Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1991 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N EGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Dublin City Council was called to order by Mayor Jan Rozanski at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, June 3, 1991. The Pledge of Allegiance was repeated by all with all members being present. Mayor Jan Rozanski introduced Chief Ferrell, who in turn introduced Mike Epperson, who was just promoted to Sergeant. He expressed that the DARE Program would miss Sergeant Epperson but that he would really make a great Sergeant. Chief Ferrell also introduced our newest dispatcher Jackie Albanese. One more item of business before starting the meeting, Nan Metz was given a proclamation thanking her for her ten years of service. CITIZEN COMMENTS Randy Roth: We wanted to make sure we kept in touch with eastside issues and I'd like to ask a question about storm water detention. Terry Foegler has been doing an excellent job of keeping us posted on the ins and outs and ups and downs of our storm water detention basin for the Billingsley ditch and we appreciate again Council's willingness to build that pond and we understand why it has had to be delayed this year, we know you are spending a lot of money, even on the east side we are buying a park, road improvements, intersection improvements, and so we didn't have the construction of this detention basin as we hoped this year on the capital plan but all the comments were that we going to work towards next year. Terry sent us a letter on the latest developments which I have given you a copy and he has sent a copy to everybody concerned so we're all up to speed and we talked about this among the neighbors who live along Kiplinger Pond and Billingsley Ditch and Paragraph 3 is the one we wanted to ask you what it means to you. It says that some of the field investigation performed by our consulting engineer have indicated that the actual topo within the area of the proposed drainage basin differs from what was indicated on the map we used during preliminary feasibility design. We've just asked our consultant to update on this project considering all the new information and changes which have taken place since the initial scope of the work was prepared. Current cost estimates for the detention basin, not including land acquisition, now range in the area of $650 thousand to approximately one million. This is significant increase the original cost estimate of the alternative selected by Council. It is the intent of staff to provide updated information to Council on this project in the near future in order to verify that this alternative is still, in fact, the most cost effective solution to the problem before proceeding with additional engineering design. So, of course, you can see that we would be concerned about what kinds of delays this will portend. We have a good year this year, fortunately, in storm water, but we wanted to ask what this means to you and what kind of alternatives we're thinking of, are we still looking ahead to next year? Terry Foegler: Randy, although I think I have given most of the relevant correspondence, there is a memo to Council in their packet tonight on this subject where basically I have forwarded to them not only my letter to you but that letter from the consultant, as well as the other piece of correspondence that we were waiting for from the consultant which was his estimate of time frame to do the things that needed to get done, the major report that requires permitting is the ODNR report for the retention dam structure and what we have asked Council to do at this point, is because so much has taken place and so many changes have occurred from the scope of the cost of the project is to refer this issue to the committee again for a full update on the status of the project, everything we have found, so that we can query the consultant and make sure that everyone has a good cover level that he is on the right track, Council can get updated cost estimates on the project, recognize that when the project was selected it was one of 7 or 8 alternative that was identified. The combination of factors were the basis for the selection of that alternative. One of them was cost, and I think the thing the committee needs to consider, and full Council needs to 1 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting o N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 consider, is it still the best of the 7 alternatives at three times its original pricetag or should one of the other ones be looked at more closely. It may well be that Council feels that the alternative as identified, even the contact of the new price estimates, is the one to proceed with and we have the time frame for the cost estimates from the consultant to proceed with that. But the call had so much change, we though it was appropriate that Council get updated and authorize proceeding as it had been declined. Randy Roth: Do you have an idea when this will go to Service Committee? Terry Foegler: We have recommended to Council to assign it to Service Committee this evening, so whenever their next regularly scheduled meeting would be at least we would give them and !eview the correspondence we have received today. Mayor Rozanski: Service Committee willing to take this issue? Denise King: As one half of the Service Committee, I would imagine we would be. Danny Sutphen is now chairman of that committee and he's obviously not here this evening, but I think we would be very glad to revisit that, we appreciated the information we received from the staff, like you, we were interested in being kept up to date on this project and it hasn't ceased to move forward for lack of interest, it's more a question of competition for dollars and time so this report will help us focus in on that again and I'd be glad, if council chooses to send it to Service Committee, I'll make sure I follow up with Danny and fill him in on what we did tonight. Dave Amorose: Terry, it's not premature to send it to Service Committee, how comfortable are you with your meetings with Columbus, etc, in determining what the actual flow is going to be. Terry Foegler: Some of the key variables that we still would like more information on but I think an update is appropriate. Columbus has built more upstream retention since the study was done and in fact is at this point according to information we have ready to build a second major upstream detention basin. The consultant hasn't been able to indicate to us what the impact on the design cost or size of our basin would be if those improvements are made. It hasn't been designed yet, they have agreed to build it, it's actually on the Dublin portion of the tributary, if you remember the north end of the Billingsley ditch actually was in Dublin, one of the best sights to build it was a sight that Council had already authorized for detention as part of the major rezoning that took place. If you remember, there were some commitments and agreements to oversize some of those detention basins. Columbus, it is our understanding, has agreed to build that now, we have been told that the property owner has agreed to make that available, that there has been some legal discussions regarding liability and maintenance, to make sure that those are all fully addressed, but the last information we were given is that that second new detention basin upstream, construction was imminent and we would like to know the impacts of that on the design. There have been a lot of variables, a lot of things that have changed that have affected this project and because it is so expensive we feel it is important Council consider all the information of the design, be the best and most effective possible so that it can provide the greatest level of relief to the area. Dave Amorose: Terry, can you update us any on the timetable as far as the development, maybe the extension of Hard Road with the tiling that was to take place at the time of the construction of that roadway? Terry Foegler: It is our understanding and perhaps Bobbie has more recent discussions with the applicant, but by the end of this summer, it was their intent to be bringing in the construction drawings for Hard Road based on our last discussion with construction to 2 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting LE AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 follow soon thereafter. A significantly oversized storm drainage pipe is a part of that design as we currently understand it and their timetable was to bring that in for city review this summer for starting construction this fall. To what degree some of the school issues impact has on the timeframe, we don't know. You work with the only topo that you've got. The topo that existed was from some aerial photographs, I believe, which the city had had flown a while back. It is not unusual to have a bust in aerial photography, what we did was actually go out and do the detailed field surveying to establish actual elevations and it determined that there were bigger errors in the aerial photography that we had had prepared a number of years back than had been anticipated. You will notice the cost estimates in the letter are significantly greater, part of that's due to the additional earth work needed because that topo was not correct and that's the kind of information you get when you go from preliminary conceptual type engineering to the next level of engineering where you do the soil samples and the field topography and those types. Denise King: So it was really a question that you couldn't extrapolate the data accurately from the old aerial photographs? Terry Foegler: The old aerial photography that we had was incorrect. Mayor Rozanski recognized Nina Strnad. She stated that she represented a group of about 50 Dublin residents and just really had an announcement to make. What we've been sporadically meeting with concern are threefold, first of all about the sewage spills into the Scioto River, the EP A directed solution of Dublin constructing a sewage retention basin adjacent to the Historic District and in the flood plain of the river that is is trying to protect, and finally with Dublin's image as an environmentally conscientious riverfront community. We had an engineer from a locally reputable engineering consulting firm go over the design of the basin which will be constructed imminently and rectification of the influent infiltration problem that underlies the need for such a basin. He unearthed some real concerns that we thought we should share with the City of Dublin before the construction starts on the basin. I've already contacted Mr. Foegler who I hope has contacted Mr. Willis, and we've been able to contact two interested council members so far for a meeting with this engineer tomorrow at 5:00 at the Dublin Library. I tried to reach Mr. Sutphen, who is the chairman of the Service Committee, and he will be unavailable to go to the meeting because he'll be out of town all day tomorrow. We welcome other council members who can attend this necessarily small meeting, any residents of Dublin or Dublin staff who wish to attend should contact me, my number is 798-8900, if you can contact me before noon tomorrow I can make arrangements for your attendance. Likewise, please contact that phone number if you have any questions about our concerns. Thank you. A proclamation was read regarding the "Don't Bag It" program. Mayor Rozanski asked for Ordinance No. 26-91 for Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 26-91 - Ordinance providing for a change of zoning on a 3.9 acre tract located on the west side of A very Road immediately opposite of Irelan Place intersection to be rezoned from RI restricted industrial district (Washington Township zoning) to SO Suburban Office and Institutional and RI Restricted Industrial City of Dublin classification districts. Bobbie Clarke: This is a straight forward rezoning. It's 4.4 acres located on Avery Road, I have several slides of the area. (Description of slides) In terms of ground slides, this is an existing single family house that is used for offices, the land is currently zoned RI, it carries Washington Township zoning. This is to the rear of the structure, is already paved in a small parking lot, the rest of the land is vacant, we are looking across A very Road across the site and the mound you see in the background and those roofs are for our 3 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AYT N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 maintenance facility. This is the Cosgray ditch that runs along the north property line, looking toward Avery Road. Property to the north of the site recently annexed from Washington Township and it has a furniture stripping company. This is immediately across the street, also industrially zoned. Back to an airslide, in this case we are looking from south --- slide description. As I said, the land currently carries Washington Township Zoning which is RI and the property owner wishes to rezone it into two districts, the rear portion of the lot he would like to zone into the Dublin Restricted Industrial classification and then to put three half-acre office lots up front which would be zoned SO Suburban Office and Institutional District. This case was heard two times at the Planning Commission, once in April, once in May. There are six conditions that were appended in the staff report and they were made part of the motion for approval by the Planning Commission. Those six conditions of approval are: 1. Dedication of right-of-way along Avery Road consistent with our community plan which is 56' from centerline. 