ii Held 20 terms of adoption of the document as drafted, she has concern with some of the language in the strategies and actions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there are specific portions where there are concerns. Mrs. Boring stated that she has concerns with the language on page 8, in Action 1.4.1 d, "Modify zoning and development standards to accommodate physical space needs of new industrial sectors, including...." Also, on page 9, in Strategy 1.5.3, "Amend zoning and code requirements to accommodate desirable redevelopments" and the language which follows. These are important, but she is uncomfortable with increasing densities without a requirement for a traffic study. Doing so could result in employees not being able to access the workplace in a reasonable time. Council needs to have more discussion on these issues. Mr. McCash pointed out that the document does not say how to do these things - it would have to be worked through. For example, regarding traffic densities, the density requested for the office complex at Stonehenge was higher than that recommended in the Community Plan. However, in the analysis of the traffic zone, much of the land in the zone was actually parkland with a lower density. Therefore, less traffic was generated for the zone even with the higher office density. There is a balance issue and a need to consider the big picture. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the text should read, "examine or evaluate" how these impact versus taking an automatic and specific action. This would avoid confusion in the future about specific terminology giving direction to staff. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has similar concerns in reading this document literally. His understanding is that none of the strategies would be pursued without first bringing them to Council. Ms. Grigsby responded that anything in regard to zoning or development would involve Council and would be a focus of the Community Plan update as well. The intent is not to increase densities without evaluating any negative impacts. Similarly, the current strategy discussed maximizing the land that is available; once it is developed there is not the opportunity for redevelopment until far into the future. The intent is to evaluate these type of things, recognizing that there may be a need for some modifications. Mrs. Boring stated that all the other areas include language such as "review, examine, evaluate, create" and it would be important for the future to clarify this language. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff agrees and will modify the language as suggested. Mrs. Boring commented that in another portion of the document, it mentions retail need in the office buildings. Caution is needed in defining the retail needs to support the business community. Mr. Keenan commented about Objective 1.7, Evaluation and monitoring the progress. Are there some type of baseline measurables to be reviewed on a quarterly or annual basis? It is sometimes difficult to determine the progress. Ms. Grigsby responded that an important indicator will be the income tax revenues and the ability to continue growth. Mr. Keenan emphasized that it is important to follow through to ensure that the actions have been taken and progress made. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recommended the wording be modified to reflect some of the discussion. Mr. McCash suggested that rather than focusing on two of the definitive strategies for modification, he would prefer changing the resolution language in Section 2 to state: "The City of Dublin herebv adopts the concepts and desired qoals and obiectives contained in the Strateqv Update as a planninq tool for quidinq economic development within the City. The City will evaluate and consider the Strateqy and Action statements contained therein for possible modification of City requlations. procedures or implementation strateqies." Mrs. Boring stated that this is acceptable, but she also requests that the modified language be done for the sections previously discussed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council ------ ---------- MeetinK__ DAYTON LEGALBLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ~ July 6, 2004 Page 7 I' Held 20 Ms. Salay agreed, noting that she is not confident that Council has thoroughly reviewed each page to ensure that there are no other modifications needed. Mr. McCash's language modification to the resolution will address that. 'l"" Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the language in the particular sections referenced by ~>'. " Mrs. Boring does need modification as suggested. Mr. McCash's amendment to the resolution addresses the intent of what Council is approving tonight. However, she does not want to "dilute" the document so that it does not have substance. She is seeking new and innovative ideas to come forward; many of these are old ideas. There are some very innovative businesses in Dublin, and many business owners who live in Dublin could be encouraged to move their businesses to Dublin from other areas. Mr. McCash stated that his motion to amend Section 2 is to achieve balance, recognizing the need for further evaluation in the future. He moved to amend Section 2 as stated previously. Mr. Keenan 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 moved to: 1. Amend page 8, Action 1.4.1 d to state, "Evaluate zoning and development standards to accommodate the physical space needs of new industrial sectors, includinq such thinqs as ...." 2. Amend page 9, first sentence of Strategy 1.5.3 to state, "Evaluate zoning and code requirements to accommodate desirable redevelopments." Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road commented that he had the impression at the last meeting that Council felt "kicked in the mouth" by some portions of the presentation by Curtiss Williams on the Strategy, particularly that the City does not cooperate with businesses, is not clear in its expectations. Goal #3, Regional Leadership speaks volumes of where Council is at this point. A new concept contained therein is cooperation versus the decades ago "cut-throat" competitive approach to economic development across the region. He would also suggest some sharpness in regard to the term "quality of life" - because he is not certain of the exact meaning in this context. The question is what is being fostered or facilitated in terms of the product or outcome of this activity. The effort should be made to define what is meant by the "quality of life" in all of the various City documents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that these points are well taken, and at the time of the Community Plan in 1997, these discussions took place. Much of this will be revisited as the Plan is updated, and she encouraged him to participate in the meetings to help define what is meant by the "quality of life." Mr. Maurer added in regard to the issue of density, that Minerva Park is an example of a beautiful area with dense housing and yet few traffic problems. He is not certain how this has been accomplished, and perhaps it should be researched. Ms. Salay moved approval of Resolution 30-04 as amended. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Stevens for his leadership role in this effort. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that Council will be provided with a final copy of the Plan as revised. OTHER . Community Plan Update - Policy Discussion (Case No. 04-079ADM) Mr. Combs stated that at the June 14 work session, staff presented the plan for the Community Plan update process. Staff emphasized the need to look at some policy RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council ----- --- ---- __ M~~ling DAYTON..LE~A_LBLA~K, INC." FORMNO:'0,-~ .--------- ------ II July 6, 2004 Page 8 !I I Held 20 issues that will provide guidance for staff as the entire process moves forward. In the packets is a copy of Chapter 1 - the general policy element of the document that provides 12 basic principles or guidelines for the entire document. Staff is requesting some general feedback as to whether Council believes these general principles remain relevant, or if staff needs to consider other revisions or issues for incorporation into the policy element chapter. Also in the packet is a policy discussion item page, assembled by staff. It is divided into two general areas for discussion. Under general plan questions, staff needs some feedback on basic issues that will then shape how the Plan update is addressed in terms of RFQs and RFPs. The second portion of the policy discussion item page deals with general policy topics. In order to do the Plan update, staff has assembled a list of major issues they feel are potential discussion items for the Plan process. Again, they are seeking general feedback from Council on the appropriateness of these topics, and whether there are other areas to be reviewed. The second part of the discussion at the work session related to the overall process and timeline. Based on some of the feedback at that time, staff has incorporated the proposed work groups for the various chapters of the Plan. Based on a steering committee meeting with staff members, these have been updated to provide a fairly complete idea of what staff members will be involved with each chapter, who will take the lead role in terms of the division, and how the public input will be utilized through each of the groups. The fourth portion of the packet submittal is a revised flow chart for the public participation process. This has been revised, based upon the work session discussion as well as the steering committee of staff. He offered to respond to any questions about the process, the timeline, or the general policy issues proposed in the packet. Mrs. Boring commented that she is still having difficulty with the issue of community input and lack of a community steering committee. She supports having a community steering committee that could be comprised of individuals such as past Plan steering committee members, former Council Members or Commission members. There is a need for such a Community steering committee to take the public input. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who the lead person would then be for the entire Plan update. Mrs. Boring responded that Mr. Combs would serve in this capacity. Lisa Fierce served as the project lead person in the last Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that an external leader would be needed for the Steering I Committee as well as the internal staff person. II Mrs. Boring concurred. Ms. Salay asked staff about their opinion of the feasibility of this. She had assumed Council would take the lead role in serving as a steering committee. While this idea has merit, it will complicate the process and will lengthen it. In view of the need to have the update done as soon as possible, it is not practical. Mrs. Boring responded that she considered the time factor, but the update is very comprehensive and she is not willing to sacrifice quality for speed. There are many in the community who would likely want to be involved - for example, Chuck Kranstuber or others involved in the previOus Plan. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff's view is that even though the chart appears complicated, it is only complicated because staff wanted to lift up for Council's consideration every area in the Plan that needs review. She agrees that because it has been seven years since the last Plan was adopted, the review will be quite comprehensive. Having a Community Steering Committee over the plan would require a longer period of time. By having this process staff driven, not using outside consultants, and because the staff is very knowledgeable about the City, she believes the process will be faster. Obviously, adding additional public input in the process with a Community Steering Committee will require additional time. She believes it would be a mistake to draw upon those who worked on the first plan as a majority of the committee. There is a need for new voices and new people because it is hard for a former committee member to amend the plan/rewrite it. There is a need for new vision to help with this process. If Council desires to have a community steering committee guide the process, staff will follow this direction. However, this is not the staff recommendation. The process that staff has outlined will go well and is project to take 18 months. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 July 6, 2004 Page 9 Held 20 Ms. Salay asked staff to comment on how they envision the public input for this process, and how someone could become involved who is interested in doing so. Mr. Combs responded that the basic premise of the Plan is that most of it is still accurate and still reflects the community. The Plan is not a complete rewrite, but rather an update to reflect existing conditions. In terms of public participation, the economic development survey was recently completed, and the resident survey was updated, providing a good baseline for how the community feels about different topics. For the initial phase, staff envisions a specialized public survey to look at the different areas of plans and questions which continue to arise, and seeking feedback from various quadrants of the City so that a statistical basis is established. Staff would conduct the key stakeholder interviews at the beginning of the process as well as do the survey update. Once this is done, broader input would be done at public meetings throughout the community. In addition, when individual rewrites of chapters of the plan are completed, existing boards of the City who deal with these topics on a regular basis will have public forums on the various topics. Once a draft version of the document is assembled, a series of public meetings will be held to review the overall document. The staff driven process is being done to accommodate the timeline, the budget and the framework set forth. Ms. Brautigam stated that last week, staff met to discuss ways to obtain as much public input as possible. An idea was proposed of doing stakeholder interviews up front, at the same time the survey by quadrants is done. Instead of sending a general survey to everyone, a focused survey will be done, based on their specific area of residency. Those who return the survey will receive an invitation to a public meeting to review the results of the survey. This will help to involve everyone in the process. Staff will also place the surveys online to seek feedback, although they will not be counted due to the need for statistically valid returns. Ms. Salay commented that when the board/commission meetings on the various topics occur, it will be important to communicate the agendas, dates and locations of the meetings to the general public. Ms. Brautigam stated that Community Relations has been involved in this process from the outset, and all City communication tools will be utilized. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that during the previous Community Plan effort, speakers were brought in to meet with staff and to provide public forums in the evening to hear some progressive thoughts about community planning. She suggested that at the beginning of the Plan update, a speaker could be scheduled who would attract the community to come and listen to some relevant topics. Ms. Brautigam responded that this is a wonderful idea. She will look into bringing the author of The Rise of the Creative Community to Dublin for this purpose, but cautioned that the cost may be high. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that she check with the Columbus Metropolitan Club - perhaps there are other groups who would pool funds to bring him to Columbus for a .1 couple of speaking engagements. Ms. Salay commented in regard to policy discussion items. When talking about area plans for retail revitalization along Sawmill, she assumes this means the Dublin Village Center. Mr. Combs responded that was the general area considered. There is potential for looking at the entire corridor as part of an area plan, but the shopping center was the focus. Ms. Salay stated that as a retail center, Dublin Village Center did not succeed. However, perhaps it could be used in the context of a mixed use center - incorporating office, housing, and a mixed environment. Perhaps this could be looked at in terms of other possibilities versus simply retail revitalization. Mr. McCash moved to adopt the proposed implementation process for the Plan update. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. . Post Road Properties Status Report Ms. Brautigam stated that the City currently owns five properties along Post Road that are listed in the memo. Of these, three seem to be good candidates for demolition: 5868,5886 and 5904 Post Road. The other two are the Nyrop property that has long been suggested to serve as an environmental center, and the 5952 Post Road property RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City C9J..1nc;il , , -- ~_.._------ -- Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 -----~----------_.,--_._-_...__. July 6, 2004 Page 10 Held 20 that may have some historical value. Staff looked at the possibilities for moving forward, should Council decide to do so. They are suggesting 90 days' notice be given to the tenants in 5868 and 5904, and at that point, the demolition will be scheduled. Staff will then investigate the possible uses of the Dantzer property. Staff will report back in 90 days about whether it would be appropriate to keep the Dantzer property or not. Ms. Salay commented: 1. Regarding the nature center envisioned for the Nyrop property, while the timing is uncertain of the Coffman Park plan implementation, she would be interested in this property being converted and used as a nature center sooner than later for two reasons: It is a beautiful property and is difficult to access at this time; and secondly, she is concerned about the integrity of the vacant structure into the future. It may be reasonable to convert this sooner in order to avoid the expense of keeping it in good condition without using it. The Task Force was very excited about acquiring and using this property in this way. 2. In regard to the 5886 property, the former Costello-Bergdall home, the structure itself dates from 1930-1940, but it was the Coffman Home that was moved, stone intact, to the site on Post Road. Therefore, it does have some history in the community. 3. In regard to the Dantzer property, it was previously the Segner farm and prior to that the Orr farm, long time Dublin families. The Historical Society representatives expressed interest in those structures at the Task Force meetings, although it was not mentioned it was a Sears/Roebuck kit home. 4. In regard to the white farmhouse - the Dantzer property at 5952 Post Road, the Task Force was not receptive to razing that structure, in view of the desire to preserve the rural character of Post Road. The idea of tearing it down was II unpalatable to the Task Force. They felt that if it were occupied as a single-family home with a deed restriction stating that it could never be anything other than that, it would not take away from the park, and would enhance the character of the area. 5. In addition, if the demolition of the houses is done as proposed, it would be desirable to do something with the land in terms of installing a hiking trail and a bridge over the creek. It would be utilized by those who come to the Rec Center to walk. In view of the investment in the land, it should be utilized by the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff is recommending that Council direct the razing of the three properties as outlined, following appropriate notice to the tenants. What is the agreement with the tenants that is in place? Ms. Brautigam responded that there are two separate leases - one allows a 30-day notice and the other a 90-day notice. Mr. McCash asked if there have been maintenance issues with these houses or problems with the tenants. He is aware there were problems with Jenmar due to charging below market rents and the existing problems with the properties. From an economic I' standpoint, it would make sense to continue to rent these until the City is prepared to do ,I [I something with the land itself. This would allow the opportunity to recoup some of the initial investment in the land. Ms. Brautigam stated that the reason staff is recommending this is the desire to focus on the business purposes as a City. Staff believes that leasing properties is not a major part of the City business and the City does not excel in this. They would prefer not to remain in the landlord business. Mrs. Boring noted that she agrees with Mr. McCash - the location of the properties between the Rec Center and the other City buildings is very visible, and there will likely not be similar issues to those experienced with Jenmar Court. :1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the five-year CIP will include funding for the Nyrop property development. Ms. Brautigam responded that there are no funds programmed in the five-year CIP at this time for that purpose. Mr. McCash stated that if not used, the Nyrop house will deteriorate and perhaps have to be torn down. Mr. Lecklider asked if the City has other rental properties. Ms. Grigsby stated that one tenant remains in a Jenmar Court property, and the two on Post Road. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 ~---~_._-------------- July 6, 2004 Page 11 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider stated that he understands staff's desire not to be in the rental property business, but also appreciates Mr. McCash's comment about obtaining some return on the investment. Mr. McCash commented that while this is not a primary business function of the City, this involves 4-5 houses that would not be that difficult to oversee. Mr. Lecklider asked about the income from the properties and whether it is worth the effort. Ms. Grigsby stated that one house rents for $1,000 and the other for $900/month. Discussion continued about the expenses versus the income from the properties. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if 90 days is sufficient notice for the occupants in view of the fact that there are no immediate plans for the property. Perhaps six months would be more reasonable. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is fine. The tenant with the 30-day notice was to vacate the property 18 months ago, and is currently living there on a month-to-month basis. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she his more comfortable with a six-month notice so they could find alternate housing. Discussion continued. Mr. Lecklider supported providing six months' notice, under the circumstances. Mr. Keenan summarized that the question before Council is whether they want to raise the houses as proposed, after six months' notice to the tenants. Ms. Brautigam pointed out that the properties will not be torn down in January, as weather would preclude this. Council may want to provide them with eight months' notice due to the timeframe. Mr. Keenan moved approval of the staff recommendation to raze the buildings at 5868, 5886 and 5904 Post Road and to provide eight months' notice to the tenants. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. . Avery-Muirfield/Brand Road Landscape Plan Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff will provide a brief overview tonight of the final landscape plan associated with the Muirfield/Brand roundabout. Ms. Martin, Streetscape Specialist, Division of Engineering noted that Jim Burkhart is on vacation and cannot be present tonight. She then distributed the proposed plan completed on Friday to Council, which contains some minor changes from the preliminary plan distributed in December. There are some changes, including some rotation of the pot bunkers due to utility lines being buried along Brand Road. At the time the plan was presented in December, the bikepath was not shown going all around the outer perimeter of the roundabout. This plan now reflects that, and shows safe passage for pedestrians traveling around the roundabout. The proposed plant material for the roundabout complements and enhances the existing plant material. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the location of the signage. Ms. Martin showed the location on the plan. Mr. Keenan asked if the sign would be lighted as it was previously. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan asked about lighting for the Nicklaus statue. Ms. Martin responded that there is uplighting on the statue, but it is hidden behind the plant material at the base. It is a low grade lighting and not meant to highlight. Mr. Keenan asked if there is any merit to more lighting on the statue. The City has a large investment in the artwork and it would be nice to see it at night. Ms. Martin responded that they can look into some modifications for this. Ms. Martin stated that an existing flagpole directly behind the existing Muirfield Village sign would be relocated in a similar location behind the new location for that sign. A memorial tree located behind the sign will be relocated to Memorial Grove at the pool off Glick Road. II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin CitYuCouncil M~eting ----..---------- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ----,--..~--- July 6, 2004 Page 12 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the budget that indicates that the landscape plan will be bid separately, with an estimated cost of construction of $90,000. Is that for installation only and not the materials? Was all of this included in the approved budget for the project? Mr. Hammersmith responded that this includes both landscaping installation and plant material, but the revised estimate is a little over $100,000. The $90,000 was a preliminary budget from December. He clarified that in December, the budget was estimated at $200,000 for landscaping, but some of the flagstone and pot bunkers will be done as part of the roadway project, so the $100,000 is for plant material and turf areas. The roadway portion of the contract was $1.42 million, and the total budget for the project was $1.85 million that included utility relocation of $150,000. Therefore, the project is still considerably under what was budgeted. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Reiner for his feedback on the landscaping. Mr. Reiner noted that he has questions regarding the bomanite. It has been problematic due to salt damage. Would there be an additional cost in substituting European pavers? Ms. Martin responded that she estimates that the cost initially would be similar, but the maintenance costs would be higher. The problems with the bomanite at existing intersections has not been salt damage, but rather such factors as plowing and installation in warm weather conditions. The contractors have committed to replacing these at their cost and a meeting is scheduled soon. Mr. Reiner noted that bomanite requires a sealant. !I Ms. Martin responded that they recommend sealing every four years, and this is included in the street maintenance program. Mr. Reiner stated that there has been discussion on European pavers and concrete pressed pavers. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he has had the best experience with clay pavers. The bomanite was impacted by snow removal with a bobcat that resulted in chipping. Mr. McCash asked if there will be similar problems with this due to street plows. Ms. Martin responded that this bomanite will be inside the island, behind the curb and is , designed to create a protection for the turf from salt damage. Mr. Reiner asked about the uplighting of the trees. How will this be handled? Ms. Martin responded that the trees that are located on the interior island will be uplit with light fixtures at the base, similar to those at Ballantrae. The light fixtures on the perimeter of the roundabout are 25-foot poles and are located at the potential points of conflict for vehicle entry/exit and conflict with pedestrian/vehicular traffic. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that the street lights will not wash out the other uplighting - that the uplighting will still be dramatic. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intent is to light the paved areas, without trespass into the green areas. The accent lighting at the base of the trees will light the trees themselves, avoiding a wash out effect. Mr. Reiner asked staff if they still prefer bomanite to the European pavers. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he will discuss this with the contractor, but they have had good experience with it aside from the plowing issue. Keeping it sealed is the best key to its longevity. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the project will be bid as quickly as possible in order to be under construction in September/October. Currently, curb is being installed and fine grading will take place next week with asphalt to follow, Complete closure is anticipated beginning August 2 for three weeks. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that many citizens have been impressed with the City and contractor's efforts to meet the timeline publicized for the project. Mr. Hammersmith gave compliments to Complete General for their work on this project. . Appointment of Shannon Park Representative to Tara Hill Drive Traffic CalmingTask Force Mr. Lecklider noted that the candidates for the Task Force have been reviewed, and he moved approval of the appointment of Tina Wray at this time. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of .Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148 .. July 6, 2004 Page 13 Held 20 CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS . Report re Smoke Free Legislation Ms. Brautigam reported that the City of Columbus recently approved smoke free legislation with an effective date of September. Columbus is hopeful that various suburban communities will follow suit and pass such an ordinance. Pursuant to the authorization of City Council at the last meeting, she and the Mayor sent a letter to Mayor Coleman and Columbus City Council, urging them to pass the legislation, and indicating that Dublin would consider similar legislation in the future. Staff is recommending that the Law Director undertake some research, review the Columbus ordinance and any other similar legislation that may be appropriate for Dublin, and bring legislation to Council for a first reading on August 2. Council will need to determine at that time the next step, whether it is scheduling a second reading/public hearing in August, referring it to a Council Committee or existing board or commission, or establishing a special task force to 1 Ii examine this issue. Mr. McCash asked about the timeframe for placing this matter on the ballot in November, if the desire of Council is that the citizens make this decision. Mr. Smith responded that the deadline would be 75 days prior to the general election in November. Mr. McCash commented that he would prefer that the citizens decide this at the ballot box versus seven Council Members deciding. Mr. Keenan stated that he would first like to see the disposition of a referendum in Columbus, should it move forward. If the ordinance is overturned at the November election in Columbus, and Dublin in the interim approves similar legislation, the Dublin restaurant community would be impacted. There are many factors to be considered. I' Mr. McCash stated that it would make sense to place this on the ballot for Dublin, II I assuming that the referendum of the Columbus ordinance will be on the November ballot. I If the Columbus referendum is not placed on the ballot, the Dublin citizens can still decide if they want to follow suit with passage of legislation similar to the Columbus ordinance. Ms. Salay asked what would happen if a referendum on the Columbus ordinance is not approved, and the legislation is approved at the ballot in Dublin. It seems that the Dublin restaurants and bars would be placed at a disadvantage. Mr. McCash responded that it depends on how the ordinance is written. Mrs. Boring stated that if the numbers are accurate - that 72 percent of the citizens desire a smoke free environment - and if Dublin does not provide a smoke free environment, logic dictates that people will patronize the Columbus businesses. She agrees with Mr. II McCash in placing the issue on the ballot and letting the citizens make the decision. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about any disadvantage of bringing forward both a smoke free ordinance as well as ballot language for Council's consideration at the August 2 meeting. These would be presented as two separate items to Council. Mr. Smith responded that there is no disadvantage, and staff can provide both items with a memo for August 2. He pointed out that Council generally would allow time for two readings, so he would have to check on the deadline for filing a ballot issue with the Board of Elections. Mr. McCash commented that emergency action could be taken by Council to have this placed on the ballot. Depending upon the timing, a citizen referendum of any legislation approved in Dublin could not be done prior to the November ballot deadlines and a special election would therefore be necessary. Special elections are costly. Mr. Smith clarified that if there is a referendum in Columbus, and their ordinance is repealed, it would not be possible to draft language in a Dublin ordinance to address such a situation. Mr. McCash clarified that he meant that other cities, such as Toledo, have ordinances that are not as restrictive as the Columbus ordinance. This is an option for Dublin to consider. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148 ---- -"-- July 6, 2004 Page 14 Held 20 Mr. Smith responded that a memo can outline the various options for ordinances to impose smoking bans and Council can make some choices. These options can be provided to Council on August 2. Council may then seek input from the residents as well as the business community on the options. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that most of the input she has heard has been in favor of a smoke free environment. Personally, she would support establishing a specialized task force, representative of businesses, health care professionals, citizens, staff and Council that would be well educated on both the health issues as well as the alternatives. Five or six states in the country have passed smoke free legislation, so this is not new ground. These states have not experienced some of the negatives, such as loss of business as described by some. It is an opportunity for participation by a much broader audience of the community, short of a referendum. It seems strange that Council would endorse placing the issue on the ballot prior to having a community dialogue on this subject. ! I Mr. Lecklider stated that this is a good point. I Mrs. Boring asked about the costs of placing the issue on the ballot, and any costs for removing it from the ballot. Mr. Smith responded that is not easy to remove an issue from the ballot. The costs of a special election are in the range of $12,000, and are based upon population. Mr. Keenan stated that Council must first decide what they want to accomplish going forward. He favors the proposal of having public input, including a collection of different stakeholders from the business community. He has heard from both sides. Personally, he has concerns with government being involved in some of these decisions. He recognizes all of the health issues, but would prefer having a larger group involved. That would be an important part of the process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that there are two options for such an effort: an open ended format, in which the group would become educated on the issues and then propose a policy; or a policy could be provided to the group to work from and modify as needed. Columbus presented a policy and, based on the reaction, the policy was modified and adopted. Staff could recommend a policy on August 2 and Council could then refer it to a Task Force for review and recommendation to Council. Ms. Salay asked if Council would effectively be inviting a tobacco lobby group to invade the community and make this much larger than a local Dublin issue. She views this as a leadership issue, and if the Columbus ordinance stands, Dublin needs to approve a similar ordinance to avoid having people come to Dublin restaurants to smoke. There is overwhelming public health evidence of the dangers of second hand smoke. It is laudable that Columbus took the stand that they did. If the group manages to place a referendum on the ballot, then, at that point, Dublin can take its cue. But if the referendum does not go forward, Dublin needs to take a stand and pass an ordinance. Mr. Keenan stated that the discussion tonight is focused on the process, not whether II Council is in favor of such legislation. Ms. Salay stated that she envisions the process as including two readings, with input from the public, including restaurant and bar owners. She does not see this as a huge issue for Dublin that would warrant creation of a task force. She is comfortable in saying that while people have a right to smoke, they do not have the right to make others breathe the smoke. Mr. Lecklider voiced concern with placing this on the ballot in November without knowing the outcome of a referendum effort in Columbus. Mr. Reiner suggested that the matter be referred to the Community Services Advisory Commission. He agreed with Ms. Salay that if a city such as New York can pass a smoking ban, Dublin should be able to do so as well. It is important to support Columbus on this because of the public health issues involved. Ms. Salay added that there would be an opportunity for public input at the Council meetings. Based on the discussion, Council can then make a decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 . July 6, 2004 Page 15 Held 20 Mr. McCash stated that part of his proposal to place this on the ballot was to move it forward more quickly. He understands the health issues of smoking, as his father, uncle and wife's grandfather all died of lung cancer. At the same time, he views this as more than a smoking issue. There are ways to address this similar to other regulations in government - one person's rights should not be enforced to the point that it inhibits another person's rights. It is legal to smoke in this country and there are economic considerations. But perhaps there are ways to address smoking with ventilation or by providing non-smoking areas, such as the City of Toledo has done. He is seeking more of a balanced approach. Mr. Keenan suggested that the Law Director provide some options, as discussed earlier. Time should be allowed to see the outcome of the referendum effort in Columbus. Mr. Lecklider stated that if there is not a majority of Council who wants the Law Director to investigate placing this on the ballot in November, he does not want to engage him in this effort. Mr. McCash clarified that his concept in suggesting a ballot issue would be to place an ordinance identical to the Columbus ordinance on the November ballot, assuming Council's intent is simply to adopt the Columbus ordinance. However, if the desire is to propose different legislation and to allow public input on a modified ordinance, there is not adequate time to place this on the November ballot. Mr. Lecklider clarified that he does not support placing any ordinance on a November ballot. Ii Ms. Salay and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. I Mr. Keenan stated that Dublin could, however, adopt its own ordinance - it does not have to mimic the Columbus legislation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. She requested that the Law Director provide a basic ordinance with specific suggestions for options for Council to consider on August 2. The Columbus ordinance was fairly specific, and so certain sections could be easily modified. Mr. Smith responded that staff will bring this type of information to Council, allowing for some choices, and will also bring some options used in other communities. Council can make a policy determination on the various options to be included. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is hopeful that Dublin would not be passive, delaying any consideration until the outcome is known about the referendum effort in Columbus. What is the estimated timeframe for the referendum? Mr. Smith responded that a group is apparently collecting signatures at this time. He noted that many referendums fail for procedural reasons. However, with the support of some business groups, it is possible that the referendum will go forward Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the Law Director will bring proposed legislation to Council for the August 2 meeting. Ms. Salay asked that information be provided about what other suburban communities around Columbus have done in this regard. Mr. Smith responded that he will discuss this with other Law Directors from around the area and provide that input to Council. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE . Report from Finance Committee re Fee Waivers for Dublin Arts Council Mr. Keenan reported that the Committee met at 6 p.m. and have three recommendations: 1. The Committee is recommending that Council waive the fees for the Arts Festival this year, due to the late date and the fact that they have already negotiated contracts with the artists. He moved to approve this recommendation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. II RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting ---.- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO..10148 July 6, 2004 Page 16 Held 20 2. The Committee is recommending that the City provide the services necessary for the Sundays at Scioto event at no cost to the Dublin Arts Council. Mr. Keenan moved to approve this recommendation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. 