HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 02-22-2010RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ nu lin City Cnscil Meeting
February 22, 2010
Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, February 22, 2010 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
ROLL CALL
Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr.
Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were Mr. Foegler, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readier, Mr. Epperson, Mr.
McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Ms. Ott, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Thurman, Mr.
Hammersmith, Ms. Husak, Ms. LeRoy and Ms. Nardecchia.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Reiner led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of February 8, 2010.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION /PROCLAMATIONS
National Entrepreneurship Week -February 20 -27, 2010
Mayor Lecklider read a proclamation in honor of National Entrepreneurship Week 2010, and
presented it to Chaz Freutel, owner of "Get You Connected," a Dublin business founded in
early 2009.
Mr. Freutel noted that he was one of the first tenants in the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center
after its grand opening in 2009. He founded this company after 40 plus years of working for
other businesses. He purchased another business, which is also headquartered in Dublin,
the "Green Pages Business Directory," to promote green products and services throughout
central Ohio. He thanked Council on behalf of the other tenants and contractors at the
Center.
CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence requiring Council action.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Bob Warne, 5808 Tartan Circle stated that during the recent Bridge Street Corridor Study, he
heard Indian Run Falls referred to as an asset; however, it is an asset only if it is used. He
proposes that the City locate an Indian Memorial Park in that area. He showed photos of the
area. He suggested locating it by the river, extending a pathway up through the tunnels
under the Dublin Road. These tunnels would be a good location for murals, perhaps
depicting Native American history. The path would lead back to the Indian Fun Falls. Along
the path could be a diorama of an Indian camp or hunting party. To improve the aesthetics of
the falls, the catch basin under the falls could be enlarged, recirculating the water upstream
to produce a steady water flow over the Falls. Adjacent to the falls is where the northern fork
of the Indian Run enters. There, the path could be taken north up under 1 -270 to Emerald
Parkway, crossing onto Cardinal Health property. Perhaps Cardinal Health could be
encouraged to subsidize the park. The murals could focus on different experiences of the
Native Americans during the European takeover of their lands in this region. Indian Run
Falls Park would appropriately focus on this experience. He suggested Council consider this
proposal.
Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Warne for his comments. Both Council and staff are looking for
every opportunity to capitalize on the City's great asset — the river and Indian Run Falls.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road. stated that he was unable to attend a recent Council
meeting and later watched it on the government cable channel. During the citizen comments
section, a Chinese scholar spoke regarding the concept of paradise, and shared that the
meaning of "paradise" is "I am." If you can say and know what you are, that is "paradise."
That is also what Dublin needs to do regarding its entrepreneurship -- define what is going
on, why and what can be done.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of oun Meetine
February 22, 2010 Page 2
AGENDA MODIFICATION
Mayor Lecklider stated that in consideration of the number of residents in attendance tonight
for Resolution 16 -10, he would recommend the agenda be modified.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to amend the agenda to hear Resolution 16 -10 at this time.
Vice Mayor Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
I1MIr1691_A&I,
Resolution 16 -10
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement for
Procurement of Public Art.
Ms. Ott stated that Resolution 16 -10 would provide authorization for an agreement with
Brower Hatcher of Mid -Ocean Studios for the procurement of public art in celebration of the
City's Bicentennial this year. The resolution will authorize staff to proceed with the
acquisition process without further aesthetic review by City Council or by City boards or
commissions. In the past few weeks, the City has received substantial public comment
regarding this project, both in support and in opposition. There was some confusion about
the City's acquisition of this property. In 2005, Council authorized acquisition of a one -acre
portion of the site from the Karrer family after the family approached the City about
purchasing it for historic preservation and to provide open space in this area. That
acquisition was finalized in April 2006. The City paid $150,000 for the land, the barn and the
historic stone walls located on that parcel. The agreement proposed by Resolution 16 -10 is
a model agreement developed by a group of public art experts. The agreement has been
slightly modified to accommodate Dublin's need. The contract provides for an all- inclusive
payment of $150,000 to Brower Hatcher for development of his concept, fabrication,
installation, and site preparation; to cover liability issues; and for Mr. Brower's travel and
contingencies. The contract also defines the City's ongoing review process of the project,
which does not include review of aesthetics. Mr. Guion, Executive Director of the Dublin Arts
Council has facilitated much of the process. He will provide Council an update and share a
statement the artist has provided for Council.
David Guion. Executive Director, Dublin Arts Council stated that whatever transpires with
Council's action tonight, he will comply with that direction. He believes it is always wise to
test decisions in the light of a mission statement or a statement of success outcomes. To
that end, he shared DAC's Art in Public Places program statement: "By creating a collection
of public art, Dublin Arts Council's 'Dublin Art in Public Places' program's goal is to enhance
the quality of life for Dublin residents and to strengthen the City as a destination for visitors."
He noted that the collection includes both large and small visual artworks acquired through a
variety of models in which DAC is actively engaged, including major gifting, committee -
directed projects, calls for entries and jurying, on -loan programs with an acquisition
component, interactive projects, contributions to the City s interior collection, and projects
which define a community initiative. DAC maintains that public art should inspire an
emotional response, provoke questions, and invite interaction while encouraging ingenuity
and creative discovery by artists. The collection of public art works distinguishes the Dublin
community and creates a sense of place while contributing to Dublin's aesthetic legacy. The
artist, Brower Hatcher, would like to make certain that Council has a copy of his presentation,
and it has been handed out to Council members this evening. Mr. Hatcher has also prepared
a statement to be delivered to Council on his behalf, and Mr. Guion read it into the record:
"I have no desire to impose anything on the Dublin community. From the text of my
proposal, you can understand that the idea of the work is about the affirmation of
community, originating with the George Karrer barn and blacksmith shop to the
present creation of community at the Entrepreneurial Center and other sites. I believe
that the purpose of public art is to place examples of a creative process in
communities in order to inspire the community to develop original approaches to their
lives and businesses. I believe this approach will lead to the individual's singular and
collective prosperity. I am providing access to a creative approach to problem solving
that I believe will bring about a positive community effect. As I stated in my text, this
is a collaboration between us, you and me, my studio and the community of Dublin,
Ohio. I am open to listening to what the community has to say, and co- creating the
work with them. The work is not about me. I just have the experience to execute it.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 3
It's about you and the Dublin community. It is a reflection of yourselves and the future
of Dublin."
Ms. Salay thanked Mr. Guion for his leadership and help in facilitating public dialogue, for his
presence at meetings, and being available to City Council as they embark on this
Bicentennial piece.
Mr. Gerber expressed agreement with Ms. Salay's sentiments.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher expressed appreciation for Mr. Hatcher's statement read to Council
tonight. Mr. Hatcher gave a very moving presentation with his proposal in February, taking
his audience through the history of the family and the community to help everyone
understand what he envisioned and created on the community's behalf.
Mayor Lecklider invited public comment.
Carl Karrer, 6746 Heatherstone Loop stated that he and his cousins, Carolyn Klein and
Robert Karrer are fourth generation residents of Dublin, and great - grandchildren of George
Michael Karrer, who settled in Dublin in 1854 and purchased the James Wright farm in 1876.
The barn he constructed, which now is located at the corner of High Street and Waterford
Drive was based on plans he brought from Germany. The barn in its pastoral setting is
deemed to be a work of art admired by the community. It is probably the most painted and
photographed structure in the Historic District. In 2005, he offered to sell the barn and the
acre of land on which it sits to the City for the purpose of preserving the unspoiled image of
the 19'" century farm setting, which was a significant part of life in Dublin for 100 years. He
wrote deed restrictions with the intent of preserving that image for the surrounding
neighborhood long after he is gone. Dublin has invested in a strong effort to maintain the
Historic District, and has an acclaimed program for Art in Public Places. However, the two
programs have conflicting rules for historic sites. Some want to enhance a beautiful location
with art, but the Art in Public Places existing rules call for creative modern art that contrasts
significantly with the concept of non - intrusive, commemorative art. Gardeners recognize that
a beautiful plant in the wrong place is called a weed. In this case, the barn is widely
proclaimed to be the art, and Resolution 16 -10 is deemed to be producing a beautiful weed.