2. Limitation of two curb cuts along the entire frontage of the sight along Avery Road. 3. That drainage detention is to meet MORPC guidelines and to be approved by the City Engineer. The city in this case would prefer a unified approach to detention for the entire parcel. 4. Proposed right-of-way are to be cleared of nonconforming items and roadway drainage and utilities to be designed and constructed as approved by the City Engineer. 5. The driveway and approach to be designed and installed as approved by the City Engineer, this includes site, distance triangles. 6. That the site layout is to be approved by the Fire Department. As you saw in the blue line drawing that was attached to the staff report and the minutes in your packet, there is not a drawing that shows the development, it shows how the land is to be subdivided. The staff had recommended approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote 6-0. Are there any questions for me? Dave Amorose: Bobbie, only that Avery Road, a tremendous amount of money has been put into widening Avery Road, making it a very nice thoroughfare and, of course, as it comes to this area, is going to be eventually four or five lanes I would anticipate, I question the use of these startup or very affordable small lots and relatively small office buildings on that frontage of Avery Road; and as a planner how do you justify putting very small buildings of approximately, I don't see the square footage here, but I would imagine they're no more than 3 or 4 thousand square feet each. Bobbie Clarke: I think in answer to your question, if we were starting with a blank slate, this probably would not be our recommendation. The ground already carries the rights and privileges that are extended in Washington Township with the restricted industrial zone. On the frontage, in fact, what they are asking for is a downzone into an office classification. The staff feels that the office classification on Avery gives us a better opportunity for the higher drive by image that we will be looking for on Avery Road. The office classification doesn't permit warehousing and manufacturing and in fact is a downzone, but I agree with you if this still carried R1B zoning in township it probably would have been a far more strenuous argument. There already are rights attached to this property. Applicant L. Weil came forward for questions. 4 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Dave Amorose: I just question, I have known you for a long time and I think a lot of you as far as a developer and so forth, but I question along Avery Road, why build this type of an office building, very narrow and deep building, the frontage here, it's going to appear almost like a couple rows of warehouse rather than some nice office frontage. And as that road is widened, it is going to eliminate most of the green space that you now enjoy between the berm of Avery Road and your parking lot. Mr. Weil: We were dealing with an existing structure which is approximately 3,000 square feet which we converted into an office and will continually be improved in appearance. The two buildings that we propose for the frontage sites will be very attractive one-story brick faced office buildings and we felt that that was a very appropriate way to develop the frontage of the property as opposed to other options; for example, the land immediately to the north of this property is zoned community commercial which would then, and there is a house which we do not own on that property, and that property could conceivably be developed into some kind of retail establishment. We felt that attractive brick office buildings were a very good way to develop the frontage of this property. The property, as Bobbie indicated, was zoned Restricted Industrial in Washington Township zoning action and under that zoning we could put office warehouse and, once again, we felt that an office use was an appropriate way to go. It's not always possible to build the top of the line office complexes which we would certainly like to do also, but the market right now in this area is for offices and it so happens that we felt that we were very fortunate to have a buyer come along who wanted to put in what we considered to be an attractive one. Dave Amorose: Well, architecturally I question why not turn these buildings and run them north/ south rather than east/west so that they would give at least an appearance from Avery Road as one would look west to the building, a sense of a larger building and possibly more green space. Mr. Weil: Our idea was to have a complex of, as existing in many areas of the community, a complex of offices that would work together architecturally and the shape of the land is such that it's more feasible to run that complex on an east/west access rather than north/south. Dave Amorose: Well, I see that a 50' easement going back to lot #4 and I just question why the total access isn't off of that 50' easement, it is coming in and then going into lot #2 as it comes through to #1. Mr. Weil: --as opposed to having an extra curb cut, which we thought again was a good way to develop it. Dave Amorose: Joel, do you have any comment on something like, it's a 101' lot on Avery Road, and that's what I have a problem with. Joel Campbell: I think the key factor here is what Bobbie mentioned in the very beginning, we're not talking here about initial planning for this spot, their application is basically to improve what's there now. We're not coming in here with basically a blank map to deal with. This property is already something which I think everybody feels is not the best use of the premises and no one's happy with it, this developer is willing to spend some money to improve it, as they said maybe make it less industrial for lack of a better word, than it is now and I guess the general feeling of the Planning Commission was, it admittedly maybe isn't the perfect situation but it isn't perfect for them either, they've got to spend money to try to improve a situation that really isn't good now, so if anything it's a positive step, even though it isn't the ideal, it's the most positive step we could make under the circumstances. Dave Amorose: I'm just generally really concerned about all that Washington Townhip 5 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LEGAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 annexation coming in and we're inheriting this kind of zoning and it's different, I think of when I drive down Sawmill Road and see Toys 'R' Us and all the Dublin Village Center and then all of a sudden I see those little out parcels in front of it, very narrow lots with different kinds of architecture, etc. that it just doesn't afford, I think, the look that we're after, how the staff and also Planning and Zoning Commission has worked so hard for so many years to preserve that look and now we're getting away from it. Denise King: I share Dave's concerns that this isn't ideal. When I looked at the material I thought this reminds me of the Waterbeds 'N' Stuff building over there on Sawmill and it's probably not a reaction that any developer covets, at least I would hope not, because it really does look, in that case, just sort of stuck in there. But did you give consideration to putting one larger building on the lot, you don't have a tremendous amount of space to work with. Mr. Weil: We did, actually, the problem is that the land is there, we are marketing the land and a buyer came along who we felt was a very, very good buyer, an insurance company, a local Dublin resident who had gone to a good deal of pains to develop what, I think, is an attractive office building and there are other kinds of office building that could conceivably be put there that wouldn't be attractive; it's a one-story, the buildings on either side of it are residential type buildings, this fits nicely to the south of a residence and to the north of a former residence and so we felt that it was appropriate in scale to the adjacent buildings. Denise King: I'm sure that the appropriate in-scale argument will be revisited again this evening. But those buildings on either side, aren't they likely to be redeveloped some point in the not too terribly distant future? Mr. Weil: We actually did consider doing that to the house that we own to the south of this, lot #3 of this property. The problem is from a development standpoint, when you tear down an existing structure, the cost of the development increases by a significant amount and so the option is to improve the structure and to convert it into a use that makes sense and that's what we intend to do with it, so the answer to your question, tearing something down that has value is not something developers like to do if they can avoid it. Denise King: But don't you anticipate that that entire quarter will at some point be entirely office and commercial, I mean the homes at some point are going to be very out of place. Mr. Weil: I think that's possible, Ms. King, but I think it's a long way in the future, I really do. A. C. Strip: I think we're, to really distort the old adage, we're trying to close the barn gate after the cows have gotten out. I think the moral of the story is that we look at these type of things before we do the annexation, because I think once we do the annexation, we inherit, I don't want to say the problems, but we inherit the zoning and we are stuck with certain zoning whether we like it or not. I think if we consider annexing helter skelter because we want to bring in tax base to the city, we look at these issues before we do the annexation, we try to get changes by the owner and developers before we do the annexation. I don't think we can do it the other way around because then we get to the issue we're here and we say "Gee, we're not happy with it" and the developer's answer, which he's been very nice not to give us, is "You don't like this, you're going to be stuck with worse". And that's what he could say to us. And he's been kind enough not to say it, some of us ought to get the message though, he is improving what he is obligated to do, he is obligated to do less than this. The time to take issue is during the annexation process, not after we annexed at the tax base and don't like the zoning. I fully remind you of that a couple times later on when annexation issues come up and let's see, if we annex, what are we likely to be 6 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting nAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 inheriting by way of zoning by way of grand fathering and by way of property on footage. It's a little late on this one. Dave Amorose: That's not the issue before us this evening, but every time we've ever annexed anything, I've always asked, "Pat, what type of zoning is existing and really tried to caution everybody on Council the fact that we may not want to bring this kind of land use into Dublin. I think it's a real shame to take a parcel that has frontage on Avery Road and do this to it. I do understand the fact that you need to purchase the ground and develop it; however, I don't believe that this type of development on this particular piece of ground is the best use of that piece of ground, but of course that is not for us to determine because you are the owner. I would like to see this go somewhere else other than on A very Road is what I'm saying. Mayor Rozanski: I think we here in Dublin have been spoiled in essence over the years by being able to annex large tracts of open, undeveloped land and, therefore, we have been able to plan everything that takes place on that land. Fortunately, for Dublin's sake, Washington Township had very strict zoning ordinances, one of the first townships in the state to have a zoning code, so not a whole lot was ever built in Washington Township and a large area of Perry Township that we annexed so we had the freedom to design it the way we felt Dublin should be designed and built. Unfortunately, there are a few tracts of ground out there that did get developed to a certain extent in the township and this is one of them, and you take some good with the bad, I'm not saying this is a totally bad piece, but it's a more difficult piece to work with than we've had in the past. I have to agree with this Council that I don't think it's the best use for this land, the large parcel would seem to be better used in the long run, but who's to say when that long run would ever happen, with the economy the way it is in development. I have to agree with you that I think development down A very Road will be a lot slower than most people anticipate. Those are my comments. Anybody else have any comments at this