Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 Held Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:15 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Harding, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Willis, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch and Lt. Hirschy. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of February 4, 2008 Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the meeting minutes of February 4, 2008. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, abstain; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. PROCLAMATION/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • National Engineers Week -February 17-23, 2008 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher presented a proclamation to City Engineer, Paul Hammersmith, in recognition of National Engineers Week. She noted that the City of Dublin employs many professional engineers to maintain the operations and vital functions of the City. Although the work of professional engineers is often not visible to the citizens who benefit from it, that is not the case in Dublin. In this community, the Engineering Department is responsible for significant and highly visible infrastructure projects, which the citizens appreciate. She thanked Mr. Hammersmith and all Engineering staff for their many contributions to the welfare of the Dublin community. Mr. Hammersmith responded that on behalf of all the engineers on staff, it is their privilege to serve this community. They attempt to take Council's vision and make it a reality. He thanked Council for adoption of the Community Plan, which establishes the vision. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk stated that a Notice to Legislative Authority had been received from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control regarding the application of the Tartan Golf Club, LLC, 5805 Eiterman Road, for the transfer of D5 and D6 permits to the Golf Club of Dublin LLC. Council had no objections to the transfer of the permits. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer 7451 Dublin Road, stated that: 1. His two lawyers are present tonight, the City Law Director, who represents all Dublin citizens, including himself and the City Manager. 2. He predicts that, in time, a proposal will be made that a statue be erected in recognition of Council Member Reiner. Mr. Reiner has successfully pressed for incorporation of the concept of conservation design into the City's development code. That design engenders enormous genius as it relates to urban landscaping. Often the City has expressed the desire to retain a rural look for the city. Conservation design does not necessarily promote that. 3. With respect to rural design, if the City owned his property, it would have a relic of uncontaminated midwest meadowland and midwest farming. He has been told that it probably dates back to the Civil War. If the project the City originally designed for his property had been adopted, it would have taken out approximately 200 feet of the 20-30 feet high screening he has mentioned previously. The City Engineer and he discussed this and finally arrived at a plan that would require not more than 15-20 feet of screening be removed, where the sewer line to serve the Thomas property comes into his yard. Machinery will be set up that drills down to the southwest corner. He would like to propose that the additional 90 -100 feet be drilled from the corner to the connection to the sewer line, which is to the west of his property. POSTPONED ITEMS • Preliminary and Final Plat -Duke Parkwood (5900 Parkwood Place -Case No. 07-092PP/FP) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council February 19, 2008 1 1 1 Hel Page 2 Mr. Langworthy stated this is a request for the approval of a combined preliminary and final plat at 5900 Parkwood Place, dividing a single 28.805-acre lot into two lots of 12.62 acres and 16.18 acres. The site is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, in Subarea A of the Thomas Kohler Planned Commerce District, located on the east side of Parkwood Place, north of the intersection with Woerner-Temple Road. The item was postponed at the January 2, January 22 and February 4 Council meetings in order for Planning and the applicant to address issues raised by Council. Council expressed concerns about the relationship of the approved plan to the proposed plan. The approved plan provides for two mirror buildings with a center atrium. Subsequent to the previous discussion, Duke has developed a conceptual layout that eliminates the connecting atrium and adds a third building closer to Parkwood Place. The concept provides the layout only; no proposal is made concerning architecture or design. Ms. Salay inquired if the southern footprint, which was formerly connected, remains the same size. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that it would be the same size. Ms. Salay stated that the plan provides for an awkwardly shaped driveway around this layout. Could it be made symmetrical? Mr. Langworthy responded that staff was not satisfied with the design details, but the intent tonight was to attain a satisfactory building layout. Other site details would still need to be addressed. Ms. Salay asked if the concept plan proposes the third building, which is not included in the existing, approved plan, to be approximately the same size as the other two. Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct. However, the concept plan has not been approved as part of the final development plan for this site. As the Planning and Zoning Commission conditions stipulate, the conceptual plan would need to be brought to the Commission for approval. Ms. Salay asked if the site can accommodate additional density. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay stated that her concerns were not so much with the plat as what the end product would be if the City approved this split. She would want to see a mirror image of the existing building in terms of architecture and materials. They have built half of the site, and Council needs to see the other half. Beyond that, she is satisfied with whatever is approved by a future planning staff and Council. She wanted Council to have assurances regarding the other half of the building. Mr. Langworthy responded that the Planning Commission recommendations should provide that assurance. The Commission believes the plan submitted meets all the requirements for a preliminary and final plat and recommends approval with three conditions: 1. That an amended final development plan be required for any future development proposal that does not fully comply with the approved final development plan; 2. That the amended final development plan, if submitted, be consistent with the originally approved plan to create signature buildings, provide a cohesive landscape treatment along I-270, and be consistent with other structures in the area; and 3. That the architecture of the buildings on Lot 2 be generally consistent and compatible with the existing building on Lot 1, with similar height and density, architectural elements, materials, and colors. Mr. Keenan asked about the age of the existing building. The applicant indicated the building was built in 1999. Mr. Keenan stated that he understands the desire for a mirror image building, but is curious if the building materials or any design components could change sufficiently in the interval between construction of the building at the other end of the site. Jim Clark, Duke Realty representative stated that their architect is from Chicago and was not familiar with Dublin standards. They were aware of the need to return to the City for approval of the building renderings and materials. They are not prepared with that information tonight, but are agreeable to the concept that has been outlined. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council February 19, 2008 Page 3 1 1 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Ms. Salay that the second building, which was originally designed to be connected to the first, be a companion building. However, the third building to be located south of these buildings might not need to be identical, but should not look dramatically different. She agrees with Mr. Keenan that there is no need for that building to be part of a triplet. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff agrees, and that is the reason the language in the conditions specify "compatible," not identical. Mr. Clark stated that Duke is seeking a large user to take the entire site. He pointed out that the original plat provided for a different building beyond the parking lot for phase 2, although the specific location was undefined. Mr. Lecklider asked if the footprint for the second building is intended to be identical to that of the first building. Will it have the same number of stories? Mr. Langworthy stated that the second building must be very similar to the first, so he would anticipate that will require it to be the same height. Mr. Clark responded that in actuality, the second building will be five stories. The existing building facing the freeway is six stories in height due to the elevation slope. The architect eliminated one story for the second building footprint to make the two compatible. Mr. Langworthy stated that the conditions recognize the need for the Planning Commission to review these details. Vote on the preliminary and final plat: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. • Final Plat -Paul Blazer Parkway - (5151 Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway- Case No. 07-117FP) Ms. Brautigam stated that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled indefinitely. Vice Mayor Boring moved to table the final plat indefinitely. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning 0.7 Acres of Land Located at the Northwest Corner of Bridge and High Streets, From: CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial District, To: PD, Planned Development District. (Bridge and High Streets Development - 20 West Bridge Street -Case No. 07-0992) Background: Mr. Phillabaum presented background on the application review process. This is a 22,000 sq. ft. mixed-use development with associated site improvements. The project is a public- private partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge Company. A development agreement was approved by Council on June 18, 2007, which outlined the details of the partnership. Past actions and approvals include: • The rezoning/preliminary development plan was approved with seven conditions by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2007; • ARB approved the architecture and site modifications with conditions on January 9, 2008; • The final development plan was approved with four conditions by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2008. This approval will not become effective until the rezoning/preliminary development plan is approved by City Council. Site Description: The site is located in the historic district in the southeast portion of Dublin. The site is comprised of three parcels totaling .7 acres. It is a relatively flat site with a slight drop in topography from the northwest to the southeast. It is currently developed as a temporary municipal parking lot. In the northwest is the recently constructed Darby Street municipal lot; the 35 North High Town Center is directly to the east; Tucci's is directly to the south; Modern Male is at 24 Darby Street; and to the south is Town Center 1. The proposed site plan is comprised of two, two-story mixed-use buildings totaling 22,000 sq. feet of retail, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 4 restaurant and office use. Both buildings are oriented parallel to Bridge Street and High Street. There is a formal green located central to the site, framed by the existing building at 24 Darby Street and the two proposed buildings. A public plaza at the southeast corner provides both physical access to the interior of the site as well as visual access to motorists. Patio space is indicated along both buildings adjacent to the southeast plaza as well as facing the formal green. Parking for the development is provided off-site via the municipal parking lot and on-street public parking. The site plan also features a valet stand at the west end of the site off of Darby Street. Refuse storage for this project is proposed to be within the buildings, integrated into the architecture at the northwest corner of Building A along Bridge Street and the northwest corner of the High Street building. Wing Hill would be closed with this proposal, both to create a service court and pedestrian access and to improve the traffic function of the intersection at Bridge and High. Darby Street would provide access to that refuse storage in Building A. Plan modifications since concept plan review: A notable change to the site plan that occurred since the concept plan was reviewed by Council relates to the accessibility of the site. Initially, there was an upper plaza and a lower plaza that were separated by a series of steps between the two buildings. Staff worked with the applicant through the course of the project to make this much more accessible for wheelchairs, strollers, etc. Instead of steps, this area will be ramped at a 5 percent grade between the buildings. The access from the sidewalk has also been improved. Steps are located on the east side of the project. The south end of Building B has been revised and simplified to be more reflective of the traditional vernacular architecture of the historic district. Gothic windows, flared eaves, brackets, etc. have been eliminated. Stucco is no longer proposed for any of the buildings; it has been replaced with hardiplank. On the Bridge Street elevations, plans for the buildings provide for the use of natural materials, brick, stone and hardiplank. Roof materials are to be consistent with the historic district, standing seam metal roofs and dimensional asphalt shingles. On the High Street elevation, the plan stipulates the use of materials native to Historic Dublin. From Darby Street west to High Street, there is a 6.5 ft. grade change. Part of the 2.5 ft grade drop to the plaza is addressed with steps down to the formal green, which is relatively flat. The first floor elevation of Building B is nine inches higher than the plaza, and then the grade drops three feet three inches to the existing grade at High Street. Achieving the relatively flat gathering space on the interior results in some of the buildings serving as retaining walls. The drop in elevation from the first floor of the building will be addressed with steps to the tenant spaces from High Street. The landscape plan provides for a much more urban setting. The landscape areas rely less on lawn and more on hardscape to support the pedestrian activity that takes place. In addition to the formal tree-lined lawn, landscape materials will be located throughout the site in raised planters and adjacent to the building foundation. Street trees will be located along High and Bridge Streets. Up to 3,000 square feet of patio space is permitted with the development, some areas of which are intended for public use and other areas for the exclusive use of future tenants. The areas intended for exclusive use will be enclosed by walls, fence or some other vertical enclosure. Balconies are permitted by the development text, although they are not depicted in the renderings, as their potential use will be based upon specific tenant requests. Per the text, balconies not constructed during the initial construction phase may only be constructed later with ARB approval. This balcony space is part of the total permitted patio area. Concerns of Modern Male at 24 Darby Street: Over the past two years, staff has had numerous meetings with both the tenant and the owner of 24 Darby Street to address any concerns. The site plan incorporates the existing building at 24 Darby Street. The tenant and owner have several remaining concerns about the potential impact on their business. The principal issue relates to the retaining walls that are associated with the ADA ramps at the north end of the proposed development adjacent to Modern Male. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a few concepts to address their concerns: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 5 1 1 1 • Option A -This is the initial option approved by ARB. This option provides for a three-foot high wall on the northernmost part of the project site. The southern wall is approximately 1.5 feet high. There is the potential for people to stand on the walls, look in the windows and potentially disturb their business operation. Staff looked at ways to lower the walls to address their concern, yet maintain ADA accessibility. Option B was then developed. • Option B -This option lowers the portion of the wall to the east of their existing staircase to the business, and adds landscaping. The associated cost is negligible. Staff would recommend approval of this option. • Option C -This option provides the same wall height as Option B. Moving to the east, when the wall turns the corner, steps are added adjacent to the eastern elevation. This is currently the main entrance to Modern Male. The additional cost is estimated at $5,500. • Option D -This option was created subsequent to the distribution of the Council packet on Thursday. Staff met with the owner's representative and the tenant on Friday and developed this option, which would incorporate steps to the north of the existing proposed wall. The wall height would be the same as Option B with additional landscaping. The additional cost would be $1,600 more than the cost of Option A. Staff would recommend approval of this option, as well, as it addresses the concerns of the existing tenant and owner. Ms. Salay inquired if the owner or the tenant is willing to participate in the additional cost. Ms. Ott stated that they have not indicated that they would be willing to do so. If that is Council's direction, staff can discuss this with the parties. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked who would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping. Is all of this structure on City property? Mr. Phillabaum responded affirmatively. It lies within a permanent easement that the City granted to 24 Darby Street when they constructed the site and building improvements several years ago. The easement runs parallel to the south and east property lines and down the middle of the proposed ramp. It would encompass everything on the east side. The existing steps of the business are within the easement. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the City's goal in providing one of the retaining wall options. Mr. Phillabaum responded that the goal is to better incorporate this use into the proposed development. The access to the Modern Male building would become circuitous. It would be necessary to come from the south to access their main entrance. Recommendation Mr. Phillabaum stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan with the four conditions listed below, and requests that Council add a condition with their directive regarding the preferred water feature: 1. That trash is permitted to be stored within Building 6 only if an offsite refuse area is not available at the time of tenant occupancy, to the satisfaction of Planning; 2. That the Sign and Graphics Plan be revised to specify that a maximum of three colors are permitted on all signs; 3. That the development text be revised to state that all sign dimensions specified are the maximum sizes permitted; and 4. That the City work with the adjoining owner of 24 Darby Street to minimize issues related to the size and scope of retaining walls, to the extent feasible. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Brenda Kocak. Modern Male 8135 Davington Drive stated that they met with Mr. Langworthy and Ms. Ott on Friday and agreed to Option D. This option provides a more cohesive integration of Modern Male into the development. The larger wall that was proposed would have cut off accessibility to the front entrance of Modern Male. In regard to the cost of the construction and upkeep, it would be on City property. In addition, the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 6 1 -~ City is requesting the owner of 24 Darby Street to grant an easement to the development for a walkway on the west side of the building. In consideration, Ms. Ott has mentioned that the City is reviewing options for an implementation plan, including how accessibility to Modern Male would be assured during the construction. They are looking at directional signage to be used during the construction. Ms. Kocak indicated she prefers option D to the other proposals. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road continued with his previous comments concerning his property, that what he has is an uncontaminated nucleus of what was once a 900-acre farm deeded by Thomas Jefferson to Revolutionary War soldiers. In regard to the current discussion on the floor, he is a minority of one. Previous to today, he was unaware of the water element feature in the plan. While reviewing the ARB/Council joint packet materials today, he read the document provided by William Souders. He found that to be very thoughtful and moving. Mr. Souder realized that some of the governing nature of this city has been a river, a stream, a waterfall, streams, pumps, and wells - a profound recollection and association. If he had known about this much earlier, this might have been the key to the entire structure on that corner, similar to the development that occurred around the structure of the "Dancing Hares." The work which has been done by the ARB attempted to capture some of these elemental aspects. While everyone present tonight may be aware of the water element background of Dublin, he wonders how many others coming into the development at a later time would realize what this is attempting to capture. He has a couple of questions: 1. Is the developer being held to any "greening" with this project? 2. He assumes that that this plaza has a place reserved for a piece of art. It may be that an art piece could complete this and give revelation to the project. He found it somewhat tragic when he read the letter by Mr. Souders which described some profound elements that would capture some of the most moving history of the city. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher commented that she found Mr. Souders' information provided earlier tonight very interesting as well. Perhaps he could author a column in a local newspaper to talk about those elements and their relationship to this corner. It would further the education of the many residents of Dublin about the City's history. Mr. Phillabaum indicated that the water feature recommendation can be dealt with via a condition to the rezoning. Council discussion: Mr. Reiner stated that Option D for the retaining wall appears to satisfactorily address the property owner's concern. Initially, he thought the cost should be borne by the tenant. However, after clarification that the wall would be located on City land, he is satisfied that the City should bear the cost. Mr. Gerber stated that he concurs with Option D. He emphasized that staff worked with the owners of Modern Male during all phases of the construction of this project. This is typical of the City's practice during development. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are many Historic Dublin businesses that will be impacted for an extended period of time. She is aware that staff is developing an implementation plan, but it is important to engage all of the affected parties. When some storm sewer work was done in Historic Dublin a few years ago, weekly updates were provided to the businesses and residents. She would recommend that some technique be employed to accomplish this. Ms. Ott indicated that as soon as the implementation plan is developed, it will be forwarded to Council. Mr. Keenan stated that Option D appears to provide an attractive space for skateboarders. Has staff considered that risk? Is there anything that could be done with the top surface of those walls that could discourage that activity? Ms. Ott responded that the goal was to keep this area flat and not have vertical structures, but the issue will be addressed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 7 He Mr. Keenan stated that there will be many people in and out of that building throughout the various phases of construction. How is the City addressing the business parking needs during that time? Will the construction workers be permitted to occupy the parking lot? Ms. Ott responded that staff is working with The Stonehenge Company to address that issue. The goal is not to have the Darby Street parking lot impacted, or to minimize it to the extent possible. Staff will also be looking at the agreement with Dublin Schools regarding the Indian Run Elementary parking lot. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important not to lose sight of the parking issues or the signage needed for Modern Male or any other business that is impacted. Mr. Keenan stated that the overview of the site plan indicated that the trash would be contained within the building. He understands the trash entry door resembles a small garage door. Does that door face to the north? It appears to face the patio for Tucci's. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that is correct. Mr. Keenan inquired if it can be modified to face west. If it is absolutely essential that the doorway face the north, it must be disguised in such a manner that it does not appear to be a garage door on a track. Mo Dioun, The Stonehenge Company, 147 N. High Street, Gahanna stated that they have attempted to devise an offsite centralized trash collection facility for all the businesses in the area. If that does not occur, Stonehenge has made a commitment to the City for an intensive and sensitive trash collection program that will occur in times that are not intrusive to the surrounding businesses, including Modern Male. They do believe, however, that in the design of this building, architecturally, the door is in the optimum location. It is not the typical garage door and has an attractive design. If it were placed on the west side of the building, it would be visible from the public plaza and central gathering area. It does face Tucci's, but an alley runs between them. Another consideration is that Tucci's patio is used a portion of the year, while it is expected that the Bridge & High public plaza will be used year round. If needed, this door is located in the least intrusive location for the entire project. This particular issue has been studied in depth by staff. Mr. Keenan stated that he would not be satisfied with locating the trash access door on the north side of that building, unless the adjacent business owner is aware of the plan, how and when the pick-up will operate, and most importantly, how the door will appear visually. There are some measures that could be taken to screen the operation. This component is very important. Mr. Gerber agreed. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed this issue. If food products are discarded in the dumpster, this could be very unpleasant to Tucci's patio patrons. Ms. Salay stated that if the door is insulated, there should be no odor trespass. Mr. Dioun responded that the specific trash collection program they have committed to would involve a trash collection area reduced by half. Further, the door will be an attractive design and will be sealed. They are aware of the degree of investment and the type of tenants in that building. The tenants of Building B will be even more sensitive to odor or any perceived unpleasantness of trash in that corner than the patrons of Tucci's, as the Building B tenants will be much closer. He assured Council this program will be handled with deliberation and sensitivity. Mr. Keenan inquired if there is a way to disguise the door so that it cannot be seen - perhaps a landscape fence or trellis that could slide across the area and completely hide the door. That garage door, if used day in and day out, will quickly become dirty and marred. It is also important, as a condition, to secure buy-in from the adjacent business owner, just as was achieved with other business owners, such as Modern Male. Ms. Ott responded that she has spoken to the property owner to the north on multiple occasions, as well as the current business tenant. Ultimately, what will make this work is that both parties want to find a solution other than insisting it cannot be located there. The tenant to the north insists the door be relocated. One of the Planning & Commission conditions is that an attempt should be made to identify a location offsite to address the trash needs for this building. Staff has already initiated discussions with another business owner regarding their willingness to use some land for that purpose. However, it is premature to commit to that, as a process is involved that includes ARB approval. An entire site plan would be impacted by that decision. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Keenan asked if she would agree that it is essential that the City do their very best to disguise the doorway. Ms. Ott responded that City staff would be agreeable to working with Stonehenge to determine if there is an option to do so that remains architecturally sound. Perhaps there could be screening on the north side of the alley that would assist in that effort. The trade- off is that blocking the view of the north side of the building will also block the view of the public plaza for Tucci's. They are willing to discuss this further with that tenant, if the tenant is willing. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Mr. Keenan regarding the need to make efforts to camouflage the garage door. However, she is not interested in additional expenditures for more walls. She would prefer to see an artificial facade. She added that Ms. Kocak had an interest in finding a solution to her issues. That is not the case with the property owner to the north. His position has consistently been that this is not what he wants, and he will not discuss alternatives. The City's goal is to include him in discussions, but if that is not possible, the City must proceed. The City's preference is to utilize an offsite trash area for all of these businesses. Absent that resolution, the proposed plan is as submitted today. Is the City continuing to pursue an offsite trash area? Ms. Ott responded that Mr. Dioun is very open to exploring options that allow that space to be utilized for options other than trash. Mr. Dioun added that the buildings in the Bridge & High development will be very expensive. Every square foot is valuable, and they would prefer not to use any of it for trash collection. However, there are situations they cannot control. They believe they have designed a project in the best way to address the private and public needs. It was once suggested that all the trash in Building B be collected and carried through the plaza area to the other building. That is impractical and could put the public at risk. Ultimately, their wish is to create an offsite centralized location -- it would be a more economical solution for them. They are willing to participate financially in that effort, as long as it is equitable and fair to all the parties involved. Mr. Gerber stated that he believes Mr. Dioun will do whatever possible to achieve that. However, the tenant to the north was there prior to the City's proposed project. The City is now essentially proposing to locate a trash dumpster in front of his patio. Council must understand his concerns. Mr. Dioun stated that he respectfully disagrees. There are no trash dumpsters outside buildings. They have done their best to avoid this. They have taken very expensive square footage from the buildings and located the trash collection inside. It will be half the typical size and camouflaged with an architecturally attractive door. Further, they have committed to a more intense collection program than any other business is doing in the area. That is the maximum he can do. As staff has indicated, he has been very flexible and accommodating as different options were considered. This is the trash location site that City staff has supported from the very beginning. In the end, he is hopeful it will not be necessary. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Dioun is testifying that this enclosure will successfully entrap odors. Mr. Dioun responded that the term is relative and requested that he further clarify "entrap." Mr. Gerber inquired if his assurance is that someone sitting on the patio to the north would not be able to smell the garbage, and if that is what he is representing to Council. Mr. Dioun responded that is correct and he is confident of this. Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Dioun to clarify again why the door location could not be turned to the other side of the building. Would it present an access problem? Mr. Dioun responded that it would not. But placing it on the other side will impact the public plaza, in which the City is making a very significant investment. Mr. Gerber indicated concern about the risk of odor. Placed in that location, any slight risk of odor would be to the public gathering in that area. Mr. Reiner stated that it is apass-through area. The public would be moving through on their way to the public plaza. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 9 I 1 1 Held 20 Mr. Gerber stated that the Planning Commission was concerned about remnant food products collected in that location. Although the intent is to have those collected offsite and store only paper products in this location, that arrangement has not been worked out. In the event it is not, he is concerned about food odor -- whether it impacts the tenant to the north or the citizens in that walkway. Ms. Salay stated that aesthetically, a garage door could be expected to be seen from an alley, but not from the public plaza or at the entrance to the Modern Male business. She believes that both the garage doors are in the right location if this plan must be used. It will be essential that the door be insulated to prevent trespass of odors, but if the trash is emptied frequently, that should not be a problem. Mr. Keenan stated that of the examples of trash enclosure drawings, the bottom two are not acceptable to him. He does not understand why a slider with a trellis or other facade cannot be added to entirely hide this door. It may involve one more movement in collecting the trash. Ms. Ott responded that staff would review the options. It would need to be something that could be operated year-round. Mr. Gerber suggested that Council could impose that as a condition. Mr. Keenan inquired whether that would be a difficult item to add. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is not certain about the feasibility of a trellis, but staff understands what Council would like to achieve. Mr. Keenan suggested a gate. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that a gate would make it more noticeable. Mr. Keenan stated that he does not know what the facade should consist of, but there must be some facade that would work. Mr. Phillabaum noted a slide depicting the top north elevation. The material for that portion of the building is siding. There is an opportunity to screen it by extending that material over the doorway to mask it. Mr. Lecklider stated that these slides are only representative examples. He believes the slide on the lower right is meant to show acontrast - an example of what would not be acceptable. He appreciates the concern about dirt and marring, but that could be addressed by the door color selected. Staff has heard Council's concerns, both about the visual aspect and the odor issue. Mr. Dioun has indicated that tenants will be sharing a wall with this space. They will certainly have concerns about odor. While Council does respect the existing businesses, there is the need to proceed in a cooperative spirit. Ms. Salay stated that she is also in favor of the Option D retaining wall for the Modern Male building. Would it be possible to finish the space around Modern Male so that while the construction is in process, they would not need to be disturbed further? If the walkways on the north and west sides could be completed first, the Modern Male access would be complete. It could be made a "no disturb" zone after that. Mr. Dioun stated that they are committed to completing the project with minimal intrusion, and they will try to assure that for Modern Male. They have not yet looked at the logistics of the project and piecemealing a project can have cost implications. It will be necessary to ensure there would be no adverse cost implications from mobilizing certain contractors, de-mobilizing and then mobilizing them again to complete the remainder of the site. They will work collaboratively with City staff on this effort. There is a need to be practical, but they are committed to communicating all the activities to the business owners and to minimizing the disruptions to the businesses. Ms. Salay stated that the City did this very well in conjunction with a previous stormwater project. She noted that Mr. Keenan is correct about the skateboarding draw of the retaining wall. That activity would be very noisy and not conducive to quiet enjoyment within the public plaza. Signage prohibiting the activity will be necessary. Making the wall not attractive to skateboarders may actually enhance the challenge. Ms. Salay asked about the purpose of the bollards located at the corners. She was confused by the information provided by Mr. Souders and the aerial shot provided in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 10 I I I 1 Council packets. She is in favor of a physical barrier to the traffic, but would like to better understand how they would work. Mr. Phillabaum responded that the four abutments are at a seat wall height internal to the site. Where there are step conditions, they are needed as a break to provide a cheat wall and eliminate a trip hazard. There are three breaks at grade with a slight ramp condition. He is unsure if they could be reduced in size or if some could be eliminated. The landscape architect could better address that issue. Ms. Salay requested clarification of how they would work from the streetside. Tony Slanec, Bird-Houk Collaborative, Urban Design Associate referred to a slide that depicted the size in relation to the streetscape. There are 18 inches on the interior plaza side. Then, due to the grade drop between High and Bridge streets, the abutments increase in size to approximately three feet. They will be clad in limestone with a limestone cap. Mr. Reiner inquired if a motorist travelling up Bridge Street would have an unobstructed view of the fountains. Mr. Slanec indicated that is correct. Mr. Lecklider stated that with Concept D it would be important to incorporate the landscaping that is depicted in the concept to soften the view. Mrs. Boring summarized that the project has involved a long process. The challenges encountered with having more citizen involvement resulted in a better project. She is pleased with the improvements in the fountains and other areas. She is looking forward to the project being completed. In the depiction of the retaining walls, a different lamp post was used. Will the lamp posts throughout be the same? Ms. Ott responded that they will be the same as the ones previously shown. The different lamp post was used in this case to represent scale only. Mrs. Boring stated that she also supports Option D for the retaining wall. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with Mrs. Boring about the quality of the project. This is a great example of aprivate-public partnership. She is pleased that the process has continued to involve the residents and businesses. She trusts they will also be there to celebrate when the ribbon is cut, as they will be the beneficiaries of this project. Revitalization of the Historic District was the whole focus of this project. She also supports Option D for the retaining wall. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion from Council for approval of the rezoning. Mr. Lecklider asked when the water feature would be acted upon by Council. Mr. Phillabaum stated that it can be a condition to this approval or a separate motion. Mr. Lecklider confirmed that the water feature discussion would follow this vote. Vice Mayor Boring moved to approve Ordinance 07-08 with the four conditions outlined by staff in the presentation. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion regarding the retaining wall option. Vice Mayor Boring moved to approve Option D for the retaining wall for Modern Male. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Water Feature: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a joint meeting of Council and the Architectural Review Board took place tonight at 5:30. Following discussion of proposed water feature options for the Bridge and High project, ARB voted to recommend adoption of the Option C Water Feature. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS February 19, 2008 Page 11 Mr. Slanec. Bird-Houk stated that Option C provides for layered limestone slabs extending out into the plaza area. This layering represents the rock of the Indian Run tributary. On the Bridge Street side, there will be a natural waterfall setting. On the High Street side, there will be a rock that cantilevers over a limestone setting as it pours over into a trough area and is re-circulated. Council and ARB members supported this concept because of the seating arrangement, which potentially uses limestone blocks harvested from the bridge construction in 1935. This also meanders around the plaza area, so that the public can sit and view the water feature and turn and view the future public art piece. Mr. Lecklider stated that initially, he favored Concept A, but was persuaded as a result of the joint meeting discussion to support Concept C. Comments were made regarding the use of vertically stacked stones. He supports the use of those in other areas, but not with these horizontal features. Also, he is not in agreement with the two conditions recommended by ARB. He does not favor the recommendation to extend the water wall around and north on High Street. He believes that would detract from the otherwise natural appearance of the water feature in the proposed concept. He likes the planters depicted on either end, but as Mr. Slanec indicated, due to the elevation those are potentially problematic from a design or engineering perspective. Regarding the northernmost water feature, which has a slab that protrudes over other horizontal rocks, a suggestion was made for a condition that there be some type of safety railing on the top. In his view, that feature or a similar feature would detract from the natural appearance of this water wall. Concern was expressed that this could be an attractive nuisance. He does not understand why this would be anymore attractive for climbers than the other side. Everyone anticipates this will be a patio used by the public but primarily by the restaurant for dining. He is hopeful that the patrons would keep their children off the wall. If there is concern, perhaps it would be possible to design something behind that wall that would discourage climbing. However, throughout this project, there are opportunities for climbing. He does not believe it is possible to guard against that. Mrs. Boring requested clarification of the suggestion for railing. Did the architect interpret the suggested railing to be right on top of the wall, or behind, as it is at the zoo? Mr. Slanec responded that his interpretation would be that the railing would be behind to prevent engagement upon the wall. He added that items such as railing must be approved by the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Ott stated that one point to consider is that the distance involved between the water feature and that railing would result in the lower plaza being smaller. The wall would need to be moved further south. Stonehenge is to be provided with a certain square footage for patio space adjacent to the High Street building. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is not opposed to the railing behind, if it is considered necessary. Mrs. Boring stated that she would agree with investigating the need and determine if there is an acceptable solution. Mr. Reiner stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Lecklider. Looking at the change in grade on the right-hand side, there are some issues that may not have been taken into consideration. Engineering work would be necessary with the change in grade. It would be worthwhile to investigate the inclusion of railing, but if it is not an option without detracting from the project, so be it. He likes the planters at either end. There are other options, such as a pump within one of the planters with a plaque, which could also be incorporated into the landscape plan. Mr. Keenan noted for the public that a joint meeting to discuss the water feature preceded this Council meeting. Council and the Architecture Review Board met at 5:30 p.m. and discussed the water wall concepts in great depth. He likes the concept as it was designed. He believes the architects considered the ADA standards and safety issues, and he is comfortable with Option C. Ms. Salay thanked the ARB and staff for all their work with the adjoining businesses. This will be a great project and she is looking forward to it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 12 1 ~) J 1 Mrs. Boring requested clarification of what is being voted upon. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved acceptance of the water feature Option C. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ms. Ott thanked Council, noting it has been athree-year effort to arrive at this point. Some of the staff who have contributed significantly to this effort have not been visible, including Aaron Stanford from Engineering. He has been integral to their efforts, particularly in terms of the difficult grading of this site. She expressed thanks to Bird-Houk and The Stonehenge Company for their extensive work on this project. Ordinance 08-08 (Amended) Amending Chapter 153 of the Dublin Zoning Code to Establish Exterior Lighting Requirements. (Case No. 07-109ADM) Mr. Langworthy stated that at the first reading on February 4, a number of concerns were expressed by Council. Staff has attempted to address those, and there has been some change to the language as reflected in the amended ordinance. The revised ordinance deletes the previous restrictions on sign illumination and requires that only new developments with parking lots in excess of 250 spaces reduce lighting by 50 percent. This reduction can be accommodated through a combination of light level adjustments or through the extinguishing of fixtures. In addition, a property owner may maintain full lighting levels within 150 feet of the main entrance for security purposes. The revised ordinance also includes requirements for compliance of nonconforming lighting when the modifications exceed a specified percentage -- 50 percent for expansion or 25 percent for fixture replacement. At the February 4th Council meeting, additional information was requested regarding current examples of businesses that reduce lighting after hours. One of the buildings mentioned was the Community Recreation Center. One of the conditions for approval of that building by the Planning and Zoning Commission was that there be reduced light levels at night. The lights are on a timer and the lighting is reduced, or in some portions of the parking lot completely shut off, during certain portions of the night. The cost of that installation in 1995 was $1,500. Today, it would likely cost $2,000 for a lot of similar specifications and the same number of lights (48 pole lights). The Planning and Zoning Commission has imposed a similar condition for approval on a number of other projects. In addition, there are a number of businesses within the City that reduce their lighting during night-time hours of their own volition, probably for economic reasons. A second revision in the amended ordinance relates to sign illumination. Previously, language was included to require that sign illumination be turned off at 10 pm or upon the close of business. That language has been eliminated completely in deference to the sign illumination requirements that already exist in the zoning code. Planning recommends Council approval of this ordinance as amended. Ms. Salay inquired if businesses would be notified of this Code change and whether voluntary compliance to reduce their lighting would be encouraged. When a church was constructed in her neighborhood, the neighbors were concerned about the number of lights and the amount of light trespass resulting from the City's requirements. The church would have preferred to reduce the amount of lighting. If businesses realized they had the option to reduce their lighting, they probably would do so. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff certainly would encourage voluntary compliance. Ms. Salay stated that reducing the amount of electricity used would also align with the City's green initiatives. She noted that she had received a phone call from someone well known to this Council who was very encouraging regarding these lighting guidelines. He stated that Council is here to make this community a great place for the residents to live. It is important to keep that in mind, balancing the interests of business, but ultimately Council represents its residents. She thanked Mr. Langworthy for Planning's responsiveness to the concerns of Council and the potential concerns of the business community. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin February 19, 2008 Page 13 ~i 1 ,---, ~~ Held Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. Langworthy for incorporating the suggestions of Council and for his concise work. Mr. Lecklider asked why it would not be desirable to have these lighting guidelines apply to a parking lot of a smaller size. Ms. Salay noted that her preference would be that they would also apply to a lot of a smaller size than the DCRC. Mr. Lecklider stated that the Oak Park development is an example of a smaller lot of 250 spaces. It is located on the periphery of the City and more in the area where conservation design is encouraged. Why wouldn't it be desirable to apply these guidelines to a parking lot of that size? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for Mr. Lecklider's recommendation for applicability of these guidelines. Mr. Lecklider responded that he would recommend the number be for lots less than 250 spaces. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if it is the size of the parking lot or the usage that dictates the number. As Mr. Langworthy noted, it is an integrated answer. Mr. Keenan inquired the number of parking spaces per square feet for office use. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is one parking space to 200 square feet of office, or five spaces per 1,000 square feet. Ms. Salay inquired how many parking spaces are in the immediate municipal parking lot. Mr. Langworthy estimated fewer than 100 spaces. Mr. Keenan stated that his business parking lot has 120 spaces. He has three light poles in front of his building and two at the back. If 50 percent of those were removed, the lot would have only 2-3 lights to provide coverage for a building with an entry on two sides. Mr. Langworthy stated that another option exists and that is to reduce the lighting level of the lights. Mr. Keenan noted that because the new code also would affect any business replacing 25 percent of its existing lights, if he were to replace two of his five lights, he would be subject to those regulations. For comparison purposes, double the size of his parking lot and that would be the proposed 250 spot parking lot. Mr. Langworthy stated that he would not recommend going below 150. That would still impact a number of additional lots, but not impact the small users. Mr. Reiner asked if Mr. Keenan believes it could be a safety issue to go below 150. Mr. Keenan stated that he merely wanted to point out the potential impact to a small business. Mr. Reiner noted that could well involve safety, if one of the lights to be eliminated in a wrap-around parking lot would place the second entrance/exit in darkness. Mr. Langworthy stated that the proposed code provides the option to retain full illumination within 150 feet of any entrance. Mr. Keenan agreed that would address the situation. It is important to remember the level of services that are provided to Dublin residents is due in large part to its corporate residents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Lecklider wished to propose another number in place of the 250. Mr. Lecklider responded that he appreciates the example Mr. Keenan provide regarding his own business. He would propose revising the number of parking spaces to 150. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if any of the businesses had been involved in a dialogue in the development of these new standards. Mr. Langworthy responded that they had not. However, this is not the last time these regulations will be studied. When the entire zoning code is updated, this section will be reviewed. At that time, more people will be involved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in light of the fact that a committee was not involved that included the corporate community, and because that is the group who will be impacted by this legislation, it will be very important that the letter that introduces these RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 14 changes refers to this as a beginning effort in the City's green initiative. Perhaps the City's brochure about that initiative could be included to demonstrate what has already been implemented by the City itself. Mr. Langworthy agreed to do so. Mrs. Boring referred to 3E on page 3, which mentions fixture substitution. It states "a change request is to be submitted to the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning." If the request is submitted, who then makes the decision regarding its approval? Mr. Langworthy responded that it should clarify, "be submitted to and approved by the Director." Mrs. Boring inquired how the Planning Commission would be made aware of any fixture changes that have been approved. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a procedure in place for minor modifications in planned developments. One of the provisions is that if the Planning Commission specifically designated a particular fixture, that could not be substituted. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a motion. Mr. Lecklider moved to approve Ordinance 08-08 with a revision to Section 1, 3-C, from 250 spaces to 150 spaces and a revision in paragraph C 2-E from "submitted to.." to "submitted to and approved by..." Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 09-08 Accepting the Annexation of 5.352+/- Acres from Washington Township to the City of Dublin. (7679 Post Road) Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Gunderman stated that this is the Costner annexation, located on the south side of Post Road/SR 161, west of SR 33. The property lies in Washington Township, and the annexation was approved by the Franklin County Commissioners on November 27, 2007. The statement of services and incompatible land use items were considered by Council on November 5, 2007 with Resolutions 65-07 and 66-07. Council also approved apre- annexation agreement for this property on June 18, 2007. This is the first reading, and if approved at the second reading on March 3, it would become effective 30 days thereafter. He offered to respond to questions. Mr. Keenan asked about the location of the existing water line. Mr. Gunderman responded that he does not know its location, but the pre-annexation agreement provides for the City to provide water and sewer to this property, and that project is in the design phase. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there is a 15-16" waterline along the south side of SR 161 in the vicinity of Industrial Parkway over to Cosgray Road. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 3 Council meeting. Ordinance 10-08 Adopting and Enacting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that this is a codification of recently passed City legislation into the City's Code. Staff requests that Council dispense with the public hearing. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road asked if Supplement S-23 was provided at the last Council meeting, because it was not provided with this packet. Mr. Smith responded that there is no supplement to review. Twice each year the City retains a service to update the City's Code to incorporate all recent State and City legislation changes into the City Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 15 Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 07-08 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Coventry Woods Bridge and Trail Project. Mr. Keenan introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that this project consisting of an asphalt bikepath and footbridge which li will link the Woods of Indian Run subdivision across the North Fork Indian Run to the ~I existing Coventry Woods bikepath. Staff recommends approval of the low bid received I~ from D.C. Byers Company/Ohio Inc. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked why the Righter Company bid was $60,000- 70,000 higher than the Byers' bid. Mr. Hahn responded that he does not have that information. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 08-08 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the 2008 Turf Right-of-Way Maintenance Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that this project provides for the maintenance of the City's medians, greenspaces and right-of-way. Staff recommends acceptance of the low bid from Peabody Landscape. The City has worked with this company previously and has been satisfied with their work. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that there is a significant difference between Peabody's bid, the second lowest bid and the City's estimate. Mr. Hahn responded that there are economies with Peabody. Earlier this year, Peabody was awarded the contract for the City's landscape bed maintenance. They will already be on site. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Resolution 09-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Indefeasible Right to Use Agreement with OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. McDaniel stated that he will address both Resolution 09-08 and 10-08, as they are interdependent. If these resolutions are approved, OCLC will be provided access to the ~ Central Ohio Research Network (CORN) and the Ohio Super Computer Network. By ~ accessing the CORN network, OCLC will gain access to the OSC (Ohio Super Computer Network) and its network of colleges, universities and research institutes. OSC Net will also carry OCLC's network to an offsite data center located in another Central Ohio ~ jurisdiction. Additionally, OCLC will be allocated two additional dark fibers within DubLink to provide redundant capacity. In exchange for this access, Resolution 10-08 authorizes I~ the City Manager to execute a no-cost construction and access agreement with OCLC to establish a point of presence and provide access in and out of the OCLC facility. OCLC agrees to provide the City of Dublin with physical space within their facility for establishment of Dublin's own point of presence (POP). A POP is a physical location where optical fiber systems can come together to connect or access offsite storage II capacity. The funding previously was received by the City and OSC by the Ohio Board of ~ Regents to establish the Central Ohio Research Network. This funding will be used to equip the POP and light the fiber. An indefeasible right to use agreement enables the City ~ to allocate the use of DubLink optical fibers without giving them away. The optical fibers RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ncil Held February 19, 2008 Page 16 20 remain the property of the City, but are borrowed/used by another party. Both agreements were written and approved by Dublin and OCLC legal staff. There may be a minimal cost incurred by the City initially, no more than $5,000, to splice the DubLink fiber into the OCLC fiber and to put caging in the facility to mark off the City's area. He introduced Gene Oliver, OCLC Executive Director of Information Systems. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is an excellent example of a great partnership with the business community. She inquired if there is a relationship between this and Tech Start. Mr. McDaniel stated that there could be in the future. This agreement will officially allow the City to light up the CORN network. An example of a service at TechColumbus or the incubator there is what is called "offsite computing capacity." The City could tie in Dublin businesses to offsite computing capacity where it would be possible to run scenarios on their computers through that computer lab. This would also give them direct access to these college and university research institutes. While the City has had the CORN network as a system of fibers, this will allow the City to light it. He appreciates the advice and counsel of the Ohio Super Computer Center. They have recommended that the City establish a point of presence in Dublin because it would add great value to the fiber. As a result of a partnership with OCLC, the City is able to do this. As a result of waiting for a year to light the fibers, OSC Net will be able to create much more capacity with the i equipment they will install than the City could have expected to have two years ago. Mr. Keenan inquired if this was the piece that required the City to obtain permission/ cooperation from other entities to the north? Mr. McDaniel responded that is correct. The City of Dublin's fiber passes through several Central Ohio jurisdictions -Westerville, Worthington, City of Columbus and Hilliard. For this reason, Dublin renews right-of-way agreements with those entities annually. Mr. Keenan inquired if a letter of appreciation would be sent or some other form of acknowledgement or announcement of "lighting" the fibers. Mr. McDaniel responded that other area municipalities, such as Gahanna, New Albany and Westerville, either own their own fiber systems or a portion of one. They all want to connect into the Central Ohio Research Network (CORN). Because Dublin is adding all those communities, they will be able to connect into CORN as well. Although Dublin led the way, this will become a regional asset as was intended. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Resolution 10-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Construction and Building Access Agreement with OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked how the City would use this. Ms. Brautigam responded that an example might be Dublin's police and safety personnel, !