He noted that he appreciates the process that has been established by the City and has tried
to work with the City and the staff of DAC to modify the process to allow this to evolve into
something satisfactory to both the art community and the residents. However, as of
Thursday evening, it was agreed that this would probably limit the artist or intrude on artistic
freedom. He urged Council to defeat this resolution and help set the stage for a "do over'
with revised criteria suitable to the parties on both sides.
Mr. Gomez, resident of Waterford Village stated that he believes this piece of artwork is very
nice, but it will be located in the wrong place. There is already a beautiful, historical structure
on the site. He completely agrees with Mr. Karrer's comments.
Jane Fox, 6193 Dublin Road stated that they tried very hard to work with the City and the
Dublin Arts Council. They know and appreciate the work they do for public art. The
controversy and debate that exists is that both sides are fighting for art. There is
contemporary art that they appreciate, and in the right place, it is beautiful. But the residents
and the neighborhood were not included in the original input sessions regarding the
placement, the style, the size, or the color of this artwork. In the Historic District, all those
factors are important to the residents. She asks that Council consider the residents' belief
that they already have a beautiful, natural piece of art on the site. It does exactly what Mr.
Karrer indicated, making you feel like you've stepped back it time. Placing this art in front of it
competes with it and does not enhance it. It may be a beautiful piece of art, but it does not
belong in this location. Dublin has beautiful, rural settings all over the city. This piece of art,
if Council chooses to keep it, would be better located somewhere else. In the 36 hours in
which there has been an opportunity to speak with neighbors, 150 names have been
gathered on a petition. Council has copies of the surveys. If a neighborhood cannot embrace
the artwork, it is not going to be successful. They ask that Council consider their opinions.
Janice Carroll, 190 South High Street stated that her house was pictured in the photo in the
newspaper on Saturday — the white house across the street from this site. They enjoy sitting
on their porch and looking at the beautiful barn and area in front of them. On Saturday, when
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Coun Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 4
they saw the proposed structure for that site, they were struck that this was not what they
want to look at in the future.
David Goldthwaite, 304 Old Spring Court, Waterford Village Civic Association president
stated that he is representing many people, and will share some of the comments that he has
heard. He apologized for a comment he made in an earlier email to the effect that Council
was ignoring the deed restrictions. He does not believe that is the case. A significant
amount of time and effort by City staff and the Dublin Arts Council has already gone into the
project. Nevertheless, this is a very important issue to the residents, and a very important
decision that Council is about to make. He has been asked by the Association to address
several items:
• Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the deed restrictions On the ARB website, it is
stated that the ARB must review and approve all plans to modify any site within the limits
of the Architectural Review District and properties listed on the Ohio Historic inventory.
In a fiduciary deed, it states: "The barn located on the property, "the barn," is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and is historically significant." In Section A, it states:
"Grantee shall, to the extent practical, maintain the barn in a manner consistent with its
historical character, as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places...." In
Section B, it states: "Grantee shall not construct any improvements on the property that
materially and adversely affect the historic character of the barn." Within several
sentences, the statement is made five times. That is the biggest issue for everyone he
has spoken with this past week about the proposal. According to Carl Karrer, the trustee
of Emmet Karrer, the deed was written specifically to prevent something such as this
from occurring.
• The selection process Many have said that the process is flawed. He doesn't
necessarily believe the Dublin Arts Council process for presenting and recommending art
to the City is flawed. The City is fortunate to have the people that are involved with this
process, but art will always be controversial; that is one of the unique and interesting
aspects of it. However, this public art project will be located in the Historic District,
making it unique. The proposal is for a contemporary piece of art that would never be
approved by ARB. He has had personal experience with the ARB review process and
appreciates the strict standards of the District. This art will also be in a neighborhood.
What is being proposed is that a property with an existing piece of art have a second
piece of art placed that competes with the first. That is the consensus of everyone he
has spoken with.
• Reconsideration is needed for this matter. A petition was circulated this weekend,
although he did not participate. They gathered 140 signatures of residents indicating they
are vehemently opposed to this piece of art.
• After speaking with Vice Mayor Salay, he felt it was appropriate to send out a survey to
as many as he could, with four options, including one of approving the proposal as is.
Responses came from Waterford and many other neighborhoods throughout the City.
The e -mails continue to come in.
• He summarized that the individuals who support this project moving forward are less than
three percent of the total responses. Eighty percent voted for option 4, which is to add no
art whatsoever to this property.
• He appreciates the comments of the artist, Brower Hatcher. However, the problem is that
the contract as drafted gives the City no authority to change the aesthetic features of the
art work. The artist has complete control over this and will likely not want his work
altered, based on input from residents.
On behalf of those he represents, he recommends that Council not approve this
resolution. He asked if Council wants copies of the petition and surveys.
Mayor Lecklider requested that he provide the copies to the Clerk.
Vice Mayor Salay inquired how many homes are in Waterford Village.
Mr. Goldthwaite responded that there are approximately 240 homes.
Herb Ligocki, 181 South High Street stated that his residence is just north of the site in
question. He and his wife love the historic nature of this site and are vehemently opposed to
the proposed placement of this of artwork on the property.
Mike Harris, 6199 Dublin Road stated that his property is next to the barn parcel. It has been
a pleasure working with Carl Karrer over the years in negotiating the purchase of the house
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 5
and the lot split. The purpose of the mutually agreed -upon deed restrictions in place was to
preserve the historic value of the barn itself within that open space for enjoyment and
preservation. He concurs with everyone's comments. They have spoken with many
throughout the neighborhood and the comments are the same — that the artist is wonderful,
but this is not the right site for the artwork that has been selected.
Denise Franz King, 170 South Riverview Street stated she speaks tonight as a resident, but
also serves as Council's Architectural Review Board representative of the Historic District
residents. It is a pleasure to live in a city that has so much support from Council for the Art in
Public Places Program. She has been a long -time supporter of the program as well, but she
believes that the very best thing that Council can do for the long -term health and success of
the Program is to take a courageous step back and decide not to pursue an Art in Public
Places project at the Karrer Barn site. It is only a question of the site; it is not about selecting
art. She does not believe ARB should be involved in selecting art, but she does believe that
they should have criteria that provide guidance in these situations. If someone purchased a
property in the District and decided to install an art project on their front lawn, there should be
guidelines to address such a situation. Although such an installation would be a private
piece, it does raise the question to all those who adhere to the strict guidelines of the Historic
District of how a private request would be handled. She requested that Council vote not to
proceed with this project.
Naomi Hoyt, 6033 Holvwell Drive stated that she is a Council- appointed representative on
the Board of the Dublin Arts Council. She supports the project, but she is not present to
encourage a vote one way or the other. Shortly after she moved to Dublin, she became
aware of the Art in Public Places Projects and became very involved in the program during
her service on the Arts Council Board. Dublin's Art in Public Places installations have
generated interest in art for her children. They have taken note of the public art installations,
especially in the trees in Coffman Park. This interest has spurred dialogue in her family
about art in general and creates the opportunity for more dialogue about why a City has
public art. It is important in this case to consider the assets of the site and how many people
would have an opportunity to visit the site and enter into dialogue about the public art housed
there.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he has never read such a brilliant and
comprehensive legal contract between an artist and a community as this contract. He sees
that as a healthy symptom. He cannot speak for this artist. If he were this artist, he would
have paid for his trip to come to Dublin and talk with the neighbors. He would be marvelously
challenged and it would be an exciting visit. He does see other issues in the contract. One
is the sentence that states the artist "must not demonstrate any discrimination." That is
exceedingly tricky and there is potential for interpretation of something as discriminatory
when it is not. Another undermining statement is near the end of the document where it
states that the City has the right, after it has the object, to relocate or destroy it. This could
be very dangerous. However, the healthy characteristics of the document are preeminent.
He believes a conversation needs to occur between the artist and the people who are
dubious about the artwork. If he were the artist, he would come to Dublin quickly for this
conversation.