time? This is a public hearing, so it is the second reading, we will hold this over for a third and final reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Next, we have a public hearing of Ordinance 27-91 by title only. An ordinance providing for change of zoning in 0.52 acre tract located on the west side of Riverside Drive approximately 700' south of Dublin-Granville Road S.R. 161 to be rezoned from CC Community Commercial District, .38 + or - acres, an R4 Suburban Residential .14 + or - acres to PUD Planned Unit Development District. Bobbie Clarke: Description of slides. There are in the ordinance that you have, two legal descriptions and two parcels, one that has CC Community Commercial zoning which is owned by the applicant and the other one which is owned by the City of Columbus and zoned R4. We will need to amend this ordinance to drop out the City of Columbus land. The City of Columbus and the applicant were not able to come to terms on that and Columubus is not a party to this rezoning. Basically, the proposal is to downzone the property from CC Community Commercial to PUD Planned Unit Development District and to permit office uses only. The applicant proposes to raise the existing house and to build a new office building of about 3200 square feet. It will have a driveway on the south side of the property and there will be 8 parking spaces underneath the building around to the rear and several others on the site for a grand total of, I believe, 11 parking spaces. The current ordinance requires a setback of 112 feet from centerline, in this case the building will only be set at 70' from center line, that is further back than the building to the north, which is the chiropractor's office. Staff found that this was probably a variance which made sense supporting because it will leave the front yard as natural, and parking to the rear, so for all practical purposes rather than have parking in front of the building you will have a landscaped front yard. The pun regulations were created in order to provide a permissive 7 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 voluntary alternate zoning to encourage imaginative architecture design, flexibility in building styles and types, proper relationships between buildings and between buildings and the land, and to permit development of the land in an orderly and coordinated and comprehensive manner. Staff believes that the goals reflected in this purpose statement apply to this land and staff supports the rezoning to PUD. Planning Commission also recommended approval and reiterated the same 8 conditions that were contained in the staff report and they are: 1. Dedication of right-of-way consistent with the community plan which is 56' from centerline. 2. Text clarification to include the applicant's park access and parking commitments and a limitation on the permitted uses to the SO Suburban Office and Institutional District uses. Part of the documents which you received in your packets included that. 3. Roadway features such as signage and guardrails, driveway geometries, and site distances to be designed or restored as approved by the City Engineer. 4. Maintenance of roadway drainage along Riverside Drive and provision of on-site detention as approved by the City Engineer. 5. Utilities to be designed and installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Coordination with the Fire Department as the project progresses and possible break in the guardrail for access. I understand that that's coming down as part of an ODOT highway project. 7. Compliance with all applicable flood hazard regulations and delineation of the flood hazard areas on the plan. That has been done. 8. Specific prior approval by the Park Director of any and all work to be performed on the park ground. The Planning Commission voted 6 in favor and one abstention. Are there any questions from the Council for me? My name is Jerry Berg. I am an architect and I represent Sivad Development Company who is the owner of the property. One perhaps slight correction to what Bobbie said, we are still working with the City of Columbus on the rear piece. We have not as of today entered into a written agreement, but as of today we have, we feel, received verbal agreement on the terms to use this parcel, so I think we again feel it's coming through to process, so it's as positive and favorable today as it has been for six months and we expect to consummate that arrangement; but it's not penciled today and therefore we don't feel that it should be a part of this particular application because in the future, the City of Columbus is reserving the right to take away that right to use. Dave Amorose: Jerry, while you're speaking of the lease, now Dublin has that property leased from the City of Columbus, would you like to lease it, sublease it, maybe we'll sublease it to you or something. I don't know. How does that arrangement work out when they already have a commitment to us? Jerry Berg: The terms of your lease are that you can only use it for park land and basically what we're doing is we're going in, we're proposing that we improve this with parking, handicapped parking, and public parking access to the parkland to the rear, so this was an arrangement that we have been working with the City of Columbus and the City of Dublin. 8 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 We can basically provide the handicapped parking, public parking, grant you the access to that parcel with you presently don't have, it's really a win-win situation. Mr. Berg: The building that we propose to build, and the parking is underneath the building, the building is raised up so you don't see the parking from Riverside Drive, residential in character in keeping with National Water Well and the Quarry Place buildings up and down that stretch, except for the car dealership across the street, it's pretty appropriate I think to that entry into Dublin. The owner of the property is presently a resident in National Water Well, and they presently have five employees, and they really want to just create a very nice environment for themselves for their own private offices of 3200 square feet, five employees. With that I'll answer any questions you may have regarding this. Dave Amorose: I take it that you've tried to negotiate to share the driveway entrance off of Riverside Drive but those efforts have failed. Mr. Berg: That is correct. We have tried for a year to work a combined entrance on this side and basically the owner to the north decided not to participate; so at that point, we felt the safer entry point to the site would be to the south property line to give us more distance to 161, as that ramp shoots through there at a fairly high rate of speed, so we felt that by locating in this matter would be the safest and that's exactly the location of the existing curb cut. Mr. Berg's partner: As of this morning, we had conversation with the City of Columbus attorney's office. They have agreed verbally to enter into a license agreement with us for the .14 acres that Jerry alluded to and we've agreed to provide them then a license across our property as we will with the City of Dublin, and make some park land improvements that we've worked out with Janet Jordan, I don't know if you had all that in your packet, but we can't guarantee that today, but it looks like that's going to work out and we'll probably be back in over the course of the summer and early fall to work the details of that with the city; but we need to move forward on project immediately and that's why we're asking for approval as is tonight. Next, tabled Ordinance 08-91. Mr. Steve Smith, Law Director: It was going to come off the table and we didn't get around to addressing one concern Mr. Amorose had under the dead and diseased tree Section K, page 3 or 4, and it's going to be a very minor suggested change, but we want to clarify that because I think it needs clarification. Other than that, I have no problems with the ordinance as it is presented, but I just didn't get to that, to be honest, I forgot about it. What reading? Or if somebody wants to say something, we can bring it from the table, hear what they have to say, and then table it back for further -- we have someone here from Tree and Landscape who wants to say something. The ordinance says it is presented to you in the same fashion as you have listened to it before. The only change that I am going to make is a suggested modification of the diseased in Section under Section K and it's going to deal more with probably procedural process rather than the way it presently exists because I think it may be vital to some residential rights the way it presently exists so we're not going to significantly alter it. Thank you. 9 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting E AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 June 3, 1991 19 ReIn Mayor introducted next ordinance. An ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with the Franklin County Public Defender's Office. No discussion - roll called and vote was unanimous. Motion carried. Next we have second reading of Ordinance 35-91 by title only. An Ordinance Creating a City Records Commission. Steve, do you have some comments? Mr. Smith: Yes, at the last meeting Mr. Campbell rightfully asked the question about the appointment of a certain individual to the commission. The way it's written it has to be amended, the charter specifically deals with that issue, and I reviewed this with Nan the other day in her office, and the individual has to be appointed by Council pursuant to our charter. Now, obviously could be appointed by Council with recommendation from staff if that's what you want, but Board's of Commission appointments are reserved for City Council so this is a second reading, I don't think it's going to be an emergency and we'll have that amendment for you at the next meeting, Joel. Mayor Rozanski: Hearing that then we'll just hold this over for a third and final reading at our next regular scheduled council meeting. Next, we'll move on to the first reading of Ordinance 37-91 by title only, please. An Ordinance Adopting the 1992 Tax Budget. A. C. Strip introduced ordinance. Nan Metz: This is the document that was placed before you tonight and I'm asking for the first reading to establish a public hearing. There's a couple of things that we'd like to outline; in a sense, the purpose of the tax budget primarily is to establish the tax rates that will be levied for the City of Dublin for next year. We are not recommending any changes to that. There may be a decrease in the bond retirement millage that would be collected since, as we payoff the debt, the amount that we need to pay will drop over the year, so it gets reduced very minutely, so that's a possibility. The county commissioner's office will, or auditor's office is the office that will be establishing what that actual rate is, so we may see that adjustment. When we file that with them in July, they will send us back a tax rate resolution that will need to be adopted in September sometime. The other thing that we would like to point out, even though it is primarily for those funds that deal with tax levies, we also have to submit some preliminary estimates for any funds that we have. The two that we would like to highlight is the water and sewer fund because in that we are showing anticipated increases in the water permits and surcharge. It is still an estimate, but you will be seeing legislation to go along with that. The reason we want to highlight that is, it really is necessary in order to keep this particular budget in balance, so I think you're going to see that as we go along. Okay, then we'll hold this over for a public hearing at our next regularly scheduled council meeting. Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Ordinance 38-91 by title only please. An Ordinance ~ablishing New Lot Interment Fees at the Dublin Municipal Cemetery. Mayor Rozanski: Could I have an introduction? 