3. The Committee is recommending in regard to the Dublin Arts Festival that staff be directed to gather additional information - financial statements directly related to the Arts Festival, the year-end 2003 financial statements for the DAC, and additional information for Arts Councils in surrounding communities. This will be revisited at a September meeting. Ms. Salay asked if the Committee is considering any revenue that is brought to the City in terms of business in Historic Dublin, or hotel/motel business, or whether it is purely a local draw festival. Mr. Keenan stated that staff can also be asked to gather that information. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will check on this as well, based on information available. Mr. Keenan added that there was some discussion about Historic Dublin in general benefiting from the Arts Festival and how that might be weighed. Some of the businesses have reported this as their single largest sales day of the year. Mr. Keenan commented that at Avery/Muirfield and Post Road, there is a significant amount of friction between vehicles and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. He has witnessed several near accidents at the intersection over the past few weeks. He asked staff to respond to this safety issue. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he discussed this issue with the City Manager today and will check on the existing pedestrian signals in place. He noted that this signal was installed as a temporary signal, and staff is currently selecting a consultant for the permanent intersection improvement that will include pedestrian movements. Staff will investigate measures to improve safety in the interim. Ms. Salay: 1. Asked if it would be possible to have some type of flashing sign to remind drivers to yield to the pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the better solution is to make the crosswalks more prominent. Signage will not make a huge difference when drivers are trying to make the turn movement. New countdown pedestrian heads were recently installed at Emerald and Coffman Park Drive and he encouraged Council to view these. 2. Complimented everyone on the Independence Day celebration. It was a wonderful event, and everyone enjoyed the performance by Kool and the Gang. 3. Asked about the policy for day pass sales for the outdoor pools, and who is permitted to purchase day passes - Dublin residents, Dublin school district residents or anyone outside of Dublin? It seems there are many from other communities using the I pools. The policy was much more restrictive in the past, where people were required to produce a utility bill or other identification. , , 4. Noted that in the packet was a letter from Nancy and Jerry Wolfe regarding the roundabouts in the southwest and asked if staff could assist with a response. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that these are not roundabouts, but traffic circles and the signals can be signed either way with yields or stops. Previously, they had yield signs but these were changed out to stop signs. The traffic circles at Ballantrae are larger and have yield signs. Ms. Salay added that the intent with the stop sign was to slow traffic entering the neighborhood area with lower speed limits. Mr. Reiner: 1. Asked about the policy for fee waivers for use of the theater. A letter has been sent to Council from St. Brigid's requesting such a waiver. Ms. Brautigam stated that a policy was established, and staff will review this and respond to the request. No action from Council is necessary. 2. Noted that he is available to represent Council at the Arthritis Foundation Classic Auto Show this weekend. Mr. McCash suggested that the Administrative Committee discuss some dates for pending Committee items at the conclusion of tonight's meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council. Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 ... July 6, 2004 Page 17 Held 20 Mr. Lecklider: 1. Reported that he will be out of town next week. 2. Echoed the positive comments about the Independence Day parade. 3. Asked about the status of the Chi Chi's site. Mr. Ciarochi responded that the site is being converted to another franchise for the Roby auto dealership. It is permitted under the existing zoning. Ms. Salay stated that certain boutique auto dealers do not require a large display lot. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the status of the Cooker's Restaurant site. Mr. Ciarochi responded that staff is monitoring this site through Code Enforcement. Ms. Salay stated that there are very tall weeds throughout the general area that should be checked. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Reminded Council that Thursday is the second birthday for the Golf Club of I Dublin, and invitations were sent to Council and staff for a cocktail reception I from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. 1 2. Reminded Council of the farewell reception honoring Mike Stevens on Monday, July 12 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at the Coffman Park Pavilion. 3. Complimented staff on the biketrail map distributed tonight. It will also be available on the City web site. 4. Asked about the update on the spruce tree installation on Innovation Drive. Her question relates to the fact that this was not a forced homeowners I association, and as a result, people chose not to join. The City is now picking up the cost of tree replacement. Is this a new policy that the City will follow for I other homeowners associations that are not forced, or for those forced I homeowners associations who are unable to collect fees? Ms. Brautigam responded that this is not the new policy. This issue arose in a Council roundtable and was referred to staff. Staff is aware of the fact that there is a landscape fund that could be used to improve the area. Because that money is available, there is a recommendation from staff to go forward with improving that area, using those funds. For the most part, the issues other homeowners associations have are not resolvable through the landscape fund; in this case, this money was available for landscape enhancements around the City; staff felt Council would support this use of the funds. No action has been taken, so if Council has different direction on this matter, staff will not move forward. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that it is a misnomer to say that some of the issues with homeowners associations are not landscape in nature. These associations, both forced and unforced have come forward numerous times requesting that the City fund landscaping and the City has chosen not to do so. Even those who are funded do not do all that they need to do on the property due to the lack of funding; once they learn that the City has landscape funding to contribute, they may decide to use their money for other purposes and seek money from the City for the landscaping. That is one reason that the City has chosen not to begin discriminating against who this is done for and who does not by having a policy of not doing it. The City will have to state why it is being done in this case and not in other cases. She does not understand why this rises to a different level, other than it is not a forced homeowners association and those who live there do not choose to pay the fees. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff will follow Council's directive in this. When it arose at the roundtable, staff took it as a directive to find a way to resolve the problem and this was the way identified. She will take personal responsibility for not remembering the implications for other homeowners associations. Mr. Reiner stated that if it is a major aesthetic issue for the City, he could support doing this. But again, it emphasizes the need for forced homeowners associations, as is now the policy. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not believe the City should replace the landscaping, as there have been some homeowners associations who have requested funding from the City such as lighting for Donegal Cliffs entry, and fencing for Shannon Park and were refused. Replacing the landscaping provides no motivation for this homeowners association to begin maintaining their area. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _u__ Dublin City Counc:i1 Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 ,----- "" July 6, 2004 Page 18 Held 20 Ms. Salay stated that it is not a question of motivation, but rather one of ability. The fact is that this subdivision was established long before there was uniform agreement about the need for forced and funded homeowners associations. In the zoning documents approved, a buffer was required that consisted of certain types of trees. She recalls that Council in recent years made a decision to spend monies for landscaping replacement along Muirfield Drive, between Tara Hill and Valley Stream. It was an aesthetics issue and the homeowners association did not have the funds for this. Mr. Reiner commented that this issue has come up over the years. It would be preferable to require that developers provide huge setbacks, berming the earth 3 to 1. It is a planning issue of requiring larger setbacks at the development stage. Ms. Salay stated that the City has the ability to address this problem on Innovation Drive. It has been done in other areas such as Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. Reiner noted that on the other hand, if people are not willing to maintain their neighborhood and yet have money for other personal needs, the City should not fund this. Ms. Salay clarified that she brought this to Council; the neighborhood did not request this. I, ,I i Mrs. Boring stated that in the last memo, she understood that staff was to work with the neighborhood under a shared proposal. Ms. Salay stated that one of the major spruce trees was lost in a major wind storm. The Planning Commission had hoped to have a tree screen in place to buffer this " neighborhood from the roadway. Mr. McCash stated that there is another area along Avery-Muirfield where a homeowner cut down several pine trees and left a large mulch pit. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher cautioned that this will not be the last such case that comes to Council. Mrs. Boring stated that there is a choice in this situation. One tree was lost in a storm, and the homeowner apparently cut down some others. The City is now planning to plant eight trees to replace them, and she does not believe the City has any obligation to do so. Ms. Salay commented that Council did not give the civic association any power or ability to replant the trees, absent a forced and funded homeowners association, registered with the state. There is no ability to impose a lien on the property owner. This is a civic beautification issue and does not often occur. Mrs. Boring recalls the case of Donegal Cliffs requesting funding for entry lighting and Council refused it. The fencing for Shannon Park was also turned down. Ms. Brautigam stated that she spoke with Mrs. Boring today about Shannon Park. She will instruct staff tomorrow not to install trees along Innovation Drive unless there is a motion to do so. II Mr. Lecklider stated that what Council needs to keep in mind in a case such as Shannon Park, is that the fence may fall into complete disrepair in five years because of a dispute Ii I about who will pay for replacement due to lack of a forced and funded homeowners association. It is not anyone's fault, especially the homeowners. Many would like to see the trees replaced and would contribute, but don't have any means to force their neighbors to participate in the replacement. Whose fault is this? Mrs. Boring responded that the neighborhoods where the residents pay their homeowners association fees would then be penalized for doing so. Ms. Salay responded that this neighborhood predates all of the City's requirements for homeowners association. This situation is an eyesore. Mr. McCash asked if this is within the City right-of-way or on private property. Ms. Brautigam clarified that it is not within the right-of-way. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS --- Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting --~,._- DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 July 6, 2004 Page 19 Held 20 Mr. McCash stated that if this is a required buffer under the zoning approval for the property, the property owner could be assessed for costs to replace that buffer in ~- accordance with the approved guidelines. Ms. Brautigam stated that an assessment district could be established for this purpose. ./..\1;....._.,." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that a letter be sent to the homeowners indicating that the City is taking care of this issue now, but that in the future it will be their responsibility to do so, in accordance with the zoning requirements. Ms. Salay stated that the City of Grandview Heights had a tree planting initiative and the City partnered with the homeowners to purchase the trees and assisted with planting. Perhaps this is a better use of the funds in view of such areas such as Shannon Park with a fencing issue. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion to give direction to staff. Ms. Salay moved that the City plant the replacement trees along Innovation Drive and consider a policy for future right-of-way plantings to be dealt with, whether it is through a certain amount budgeted in the CIP each year that associations can apply for, or whether the decision is that it is never in the best interests of the City to assist with these type of situations. Mr. McCash seconded the motion, with the condition that the funds come from the tree preservation fund rather than the general fund. Ms. Salay agreed with this amendment. Vote on the motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for personnel and land acquisition matters at 10:20 p.m. She noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. No further action will be taken. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 11 :20 p.m. and formally adjourned. rL- ~ e-~ Clerk of Council "".'