There were no further citizen comments.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates everyone's comments and made brief remarks,
reflecting his viewpoint and the timeline of what has transpired:
• Changes to one's physical environment are likely to cause apprehension, and that is
certainly understandable. Over the years, there have been many changes in Dublin,
and it is a matter of perception regarding whether a particular change is viewed as
positive or negative.
• In his observation, this process has been open and transparent, which, of course, is
Dublin's custom. In a public meeting on July 1, 2009, Council considered the option
of advancing the Dublin Arts Council (DAC)'s 2011 $75,000 funding for public art,
which funding is derived from Dublin's hotel -motel tax. However, the site selection for
the artwork and the selection of the specific art piece were deferred to the Arts
Council, as typically is the case.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Du blin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 6
• In a Council public meeting on August 3, 2009, Mr. Guion provided a detailed
explanation of the criteria utilized in selecting the site, the Kamer barn site. On
November 16, 2009, the question of whether the Architectural Review Board would
review the proposal was considered by City Council. Certain interested residents
appeared and expressed their opinion that the ARB should review the proposal.
Again, there was a fairly exhaustive discussion of the matter.
• It is also his understanding that earlier in the fall of 2009, the DAC attempted to
contact the Waterford Village Homeowners Association via both telephone and email.
• In November of 2009, 280 letters were sent to surrounding residents soliciting input.
As a result of this solicitation, he understands that two individuals provided
videotaped comments and less than 10 people responded with written comments.
• Dublin's efforts to collect community input are, in his opinion, second to none and are
evidenced in many past and current issues being considered by Council. These
include neighborhood meetings on park planning, pleas to save street trees,
expanding the Sunday hours at the DCRC, the Bridge Street Corridor study, installing
curb and gutter on South Riverview at the neighborhood's request, and addressing
parking concerns in Historic Dublin —just to name a few.
• The City's role in the process concerning public art will be reviewed in the same
manner as is done with all City processes. Examples abound regarding Dublin's
commitment to continuous improvement.
• To clarify some misconceptions, the $150,000 funding for this project comes from the
City's hotel -motel tax revenues generated by those who stay in Dublin hotels and not
from income or property tax revenues.
• The Karrer barn site in question was not donated to the City; the City paid $150,000
for this one acre. Had the City not purchased the property, it's possible it could have
been sold for development with no guarantee that the barn would survive.
• With respect to ARB and whether it should have had some role in this process, no
other public art installation, of which there are many in Dublin has undergone review
and approval by a board or commission with the exception of Watch House." In that
case, the Planning and Zoning Commission's pro forma review came only after the
selection of the art and artist, and only for the purpose of maintaining a current final
development plan for the Coffman Park planned unit district. With all due respect, the
members of the ARB are not appointed based on their ability to judge public art. The
DAC selection committee included exceptionally qualified individuals with expertise in
public art, and also included a member of the Dublin Historical Society.
• The DAC site selection committee took into consideration many of the criteria that the
ARB typically does, as was discussed in detail at Council's August 3, 2009 public
meeting. At the February 4, 2010 public presentations by the three finalists in the Rec
Center's Abbey Theater, it was clear that each of the artists took to heart the
comments regarding the sensitivity to the site and its historical significance. It clearly
was explained that the comment cards submitted that evening were not intended to
determine a winner. There would have been objection from those unable to attend if
that had been the case. Consistent with DAC's explanation at City Council's public
meeting on August 3, 2009, community input was to be given a weighted percentage
in the selection process.
• Council is sensitive to and takes great pride in every corner of this City. Each Council
member is a homeowner and unquestionably concerned with property values. For
those who have predicted a decline in property values as a result of the installation of
this public art and the suggestion that Council is callous in this regard, he would ask
that consideration be given to the extent to which Council's spending of millions of
dollars in this roughly one square mile area in the last several years may have
enhanced the neighborhood's property values. There arguably is no other area that
has consumed as much of Council's time and attention as the Historic District.
• With respect to the deed restrictions on this site, due to threatened litigation, Council
will not comment except to state that the City's legal counsel has advised that this
project does not violate those restrictions.
• In regard to the footprint of this public art, the art will consume less than one percent
of the total site. Staff has confirmed that there is slope from the barn of
approximately seven feet to the site, not the actual South High Street.
• In regard to the emails received, he cannot understand how hyperbole, sarcasm and
exaggeration could be viewed as persuasive tools. It seems counter - productive to
him.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of nuhlin City (blinril Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 7
• As a final comment, residents may disagree with the Council decision but he asked
that they appreciate that it is always Council's intent to act in the best interest of the
40,000 residents of this community.
He noted that he appreciates Council's indulgence with his comments. He invited further
Council member comments.
Mr. Reiner commented:
• It is good to see that art creates emotion and dialogue in the community, and this is a
perfect example. The process was clear and forthright.
• He is not pleased that tonight, and for the last couple of days there has been a big
outpouring of negative email and comments on the proposal. He believes part of the
problem is that the artist attempted, based on the input of the neighbors, to create a
certain style of art. He has created a building that is totally transparent in its design.
It is unfortunate that these artists weren't permitted to create what they thought
should be created for this site.
• Considering Dublin's other public art works, the "Field of Corn" has been listed by
some New York symposiums as one of the greatest pieces of art in the Midwest.
Yet, the art work is very controversial to most of the citizens in Dublin.
• In this case, there was much public input, and the artists tried to sensitively respond
to the neighbors. The City kept the process open to facilitate input. He cannot say
that this is the type of art he personally would prefer in this location, but he can
understand the process, effort and symbology the artist pursued. He can also
understand the process that DAC followed to bring this artist to Dublin.
• It troubles him that the neighbors do not embrace this art piece. Council is trying to
elevate the City and has had a good track record in regard to doing exceptional
things. However, everything that is done results in some controversy. Does this art
piece really deface this site or detract from the Karrer barn? He does not believe it
does. He loves the barn and the park. In the end, he believes there will be an
appreciation for this effort.
• Everyone has made some sacrifices to be in this city and to accept things that may
not reflect their personal preferences. This piece of art is not so intrusive that it will
damage property values. He believes it can be considered an amenity.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated:
• At the outset, there were a variety of potential sites for Council to consider with this
Bicentennial art project. Staff presented a variety of sites to the DAC, and ultimately
to Council, that would represent the City's interest in the Bicentennial and the future
celebration of the City. It was actually Council who selected this site, after the review
and recommendation of DAC.
• Six months ago, it was known that this site had been selected, and there have been
opportunities during that time to voice any objections. Council encouraged Mr. Guion
and the art selection committee to make sure the artists were very well educated
about the history of the City.
• The three artist finalists spent an entire day in Dublin becoming familiar with the City
and its Art in Public Places Program. Their presentations at the Abbey Theater
demonstrated their understanding, although each had a unique presentation.
• She also had an opportunity to observe a meeting that Mr. Guion held with many of
the neighbors. During that meeting, the residents expressed various views on the
City's existing public art pieces. That is what public art does — generating individual
responses to it. Previous, existing and future Council members will not all agree on
the selections. The "Field of Corn" is still the most controversial public art initiative of
this city, yet there are many pictures of it throughout the world as a demonstration of
what public art can bring to a community.
• She also believes it is important that the artist's statement read tonight, indicating that
he is willing to work with the community be included in the contract. She cautioned,
however, that the selection committee had very specific criteria which were used to
make their selection; therefore, a wholesale change would not be acceptable. Their
recommendation was based upon what they saw at the artists' presentations, and
that is essentially what will be anticipated as the final product. Only minor changes
should result from the community's dialogue with the artist.
• In addition, she views the community as not being limited to the Waterford residents.
There were only 50 residents in attendance at the previous presentation. The entire
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 8
Dublin community should be encouraged to attend the next presentation and speak
with the artist directly.
Mrs. Boring:
• Asked if the residents who sent the emails sharing their opinions were able to attend
the artists' presentations. Personally, she was out of town and not able to attend.