10 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting E AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Denise King: I'll introduce it. Timothy C. Hansley: This legislation was prepared at the request of the Cemetery Commission which is appointed by City Council. They did a survey per their memo that was attached to the legislation and their goal is to bring our fees more in line with what the other publicly supported cemeteries in the area charge for interments and other fees, and that's what this legislation would do. It keeps us competitive. I think what they're concerned about is that if we underprice compared to the competition, we will end up selling more grave spaces than we really desire to. I think they're just trying to recognize that we have a limited supply of space available at a reasonable cost. I think they intend to be here at probably the second or third reading to give you any justification if you need it at that time. Joel Campbell: Can I just ask what the rates are now? For a resident of Dublin - $300, non-resident - $500, $125 baby grave. Joel Campbell: Okay, so what we're doing is raising residents up $50, non-residents $150 and leaving the baby rate the same. Tim Hansley: That's correct. Mayor Rozanski: Now does a baby rate, is there a difference between a resident and a non- resident. Timothy Hansley: It's the same. Mayor Rozanski: Well, why wouldn't you make a difference -- Timothy Hansley: I have no idea, that's been the policy, that's the way it is, and the Commission is not recommending any change for whatever reason. And Council has a final say on that, you could make a distinction, for whatever reason historically, we have not made a distinction here. My guess would be the sensitive nature of that issue. Mayor Rozanski: Okay, then we'll hold this over for a second reading at our next regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Next we have Ordinance 39-91 by title only, please. An Ordinance To Accept the Lowest Best Bid For a Traffic Signal at Village Parkway and Dublin Center Drive, Declaring an Emergency. Denise King introduced ordinance. Paul Willis, City Manager: If you recall, about a month ago, a little more than a month ago, we opened bids, and at that time we discovered we had left out some critical specifications for this traffic signal; and we readvertised it and said we would be back to you tonight seeking action on this ordinance and we're here. We opened bids last Wednesday and we received two bids on the project, one from M. P. Dory, who submitted a bid of $54,685.38 and the second bid which was submitted by Jess Howard Electric and his bid was approximately $2,000 more at $56,700. Our estimate for the project was 64, we have budgeted in this year's capital improvement program a 50,000 line item for this improvement and the ordinance before you tonight asks for the authority to enter into a contract with M. P. Dory, which is the contractor that we're recommending, and also appropriates an additional amount of $4,536.36, the difference between the bid price and the appropriated amount in the budget and, of course, we're seeking an emergency on this action. 11 Minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Mayor Rozanski: My understanding, in the budget, as you said you have 50,000, that was there because of your estimate on the first bid documents? Paul Willis: No, it was not based upon the bid documents or any bids that would have taken because we hadn't taken any at that time. It was a rough estimate as near as we could expect that the cost of the traffic light would be in the neighborhood of 50,000. Mayor Rozanski: But then, when this went to bid, your estimates were 64,000. Paul Willis: They were 64 in both of the times that we went to public bidding. Mayor Rozanski: Then why did we have a line budget 50,000 if your estimate was 64,000? Paul Willis: The budget was done sometime late last fall and in the early winter, the estimate for this project was made more recently than that. A. C. Strip: So what I think we're saying is the budget was just too conservative -- Paul Willis: Our budgeted amount was inaccurate on the conservative side, yes. Terry Foegler: One thing just to add for Council's information here, typically, in just discussing this with Finance, in the past those dollars were truly budgeted by functional area, so that your budgeted amount is by street improvements, which listed resurfacing and a whole series of improvements. Within that budget, you are very much within that range, but Council expressed a desire to be much more on top of the project by project costs as they were incurred to see how those dollars that are being spent compared to what was actually appropriated. This project was budgeted rather early in the capital improvement process on a very preliminary budget basis but because it did differ, Finance wants Council to see each one of those as they occur so that you can track those variations and in accordance with Council's desire. Mayor Rozanski: In the big picture of the thing, we were underbudgeted on the repavement by a considerable amount so we're still over all the improvements, we are under budget ----over budget, we're under expense, excuse me. Terry Foegler: One item that was added to this, just for your information, this is the mast arm as opposed to applying paint later which would match street light standards that Council has adopted, we expect this traffic signal to have that same paint applied over the baked finish which is much better at this point, was a slight difference to what had done previously but Council will notice that as that project is being installed. Mayor Rozanski: Okay, question on that. Are we going to set a standard for these, because when we did the other mast arms, it was spun aluminum because it didn't need painting and that was what we were going to go with, and now we're talking about going painted, is each project going to be different or are we going to set a standard in the city or what? Terry Foegler: We did have and Paul's worked with a consultant after Council asked for a standard to prepare a preliminary review, that report was submitted by the consultant, we have had some in-house discussions on that. We are not yet ready to make a recommendation to Council; however, with this alternative we did all agree and concur that the arms should be painted the same color as the street light. If it's done now, it is part of the finish that is applied, it is a very durable finish, it won't require recurring painting as if it would be if we had applied it to a cast arm. This also is designed even if it's a standard ODOT mast arm, but it is designed in a way that a decorative base could be added 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting I"lK . FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 and a decorative base would probably be the main feature that would vary on these in the future. We will be bring a recommended standard mast arm to Council but that's still being worked on at this time. Timothy Hansley: Yes, one reason we were taking a look at this in isolation was that it's going to be the closest mast arm to the new street lighting standard that you have adopted, and within Dublin Village Center you're installing in the next few months the standard street light package so we were concerned, like you are tonight, as to what street light are we going to use when we don't have a standard - should we use the spun aluminum or cobrahead or whatever, we came up with kind of modification bronze finished street light that's able to be readapted with a decorative base at some later time. It's the best we could do at this point, it's better than what's installed, for example, at Avery Road which was not even a mast arm. Dave Amorose: I have a couple of questions. Did the developer contribute any moneys toward this street light? Paul Willis: No, they did not. Dave Amorose: Second question, what is about a yearly cost of operating a signal such as this? Paul Willis: I'll have to get back to you on that, but I believe it's in the range of $500-600 for the electricity operating costs Terry Foegler: And we pay the contract City of Columbus for maintenance and operation - iIIl'. Paul Willis: That's true, in this case, we're sharing the cost of, or Columbus is maintaining the signal, will be maintaining the signal for us and we're sharing in the maintenance cost of those that are along Sawmill and intersecting with some of our own streets and with them, we're sharing half the cost of the electricity. Dave Amorose: You're asking for this to be passed this evening? Paul Willis: I'm asking for it to be declared an emergency and passed this evening if Council is willing. Dave Amorose: I don't know if any of the rest of you use that intersection very often, but it's a horribly dangerous intersection - Dave Amorose: Therefore, I would move to do away with the three time reading rule and treat this ordinance as an emergency. Mayor Rozanski: Is there a second. If" " A. C. Strip: Second. "" Mayor Rozanski: Is there any discussion or comments on the emergency nature? Rearing none, Frances -- Roll was called. Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Rozanski: And on the ordinance itself, any comments or discussions? Hearing none 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Councy Meeting Meeting nAYTO LEGAL Al AJ' CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Roll was called. Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Rozanski: Next we have Ordinance 40-91 by title only please. *c An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 91-90 Establishing the Location in Amount of Cash On Hand. Timothy Hansley: I'll be glad to give you the basics. It's somewhat self explanatory in that it's a requirement of the state to just show you as Council what the cash is on hand in various funds. Frances Urban: The only change is in the pool admissions. Previously, they had $75 on hand and it was increased to 125. Nan Metz: When the pool opened up, the front desk had difficulty making change, they had a lot of people that were the one day passes and those, I don't know, fees were like $3.00 or something like that, so they needed more money to have ones on hand, so they asked that that be increased and that's the only change. A. C. Strip: You need to ask emergency to build up the bank? Nan Metz: Yes, I would prefer that because I know they're anxious to get that --- A. C. Strip: Yes, I think not to make it emergency just delays the inconvenience on them so I would move to dispense with the three time reading and treat it as emergency legislation. Jw! Mayor Rozanski: Is there a second to the emergency nature? Seconded. Denise King: Nan, as a professional who we greatly respect, do you have any concerns that there are adequate policies in force in the city today to handle an account for that cash on a daily basis. Nan Metz: We have established rules to keep track of it daily and turn in their receipts daily. We're going to be working in close conjunction with the Parks Department to be reviewing their operations and see if there are any other suggestions that we can make and we will be working on that in the next week or so. Mayor Rozanski: Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, on the emergency nature. Roll was called and vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. And on the ordinance, any further discussions or comments? Hearing none - Same as above. .....,,',"" Mayor Rozanski: Next, we have Resolution 06-91 by title only please. .--_ot A Resolution Accepting the Bright Road Study as a Guide to Future Land Use and Roadway Development Within the Bright Road Area. Could I have an introduction, please. A. C. Strip: I'll introduce it. 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting B f'lK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Lisa Fierce: It wasn't our intent to have public discussion tonight. We thought we would have it at the public hearing. There's been a number of meetings held already to date where the public has had a chance to give their input. I think what we wanted to do was just have it held over the the second reading at this point. Mayor Rozanski: It's usually standard when an ordinance is presented before us, some presentation is made by a staff member on the resolution or ordinance. I have no problems, but that's usually the standard procedure. Does Council have any questions or comments at this time? Lisa Fierce: Staff doesn't have a presentation prepared for this evening, but I think we would be happy to entertain any questions if there are any by Council. A. C. Strip: I have questions, but I would just as soon defer them until after the presentation, so I can hold my questions for two weeks. Mayor Rozanski: O.K. We'll hold this over, you want a public hearing on this at the next scheduled Council meeting, so we'll hold this over for a second reading which will be a public hearing at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Next, we have Resolution 07-91 by title only, please. Resolution of Statement of Services. Dave Amorose introduced it. Ifla.,-_$ Timothy Hansley: Again, this is standard language which is required by the statute in that any time a petition is filed, the municipal corporation must, prior to the county commissioner's public hearing, must adopt a standard resolution on services available. This is the same format you have used the last three or four times, just describes the police, fire, sanitation, street maintenance and water and sewer utility services the city does have available for this area. This is not approving annexation, it merely says that if it were in Dublin these are the services that would be available, this resolution would be the subject for discussion then at the public hearing that the county commissioners hold and then later Council would receive it and review it as to whether or not you want to accept this piece for annexation after the county commissioners public hearing. Mayor Rozanski: Any questions or comments on this? Denise King: I would just like to suggest that in the future it might be useful based upon some of the comments we've heard earlier tonight, if staff did a presentation on an annexation similar to the ones that are done public hearings for rezonings so that we have a - the maps are