~ who could communicate through this network with other personnel around the region. Mr. Maurer inquired if the average citizen would be able to connect to CORN via their personal computers. Mr. McDaniel responded that they would not. i I~' Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. ~, Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked that Mr. McDaniel pass along Council's appreciation to OCLC. OTHER • Report re Veterans Project Mr. Hahn stated that the Plant architect was instructed to provide revised design schemes that better reflected the $500,000 construction budget. Plant submitted three design schemes with two variations of each scheme. Those were presented at the last Veterans RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council February 19, 2008 Page 17 Held 20 Project Committee. After discussing the merits of the variations, the Committee voted to recommend Scheme A-2. Scheme A-2 modifications from the original design include: a. Relocation of the Memory Wall component closer to the cemetery b. Realigned path c. Dedication wall made of board-formed concrete with cast letters d. Entry wall to be made of corten steel e. Dedication wall reduced in length from 100' to 80' f. Loggia reduced in length from 75' to 60' The Committee believes that Scheme A-2 retains the original design intent and spirit of the Grounds of Remembrance, and that the suggested modifications would still provide the experience visitors desire and would give proper recognition of those who have served. ~ The cost estimate associated with scheme A-2 is $500,542. The Dublin Veterans Project Committee is recommending that construction documents be prepared for the Grounds of Remembrance that include a base bid amount estimate of approximately $500,542, which includes the design elements of the loggia with poem wall, the Dedication Wall, Memory Wall, entry sign, flag pole with lighting, and a path that serves the mentioned elements along with bronze handrail. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Reiner or Mr. Keenan, Committee members, would like to make any additional comments. Mr. Reiner responded that the committee was pleased that Plant responded with revisions that met all the requirements and retained the major components. They also updated the site plan, which resulted in a cost savings. The changes did not negatively impact the project. The anticipation is that the project will be bid at the $500,000 price range. Certain ~~ bid alternates were also defined. Mr. Keenan asked about the construction timeline for the construction drawings to be completed and the bid process entered into. Mr. Hahn responded that it was not discussed. Assuming Council adopts the Committee's recommendation, the next step would be to contact the design firm for that information. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for a motion. Mr. Reiner moved to accept Scheme A-2 with the modifications and the alternate bid requirements. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher; yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. • Report re Veterans Project - Fundraising Report Ms. Puskarcik stated that in the meeting packets is the recommendation from the Committee, including a revised fundraising timeline, budget, and proposal from Premiere Consulting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the essence of the report is that the staff and Committee will raise the remaining money. ~ Mr. Reiner stated that there are several veterans on the Committee and they would prefer to raise the monies versus hiring a fundraising consultant. If they are unsuccessful, then a professional fundraiser could be engaged. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for a motion. Mr. Reiner moved that the Veterans Project Committee work with City staff on fundraising efforts and not use a paid consultant for fundraising. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the Committee, staff and Council members for their extensive work on this project. Everyone is anticipating the ribbon-cutting and the celebration with Dublin and Central Ohio veterans. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 18 1 1 1 • Council Retreat Agenda Vice Mayor Boring stated that a copy of Council's retreat agenda was provided in Council packets. She requests Council's direction on the agenda topics. There was no further discussion. Vice Mayor Boring moved approval of the proposed Council retreat agenda. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the retreat facilitator has requested that Council members provide her with a list of the desired outcome for each item and any specific questions related to each. She also would like Council members to indicate any staff participation they request. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam reported that staff has a verbal agreement with Rick Springfield to be the headline act on July 4. This was announced on the entertainer's website over the weekend. Ms. Brautigam requested that Council add land acquisition matters to their executive session agenda tonight. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Reiner: 1. Thanked Mr. Gerber for attending the lengthy Veterans Project Committee meeting on Friday to learn the status of the project. He believes he was satisfied with the work of this Committee on the important effort to have a veterans memorial for this community. Mr. Gerber: 1. Stated that he is convinced the Veterans Project Committee is headed in the right direction and is very enthusiastic. 2. Noted that he is impressed with the City's snow removal efforts. The crew does a great job. Mr. Keenan: 1. Reported that Dublin recently hosted the TechStart event at OCLC. The Mayor, Vice Mayor and he attended. Mr. McDaniel's presentation was very informative. The event was well attended from people around the Central Ohio area, and he heard many good comments. Ms. Salay: 1. Noted that she was unable to attend the event at OCLC, but she heard from some other attendees that it was an excellent program and very helpful. 2. Stated that she is very pleased to hear that the Veterans Project is back on track. 3. Expressed her thanks to Washington Township officials for hosting Council's upcoming retreat. She looks forward to meeting in the new building. Mr. Lecklider: 1. Stated that in the packet information, there was an article on the architectural standards in North Carolina. It seems that the second page was missing. Ms. Brautigam responded that there was a second page that was inadvertently omitted. She will forward that to Council members. Mr. Lecklider suggested that the article also be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The article sounded, in some respects, similar to what Dublin desires to accomplish with the COIC. Vice Mayor Boring: 1. Reminded Council of the Administrative Committee meeting on Thursday to discuss PACs and campaign financing reform. No one has submitted any issues to be considered to Ms. Readier, so she will ask the Clerk to forward the minutes of the previous Council meeting at which that issue was referred to the committee, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 19, 2008 Page 19 1 i~ Held 20 noting the ideas that were discussed at that time. The agenda will be based on those questions. She assumes they are still relevant and need to be addressed. 2. Reminded Council of the Administrative Committee meeting on Monday for the Clerk of Council evaluation. Council members' evaluations of the Clerk are due; she has received only one to date. Manor Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Stated that she and Ms. Brautigam attended the MORPC board meeting last week. Information from that meeting is on file in the Clerk's office. 2. The "Experience Columbus" annual meeting took place today. She, Ms. Puskarcik and Ms. Brautigam were the guests of Mr. Dring of the DCVB. There was an excellent speaker, and she will provide copies of that speech to Council Members. Some of the language used is relevant to Council's upcoming discussion on distinctive cities. 3. Reminded Council members to complete and return their St. Patrick's Day participation forms to Community Relations. 4. Noted that she, Ms. Brautigam and Chief Epperson have discussed the tragedy that recently occurred in the Council Chambers of a municipality in another state. There will be a discussion at a later date regarding the security of City Hall. Chief Epperson will be developing some recommendations and will be available to answer questions. If Council members have any suggestions they would like to have considered, please email them to Ms. Brautigam and Chief Epperson. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:48 p.m. for land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes), and personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official). Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened only for the purpose of formally adjourning. There will be no further action taken by Council. meeting was reconvened at 10:20 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor -Presiding Officer Clerk of Council 1