But when she later viewed the artist's depictions, she did not find them obtrusive. In
the presentation made by the artist, various shades of green were offered, and there
was a darker one that might be consistent with Dublin's green. The technical
information indicates that the structure will be maintenance free.
• Council has made a commitment over the years that they will not make the public art
selections, but has entrusted that responsibility to the Dublin Arts Council
professionals.
• This also demonstrates the City's desire to be on the leading edge in terms of public
art. There is no other city of Dublin's size that is able to do this. Economic
development is attracted to cities with a forward thinking perspective. Dublin's public
art program demonstrates its view for the future.
Mr. Keenan:
• Noted that he moved to Waterford Village in 1978 and therefore has a special insight
into that area and the value of the Karrer barn in terms of the open feeling at the
entry to the Waterford community.
• On the other hand, he is conflicted because he has spent a number of years on the
Dublin Arts Council as a board member, a past president, and as Council's
representative to DAC. He has had much experience with different art projects,
many of which have been contentious. The most recent of those was the "Grounds
of Remembrance" — an anticipated one -year process that required three years to
complete.
• However, because of his experience with the Waterford community -- having built
and lived in two homes in that area -- and his familiarity with the Karrer barn site, he
does not feel compelled to make a quick decision on this. He believes the Art in
Public Places process generally works well, but it does not, in his view, properly
address some of the Historic District issues.
• He also believes that in consideration of the number of residents who are present
tonight and the strong opinions expressed, Council should recommend that DAC and
City staff review the Art in Public Places process with special attention to the Historic
District and in particular the suitability of "interpretive art" versus "representational
art" in the Historic District.
Mr. Gerber:
• Stated that he appreciates fellow Council members' comments. He believes that Mr.
Guion and his staff have done a good job with the Art in Public Places process.
• He believes the City's policy regarding "Art in Public Places" is fine. However, in this
case, there is another policy that hasn't been referenced tonight — that of maintaining
rural characteristics and the Historic District. All the City's ordinances concerning
developing, planning and zoning subscribe to this policy. This policy is important to
Dublin, and is what has made Dublin unique. Not only has it resulted in higher
development standards, but it has created an expectation on the part of Dublin
residents that they will have certain green space, open space and preservation of
their historic characteristics.
• In his view, the latter policy prevails, and he will vote against approval of the contract.
Vice Mayor Salay:
• Stated that she agrees with Mr. Maurer and hopes the artist takes the opportunity to
return to Dublin. She is surprised at the Waterford Village residents' objection to the
art work, in view of the open process that was used and the fact that in either
November or December, many of the neighborhood residents were invited by
personal letter to come and provide input on the proposed art project. Very few
availed themselves of that opportunity.
• She was interested in the comments provided by the citizens who emailed Council.
She received a number of phone calls both against and in favor. What she noted was
that there was passion reflected in every email and phone call. There is engagement,
discussion, debate and community involvement. As a resident activist in her early
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of D ublin City Counc Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 9
political career, she appreciates seeing Council Chambers full of people who care
about their community.
• She has received the negative feedback, but she has also received comments from
residents of Waterford Village and the Historic District who support this artwork.
• She appreciates that Mr. Hatcher took the time to provide Council with his statement.
She is surprised that a former Council Member, who served on Council when the
Field of Corn was approved, advises against approving this art work.
• She does not believe this art work will devalue this site, but rather will enhance it.
The fact that the artwork will occupy less than one percent of the total site is in line
with her expectations when Council voted to place the Bicentennial art work on this
site.
• She realizes that her decision will be difficult for some to accept, some of whom have
been her friends and steadfast supporters during her eight years on Council. She
has done her best to represent their interests well. Politically and professionally, she
realizes what is at stake here. She asks that they trust her decision to support this
contract.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates the residents' attendance and comments
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if a statement could be added to the proposed contract
reflecting the artist's commitment to return to the City to work on the development of the final
product with the community.
Ms. Readler responded that the contract can be modified accordingly. The only issue is with
who would pay the expenses for the artist's trips. Currently, the contract provides for the
artist to return to the community only for the installation.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to revise the proposed contract to require the artist to return to
the City for the additional visit to fulfill the statement in his letter, as read into the record by
Mr. Guion, and that the City of Dublin pay the expenses for that trip.
Vice Mayor Salay seconded the motion.
Mrs. Boring asked if it also would be advisable to clarify that there would be no wholesale
changes in the proposed art piece as a result of this community meeting.
Ms. Readler responded that the wording can be clarified to that effect.
Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher amended her motion to accept that change.
Vice Mayor Salay accepted the amendment.
Vote on the motion Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, no; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
Vote on the Resolution Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber,
no; Mr. Keenan, no; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
Ms. Ott noted that staff would provide an update regarding the dates when Mr. Hatcher will
be available for the visit.
POSTPONED ITEM
Resolution 13 -10 (Amended)
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Cooperative Design and Right -of -Way
Acquisition Agreement with the City of Columbus for the Improvement of Emerald
Parkway between Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and Rings Road.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that this resolution was introduced at the February 8`" Council
meeting and postponed. Staff learned on February 8"' that the City of Columbus wanted to
perform their own right -of -way acquisition for this widening of Emerald Parkway. The
requested modification has been made to the proposed agreement to delete the sections
referencing the right -of -way acquisition. The original intent was that the City of Dublin would
take the lead on all the right -of -way acquisition for the entire project. The modified language
provides for the City of Columbus to be responsible for the land acquisition within their
jurisdiction and for the City of Dublin to be responsible for the acquisition within its
jurisdiction. Any land acquisition efforts on the Columbus portion that have taken place to
date or costs incurred to date for this portion by the City of Dublin will be reimbursed by the
City of Columbus. In terms of design, the City of Dublin has always taken the lead on the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010
Page 10
design for this project, which is now more than 95 percent complete. Dublin will be
reimbursed for those costs, as outlined in the agreement. Staff recommends approval.
Vice Mayor Salay asked why the City of Columbus has requested this change.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes, based on their meeting, the Columbus Legal
staff now has more rapacity to take on this work; previously, they did not have that capacity.
Mrs. Boring inquired about the maximum amount. The memo indicates $650,000, but the
redlined version indicates $350,000.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that $650,000 was the original amount for both the design and
a share of the acquisition costs. That number has not changed, however, the expectation
now is that the actual cost will not exceed $350,000.
Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be possible to ensure that the acquisition occurs within the
seven month timeframe indicated.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the driving force will be the Ohio Public Works
Commission Grant, and the fact that the grant requires that construction be initiated in March
2011. The City of Columbus has made a commitment to complete the acquisition within
seven months; therefore, a timeframe of the "end of the year" has been designated for
completion of acquisition.
Mr. Keenan referred to paragraph two of page one of staffs memo, which indicates: "As a
result of this change in direction by the City of Columbus, several sections of the Agreement
required modification to remove any and all references to Dublin leading all property
acquisition for this project." If Dublin led the property acquisition in the original contract and
then went to court in an eminent domain action, would this be Dublin's case to handle?
Ms. Readier responded that Dublin was going to lead and would therefore have been
reimbursed.
Mr. Keenan inquired whether, in this case, each respective party would be responsible for
eminent domain actions resulting from property takes within its own jurisdiction.
Ms. Readier confirmed that is correct.
Mr. Keenan asked if each party would have the right to initiate a "quick take" and proceed
with the project.
Ms. Readier responded affirmatively.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the dates are critical. The Ohio Public Works Commission
grant may help ensure the project stays on schedule. She assumes that Dublin and
Columbus will have regular meetings to communicate the status of land acquisitions in their
respective jurisdictions.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that there will be regular meetings, which will be an incentive to
stay "on task."