good, and that's progress, but having an aerial slide, a ground slide, those kinds of things and then also to be prepared to talk about what the existing land use is and what the pros and cons of accepting a piece of land with those land uses are and what the cost benefit analysis to the city would be. Timothy Hansley: Yes, we would normally anticipate that type of presentation after the commissioners would release it for annexation and when the action of council would be whether or not you want to accept it. This is really a different stage, it just has, do you have services available, at least to support a public hearing for the county commissioners. The other thing we have asked for that is a bigger piece of the picture, or a bigger piece of the pie, what should Council's policy be toward any annexation as to whether it has to economically support itself or does the land use have to be "x" versus "y" and that, as you know, is part of the accomplishment of community plan-up date, we hope to have an annexation element built right into that, a fiscal impact study, and those types of issues. But 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AYT N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReId June 3, 1991 19 yes, we will give a full staff report when this comes back after July 3 hearing. I think they may have to hold it for 60 days before it goes back to Frances, so 2-3 months from tonight you'll get a presentation on this particular piece of land. Mayor Rozanski: Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, then we'll hold this over for second reading at our next regularly scheduled council meeting. Next we have Resolution 08-91 by title only, please. Resolution to Set Forth a Statement of Services To Be Provided to the Area in a Proposed Annexation of 1.162 acres in Washington Township, Franklin County, to the City of Dublin, Ohio as Required by Section 709.031 of the Ohio Revised Code. Denise King introduced it. Mayor Rozanski: This is the same as previous resolution, just a statement of services, how the police, fire, sanitation, street maintenance, and what have you would be handled. Timothy Hansley: Yes, I might just add for the public's benefit that this one deals with basically one lot in the Bellaire area which is an island in the township off Dublin Road. The previous one dealt with 111 acres out close to Cosgray, close to the new Nestle Laboratory facility, so two totally different types of annexation, one is very large industrial- commercial type use of land, the other a small residential lot bordering the present city limits within an island. .. Mayor Rozanski: And this helps cut down on the amount of islands within the corporate boundaries within the City of Dublin. Any comments or discussions? Hearing none, we will hold it over for a second reading at our next regularly scheduled Council meeting. That finishes the formal part of the agenda, next under "Others" we have an appeal to decision of Planning and Zoning Commission by State Savings Bank regarding the height of the building. Mr. Billman: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this evening. State Savings Bank recently presented this drawing for the Perimeter Drive area for our branch bank location and at that time several members of Planning and Zoning, I felt, at that time did believe in the building and, including it's chairman, talked strongly about the cupola on top of this building. What happened at that particular meeting was simply an interpretation of what was meant by a 28' roof line, and I believe that you should have in your packet a letter from Planned Communities. Did you all get that letter? We've thought about that after the meeting, and although the bank was certainly in compliance with every other request of Planning and Zoning regarding landscaping or signage or anything else, it seemed to be a problem with, is it a residential look and was this 28' roofline meant to be all inclusive and that's where it, kind of started and ended right there on that. What we have designed is a residential building built by a residential builder with dormers and brick and so on, and it does have a cupola on top here in the center of the building, the rest of the roofline does not exceed 28'. But I would draw your attention to the third paragraph on page 1 of that letter from Planned Communities that we simply asked for a clarification, and this was a clarification that Planning and Zoning, I don't believe, had that evening and we did not have, because although we went into this design with the intent we thought we knew what it was, we did find out there was this 28' line that, in Planning and Zoning's interpretation could not be extended. This paragraph indicates it was never our intent to create an even height of roof lines for all the buildings that would be constructed along Avery Road. In fact we would find it beneficial to the aesthetics of the area and the views of the architecture of the various buildings to have this peak line broken up with such decorative additions as cupolas, catwalks, weathervanes, etc. which give the building a little variation of the different uses in that area. This was from Planned Communities by their 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting E AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 senior vice president just to give an interpretation of what was intended by that 28'line and they indicate their purpose was to prevent buildings along the roadway of height and bulk of massive buildings that would be 2 and 3-story high buildings. We really feel that this building is of a residential nature. A. C. Strip: Put your hand where the top would be if we gave you strict interpretation. Where's 28' stop. Mr. Billman: Right here, below the widow's walk. A. C. Strip: I guess I'm puzzled, they say their intention was to prevent two-story buildings, can't you get a two-story building with 28' height? In fact, that gives, even though it's not a two-story building, it gives the appearance, which you intentionally want to do if a two-story building -- the dormers give the appearance of a two-story residential building. Mr. Billman: Yes, the ceiling is about 12' high inside, it is a high ceiling. A. C. Strip: I'm just puzzled when the developer says "We don't want to have two-story buildings, but it's okay to make it look like two-story buildings", just doesn't make sense to me. The letter doesn't make sense, Planned Communities letter doesn't make sense. ~...."'" Joel Campbell: I think to be fair here, you all probably reviewed the minutes, but I think we ought to put a little history, the Planning and Zoning Commission was divided on this, Ron Geese and I voted in favor of the application, a number of the other members, well, all the rest of them, voted against it, so I guess it would have been 5-2, Peter's here I see and I know I saw 2-3 other members coming and going tonight, so they must be fairly concerned about this. The question is, Mr. Billman indicated, initially there was discussion about something to do with the sign on the A TM machine and as the discussion developed, that appeared to be less and less of a problem that the height of the building. That particular night we didn't have the letter that Mr. Billman is referring to here tonight, the only thing we had was the development standards which were prepared by Planned Communities which, of course, is the one that requested this whole Perimeter Mall development. They said 28' to the roofline. The question gets to be then, the interpretation of, does that limit any kind of ornamental structure over and above that or not, and five of the members said they felt that it did limit it and two of us felt that it didn't. I think that the question, there were several issues, one, does it have a somewhat of a residential character appearance to it, that's something you all have to decide; secondly, you have to decide do you feel the 28' is to the roofline or to the peak of the cupola on the top. I'll tell you, I intend to vote the same way tonight that I voted that night, but I am sure the 5 other members ofP & Z would want you to vote the other way because that's the way they voted. Obviously, it's a judgment call, and each one of us is entitled to our own opinion, I'm entitled to mine, you're all entitled to yours and the five members who voted the other way that particular night are entitled to theirs. And the question you have to decide is, and I think the general discussions that particular evening were, that building located anywhere would be, any city in this state would be extremely happy to have a structure looking like that in their city, on their streets, even almost anywhere in this town, would there be no controversy. The only question is, at this particular sight, due to the development standards along that road, back in the shopping center it wouldn't be any question, it's right along the road that the question comes up, this is a sub-area right along Avery Road which has this requirement of pseudo-residential appearance, because apparently of the highly visible nature of the traffic that will be going from 33 all the way up to Muirfield eventually. I thought it was a tough call, because it is the type of thing that it isn't really readily defined, Planned Communities I don't think envisioned it as it turns out by the letter here, they didn't envision this to be a problem at the time they made these development ll<.. 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 June 3, 1991 ReIn 19 standards. The standards are not necessarily city zoning rules, these are standards that were developed to try and make this Perimeter Center the best it could possibly be. I think it also crossed, I know it crossed my mind, I think it crossed Ron Geese's mind because he said it, we question whether Perimeter Center is going to be built in the same way that those development standards are presently constituted. I think there is a real question whether that is ever going to happen the way we saw it here a year or two ago. My guess is, matter of fact I'd put money on it, that at some point in time, Planned Communities will come back here and ask for a modification of what they've got in those development standards because they're not not going to be able, they're not going to want to meet those same requirements that they had back a ways. State Savings, unfortunately, is in the position of having to come in before that and have to defend their position and, to me, I think we need to keep the, don't let the forest block our view of the trees here, this is a nice building, it is a residential character type building, and that's why I voted the way I did. You all obviously have your own opinions and you are entitled to take your position, but I felt at the time it was appropriate and I know the five other people felt very strongly that it wasn't appropriate, so for what it's worth. Mayor Rozanski: Let me make a couple comments here. First of all, I spent three and a half years on BZA, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the biggest gripe BZA had hearing an appeal was that different information was presented at the appeal hearing than that was presented at the original hearing, and I have a problem with that, mainly, this letter, that this wasn't presented to P & Z. It's being presented us, so therefore different information is given to us than Planning and Zoning, and that creates some problems, when you're looking at an appeal situation. Second of all, for your information and Council's because we're asked, the appeals being asked to this Council to overrule Planning & Zoning, it takes 2/3 of Council, which means all 5 of us must vote in favor of this tonight to overchange P & Z's decision, so if anyone member votes "no", that means it goes down. I personally feel, with this letter, it should go back to P & Z. Perhaps, P & Z would have a different light on it with this letter. I have a hard time accepting this letter as part of my decision making because it is not the same case that was presented to P & Z. Mr. Billman: If I could address that briefly, and I'll be brief, in no way was that an intention on our part -- Mayor Rozanski: I understand that. ... . Mr. Billman: ----when we came to Planning & Zoning, we had not had this problem before anywhere on the height of the building with cupola included, and we thought we were okay on that; and obviously the big question came up that this was above the 28' line and so I felt immediately after that meeting that we had to get a clarification from what did the developer really mean, I think that if Planning & Zoning that evening had had these facts, it probably would have been a 4-3 vote for it or something; but because they just didn't have those facts in front of them, and I apologize for that, but I wanted to get to the developer and say "What did you mean, if you meant 28' on the thing, then so be it, we will have to live with that" and I said "Don't tell me, I want to know for the Council's benefit and those people so they can understand it" and that was the letter that we got back, and I had a short discussion with Jack Bachtel on the phone and then the letter followed, so it was a clarification of what they meant by 28' and that was nearly all the discussion at P & Z that evening, was on the interpretation of, what did they really mean by that. I think we got over the fact that "O.K., you're not going to permit us to put Money Station Jeannie on the canopy up here". In other words, we've said "O.K." basically to that, we felt strongly about that, that you have to tell customers what kind of machine they're using when they get out of their car. People aren't going to circle the building and hope to find out, if they're 24-hour machine users, they need to know that when they pull on the site, and look at the canopy, they need to know what lane to go in, and P & Z said "No" to that. 