Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council May 19, 2008 D 1 1 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, May 19, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Mr. Gerber was absent (excused). Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Readier, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Harding, Mr. Earman, Ms. Puskarcik, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Ott, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Burns and Ms. Adkins. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of May 5, 2008 Mr. Keenan moved to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2008 regular meeting. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was received regarding application for D1 and D2 liquor permits for Montgomery Inn of Columbus, Inc. for a location at 4565 W. Dublin-Granville Road. There were no objections to the issuance of these permits. SPECIAL PRESENTATION • Easter Seals of Central and Southeast Ohio Karin Zuckerman, Chief Executive Officer. Easter Seals Central and Southeast Ohio, stated that since 1919 nationally and 1940 locally Easter Seals has been working to fulfill its mission to provide exceptional services to people with disabilities or special needs in their families. In 2007, they provided nearly 170,000 hours of service to over 1,550 families. For the last 35 years they have resided on the Children's Hospital campus, but due to significant growth, they are moving to a new facility at 3830 Trueman Court in Hilliard. There are residents in Dublin who would be able to benefit from their services. Because they will now be located near Dublin, there may be program partnership opportunities. [Ms. Zuckerman provided information to Council listing Easter Seal services and shared a brief DVD]. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Ms. Zuckerman for the information. She is very familiar with the excellent services Easter Seals provides. The City looks forward to working with them. PROCLAMATION/SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Honorary Street Naming -Robert D. Walter Way Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has the opportunity, when warranted, to do honorary street naming. Council is very pleased to take advantage of this opportunity to honor Robert D. Walter of Cardinal Health, Inc. for his many contributions to the community and to name a street in his honor. Under Mr. Walter's leadership, Cardinal Foods, founded as a small food company has now become Cardinal Health, Inc., one of the largest pharmaceutical distributors in the nation, with over 43,000 employees worldwide. Cardinal Health, headquartered in Dublin and the largest company in the state of Ohio, is dedicated to making health care safer and more productive. Mr. Walter now plans to retire. In honor of his commitment to Cardinal Health, the City of Dublin and State of Ohio, an honorary street sign will be erected at the northwest corner of Emerald Parkway and Dublin Road designating the roadway as "Robert D. Walter Way." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 2 1 1 1 He Robert D. Walter, Cardinal Health CEO, stated that Dublin is very special to him. He initially moved to Dublin to make it home for his family. Cardinal Health corporate headquarters was later constructed on the former McKitrick property so that his business could be close to home. In partnership with the City, the property was developed, Emerald Parkway was extended, and Cardinal Health has continued to grow and be a good corporate citizen in Dublin. Healthcare comprises 17 percent of the gross national product and is the fastest growing segment of it; therefore, Cardinal Health will continue to grow. He appreciates the honor Dublin has bestowed upon him and thanked Dublin for what it has done for Cardinal Health. [A five-minute recess followed for a Council photo with Mr. Walter. The meeting resumed at 7:30 p.m.] LEGISLATION POSTPONED/TABLED ITEMS • Fee Waiver Request - Cramer's Crossing Homeowners Association Mr. Langworthy stated that at the last meeting, Council raised some questions about fee waivers in general and fee waivers related to homeowner associations. In regard to the Cramer's Crossing Homeowners Association request, Council requested background information regarding the reason a sign was not originally placed at their Rings Road secondary entrance. In regard to homeowner association requests for fee waivers, staff identified six requests that were filed since 2000. Three of those requests were for tap fees, two of which were waived. Of the other three requests, no action was taken on two requests; and the application fee for an entry feature was waived for the third, Muirfield Greene. Since 2004, there have also been three zoning applications dealing with entry features that were submitted by homeowner associations -- Wyandotte Woods, Lakes of Dunmere and Wedgewood Hills. None of the three requested fee waivers and the fees were paid. Staff recommends that the Cramer's Crossing fee waiver request be denied, not for lack of merit, but for the sake of consistency. History since 2004 indicates that all the homeowner associations filing rezoning applications for amendment of entry features paid their fees, except for Muirfield Greene. Of course, they did not request waivers. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the other homeowner associations were made aware of the option of filing a waiver request, or whether they had the understanding that the fee was mandatory. Mr. Langworthy responded that he believes the understanding was that they were to pay the fee. There is nothing in the record that indicates any discussion of a waiver. Ms. Salay stated that the homeowner association that requested a waiver was granted the waiver. The others did not request waivers, so waivers were not granted. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is true regarding entry feature changes, but it is not true of the other requests related to tap fees or an entry feature repair. The record on waivers is not consistent. Vice Mayor Boring stated that entry feature signage has not been required by the City. It has been granted at the developer's request. Mr. Langworthy responded that the City has not required entry signage. The history on the Cramer's Crossing history development was complicated, however. It was asix-year zoning case. By the time it reached the final development plan stage, the Planning Commission had already dealt with so many issues that the signage issue was not addressed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 1 May 19, 2008 Page 3 Vice Mayor Boring stated that previously, entry signage has not been a requirement. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that conditions #9 and #10 required by Planning and Zoning Commission address the sign issue. Mr. Langworthy responded that those conditions address the primary entrance on Avery Road. The secondary entrance on Rings Road had not yet been proposed. Ms. Salay noted that the Rings Road entrance was an "afterthought." At one point in time, the Cramer's Crossing neighborhood was anticipated to connect with Ballantrae, and that would have been their second entrance. After it was decided that Cramer's Crossing would not connect with Ballantrae, a second entrance was planned on Rings Road. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has visited the site. Although there is no signage, the Rings Road entrance is well landscaped. Who provided that landscaping? Mr. Langworthy responded that he believes the homeowner association did the work. Mr. Langworthy stated that Council also requested that staff research the number of other subdivisions that have signage at entry points. Staff identified 21 entries off major streets in eight different subdivisions. Of those, only two entrances on arterials did not have signs -- the Trinity Park Woerner-Temple entrance and the Indian Run Avery-Muirfield entrance. There are many secondary entrances. Random sampling indicates that most have some type of entry feature, usually consisting of small signs. Ms. Salay stated that she believes the City should support homeowner associations when they want to make improvements to their neighborhoods and thus, an improvement to the appearance of the City. In this case, it will ultimately be an identifying feature as the City grows to the south and the west. It will enable drivers to find the neighborhood via the Rings Road entrance. In all neighborhoods, the entry feature is a point of pride. This neighborhood is interested in improving their entrance, making it easier to maintain and more attractive. She supports approval of their request. She requested other Council members' input. Vice Mayor Boring responded that she agrees that the improvement would benefit the City. However, when discussing "improving," where is the line drawn? Should the subdivision be able to apply for a grant because they will be improving the appearance of the City? She concurs with staff's recommendation that a policy be established, and she believes that policy should address all aspects -whether the City will require entryway signage to be taken care of by the developer, the size of signage, landscaping, etc. It will be helpful to understand the parameters. Mr. Lecklider stated that he also supports the request for the waiver, which is consistent with the position he has taken regarding homeowner associations' waiver requests. That would include the tap fee waivers that were granted for Hemingway and Lowell Trace. He recalls that in a previous budget review, Council discussed the potential for establishing a fund from which homeowner associations could request a grant to do neighborhood improvements. Ms. Brautigam clarified that was a concept that she and Mr. Lecklider discussed. It was not brought up at budget hearings, but it could be proposed going forward. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 1 1 ~~I ~_ May 19, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Lecklider stated that whether or not the City has a fund for such purposes, it would be within Council's discretion to decide whether to allow funds to be used for neighborhood improvements. In this case, the homeowner association is only asking for a waiver of their application fee. They are not asking the City to construct anything. He believes this is a relatively small request. He would recommend granting the waiver, and then discussing a policy for the future. His default position is to grant requests such as this, where the homeowner association is willing to undertake the expense of the task. Not only does the neighborhood benefit, but the City benefits as well. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if he would support the additional action of refunding the application fees paid by Wyandotte Woods, Lakes of Dunmere and Wedgewood Hills, since they were not aware of the opportunity for a waiver. Mr. Lecklider responded that if those homeowner associations had requested waivers, consistent with his position, he would have supported their requests. Vice Mayor Boring stated that they did not do so because they were not made aware of the opportunity. She could not support granting the waiver to Cramer's Crossing without a second motion to refund the fees to the others, to be consistent and fair and since this will be the policy that Council will follow. Mr. Lecklider responded that he would not unequivocally be opposed to that. However, at what point does Council draw the line when adopting a new policy? Is the new policy effective from that point forward, or is it retroactive? Vice Mayor Boring stated that what she has heard is that anything that benefits the neighborhood, Council should support. Unfortunately, the other homeowner associations were not aware of the option for a fee waiver. To be fair to them, she suggests refunding their application fees. Mr. Lecklider inquired if she is suggesting that Cramer's Crossing had the benefit of some information that the other neighborhoods did not have. He does not know the circumstances under which one asked and the others did not. Mr. Reiner stated that he concurs with staff's recommendation to deny the waiver. Granting the waiver would be setting a precedent that Council should not begin, and it would be unfair to the other associations that either had applications denied or did not request waivers. There is a level of fairness Council should strive for. One community should not receive special treatment. Some homeowner associations bear a larger burden than others -they are self funded or have different funding ratios. To be fair to all, staff has set an across-the-board policy. The reason this situation has occurred is that the second review process on the Cramer's Crossing final development plan bypassed the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning Commission does a thorough job in its review, and bypassing their review was a major error made at the cost of the community. Significant items such as this are identified by the Planning Commission. His was the lone dissenting vote for the rezoning on Council at that time, because he believed there were many problems remaining with the plan that should be dealt with but were not. In regard to this particular request, he commends staff for taking the right stand. Ms. Salay stated that previous fee waivers have been granted, based on the testimony that three of six requests were granted. Why would this one be considered setting a precedent? Mr. Reiner responded that those were for tap fees. Mr. Langworthy stated that two of the three were for tap fees. Ms Grigsby stated that a policy has already been set through the cost of services study where fees were established for such applications. Staff recognizes, however, that Council always has the ability to make changes in policy. Although she does not have all the information before her at this time, she believes that staff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council May 19, 2008 Page 5 also recommended denial of the previous waivers submitted to Council. She believes the process has been that if the applicant asks if they must pay the fee, staff's response is affirmative. To have the fee waived, the applicant would be required to submit a request through the City Manager to Council. That is likely why some of the applicants have not requested a waiver. Mr. Reiner stated that is why government must be run as a business. These policies are established, and to be fair and consistent, everyone is expected to pay them. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the letter written by the president of Cramer's Crossing Homeowners Association indicates that they are not satisfied with the landscaping at their entrance. In addition to adding signage, they want to change the appearance of that entryway. Is it a requirement that the Association obtain approval from a City department of the final landscape plan? Mr. Langworthy responded that occurs with the amended final development plan. Mr. Reiner moved that the fee waiver request submitted by the Cramer's Crossing Homeowners Association be denied. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the Association's letter indicates that they want pillar signage. What type of sign was discussed at the previous Planning Commission hearing? Ms. Salay responded that the developer proposed a wooden sign, and she requested that the sign be a stone monument sign to eliminate future maintenance issues. This was at the Avery Road entrance. Vice Mayor Boring stated that there was also an issue regarding stone pillars. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Condition #9 required that the Cramer's Crossing signs be removed from the condominium entrance, which is the Avery Road entrance. Vice Mayor Boring noted that this request is now for pillar signage. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that points to the fact that in considering amendments to the final development plan, it is important for staff to take into consideration the complete discussion from the time of the original approval. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff will thoroughly research the history. Mr. Keenan stated that this really is about City staff serving City residents. The issue doesn't involve a lot of revenue. How many homes are in the subdivision? Ms. Salay responded that there are 79 homes. Mr. Keenan stated that a lot of Council time is being spent discussing a $950 fee, which amounts to a few dollars per home. The City provides trash pick-up and leaf pick-up for the residents. This service is also for the good of the community, so he does not understand why the fee waiver would not be granted. The mechanism is in place for the neighborhood to request it. He does understand staff's concern about precedent and agrees a policy should be set. For him, with this homeowners association, the issue is about City staff serving City residents, and he does not see a problem with that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she will be voting in favor of this waiver; however, she will also move that within the next 120 days, Council be provided a proposed policy to vote upon. Perhaps one of Council's committees could develop the policy. She is concerned that applicants are not consistently made aware of the opportunity to request a waiver. In addition, a waiver is often granted based upon the size of a homeowners association, the location of the development, or whether it is a forced and funded homeowners association. Those should not be the deciding factors. It would be preferable to have a policy that makes sense for RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 6 all. Although there is always the possibility for an exception, a policy would provide better guidance to the residents, associations, staff and Council. Discussion of that policy should also include consideration of the fact that there are aging neighborhoods in the City. In those situations, there will be entrance features and other features that will need to be upgraded. The homeowners associations may not have the funds for this. Perhaps a grant fund would be an alternative. There is a need for consistency in the direction that is given to everyone. She will vote in favor of this request, but she is uncomfortable with the fact that she does not have the complete history of her votes on similar requests. She does try to evaluate homeowner association requests based on their individual merits. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher re-stated Mr. Refiner's motion: to support the recommendation of staff to deny Cramer's Crossing's request for an application fee waiver. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, no; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Ms. Salay moved to approve the fee waiver for Cramer's Crossing and request staff to provide suggestions for a policy consistent with Council's goals of helping the neighborhoods within 120 days. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Following discussion, Council consensus was to refer review of the policy proposals to the Community Services Advisory Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider would accept the amendment to the motion to add referral of the policy development to the Community Services Advisory Commission Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider accepted the amendment. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Vice Mayor Boring moved to refund the application fees to the Wyandotte Woods Association, the Lakes of Dunmere Association and the Wedgewood Hills Association on the basis that they paid recent homeowner association application fees and there is a need to maintain consistency. Ms. Salay inquired about Muirfield Greene. Vice Mayor Boring responded that staff indicated that Muirfield Green received a waiver of their fee. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 28-08 Adopting and Enacting Modifications to Various Sections of the City of Dublin Zoning Code Related to the General Purpose and Operations of the Board of Zoning Appeals. (Case No. 07-102ADM) Ms. Brautigam noted that at the first reading, Council requested information be provided regarding conditional uses. That memo was provided in this meeting's packet. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 7 Vice Mayor Boring stated that she has several additional questions. First, are the staff reports developed differently now? It appears as if staff is deciding that the criteria has been met, rather than stating they believe it meets the criteria. Mr. Langworthy responded that the sample case report was edited for tonight's purposes. However, the staff reports are intended to reflect staff's opinions and recommendations only. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the recommendation is to condense the language in Conditional Use - C, in those four areas. Mr. Langworthy responded "no." It is not a Code issue. It is done in this way for brevity's sake for the Planning & Zoning Commission. Vice Mayor Boring responded that is reassuring. In recent years, it was placed in this format so that lay people could have the full list. Mr. Langworthy responded that the full list is provided with each application. Vice Mayor Boring referred to page 4, Section 153.231 B, "Organization and Membership of the Board of Zoning Appeals," paragraph 3, which states: "All meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be open to the public." Is that included as a reference to the City Charter requirement? Mr. Langworthy responded that is a reference to both the City Charter and to State law. ~ Vice Mayor Boring requested that immediately before that, #2 should read: "The Board shall organize and adopt rules for its operation to be approved by City Council." That is also required by City Charter. Mr. Langworthy concurred. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the language for #3 "Variances" has been changed. In her opinion, it is too convoluted. In the previous code, the Board of Zoning Appeals had the ability to look at the issues differently. They had to look at the request carefully to decide that a variance was required. The new language seems to have removed needed restrictions. Mr. Langworthy responded that this language is actually a compromise. There is a particular court case, Duncan v. the Village of Middlefield, in which the Ohio Supreme Court stipulated the criteria by which the community should evaluate variances. The final summation was that "no one of the criteria can be considered determinative." The proposed language provides that there is some set of criteria that must be met every time, but there may be other sets of criteria. Two or four must be met. The Court only addressed non-use variances. In use variances, the Courts have said that use variances do have a stricter standard that must be met. Ms. Readler stated that, practically speaking, the Board of Zoning Appeals has been using the Duncan v. Middlefield criteria. Legal has provided guidance to them that the criteria should apply, even though it was not codified. However, Legal staff is comfortable with the extent to which Planning has varied the language. Vice Mayor Boring inquired what was wrong with the previous language which ~ stated, "appropriate conditions and safeguards to maintain the intent and spirit of the zoning district." Why was some of that not considered? Ms. Readler responded that this section provides the general description of variances, the use and the non-use. The Middlefield criteria are provided elsewhere in the Code. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the language she has referenced is noted as stricken from the document. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is not part of the Middlefield criteria. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 1 1 May 19, 2008 Page 8 Vice Mayor Boring stated that she understands that, however it gives the Board of Zoning Appeals and the applicants a more complete sense of how to look at it. Is it necessary to copy their language exactly, or can a bit more be added? Ms. Readler responded that this is not the criteria section of Variances. Legally, there would be no objection to adding the additional sentence to #3. It would provide a purpose statement. The actual criteria would be provided later. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she would like to have that sentence added back into #3. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the sentence that will be added to (3) Variances is: "In granting such variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to maintain the intent and spirit of the zoning district in conformity with the zoning ordinance." Vice Mayor Boring stated that this language goes "hand-in-hand" with the Board's ability to grant a variance with a condition. Mr. Lecklider stated that, with respect to conditional uses, it is a safer course not to list a particular conditional use if it is reasonably certain that the City would prefer not to see that use some time in the future. Although the City's standards criteria appear to allow some discretion in the matter, if he were arguing on behalf of the applicant for a conditional use, he would argue that because the City listed it as a potential conditional use, the City contemplated the reasonable possibility of this use. There is the potential for the City to have difficulty in its exercise of discretion. Ms. Readler responded that the case law speaks generally in terms of conditional uses being more onerous for some reason. Therefore, they are not permitted as of right. The Courts have said that if the City adopts reasonable criteria and applies it reasonably, the Courts will uphold that decision. Legal staff has been successful in defending the City when the City has denied conditional uses -- most recently, in the case of adrive-through window. The conditional use ordinance was revised in 2003 for the specific purpose of providing the City with more discretion. Mr. Lecklider stated that he agrees in regard to the particular criterion mentioned -- #8 -vehicular approaches. However, looking at # 6, which states, "the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community," why would this be allowed as a conditional use? That would not be good foresight, in his opinion. Mr. Langworthy responded that the difference is that it is location specific. In a particular location, it may be detrimental to the economic well-being of the community; in another location, it may not. That would be the City's argument. That is the difference with conditional uses -they can be approved based on location characteristics. Mr. Lecklider stated that if it is location specific, shouldn't that be clarified in the context of the zoning? Mr. Langworthy responded that it is, but in this document, the City is using a set of general criteria that apply to dozens of uses that must be individually evaluated depending on their location. The operational characteristics, the general nature of the use, and how the use fits in the neighborhood are the significant factors for conditional uses and why that level of discretion is available. The criteria is placed in the ordinance to protect the City from the "arbitrary and capricious" arguments. Vice Mayor Boring referred to Special Permit Required, under "Amended Text," #4 which states "amend the text to read in full as follows, the uses provided in 153.094 - 153.098 shall not be erected or used." She does not understand the meaning of this. Does it mean the uses outlined in Section 153 will be exact issues, and those uses will not be erected or used? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 9 Mr. Langworthy responded that applies unless a Special Permit is granted. Vice Mayor Boring stated that in regard to the Board of Zoning Appeals meetings, the statement is made that "the official record shall be immediately filed in the Office of Council and be a public record." Is there a time limit for those records? Ms. Readier responded that would be governed by the City's record retention policy. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the policy is reviewed. Ms. Readier responded that it is mandated to be reviewed periodically. Vice Mayor Boring stated that is a topic Council has discussed recently in view of email records. Vice Mayor Boring referred to General Development Standards, Section 153.073, Comprehensive Residential Neighborhood Development. This is in reference to a home occupation parking situation. Previously, there was public notice and hearing at a public meeting, but if the issue will be decided by the Director of Land Use, there is no hearing. Why is the public notice necessary? Mr. Langworthy stated that a notice would be sent, which states that comments may be submitted and would be considered by the Director before any action is taken. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there is no distinction in the terminology used between a direct mailing notice and a notice placed in the newspaper. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is no distinction made. Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 29-08 Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Union County, Ohio for a Change of Township Lines for that Portion of Jerome Township Which Now Lies within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced Ordinance 29-08. Ms. Readier stated that after an annexation becomes effective, Legal staff files a petition with the county commissioners to adjust the township boundaries. With this annexation, it is necessary to file petitions with both Union County and Franklin County Commissioners. Ordinance 29-08 authorizes the petition to the Union County Board of Commissioners. Vice Mayor Boring requested clarification of the pre-annexation agreement. Does the agreement provide for the applicant to pay the reparations? Ms. Readier confirmed that is correct. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat it as an emergency. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 30-08 Petitioning the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, Ohio for a Change of Township Lines for that Portion of Jerome Township Which Now Lies within the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Dublin, and Declaring an Emergency. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Keenan introduced Ordinance 29-08. Mr. Readler stated that this is identical legislation as Ordinance 29-08, but is a petition to the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat it as an emergency. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 31-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into aPre-Annexation Agreement Describing the Intentions of the Parties to Annex Certain Real Property Owned by BVH Associates, Located in Perry Township. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Readler stated that Legal staff was asked to coordinate a possible pre- annexation agreement with BVH Associates, which is the veterinary hospital on Tuller Road. BVH has asked if the City would consider certain provisions in a pre- annexation agreement. Negotiation has occurred, and a draft agreement is provided tonight. The cover memo lists the fundamentals of the agreement. This land is an island of township within the City boundaries. BVH has agreed to dedicate a significant amount of right-of-way for certain roadway projects that Dublin is contemplating in exchange for access to water and sewer. They have submitted plans to Perry Township for their renovation plans, and are working with Perry Township and the State of Ohio on those plans. They have also requested a fee waiver for the annexation. Attorney Mike Close is representing BVH Associates. Michael Close. 7360 Bellaire Avenue stated that he has not reviewed the Law Department's memo; however, from his client's perspective, the only item they are requesting is the ability to connect to the City's water and sewer lines early in the project. In return, the City will obtain 100 feet of right-of-way that, typically, the City would need to purchase from the landowner. They ask for no economic inducements from the City, notwithstanding the fact that they will be bringing 62 higher level paying jobs to the City. This site is near the juncture of Tuller and Riverside Drive. This request is consistent with the City's desire to annex all remaining islands of township into the City. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is concerned because the City does not appear to be consistent, invoking rigid rules for some and not for others. This appears to be a development that is not being taken through the City's zoning process. Ms. Salay indicated concern about that aspect, as well. Mr. Close stated that the development application has been made to Perry Township. The plans are in full compliance with the township's zoning code, so the building will occur as submitted. This is a U-shaped building, although that isn't visible from the street; his client is merely filling in the open U in the back. Vice Mayor Boring stated that this appears to be well thought out - a plan to obtain City services before the expansion. This is also the township site where the applicant was able to construct a very unsightly cell tower. That is the reason she now is requesting drawings. If she recalls correctly, the box for the cell tower is on land that is in Dublin, so where are the rights-of-way that are mentioned? The original box had to come through zoning, so they already were required to have a 200-foot setback. The City does want to annex the remaining "island" areas of township, but it seems that several "pocket" areas have petitioned for annexation in order to connect to the City's water and sewer. She is concerned about the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 11 i~ 1 1 City's integrity if this development is not going through the City's zoning process to ensure it meets the City's landscape and building codes. It would be helpful if Council could see the plans and confirm that they meet Dublin's landscape and building codes. This is a significant concern to her and to the citizens in that area as well, particularly if the cell tower will be inherited. Mr. Close responded that the cell tower is not on this property, and this property is not in the City of Dublin. There is a rough access behind the property to the cell tower that is not owned by BVH Associates. As further clarification, his client is willing to give up to a total of 100 feet from the centerline, all on Riverside Drive, so that the City can construct a right turn lane onto Emerald Parkway, when that extension occurs. Mr. Readler noted that a draft of the proposed right-of-way is attached as Exhibit B to the pre-annexation agreement. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the drawing is not legible, as Mr. Close has just noted that certain land is not part of this property. She would like to be able to identify the areas more clearly -the cell tower, the box, the setbacks, and where this property is located in relation to the cell tower. Mr. Hammersmith stated that better site drawings that depict all of that information would be provided for the second reading. Mr. Reiner inquired if Mr. Hammersmith has reviewed the proposed building plans. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he has not. Ms. Readler stated that she has copies of the plans with her. They are quite large, so copies were not made. She suggested that Mr. Close's office may be able to provide renderings for the second reading. A thorough review of the plans has not been done. Mr. Keenan requested the total size of the acreage involved also be provided for the second reading. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the amount of acreage will also be provided for the second reading. Mr. Close clarified that his client is willing to provide up to 100 feet of right-of-way only if it is necessary for the project. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that the acreage, the site specifics and a copy of the building plans be provided for the second reading. Mr. Reiner requested that the information also include the setbacks, to clarify where the building will be located on the site, and the building elevations. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the June 2 Council meeting. Ordinance 32-08 Appropriating a 0.988 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.123 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a 0.564 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Post Hylands Company, Ltd., Located on the West Side of Perimeter Drive, City of Dublin, Counties of Franklin and Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this acquisition is necessary for the transportation improvements at the Central Ohio Innovation Center. It consists of both permanent right-of-way, temporary construction easement and a permanent easement along Perimeter Drive. Another acquisition from this property owner is necessary for the COIC and will occur later, but this piece is necessary to move forward on the Liggett Road relocation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 12 1 LEI n Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the names of the principals of Post Hyland Company, Ltd. Mr. Hammersmith indicated that staff does not have that information at this time. Negotiations do not occur between the City and the landowner directly. A negotiator is hired for that purpose. Ms. Brautigam indicated that the information will be provided to Council in a follow- up memo. Vice Mayor Boring inquired why passage by emergency is requested. Mr. Hammersmith responded that passage by emergency is requested to enable the project to proceed and the relocation of Liggett Road to occur this construction season. Mr. Lecklider asked for confirmation that money will not be changing hands at this point. Ms. Readier responded that the money the appraiser has set will be posted with the Court. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the relocation of Liggett Road could one day result in a need to signalize this intersection. Mr. Hammersmith responded that if ever there was a more sophisticated intersection control at Perimeter and Post, it would be warranted based upon the volume on Post Road. The relocation of Liggett Road will serve only these two properties and the boat repair facility further south on Liggett Road. Mr. Keenan moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat the ordinance as an emergency. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 32-08 Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager to Dispose of Said Property in Accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section 721.15. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that periodically, the City has surplus property it no longer has need of. Recently, the surplus property has been listed at GovDeals.com, and the City has received better bids than occurred in the past with auctions. This resolution authorizes the City to offer the attached group of items at that website. Mr. Keenan inquired if a minimum bid is established for the items. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City has the ability to set parameters for the bid, including the minimum bid and the ability to deny any and all bids. Mr. Keenan inquired if it would be possible to know the mileage on the listed vehicles, particularly the 2002 and 2003 vehicles. There is likely a policy in place. Ms. Grigsby responded that the vehicles are assessed on the basis of mileage and the maintenance required. That information will be provided to Council in a follow- up memo. Mr. Keenan requested that information be provided in the future with these resolutions. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council May 19, 2008 Page 13 1 1 C Held 20 Resolution 33-08 Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the 2008-2010 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for this Project. Mr. Keenan introduced the resolution. Mr. Burns stated that this authorizes the continuance of the sanitary sewer lining project, primarily in the Muirfield area in 2008-2009 and on the sanitary sewer line running from Glick Road along Dublin Road to Historic Dublin in 2010. This will reduce I&I and make repairs to the clay pipe. This is a 3-year contract, but it is necessary to approve each year of the work through the City's budget process. A total of $850,000 was approved in the CIP budget for the 2008 project, and the bid of $749,825 will be accepted with this contract. Mr. Reiner stated that, per the information provided, hydrogen sulfide gases cause the decomposition of the pipe. What are the pipes being lined with to address this? Mr. Burns responded that it is a composite material of plastic and resin. Mr. Reiner inquired how the work is done while there is sewage running through the pipes. Is the system shut down completely? Is it flushed in some manner? Mr. Burns responded that the system is shut down. It is flushed with a sewer jet, and then inspected with a camera. If the flow is high, bypass pumping occurs around the parts that they are lining at the time. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City has the ability then to bypass portions of its system. Mr. Burns responded that the City actually does not do that; the contractors do. Mr. Keenan stated that he understands this resolution authorizes work for only one year, but he does not recall ever approving a contract that was not certified by an Auditor, Clerk or Finance Department that the funds were available and not encumbered. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that most government contracts are for a multiple year term but are based on availability of funds approved on an annual basis. Most contractors are familiar with that type of contract. Mr. Keenan stated that this contract has not been discussed in the CIP budget process to date. Ms. Grigsby responded that this item is in the current five-year CIP. Mr. Reiner inquired the length of warranty on the lining. Mr. Burns responded that the lining is expected to extend the life of the pipe 30-50 years. The warranty on the installation is two years. A video inspection is conducted before and after the installation, so if there is a problem with the installation, that would be apparent. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City checks the installation. Mr. Burns responded that the contractor makes the pre and post video of the project, and City staff review the video. Mr. Reiner commented that it is strange that the warranty is only two years on a 30-50 year life project. Mr. Keenan inquired how one section of pipe can be differentiated from another in the video. Mr. Burns responded that it is documented by linear footage. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if this work will be done throughout future years to keep the infrastructure up-to-date. Mr. Burns responded that it will take the next 5-10 years to have the clay pipe re- lined. There are approximately 440,000 linear feet of clay pipe under Dublin streets; by year end 2008, 25 percent of that will have been relined. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 L7 1 May 19, 2008 Page 14 Mr. Reiner stated that at the end of the two-year warranty, does Dublin do its own camera inspection of the said area? Mr. Burns comfirmed that the City does this. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 34-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with The Ohio Bell Telephone Company (AT&T) for the Installation of Telecommunications Equipment. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this easement on City-owned property has been requested by AT&T. The property was developed with Wyandotte Woods, Section 4, along the south side of Summit View Road, west of Glencree Place. They need this easement to deploy their project, Lightspeed, which is a fiber optic cable system. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. OTHER • Establishment of Purchase Price for Copies of the 2007 Community Plan Ms. Brautigam stated that tonight Council received the first copies of the Community Plan. In an earlier discussion, some Council and Planning Commission members requested that the copies of the Plan be provided to them in a three-ring binder. The text is punched for the binders, but the binders have not yet arrived. When the binders arrive, the copy distributed tonight can be exchanged for athree-ring binder set. An attempt will be made to have a short ceremony before the June 2 Council meeting to celebrate the completion of the new Community Plan and to invite members of the public to attend, where they can obtain a free copy of the plan on a CD or DVD. Mr. Langworthy stated that the published price of the plan is $80.24. Staff recommends that Council continue its practice of subsidizing the cost of the Community Plan and the price be set at $45.00. The DVD and CD price is set at @$1.00. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the library would receive a complimentary copy of the plan. A number of people use the reference copy at the library. Mr. Langworthy responded that they will receive a copy. Ms. Salay moved approval of the recommended price of $45.00. 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. • Fee Waiver Request -Rezoning Application to Amend Uses in the Community Commercial District. Mr. Langworthy stated that an application was submitted to the Planning Commission to amend the Community Commercial Rezoning District to allow certain uses within the Dublin Village Center planned district that are not presently accounted for within the community commercial district. It is within the right of any citizen to request that the Zoning Code be amended. That application will be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff researched the history on fee waiver requests for rezoning or other type of application fees. Since 2001, seven requests have been received. Three requests were from Dublin City Schools or a non-profit organization. Those waivers were approved. One waiver was approved RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 15 ii 1 Held for a private project where the City was a co-applicant. One private project was approved because the City had taken some land from the property owner that impacted their parking. A fee waiver for that application was granted, although a fee was charged for the conditional use application that accompanied it. Two waiver requests for private project conditional use applications were denied. Denial of this request is also recommended by staff. Vice Mayor Boring requested more information about this application. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff is presently working with the applicant on the language of the proposal. The applicant would like to put a number of conditional uses in the Center. This will be coming to Council, however, as a zoning text amendment. Mr. Reiner moved to deny the fee waiver request. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. David Davis, 6121 Winesap Way, Dublin, applicant, stated that he moved to the Columbus area in the `90's and founded Rush Creek Sports Grilles, initially an adult and family-oriented facility. They identified an element of society that is denied social opportunities -senior and teenagers. Their business is not geared solely for profit, but also to provide a public service. Some examples of their efforts were an alcohol-free teen social club on Sunbury Road and an alcohol-free nightclub venture at the Continent. At no time have there been incidents of concern at those facilities. These alternative social opportunities for families have received acclaim and praise from the communities, schools, MTV and Disney productions. They would now like to provide a similar opportunity in an empty space in the Dublin Village Center. The existing businesses there complement the services they would provide -food, entertainment, teen and senior meeting facilities. The difficulty for them is that the services they provide do not fit within Dublin's code categories, so they must file a rezoning application. The fee of $4,200 will be very difficult for them to pay at the outset of this effort. They are not requesting a permanent waiver of the fee, but a temporary waiver. This property is basically a vacant, dead building. They have been in discussions with the property owner regarding efforts to establish this as an entertainment area. The location, which borders Sawmill Road and I-270, would be good for such a focus. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council does not have the rezoning before them tonight, only a request to waive an application fee for the rezoning. She inquired if there has ever been a request for a temporary waiver of an application fee. Mr. Langworthy stated that, to his knowledge, there have been none. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the previous Lucky Leprechaun was such a case. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Lucky Leprechaun actually paid one fee, but requested a fee waiver for an additional service. Council granted the waiver, but also refunded the initial fee he had paid. Ms. Salay inquired if the difficulty is that this use is a combination of uses, not just one use. In that case, they could simply apply for a permit. Mr. Langworthy responded that there are some uses that even individually would not be permitted. In fact, Mr. Davis has brought to the City's attention some activities occurring at Dublin Village Center that Code Enforcement is investigating. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in any case, a rezoning is required. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is true. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 16 1 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the motion on the floor is to disapprove the fee waiver. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Keenan explained that he would like to see some use of the Dublin Village Center. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that over the years, there has been much discussion about this center. An entertainment district or area has been one of many options, but as a holistic approach -- not a use among others, within the Center. If there is some discussion now with the Center's management regarding a larger, coordinated use, she is hopeful the City can engage in that discussion and propose something for this area. It would be preferable to consider this holistically, versus individual pieces. Mr. Langworthy responded that internal discussions have been ongoing along those lines, with the intent to place something within that area. Perhaps something leaning toward entertainment would be useful. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is suggesting it would be useful, only that a coordinated effort could be more successful than piecemeal efforts. To date, the owner has opted not to engage in any discussions with the City and others with interest and some great ideas. Mr. Lecklider stated that the Community Plan reveals what the community would like to see here. At one point, there was an application submitted to relocate the theater. What happened with that proposal? Mr. Reiner responded that the application was not for a comprehensive use of the site. They wanted to rehab the theater and add a dining area, not resolve the problems with the overall site. The City was more interested in a plan for a revitalized site overall. Ms. Adkins stated that officially, it was a concept plan, and the applicant did make a presentation to Council. It was a quick fix to keep the theater, as their lease was due to expire. Neither the staff nor City Council supported the proposal -- not just the design, but other elements in the plan, including architecture and signage. The applicant did not contact the City again. Ms. Salay inquired if the City's fee is consistent with the market? Ms. Grigsby responded that the fee has not been compared recently with other communities, but based on the fact that Dublin devises its fees on what it costs to provide the service, Dublin's fees for this service are probably higher than other communities. Consequently, Dublin's legislation permits Council to waive the fee if the proposed use is for an economic development purpose. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if Dublin was one of the first communities in Ohio to conduct cost studies, and now other communities have begun to follow suit. Ms. Grigsby responded that in Ohio, the use of cost studies is still limited. Mosi communities use the survey method. • Presentation re Sustainable Codes Project Ms. Brautigam stated that one of Council's primary goals is to work on improving the City's environmental sustainability. One section of Council's goals for 2008- 2009 deals with green measures, including an investigation of ways the City's building and zoning codes can be changed to be more sustainable. A presentation will be made tonight on the beginning phases of this project, which is being led by Jeff Tyler and Jamie Adkins. In addition to the information presented, staff seeks RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 i,~ [] May 19, 2008 Page 17 Council's direction regarding any ways in which Council would like to see the City move forward. Mr. Tyler presented an overview of the project. Last September, when he made a preliminary presentation, Council asked how this could occur. This is an introduction on the "How" the Sustainable Codes Project will occur. Staff will provide future periodic progress updates. The definition of sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The natural and built environment, equitable social environment, and sustainable economic environments are all linked. The sustainable project in Dublin must fit within the context of this City. The primary goal of this project team is to identify and implement the best land development practices that will create environmental stewardship and a sustainable community. In addition to City staff members - Ms. Adkins, Ms. Noble-Flading, Ms. Martin, Ms. Cox, Mr. Harpham and himself, a research coordinator has been hired -Daniel Linstrom. Ms. Adkins reviewed the holistic efforts that are being made within the City since Council initially established the green goal for 2007. The recently adopted Community Plan contains many of the land management objectives and strategies to make Dublin a "greener," sustainable community. The project has three phases: (1) identify the issues in current standards; (2) identify goals and objectives; (3) implementation. Involved in the process will be Code updates and a public review process. The project will be completed in 2009. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher complimented the team on swell-organized effort with time frames. It would be desirable not to have a high level of building occurring without these sustainable codes in place. The more that is already completed, the less there is to influence. Even without formal Code updates in place, the evolving discussions should impact the planning process. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. • COTA Advisory Panel Appointment Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that correspondence has been provided to Council from COTA regarding the need to appoint an individual to represent Dublin on this panel. COTA has not yet established a meeting schedule; however Vice Mayor Boring has expressed an interest in serving. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to appoint Vice Mayor Boring as the City's representative on the COTA Advisory Panel. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. STAFF COMMENTS • Field Trip Dates for Crocker Park and Downtown Hudson Ms. Brautigam stated that, based upon input, it appears that the month of June will not work for Council members. The trip will therefore need to be scheduled in July or later. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher added that Council would discuss later potential dates. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan: (1) Reported that he attended a U.S. 33 Corridor meeting on Tuesday, May 6. (2) Noted that the "Taste of Dublin" sponsored by the Dublin Chamber on May 13 was quite successful. (3) Stated that the Stonehenge groundbreaking was a nice event. Vice Mayor Boring presented much history, which gave perspective regarding the project. Ms. Salav: (1) Stated that she will be contacting fellow Community Development Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS May 19, 2008 Page 18 members to set a date for discussion of the fence/landscape code issue. (2) Inquired about the Shoppes at Athenry "For Lease" sign. Many of the office complexes in the City have very large "For Lease" or "For Sale" signs on display. The signs are unattractive and remain in place indefinitely. Although it is desirable to have as much office space occupied as possible, is signage really the primary way in which prospective buyers/renters locate property in Dublin? These signs detract significantly from the environment of the community. Would it be possible to limit the size or the timeframe for these signs? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she, too, has been concerned about this issue and has spoken to staff about other signs. When staff contacted the property owners, the signs were removed. Some owners may have forgotten the signs are up. She believes a Code amendment is needed. Another Columbus-area community recently adopted a Code amendment to address the issue. The existing situation is defeating the purpose of Dublin's sign code. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff will look into an amendment to address this.. They would like to re-visit the City's entire sign code, but that would take some time. If Council desires, staff could propose an amendment to address only this issue in an expedited manner. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she is in favor of staff proceeding immediately, She does not want staff to initiate atwo-year project to revise the entire sign code, as she believes the only revision needed is in regard to the "For Sale" and "For Lease" signs. The Shoppes of Athenry appears to have two signs in place. Mr. Lecklider noted that in addition to those two signs, there are signs of similar longevity within that same corridor - at the northeast and southwest corners of the Center. Mr. Reiner suggested that the study be reviewed by the Community Services Advisory Commission and some input be obtained from the developers and from the community. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff would develop a proposed amendment. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is concerned staff will undertake a large review with a lot of work involved without obtaining Council input to ensure full understanding of the goal. Mr. Langworthy responded that a future study session could be scheduled for Council's input. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:35 p.m. to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action; to consider the purchase of property for public purposes; and 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: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 10:40 p.m. and formally adjourned. U~ ~ ~ ~-~~ Mayor -Presiding Officer erk of Council