Vote on Resolution 13- 10(Amended): Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes;
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES
Ordinance 07 -10
Rezoning Approximately 15.69 Acres Located on the Southeast Corner of the
Intersection of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road within Perimeter Center from
PCD, Planned Commerce District (Subareas J and D) and PUD, Planned Unit
Development District (Subarea J -1) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (MAG,
Midwestern Auto Group, Volvo Expansion — Case 09- 108Z1PDP)
Ms. Husak reviewed the major points of the application, which will provide improvements to
the site for a substantial building addition to MAG (Midwestern Auto Group) to accommodate
the Volvo expansion. The building expansion will be 46,000 square feet. To the north of the
building expansion will be a carwash exterior to the site. With this expansion, an "end piece"
will be added to the campus, finishing off the building with the same architectural materials
and elements as that of the existing building.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on January 21, 2010 with
eight conditions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes o f Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 11
At the first reading, Council raised questions about the landscaping. MAG is well -known for
its vehicle displays arranged within finger -like pavement areas. As the memo indicates, the
City's landscape inspector completed an inspection when this application was filed in
November 2009. The development as it exists meets the originally approved plan from the
late 1990s with the display areas being landscaped up to one foot, as permitted by Code.
The only exception that was made as per the approved development plan is the extent or
length of the display area, which is 40 percent of the site. Dublin's Code permits 25 percent
display on a site. This 40 percent was included in the original development plan approved in
the late 1990s.
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 07 -10 at this time. The applicant is present to
respond to questions.
Mayor Lecklider stated that the updated staff report includes an additional condition
recommended, based upon Council's comments at the last meeting. The additional
condition mentioned is that the applicant restripe the display areas in accordance with the
approved site plan and display vehicles only in designated spaces.
Ms. Husak responded that staff believed this was an issue when they made a site visit, but
the condition should not have been included. The issue resulted from the snow cover of the
lot on the date of the site visit. Further investigation has confirmed that vehicles are parked
and displayed appropriately.
Mr. Gerber clarified for the record that this additional condition was not in response to any
comments of Council. Council discussed landscaping issues, not parking issues, at the last
meeting.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that there was extensive discussion about whether the City's
expectations for the original landscaping of the display areas had been met. At the last
meeting, there was disagreement between staff and Council about that issue. Staff indicates
that the applicant had met the minimum requirement, but Council's issue is that was not the
intent with the original approval. Mrs. Boring argues that the text demonstrates that there
was an expectation that was different than the landscaping that has been provided.
Mrs. Boring noted that is reflected on page 7 of the April 10, 1997 minutes, in the architect's
comments. "The parking lot at its lowest point is at a 911 -foot elevation. The fingers have
landscaping to break up large masses of parking, and they are elevated toward the highest
points at the tips ..... three foot landscaping will screen most of the cars." The intent was
clearly reflected in the minutes.
Ms. Husak responded that what the landscape plan depicted is also shown on the current
plan. Staff asked the applicant to take a thorough inventory of the landscaping that exists on
the site and reflect that on this site plan. It is depicted on "Overall Landscape Plan — sheet
OP -1."
Mrs. Boring stated that this page reflects the current landscape as it exists.
Ms. Husak responded that is, however, exactly as it was in the 1997 landscape plan. At the
very tip of it is the car display landscaping, which is allowed to be one -foot in height. When
that curves around, it meets with shrubbery of 3 -1/2 feet in height that would be required for
the vehicular use area screening. It is only the tip of each of the rounded "finger' display
areas that has the relief of one -foot in height plant material.
Mrs. Boring inquired if three -foot plant material currently exists on the sides; it has not
previously.
Ms. Husak confirmed that it currently exists on the site.
Mr. Reiner stated that at the last meeting, staff indicated that the applicant had met the
landscape specifications.
Ms. Husak responded that they have done so, and that is reflected in their development text,
as well.
Mr. Reiner responded that it is then a moot issue.
Ms. Husak responded that staff's assumption is that what was discussed in the meeting in
1997 reflected the speaker's assumption. The speaker's assumption was different than what
was in their plan, which was approved at that time. What exists on the site today does meet
their plan requirements.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 12
Mrs. Boring referred to page 9 of the 1997 minutes, in the discussion about 25 percent road
frontage, which the City requires for all car dealers. She cannot find that portion of the text in
the Perimeter Center development text that is crossed out.
Ms. Husak responded that is the issue with the way the text was written and the reason staff
asked the applicant not to continue with that text. The text was written to state, "landscaping
to Code, unless otherwise approved by the Final Development Plan." This landscaping and
the relief on the landscaping, 40 percent of their frontage, is something that was in their Plan,
but not their text.
Mrs. Boring stated that she has been told many times previously that the text overrides the
Plan.
Ms. Husak stated that the 1997 approved text states "unless approved on the Plan," so the
text provides for that.
Mrs. Boring inquired the location of the language concerning the relief in the display areas.
Her concern is that other car dealers will now ask for 40 percent, for instance, along Sawmill
Road. How will that appear compared to the Code requirement for 25 percent?
Ms. Husak responded that the method for the car dealerships on Sawmill Road to obtain
permission to do so is by securing a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, since they
are all in a standard zoning district. In part two of the packet, which begins with the
Perimeter Center development text, page 64 is to be deleted from the existing MAG text.
The top of that page reads, "All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape
Code unless a deviation is specifically approved as part of the Final Development Plan."
Mrs. Boring asked if staff is indicating that when road frontage is used for vehicle display, it is
the same as landscaping plans?
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Mrs. Boring stated that the text does not mention landscaping. It indicates that 25 percent
frontage of the road will be used for automobile display. She does not accept that as a
landscaping plan.
Ms. Husak responded that the relief in the Zoning Code for the 25 percent is in the
Landscape Code, and the relief is landscaping.
Mrs. Boring stated that she cannot equate this to landscaping.
Aaron Underhill. Smith & Hall. 37 W. Broad Street representing the applicant, stated that
architects John Oney and Brad Perish, and Tim Galli, MAG, are present to respond to
questions.
Mrs. Boring stated that she would like to clarify her concerns. The development plan is great
in terms of the building expansion and add -on. However, the City has had issues with
vehicle displays over many years. Staff indicates any variance from the Code must be
approved by BZA, and that is the concern. When the City grants one car dealership relief, it
is very difficult not to grant another car dealership the same opportunity to display his
merchandise. It is a sense of fairness, and if she were serving on BZA, she would be
compelled to grant a variance on that basis. Therefore, unless the percentage is revised to
25 percent -- the intent of the original plan -- she will not be able to support this rezoning.
Approving this would have a future negative impact on the SR 161 /Sawmill Road corridor.
Mayor Lecklider indicated that Council is prepared to vote at this time.
Mr. Gerber raised a point of order. Is it staffs recommendation to add a ninth condition as
outlined in the staff report?
Ms. Husak responded that is an error; that language should not have been included in the
memo. There are only eight conditions — those appended by the Planning & Zoning
Commission, which are recommended to Council for this rezoning.
Vote on the Ordinance Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Ordinance 08 -10
Rezoning Approximately 0.67 Acres Located on the Northeast Corner of the
Intersection of North High Street and North Street within Historic Dublin from CB,
Central Business District to HB, Historic Business District. (Oscar's — Case 09 -109Z)
Mayor Lecklider stated that staffs memo indicates a request to postpone this hearing.
Ms. Readler stated that Legal staff is working on the issue of valet parking raised by Council
at the first reading. They are continuing to work on a solution with the applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin-City—Council
February 22, 2010 Page 13
Vice Mayor Salay moved to postpone Ordinance 08 -10 to the March 22, 2010 meeting.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber,
yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Ordinance 09 -10
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation to
Acquire a 0.136 Acres, More or Less, Utilities Easement from Dublin United, LLC.
Mr. Hammersmith that as indicated at the first reading, this is the final easement needed for
the improvement of Emerald Parkway to serve Cardinal Health and Verizon. The need for
this easement was discovered through the design of the project, and it is necessary to
memorialize this utility easement along the frontage of the first Verizon building.
Vote on the Ordinance Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Ordinance 10 -10
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Perio, Inc. to Induce the Expansion
of its Headquarters, Operations and Workforce within the City, and Authorizing the
Execution of an Economic Development Agreement.
Mr. McDaniel stated that there is no additional information to report.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 11 -10
Adopting and Enacting a Supplement (S -27) to the Code of Ordinances for the City of
Dublin.
Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Readler stated that this is the biannual update of the City's codified ordinances.