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LE AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 You cannot tell them that this lane, a 60 or 70 year old man or whoever is driving in there looking to go, you can't determine where that is, so we said "O.K." to that, we can live by that, and I think everything else was in agreement that night, we just simply came to the interpretation of what was really meant by Planned Communities on this issue. Mayor Rozanski: I understand that and don't get me wrong, my comments do not mean that I don't like your building, I think it is a beautiful building, gorgeous, my only problem is that the same information is not being presented to Planning & Zoning that was being presented to us and I have a problem with that, especially being on the other side, on the Board of Zoning Appeals for a number of years. Mr. Billman: And I can appreciate that, and we certainly appreciate the work that staff does on Planning & Zoning side and we didn't, I felt find of funny about, we didn't have their approval and then come here and even ask for it, but we were running way behind on this, other competition is building out there, every day that we don't build is very costly to us and I think I probably said more than I need to. Joel Campbell: I think from a procedural standpoint, though, you've got two routes, as I see it, and I think Jan's point's well taken, I think, on this letter, number 1, you can either try to convince one of the five people, because under the Planning & Zoning Commission rules, only a person who voted against you can ask for a reconsideration of the vote. In other words, if Mr. Geese and I said "Gee, we think you're right, this letter changes, it makes it even stronger, we can't change, we already voted in favor of your application". You could only convince, either directly or through the staff, one of the five people who voted against your application, to ask for a reconsideration based upon new evidence, which is also one of the requirements, by the way. The second thing you can do, as I see it, is because that application as it was previously requested was turned down, you cannot bring exactly the same, at least I don't think you can bring, exactly the same application back without that reconsideration request being made, otherwise, you have to bring a new application back with probably something different on it, to be able to get the whole new process ' cause the theory being that you already had your one bite of the apple. Unfortunately, believe me, I'm sympathetic to your position, I think you understand that, but I've got to tell you, I'm not sure procedurely that you're entitled to go back and have a whole new hearing unless one of the people that voted against you requests the reconsideration. That's my guess, I don't know, Steve's the lawyer here, so he can tell us, but --- Dave Amorose: Well, if we're speaking of the Planning Committee's letter dated May 23, I really don't see this as any new evidence, I see this as a very much interested party that is selling property to this applicant to build a building, so I see that this -- Mr. Billman: We've closed on the land, that's been closed and done so there's no reason for them at this point to say one or another, the land is owned by State Savings Bank. 1>- Dave Amorose: But still, I don't see this as any new evidence or anything to take in consideration when one is making interpretation. I think the text clearly states that there is a 28' building height limitation, do we want to make an exception for this, if it was for a heating and cooling or ventilating apparatus, would we do it? Probably not, but we have to remember too, that the text as I recall on the other side of the road with Riverside is pretty much identical. So we're setting precidents here if we are granting any height variation, and this seems to be a considerable height variation of some 17' from the widow's walk up. That would obscure some signage, or whoever develops to the rear of this property from being seen from Avery Road. I just feel that the intent during the zoning process was a limitation of 28' and I feel we ought to stick with it. 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 (Denise King commented and comments were inaudible.) I would like just to make one comment here relative to why we didn't buy behind the site, the best lot was out front on Avery Road which is great frontage and great visibility for any commercial establishment, I think, would opt to buy the best lot out there which we did and have closed on and yes, if we went back beyond that we could have 28 + ' , not much higher than that, but we didn't so that's where we are. Mr. Billman: Your suggestion earlier, do I have that option to go back to Planning & Zoning and present that -- Steve Smith: I think you can go back to Planning & Zoning but I think you're faced with the paradox that Joel displayed for you and that is, I think you have to find, because of the rules of order of Planning Commission, you have to find one of the 5 members who will entertain and introduce it to have it reconsidered because of "new evidence", that being the explanation from the Planned Communities. Unfortunately, if you don't do that, you could file a new application but we've had limits, we've had people try that before and we've said you've gotta' wait a year unless you bring something different it, O.K., because that prevents people from just constantly not liking the vote and refiling. The simple, if there is a simple answer, is to find a member of the Planning Commission and you're very free to call them, you know they are a public body, the 5 people, and ask them based upon the fact you have this new interpretation, would they introduce and have this reconsidered. Mr. Billman: I think that would be an option at this point because I did feel that there were several members of the Planning & Zoning simply and stated clearly that the only reason they were voting was simply because of their interpretation of what the 28' height. Joel Campbell: I think you'll have to probably talk to each of the 5 and see what what their posture is because I'm not totally sure that there was at least 2 of them on the fence that much, maybe there were. The other thing, I guess, what I'm hearing, listening to the Council here tonight, just to tell you I got a gut feeling there is enough negativism from the rest of the Council here that sounds like even if Planning & Zoning approved it by a narrow margin, it may not make it through here as it is presently constituted. Obviously, I don't necessarily agree with that but everybody's entitled to their opinion certainly. I almost think maybe from your own personal perspective, or the company's perspective, you know one of the things that you all might have to think about is maybe modify the plan a little bit and see if you can get it to fly in some slightly modified form, if that's at all feasible, because I'm skeptical that there's going to be enough support either way. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not sure enough people will agree with me in either P & Z or here to be able to tell you that it's gonna' fly. Mr. Billman: I hear exactly what you're saying and there are lots of options we have at this point. Steve Smith: Let me make one other comment. Understand it works in reverse. You go back to Planning & Zoning and they approve it. Then you come here for it to be disapproved. It requires 5 votes to disapprove it. So if 3 of the members of Council support your position, it passes here, if it is passed before Planning & Zoning. So I guess my suggestion to you at this point, and again you do whatever you so desire, you are entitled to a roll call here tonight if you so desire, or you can withdraw this appeal and elect to attempt to have it resubmitted to Planning & Zoning Commission through the process we've described to you. Mayor Rozanski: Would there be a third option, and that would be to ask us not to vote on it tonight, hold the vote until all of Council is present, in the meantime see if there 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City CounciL Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 would be a person on Planning & Zoning being willing to ---- A. C. Strip: I don't think that's an option, I don't think you can have it sitting in two places at one time. I think you have to withdraw and, by the way, I've made no opinion as to how I feel about it so I just want to get myself on record, so don't close my account tomorrow. Steve Smith: If he wants to leave the appeal, he can leave the appeal and have the appeal heard here, but I don't think he can have two forms at the same time. Mayor Rozanski: Well, what I'm saying is that we basically table this to our next meeting and if he finds someone, then he can withdraw it from here and then it could be presented to P & Z. That way he's on the agenda here for the next meeting which doesn't hold them up timewise any longer, in case he can't find somebody to reintroduce it. A. C. Strip: When's the next P & Z meeting? Steve Smith: Thursday A. C. Strip: I'd think it's in his best interest to withdraw it, see if he can't get on the agenda Thursday and if he can't and wants to come back here - reappeal it here. Steve Smith: We'll entertain the reappeal as though it was timely filed. A. C. Strip: That's your best bet. Mayor Rozanski: Thank you very much, Sir. Yes sir, yes, please, come forward. My name is Peter Leffler, I'm on the Planning & Zoning Commission, and I guess I was one of those bad guys that voted against it, but there are a few facts I think that maybe need clarification. The letter is new to me, obviously as it is to you, but we can look at that as time goes on. But obviously there are other sub-areas as you mentioned that have in fact height limitations up to 65', so they were built internally for the high building. The Avery Road line was to be of a residential nature in keeping with the Dublin residential nature. I might add that's my words and I don't think a Mt. Vernon cupola, even though that was in fact a residence, really makes it a residence in this case, just as the Queen of England lives in a residence, I don't think we'd approve any of those either. Another fact, the existing bank in Dublin doesn't have a cupola, it has the same general architecture and I have no idea how their business is. Mayor Rozanski: I believe it does have a cupola. Yes, it was added recently, if I'm not mistaken. Peter Leffler: I stand corrected. We are in the front end of this development and the standards were developed over many hours and hours of discussion, so if we are going to direct and allow some sort of a change at this point in the front end of this, then I think what the Council should do is direct the staff and the developer to develop new standards if these are not right, but I am just going by the standards as presented and I have said publicly, I think the building is beautiful; unfortunately, I think they built to the maximum height and then went up from there with ornamentation and I think Denise King's comments are well taken and that had they started at a lower point and gone up, maybe not 17' but some other number and been closer to the required height, I think it would be more positively received. Thank you. Mayor Rozanski: Thank you. We'll move on to the Request for Approval of Final Plat 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting N LEGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Wyndham Village Section One. Who's here tonight on that one? Bobbie Clarke: This is a request for approval of the first section of Wyndham Village. Wyndham Village is a new subdivision to be located on the west side of Avery Road. It starts immediately at the south property line of Avery Park, moves southward, wraps around the new Catholic Church and will have two entries onto Avery Road. This first section is the northern section and it will have 85 lots and the extension of Dublinshire will align the street that is the entrance here. In this case, I believe it's called Wynford Drive. That street is supposed to be a major east/west connector. At any rate, the sight is 44 acres and it's 85 lots, including several parcels that are set aside as reserves that will be used for park purposes. This includes a 4 or 5 acre site to the interior of the subdivision and two parcels along the frontage which will be part of a linear park along Avery Road which is begun further to the south with the Lowell Trace and Wexford subdivisions. A bike path will extend along there. This is basically a subdivision of 80' lots. Some of the other development standards within Dublin have been applied to this subdivision, they include the no-build zone at the rear of the lots, which prohibits fencing and all other construction, the setbacks will be staggered, they will use a box, or square setback around cul-de-sac lots. Staff recommended approval. At the Planning Commission, with 8 conditions, the Planning Commission upped it by 4 and they approved the plat with the following conditions: 1. Street trees to be installed in accordance with Dublin Code. 2. No fencing to be stipulated for no-build zone. Revision: I have received a letter that stipulates that from the attorney involved. 3. Right-of-way consists of community plan to be dedicated along Avery Road with possible ditch enclosure to be determined by the City Engineer. The appropriate right-of-way is indicated on the plat. The City Engineer can speak for the ditch enclosure. The conditions passed Planning Commission were: 1. Submission of bike path, wetland, grading and landscaping of the linear park subject to staff approval. The applicant has agreed to that but they have not been submitted as they are not yet designed. 2. Determination of the side yard, this was determined at the Planning Commission to be a 6' minimum, 14' combined, and a rear yard of 20% of lot depth and the no- fencing graphic was clarified with a letter. 3. Construction ofleft-turn stacking lane on Avery Road at Wynford Drive based upon an engineering traffic study as approved by the City Engineer. This will permit left turn stacking and to go on at the same time, northbound Avery Road is unrestricted for through traffic. 4. Stormwater detention design in compliance with MORPC Standards and approved by the City Engineer. ih 5. Roadway drainage along Avery Road designed and installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. All utilities and street geometrics designed and installed as approved by the City Engineer. 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 7. Site layout as approved by Washington Township Fire Department. 8. That the Wynford Drive intersection correctly aligns with Dublinshire Drive extension. 9. That the school park site remain as open space even if the school is not built. The overall subdivision has at the southwest corner a 28 acre site for a middle school. One of the conditions at the time of zoning was that this area had to be either used for a park or for a school and the Planning Commission made very strong representations with regard to the number of units that was asked overall and that the number could be larger if there were no school. But since there was a school, they were not willing to entertain further units. Basically we have laid out a plan for the west of Avery Court or to be developed at two units per acre and if the school land, the 28 acres, is residentially developed at some point in the future, that two units per acre will most likely be exceeded. The Planning Commission, I believe, wanted to go on record once again, that this school or parksite was computed in the overall density and is expected to remain in basic open space for that area. That body passed this final plat at their May meeting. So it is forwarded to you for final disposition. The applicant's here. Does Council have any questions for Bobby at this time? ..'-.~ Ben Rale: It's nice to be here. I only have one comment. We basically agree with the conditions. I think that the one condition that we have a problem with, and it's more of a legal nature than anything else, when we did this zoning, it's zoned Planned Low Density Residential, the school site was shown on the plan as a Planned Low Density Residential and it is a part of the zoning map and the zoning tax and the zoning commitment, but we don't own, my client does not own the school site. The school site is owned by the school and they agreed to have the ground that they own as a part of our zoning. I don't think that this Council can say that plat condition, that you can't rezone this piece of property. If the school in the future decides that they're not going to use this and they want to file a zoning on it, they have a right to have a hearing because it is perfectly possible that none of us will be here anymore and that Council has a right to make a decision. They would have to go through the zoning and all of the history would come out, there's no question that everybody in the room understood that that was going to be either a school or a park and that the density calculations are done based on that happening, but I don't think that as a part of the platting process you'd take away some future council's right to consider that zoning and I think that's what the condition amounts to. So I don't think that I can or you can legally attach that condition to the plat. Ii Steve Smith: I discussed this with Harrison after this meeting with Mitch and we tried to point out that evening, I believe, this thing sort of slipped through in that fashion and in researching it I don's think we can attach, I don't think we can limit, a future zoning of a parcel, not accompanying this plat, as part of this plat, to this. We can have all the recommendations in the world we want, but if the school decides not to build there, I don't think it's going to remain vacant land forever, I think what's going to happen is they could come in and go through a rezoning process. So that condition on its face, I don't want to say is illegal, but we can't control what the school is going to do there and to tell the applicant that as part of his condition, that property can't be rezoned by the school, I don't think we can do that. 'IIi' Ben Hale: You can always turn the school down. You don't agree with what they're trying to do because they've agreed to this zoning, but --- Steve Smith: Well, I think what's happened is, we try to accomodate the school by letting 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting NEAL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReId June 3, 1991 19 it become a part of this to insure that the land was there for them, and then I think, and again I was not present at the Planning Commission but Mitch and I did talk about this and I think what happened, they attempted to word it in such a way to make it a strong statement but I think maybe what they've done is attempted to restrict legally something they can't restrict. They have a right if they do no use it, hopefully everybody wants to use it, that's the plan, but if it's not zoned, I don't think it's going to avoid any zoning, I think they have a right to come back and ask to be rezoned and have to be treated on its own merits by whoever's here. Ben Hale: I think in all other respects this plat complies with the Planned Low Density Residential and the conditions that have been attached are agreeable. It does comply with the text and the map that was submitted and you approved the zoning so I think in all respects the plat that you are looking at tonight is in conformance with the zoning and the zoning really acts as a preliminary plat so this would be in conformance with ----- Steve Smith: I want to add one more thing - in reviewing the discussion of Planning & Zoning that night, I'm not sure that we were strong enough in dissecting that nor do I think counsel for the applicant was that evening and I don't think that P & Z realized, we didn't catch it, O.K., and I don't think they caught it either cause I was called the next morning on it and when I met with Mitch immediately, we sat down and said "We don't think we can do that, we can make a statement, it's the intention of everybody" but in the course, the history would be relived in a rezoning. Denise King: Joel, perhaps you could respond to this. What is the connection, then between this parcel of land that has quite appropriately been set aside for a school and we're glad that folks have looked at that, and this plat. Joel Campbell: I can only tell you the same thing that has already been mentioned, and that was, when we considered all this, there was a concern about the density as Ben's already mentioned and when we discussed it we tried to find away, and of course, our lawyer and the lawyer for the applicant were there discussing it with us to try and find a way so that the general feeling of the open space would be preserved as much as we could possibly do it. I guess what we're being told tonight is maybe we can't do that, at least not technically, all we can do is make some record that indicates that that was the preference of everybody, and I think, after thinking about it further, I guess I think Steve and Ben are right. I'm not sure we can bind that parcel, even though it came in in this whole discussion, because that theoretically would take away the right of the school board to ever back and rezone if they wanted to do it. And they're entitled to come back whether they get it or not is another matter, but I think they are entitled to come back. Denise King: I accept that, my question is if that decision was made based upon concern about the density of this project, then if we are no longer able to make that connection there, do we have the revisit the density of this project and determine whether or not this density is now inappropriate. 11" Ben Rale: No, this piece of property is zoned the way it's zoned and the layout of the entire piece is like this and it's got a school site on it. And the way PPLR works is that we're in an administrative process and basically the difference between administrative and legislative is when you zone it and it's legislative you have a broad amount of disgression. When we come in with a plat, according to the administrative process and the real question before you is, do we comply with this plan and we do comply with this plan, and once we comply with that plan, we have a legal right to have it approved. The school clearly is designated on this plan as a school, we could develop this and come in down here and ask you to rezone it, you can tell us "No", but you can't take away a right and administrative process for somebody to ask you as a legislator to change lesislation because one council 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn june 3, 1991 19 can't bind a future council, I mean it would be like somebody coming in and saying "I'm taking all your rights ten years ago" Denise King: We're not arguing about that. '" . Ben Hale: So when we comply with this plan, which we've done, we have a legal right to have it approved. Mayor Rozanski: That's not what Denise is trying --- Steve Smith: Let me try to address your question. I think your question is, does the density that was approved meet the zoning density in the zoning that was previously, in other words does their plan meet the zoning density and the answer to that is "Yes, it does". Denise King: That's my question. Steve Smith: The answer, yes, it does. It would be better now, we would get more bang for our buck if we could insure, it would be better than what they have to do if we can keep the school there, but they do meet the legal requirement of the zoning with respect to density, yes, they do. Mayor Rozanski: Ben, Lot 85 which sits in reserve B, that's an existing house? ~,~.,.,,,,, Ben Hale: That is an existing house that was also shown as part of the zoning plan but with a lot around it. The plan had the house remaining with the lot and all that is is again a reflection of preliminary, of the zone, that's the way the zoning is. t;i. A. C. Strip: I'm still trying to sort out the school business, because I'm looking at the minutes somewhere here of, I think it was P & Z in 1990, I think that's where I'm looking, is this the last time it went to P & Z, Ben? Ben Hale: That was when the zoning was approved, 1990. A. C. Strip: So I'm caught by surprise here a little bit, because I'm all through the, at least May '91 minutes, I'm seeing the school, the whole school site issue keeps coming up over and over and over and I'm trying to figure out, did they review something they shouldn't have been reviewing or was it presented differently at the zoning hearing than it's being presented here, and I don't have the answer, Ben. Ben Hale: I think your first statement's probably right, I think we were probably discussing things beyond what we really might even had the opportunity to discuss that night. I think there was, I forget how it first came up, you can look at the minutes to figure it out, the concern came up, is this density a problem? And I think, in retrospect, if the density matched what was approved by the P & Z a year ago, or 18 months ago, whenever it was now, they have a right to have the approval. That just happened as sometimes does happen at P & Z, there was some discussions going beyond maybe what they would have had to deal with ---- And there's no question in the zoning process, all these issues were thoroughly discussed and the density was talked about in terms of if the school