Mr. Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring,
yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Ordinance 12 -10
Amending Section 52.03 ( "Water Wells ") of the Codified Ordinances of the City of
Dublin, Ohio.
Vice Mayor Salay introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that this legislation is provided to update Section 52.03 of the City's
Code in regard to the geothermal heating systems. Previously, the City's Code has not
adequately addressed that use of ground water. This past year, Dublin had one commercial
installation and five or six residential installations; more are expected in the future. This also
allows the City to re- evaluate the $20 permit fee and make that update part of the City's
annual cost of services study. More staff time is required to review these permits than a
typical groundwater installation permit. Irrigation wells are excluded from the requirement for
a permit. Those are better regulated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which
maintains well logs and information on those installations.
Mayor Lecklider inquired if the activity last year was the impetus for this amendment.
Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Salay inquired if these systems are for new builds or can they be retrofitted into
existing homes.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that, to date, the applications have been for new homes, but
they could be retrofits to existing homes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City o nc l Meetin
February 22, 2010 Page 14
Vice Mayor Salay inquired if excavation on the property is necessary.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is similar to drilling a well. It involves two drills — one to
remove the water; the second to inject the water back into the ground.
Mr. Keenan referred to the last sentence on page one of Exhibit A, which states: "Water
shall not be returned to an aquifer or portion of an aquifer containing water of a higher
quality." How is that known? Is it tested?
Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that it is tested.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the City does that as part of the permit process.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is part of the permit process and the owner would be
asked to demonstrate that.
Mr. Keenan noted that the City would not want contaminated water entering its water supply,
but what happens three to five years out? Is that periodically reviewed, or is it assumed that
if done correctly at the outset, it will be effective?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City does not have a process for monitoring it on a
continual basis. Most of these are closed -loop systems, so there is no reason to do anything
in particular to the water.
Mr. Keenan referred to Section A -2, which states: "The applicant shall provide the
municipality or their client, as appropriate, with a bond, irrevocable letter of credit" — basically
guaranteeing the obligation of the warranty. How does the City know who the obligee is? Is
it the municipality or a client?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that, typically, it is the client. The wording is used to cover the
case in which a client is not identified and if someone who wanted to do it individually.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the county is typically responsible for the inspection of wells.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the county Health Department is normally responsible for
residential, and the EPA is responsible for commercial. The Ohio Department of Natural
Resources maintains well logs and requires well drillers to submit well logs to them on any
groundwater well drilled.
Mayor Lecklider inquired if the Department of Health requires a periodic declaration that the
owner is abiding by the rules.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes they do this for domestic wells, where the
water is used for drinking water. That would not be the case with the geothermal wells.
Mayor Lecklider asked, in light of Mr. Keenan's questions, if this is something the City should
request the Department of Health to consider in terms of monitoring.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff could check into their interest in monitoring the water
quality.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the March 8 Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 15 -10
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Memorandums of Understanding with the
Franklin County Board of Elections for Use of Municipal Property in the Administration
of Public Elections.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Ms. Ott stated that this is housekeeping legislation related to the City's agreement with
Franklin County for the use of City Hall and the Dublin Community Center for polling
locations for local, state and national elections.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the City is paid for janitorial services provided during that time.
Ms. Ott responded that the City typically has not charged for those services, but could opt to
do so. The costs are minimal.
Vote on the Resolution Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
Resolution 17 -10
Declaring Certain City -Owned Property as Surplus and Authorizing the City Manager
to Dispose of said Property in Accordance with Section 37.08 of The Dublin Codified
Ordinances.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 15
Mr. Thurman stated that City Code requires Council approval for disposal of all vehicles and
any other assets valued at $5,000 or more. This resolution authorizes the City Manager to
dispose of four 2007 and sixteen 2008 John Deere Zero Turn Mowers, six Police vehicles
and a 1995 Chevy 14' "box van." This van has been taken out of service, and Fleet staff
recommends disposal of the vehicle.
There were no questions.
Vote on the Resolution Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan,
yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
STAFF COMMENTS
Recommendation re. Request for Proposals for Magistrate Services
Ms. Crandall stated that a brief overview was provided in Council packet of two items that
Council has requested: a draft Request for Proposal for magistrate services and several
draft communication pieces regarding this topic. The documents include a recommendation
about the selection process and a proposed timeframe.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the proposed contract provides for payment for time
actually served as Magistrate versus a contract that pays one for being available to serve,
even if the services are not used or needed. Is this typical?
Ms. Reader responded that is typical in the contracts their office has been involved with.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has concerns about the following language proposed
for a press release: "Having one primary individual hear all court cases also helps
communities establish more consistency in decision- making and promotes objectivity."
There is nothing that suggests that this would be the only method that has resulted in "more
consistency in decision - making and promotes objectivity." Further, the next sentence states:
"The magistrate also helps ensure consistency for incidences that occur in all three counties
in which the City of Dublin's boundaries extend." How is that different from the previous
model? The clients are not going to court in the other counties; they are all coming to the
same Dublin court.
Ms. Crandall responded that staff was trying to convey that instead of having several people
hear cases, there would be one primary individual covering the majority of the court sessions
and that would provide some consistency in decision - making. The second statement about
the three counties should be eliminated.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the reason this information was provided in Council's packet was to
secure their feedback on this information. If there are changes needed, they can be
addressed.
Mr. Gerber inquired how many magistrates the City currently has contracted.
Ms. Crandall responded that the City currently has two back -up magistrates.
Mr. Gerber stated that the practice seems to have worked well. It was not his understanding
that the intent was to select one individual as a primary magistrate.
Ms. Crandall responded that she understands that the intent was to select a primary
magistrate and two back -up magistrates.
Mr. Gerber asked who will make that selection.
Ms. Crandall responded that staff recommends that the Administrative Committee of Council
review the proposals and interview selected candidates. By City Charter, it is the Mayor who
has the authority to appoint the magistrate, at his /her discretion and with the approval of
Council. Council may choose to modify the proposed process.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if this individual is typically a resident of the community.
Ms. Readler responded that different municipalities handle this in various manners. The
magistrate doesn't necessarily have to be a resident.
Vice Mayor Salay asked Legal staffs opinion about which model works better.
Ms. Readier responded that all the applicants would be trained as lawyers and so would be
accustomed to exercising their authority objectively. They should not be influenced in any
manner by being a resident. The advantage in having a resident as a magistrate is that they
would live close and may be more available for prisoner hearings and other matters.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the advantage for a preference point being given to a
qualified community resident candidate is that they do have better knowledge of the streets
and the issues related to the transportation system in the community. Based on her
experience, those issues comprise nearly all of the cases heard in Mayor's Court.
Vice Mayor Salay and Mr. Gerber noted that is a good point.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetine
February 22, 2010 Page 16
Mrs. Boring asked if staff would prepare a revised press release for Council's review.
Ms. Crandall responded that staff will re -draft the press release and send it to Council.
Mayor Lecklider stated that in considering this transition, Council is interested in ensuring
that the primary magistrate selected would have an appreciation for Dublin sensibilities —
which are somewhat hard to define. An example would be the City's special sensitivity to the
issue of speeding within school zones. There are things unique to Dublin that the magistrate
should have an appreciation for. With respect to using a primary magistrate, he believes that
a process that most closely proximates the model that which has been utilized -- having a
Mayor preside over Mayor's Court and employing a back -up magistrate -- is preferred. While
any Council Member can attend any Council committee meeting, he is hopeful that the
Administrative Committee will not object to his close involvement in this matter, given the
circumstances and his role.
Vice Mayor Salay responded that he would be invited to all discussions.
Mayor Lecklider also recommended that the Committee consult with Lisa Wilson, Court
Services Administrator, the Law Director, and the Prosecutor to obtain their input.
Mr. Gerber agreed. He noted that his preference for a magistrate would be someone who is
familiar with the Dublin community. This is very important.
Mayor Lecklider asked what the next step would be in this process.
Ms. Crandall responded that this RPP would be advertised as early as the end of this week.
It would be a matter for the Administrative Committee to determine the timeline for the
process of review and interviews.
Brief discussion followed.
Mayor Lecklider moved to proceed with staffs recommendation to advertise and interview for
selection of a primary magistrate and secondary magistrates to oversee Mayor's Court and
to use the request for proposal process and timeline as identified in the staff memo.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
Elevated Water Storage Tank Update — Muirfield Village
Mr. Hammersmith stated that Council's packet included a notification that was made to area
residents regarding a proposed 500,000 - gallon elevated water storage tank. The preferred
site alternative is located along the west side of the Scioto River and south of the Bogey Inn.
Staff developed a communications plan to work interactively with the Muirfield Village
residents to establish a suitable location for the tank within the preferred site alternative. Staff
held a public information meeting on Wednesday, January 27` 2010 regarding this proposed
site, and anticipates scheduling a second public information meeting to be conducted prior to
April 15, 2010. Staff's communications plan will include the notification methodology listed in
the staff memo. Following the second public information meeting, staff will take questions
from residents and interested citizens. The responses will be compiled and provided to
Council, together with information on the three different locations at the current site. The
current site identified is the Muirfield Village Golf Club property located east of Dublin Road
and south of the Bogey Inn, west of the Scioto River.
Mrs. Boring stated that there are others not living in Muirfield who actually live closer to the
proposed site, including Kerry Glen and The Reserve.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the intent is to provide notification to the other
neighborhood civic associations as well and ask them to notify their residents of the public
information meeting. For neighborhoods without a civic association, a postcard notification
of the meeting will be mailed to residents.
Mr. Keenan asked how much land is needed for this project.
Mr. Hammersmith responded it depends on the configuration of the property. The footprint
for the water tower will be roughly an acre, but more land may be required for the driveway
access.
Ms. Grigsby stated that preliminary cost estimates for the land and preliminary design work
were formulated. Staff has also completed preliminary review work to determine which sites
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
will work best.
February 22, 2010 Page 17
Mr. Hammersmith stated that notice of the second public meeting will be forwarded to
Council when that date is determined.
Mayor Lecklider asked staff to provide an example of a 500,000 gallon water tower.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that Tartan Ridge tank is a good example. The newest water
tank near Glacier Ridge Elementary is identical in configuration.
Mr. Keenan asked for the size of the water tower, which houses the fire station.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the Blazer tank capacity is two million gallons. He noted
that the tank near Glacier Ridge Elementary is 125 feet in height. The new tank will be
approximately 209 feet tall because of the ground elevation. The height at the top of the
water tank is fixed, so if the ground is low where the water tower is to be constructed, the
tower itself must be higher.
Mrs. Boring noted that she recalls that the City launched a balloon to illustrate the height of
the Blazer Parkway tower. Could the City do so for this tank?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that option was discussed at the January 27'" meeting with the
residents. It would give a better visual of the height and staff is willing to do so.
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Foegler stated Council was previously notified that staff would travel to Washington, D.C.
to meet with the federal delegation regarding the funding being sought for the U.S. 33/1 -270
Interchange. That meeting will occur on Wednesday, February 24 Staff has also had
meetings with the State delegation on potential items to be considered for funding in the
State capital budget. A railroad quiet zone had initially been explored with the thought that
the intergovernmental nature and uniqueness of that project would be attractive. However,
that project will likely not be ready to be considered for this process. It may be desirable to
obtain Council's input on some additional projects. An email update will be provided to
Council.
Mr. Foegler reminded Council that the State of the City is scheduled at 5:30 p.m. on Monday,
March 8, preceding the 7:30 p.m. Council meeting. The reception is at 5:30 pm; the
presentation begins at 6:15 p.m. Council has adjusted the start time of their meeting to
accommodate this.
OTHER
Motion to Approve Deputy Clerk of Council as Acting Clerk of Council
Mr. Reiner moved to appoint Ms. Judy Beal as Acting Clerk of Council in the absence of Ms.
Clarke from February 23 through March 5.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Finance Committee
Mr. Gerber stated that he spoke to Ms. Grigsby who indicates that the first quarter financial
information will be available for Committee review by the first week of April.
Following brief discussion, a Finance Committee of the Whole meeting was scheduled for
6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 12, preceding the 7 p.m. Council meeting.
• Public Services Committee
Mrs. Boring stated that a topic was previously referred to the Public Services Committee for
review, and she recommends it now be withdrawn. That topic was "to invite central
committee representatives of the political parties to meet regarding the need to refrain from
involvement in future Dublin City Council elections."
Mrs. Boring moved to remove the topic from the Public Services Committee list of pending
items.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin Ci Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 18
Mr. Reiner stated that he has spoken with the political party representatives and the topic
ventures into a Constitutional rights area, a subject on which Council cannot impose
restrictions. He concurs with removal of this topic from their list.
Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
• Administrative Committee
Vice Mayor Salay noted:
1. She has requested that the Clerk forward a list of previous applicants for Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commission. There were a total of three applicants in the past two
years. There are two PRAC appointments to be made this spring as well as a Personnel
Board of Review appointment. Ms. Clarke could advertise those openings, and Council
could then schedule a date to conduct interviews. Those interviews could probably be
accomplished in one evening and appointments made at the first April Council meeting.
2. She will meet with Mr. Foegler on March 2n to discuss Council goal- setting. If Council
members have suggestions regarding goal- setting, she asked that they provide this input
to her. Mr. Gerber has shared a suggestion for a potential facilitator, and Mr. Foegler has
a recommendation as well.
Mayor Lecklider asked if a tentative date had been identified for goal- setting. Perhaps that
cannot occur until the facilitator is selected.
Mr. Foegler responded that he has the available dates for the facilitator he is recommending,
and could share that in the discussion with Vice Mayor Salay.
3. In regard to Council's group decision to read the book, "Good to Great," a Council
member has suggested that members annotate in the margins of the book what it means
to them to be a great community, what the next level looks like, and any thoughts relative
to Council's recent discussion. The objective would be to develop some common themes
for Council goal- setting discussion.
COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Gerber stated that:
1. He was very pleased to see the application to the Ohio Housing Finance Agency
regarding the Avondale Woods of Dublin site. He has shared with Ms. Grigsby that
Senator Jim Hughes has indicated an interest in assisting with this application in any way
possible.
Ms. Grigsby stated that after his phone call, she contacted Jim Baugh with National Church
Residences and provided Senator Hughes' contact information.
2. In regard to the Grounds of Remembrance update, he does not see a reference to one
item. Previously, there was a suggestion to better define the lettering on the entry sign
with black paint or some other means.
Mr. Hahn responded that before the design is altered, staff prefers to exhaust all other
methods to improve the readability. Spotlights have been located and focused on that entry
wall. There is reason to believe that the desired effect may be achieved by increasing the
shadows on the engraved letters. The effect has been observed over a couple of nights, and
the visibility improved somewhat. Staff will experiment with other light fixtures before
blacking out the engraved letters. When they have achieved the best result possible with
this method, Council will be contacted to view the results. If the improvement is not
sufficient, then other options can be considered.
Mrs. Boring stated that she does not understand why it would alter the design to blacken the
letters. Another item that is difficult to discern is the different branches of service noted along
that wall.
Mr. Hahn stated that painting will require maintenance. Further, staff is very hesitant to do so
because of the limestone material. Black paint on limestone will not fade consistently — there
will be different tones of black. The entry was purposely designed with the thought that
engraved limestone would be more subtle than a bold "Grounds of Remembrance" sign.
Staff wants to respect the original design of the entry.
Mr. Foegler asked if the artist could suggest an option.
Mr. Hahn responded that they did contact the artist, and she was very hesitant in regard to
blacking out letters.
Mr. Keenan suggested that a gold - leafing, bronzing or a patella to match the loggia might
show up nicely.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 19
Mr. Reiner stated that he is does not expect the lighting effort to be successful, but what
could be attempted is cutting out letters in a different shade of gray or black, then inserted
them into the engraved lettering. Council could then view it to determine the effectiveness.
This would avoid "blackening" with paint, which could damage the art and create appearance
issues. It could also be done with gold leaf or copper lettering, cutting the letters out and
insetting them.
Mr. Hahn thanked Mr. Reiner for his suggestion.
Mr. Keenan
1. Stated that Mayor Lecklider, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher and he attended the Dublin
Convention and Visitors Bureau's tour at the Greater Columbus Convention Center
on Saturday. It was a very interesting presentation and very well done.
2. Thanked Mr. Hahn for all the other work that has been done with the Grounds of
Remembrance, outside of the lighting effort. This will be a beautiful facility for the
upcoming Memorial Day activities.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher
1. Stated in regard to the Historic Dublin wayfinding project that she is concerned about the
time frame for implementation. This project has already been several years in the
making. Most people visit the Historic District in the summer, and the District is
dependent upon people identifying and accessing locations. According to staff's report,
the implementation will not be until late July. If Council approves this in April, why can't it
be implemented earlier to allow the opportunity for summer visitors to take advantage of
the Historic District businesses?
Ms. Ott responded that it is the time needed for fabrication of the signage that drives the
timeframe. It will take seven to eight weeks to fabricate the signs after approval of the final
design.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it was her understanding that the City was producing the
signs.
Ms. Ott responded that the City is making the prototype in order to bring something of scale
to Council. The City will not be able to make the signs internally and comply with what the
ARB has approved in terms of a design.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the project cost will increase.
Ms. Ott responded that Council has authorized a budget of $50,000 and staff is working to
stay within that budget.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she recalls a couple of designs being presented to Council
earlier, on which Council provided input. She has been told that ARB has completely
changed that design, and that it is now something Council has not seen.
Ms. Ott responded that images of the concept ARB approved were provided in an update to
Council last fall. Council was not asked to take action on the design, because it was yet to
be determined how it could actually be constructed. Staff has been working with Goody
Clancy on amending the location plan and the graphics to be placed in the Historic District.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she remains concerned. Another summer will be lost and
the opportunity for the store owners in the District to increase their income and stay in
business. That is the disadvantage to allowing advisory committees to make these types of
decisions that result in more costs and delays of projects. In Council's next packet, she
would like staff to provide copies of what ARB has approved.
Mr. Gerber asked if there is any way to expedite the process.
Ms. Ott responded that staff expects to provide the design and prototype for the April 12
Council meeting for Council's review. A prototype to scale must be prepared for community
review and response prior to Council's review.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked who is the "community" that will review it. ARB has already
approved it.
Ms. Ott responded that the intent is to engage the Historic Dublin Business Association, as
they might be able to help support the project on an ongoing basis, as well as the DCVB,
which deals regularly with the visitors who are the primary users of the wayfinding system.
HDBA was engaged for comment in association with ARB's review of the project. The
project is now at the point of a final design and a recommended location plan, and staff
wanted to provide these groups with another opportunity for input. If Council's prefers that
staff bring this directly to Council, that can be done.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Du blin C ity Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 20
Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is if staff moves forward and provides ARB's design and
a prototype to the DCVB and HDBA, and then Council finds it completely unacceptable, staff
would have to start over. Couldn't some graphics be provided to Council for a preliminary
review?
Vice Mayor Salay stated that she recalls that ARB's recommended design was forwarded to
Council in December over the holiday period.
Ms. Ott stated that one of the challenges is that ARB selected a design that has a logo, and
that has taken significant refinement to bring that to a point where it can be reproduced and
eventually copyrighted.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that this is the type of thing that should not have been
allowed to occur. It will be costly as signs need to be replaced or updated. If she
understands correctly, the reason the groups are being engaged again is the hope that they
will financially participate.
Ms. Ott responded that is not the reason. For the informational signs, staff does not
anticipate listing individual business names on the maps. However, staff is interested in
determining whether the DCVB or HDBA would be willing to supply and stock a handout
walking map for visitors to the District. That process would be best be managed by those
groups versus the City.
Discussion continued.
Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates staffs efforts, but it is frustrating that there is not yet
signage in the Historic District to direct visitors to public parking areas.
Mr. Keenan stated that philosophically, too, the City board reviewing this matter is not
controlling the expenditures of the City.
Ms. Ott responded that is why the final design approval comes to Council. If it is not within
budget, Council would be made aware of it.
Discussion followed about the process followed, which called for review and approval by
ARB.
Ms. Ott responded that if Council would prefer, she would bring Council the design without a
prototype and without additional public comment for their next meeting. Staff is working to
finalize the drawings at this time. She will not have final budget numbers at that point, as
staff is still negotiating production costs.
Mayor Salay stated that seeing the design would be very helpful to Council.
Ms. Ott indicated that information will be provided for the next meeting.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher continued her comments.
2. In regard to the Multi -Modal Transportation Plan, asked if the March 9 and March 15
meetings are opportunities for Council to attend and provide input?
Mr. Langworthy responded that the meetings are for public input, and Council is welcome.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what the community is providing input on -- is there a proposed
plan available?
Mr. Langworthy responded that the intent is to learn about the issues that are important to
the community. At this point, the objective is for the community to provide input to staff; staff
is not providing anything for consideration by the community.
3. Attended the Ohio Municipal League board meeting on Friday. The state legislature
is not moving things forward quickly, and it is unlikely that much new business will
take place in 2010 other than budget corrections /revisions. The City does needs to
remain vigilant on the activities of the legislature, as the erosion of home rule
continues to be impacted by the introduction of various bills. In addition, the local
government fund continues to be impacted by legislative actions. The SZD
Whiteboard group is in contract with MORPC and also reports at the MORPC board
meetings on the same subject.
Mr. Gerber stated that the erosion of home rule is a very critical issue. Are the City's
lobbyists involved in asserting the City's view and expressing its concerns?
Mr. Foegler responded affirmatively.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 22, 2010 Page 21
Mrs. Boring
1. Asked about the format for the Multi -Modal Transportation meeting and if there
will be different stations at which to view the different options?
Mr. Langworthy responded that it will be an open house, where the members of the public
can view the displays throughout the day. There will be a display for each of the modes at
which a staff member will be stationed to answer questions.
2. Reminded Council members of the St. Patrick's Day parade and activities on
Saturday, March 13.
Vice Mayor Salay
1. Reported that she received an email about a particular soccer club that is using City
fields more frequently than the resident believes is appropriate. Who would be the
appropriate staff member to which she should direct this question?
Mr. Foegler indicated that the citizen should be directed to contact Chief Epperson and Mr.
Earman.
2. Noted that an e-mail today indicated there would be a mock -up of the outline of the
Bicentennial artwork on the site. This would provide concerned citizens an indication
of the actual size of the piece.
Mr. Foegler responded that staff could produce a dimensional layout as soon as weather
permits.
Mayor Lecklider
1. Recognized staff for their successful application for and receipt of $546,000 in
stimulus funding for City projects.
2. Referred to the list of items in need of scheduling, and asked if staff needed any
additional direction from Council in respect to the special events, land acquisition and review
of law director services contract items.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to schedule a land acquisition
executive session on Monday, March 22 at 6 p.m., prior to the Council meeting; to schedule
a Special Events discussion in a workshop in the second quarter of 2010, prior to the
preparation of the operating budget for 2011; and to schedule an executive session for
personnel matters related to the Law Director contract on Monday, April 26 at 6 p.m., prior to
the Council meeting.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked when the Bridge Street Corridor study is anticipated to be
completed.
Mr. Foegler responded that the second phase of the study is complete. A draft of the vision
document has been received, and he expects a final draft within 30 -60 days. The visioning
document will provide a backdrop for the last phase of the study, which will produce a much
more detailed plan. The entire project will probably be completed by June. The two key
property owners involved have retained planning design firms, as the City has encouraged
them to do. Hopefully, the visioning document emerging now and the completion of the
planning document can go hand -in -hand with their planning efforts on their sites
simultaneously so that the result is a plan that is reflective of as much commonality as
possible in regard to development concepts. This would raise the likelihood of
implementation significantly. This summarizes the process Council should see over the next
four to five months.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lecklider formally adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Mayor — Pr i ing Officer
Clerk of Council