was here, what's the density, if the school's not here, what's the density, what's the park, we exceeded our park, that is the school was in no way required to meet the park requirements, the park requirements were exceeded by about an acre and a half so this school site is in no way related to your park requirements, your park requirements are being met. So those issues were discussed, they were settled and there wasn't any alternative use allowed on this piece of property. If you look at the zoning map, it's a school, if they're going to do anything with it other than a school, including a park, they gotta' come back to you. So, 25 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A B NK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 it's zoned for a school, clearly, in the zoning itself, which is an allowable use in the PLR. Mayor Rozanski: Does the school own that property outright, or do they have an option? ~ Ben Hale: The school, I'm not sure whether they closed on the second parcel, they own part of it. I don't know that they own, they had an option, they exercised a portion of their option ---- Steve Smith: I don't think they exercised the whole option, because as I recall I received a call from the attorney representing the landowner who I think still owns part of it, said "You guys can't do what you did because if they don't exercise their other option, then what am I gonna' do?" That's when I talked to Harrison and I think we talked back to you at that point it time also. I don't think they've closed on both sections of it. Ben Hale: The school owns some portion of it. I'm not sure what --- Joel Campbell: I think at the meeting they said the same thing, that they didn't own the whole thing, but they owned part of it. Steve Smith: I can't remember the name of the lawyer that called me, I had it in my notes at work but he did call and acknowledge, oh, I tell you who it was, Vince Rakestraw called, it was his client. "" Ben Hale: I think, to go back to my point a minute ago, about the, not my point, my concern about how that density issue came up, it actually came up during Bobbie's presentation and on, you can see it in the notes, where there was some discussion about the, during the rezoning a year and a half ago, that there was a concern about the density, and then, Mr. Kranstuber asked a couple questions about the units per acre and then Mr. Leffler, who was here a few minutes ago, also mentioned something about the regulations applying and that type of thing, but I think that's where it came up, but I realistically think we probably were asking to revisit something that maybe we technically might not have been able to do had there been concerns about it. I think what it boils down to, I think the lawyers that are here tonight are correct, and we probably realistically, if the final plat meets the original zoning that took place 18 months ago or whatever it is, I think they're entitled to approval and the school issue, if they want to come back and ask for a change later, they can ask for that. The question would be whether they get it or not, but doesn't really matter. "",.,,,..,,, A. C. Strip: So we're saying that the school site is not owned by this applicant? Ben Hale: That's correct. The school site was never owned by this applicant. A. C. Strip: That's where you went wrong, it's on page 14, you kind of jumped right over that bridge. If you look at the second paragraph starting Mr. Geese asked about the school district, that's where everything went askew. Near the end of the paragraph. Then it became picked up as a condition #9 down below and somebody just jumped the gun and --- -~ Bobbie Clarke: There are two things I'd like to say. One is that this application went before Planning Commission two days after Dublin's bond issue was defeated at the polls and if you go through the minutes of the Planning Commission, school's came up in a lot of issues where school really wasn't the issue. I think it was present on the Commission's mind and that's why it came up. If you want to look at this particular segment separate from the others, the intention of our plan was to have two units per acre and if you look at this in isolation, it meets that. This particular section is not dependent upon the school site to meet the density requirement. Those are my two issues. 26 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAD N LE AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 A. C. Strip: Once again, now, on a stand alone basis then, forgetting the whole school discussion, it doesn't exist, on a stand alone basis what we're looking at here, meets the requirements, is that what your're saying? Bobbie Clarke: That's correct. Mayor Rozanski: Any other comments or discussions? All the parkland, dedications, and everything correct and taken care, no problems? Denise King: Another quick question. One of the requirements as recommended by the Planning Commission is the construction of a left turn stacking lane on Avery Road and it is certainly an excellent idea for the protection of the residents who will occupy the homes on these lots. When will that requirement be met? Ben Hale: Prior to opening the subdivision. There's a condition, I believe Dublin's practice is that you get it all done before you start building houses. Denise King: So it's your intent to complete the left turn stacking lane prior to --- Ben Hale: During construction of the subdivision, prior to receiving -- Denise King: During the construction of the roads, for the, okay, before any buildings are begun. Thank you. Mayor Rozanski: Sewage on this, is that coming from the south, or is that coming from - Paul Willis: Sewage from this subdivision is coming from the east, from the Earlington subdivision, along the Deer Run. Mayor Rozanski: So it would be an extension of that sewer - it doesn't have anything to do with the extension of Muirfield Drive? Paul Willis: That's correct. It does pass under Muirfield Drive near Deer Run. But it's a separate one than the other one ---- Mayor Rozanski: Than the one we had the discussion with, O.K. And then this also supplies sewer to St. Brigid' s when this is built? Ben Hale: Correct. We also have a storm line to build through the same creek and that one also takes care of the church, so the church, we need to do both of those to service the church. Mayor Rozanski: Bringing light to another issue, does that help our situation on Avery Road at the park? Ben Hale: Yes, it will. (';<". -.. Mayor Rozanski: I'd entertain a motion on this final plat approval, deleting point #9, which is that the school/park site remain an open space even if the school is not built, due to the fact it has no bearing on this particular subdivision or plat in front of us. Motion made and seconded. Approved with the deletion of #9. 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Motion seconded. Any comments or discussions on the motion? Hearing none, Prances Roll call was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Rozanski: Next, Designated Acting City Manager in Temporary Absence or Disability of our City Manager. Timothy Hansley: Again, this proposal is a housekeeping change primarily reflecting the fact that the present Acting City Manager is Nan Metz, and this is her last Council meeting and within a few days will be her last days with the City. This takes Council approval, I recommend appointees, the Council then by majority vote ratifies those. In this case, I'm recommending that Terry Poegler be the Acting Manager in my absence, in the case he and I are both absent from the city limits, then the Police Chief, Ron Perrell, would be next in line, so asking Council to approve those two appointments. Is there any discussions or comments? So moved. A. C. Strip made the motion. Denise King second the motion. Roll Call was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Rozanski: Employment of New Finance Director. Timothy Hansley: Again in a similar vein, Nan's resignation also, unfortunately required us to take a look at filling that vacancy with the option of conducting a search or to look from within as I pointed out in my memo to Council, that task became pretty easy, when Marsha Grigsby was appointed as the Assistant Pinance Director, this was the thought that at some point in time, she would be trained to take over for Nan. The only thing that happened was, the time frame was probably two or three or four years sooner than we would ever have anticipated. Marsha is extremely well qualified for this post, we have prepared a news release for the media that highlights her assets to serve as Director of Pinance and we also pointed this out to City Council. Our intention, therefore, is to do the same thing we did when Marsha was hired and that is to conduct a very good search for an assistant that can then be trained to take over at such time as Marsha would ever decide to move on. So with that said, that's my recommendation for appointment, and that requires also a majority vote of City Council to approve that. Then I would recommend that to you. Mayor Rozanksi: Any comments or questions from Council? Hearing none, I entertain a motion to appoint Marsha Grigsby as our new Finance Director. Motion made and seconded. Roll call was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Rozanski: Reports from Council Committees. Are there any committees of Council at this time? Timothy Hansley: Let me add one thing that should have been on the agenda by Council instruction, the fire issue is supposed to be on the agenda. Steve, can you give a quick update on what's happening tomorrow morning? 28 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting NK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 ;. Steve Smith: Tomorrow morning, I am now told sometime after 10:00, we will argue before the Supreme Court, there is very, very limited seating in the Supreme Court, so if you wish to come, obviously you have that right, you'd best come quite early. I'll have a seat, probably trying to save Tim a seat, but really it's very limited seating. I don't know when we'll get a decision, I can't predict that, but again tonight I would only advise you that we finally will be able to present by oral argument tomorrow our position and the other side also will have that opportunity. The entire argument takes approximately 30 minutes or if the Supreme Court, in and of itself, decides to take longer, they, of course, have that option and have been known to do so with certain cases. .., . Timothy Hansley: I have a quick question that came up in the presentation, Gene or one of the trustees made a couple of weeks ago and that's that our understanding of the rules is that we have 15 minutes and the other side has 15 minutes -- Steve Smith: That's correct, and you're permitted, it's very interesting in this situation, we have 15 minutes and we are permitted to reserve some of that for rebuttal. And Jim and I and Becky have met and discussed how we're going to do that. The interesting part will come to see what Delaware does - what I think will happen is I think Delaware will defer to Concord Township to argue, that's what I think's going to happen but I don't know. Timothy Hansley: And they have the right to do that, is that -- \l,. Steve Smith: Sure do. And that's what we think will happen, we do not think that Delaware will present, they may surprise us, if they come, they've gotta' split that time, the interpleader, Concord, does not get another 15 minutes unless, again, the Supreme Court decides to do that, I don't see that happening, but they are the boss of the situation so I would think that what will happen is that they'll reserve to Concord and Concord will make the argument. ... Timothy Hansley: I've just one - this observation - I can't imagine how this complicated issue can be (?) into two 15-minute presentations, no matter how they slice the pie, that's why I'm gonna' go. You can't talk in 15 minutes about this issue. Mayor Rozanski: Our reports from Council committees, any Council committees wanting to make a report? A. C. Strip: Just to advise you that Finance Committee has several things before them from Bed Tax, we'll be having committee meeting and a report back at the next regular Council meeting. Mayor Rozanski: O.K. Any other Council committees? Hearing none, we'll go to staff comments. ... Timothy Hansley: Just to remind Council of the staff party which Council's invited to Friday this noon, it was originally 3:00, it's now 12:00 noon, so hopefully some of you can be there, I know a few of you have some conflicts and we feel badly about that but if you can make it, we'd love to have you, that's all I have. "" Terry Foegler: In reference to Committee activity, I have talked to Mr. Campbell in regard to some of the issues that we're dealing with and formulating some land acquisition policies. We would like the Land Use and Planning Committee at their next meeting to consider some of those recommendations that we have, get some additional Council input, and we are also seeking some additional legal input regarding some of the recommended land acquisition policies, just for Council's information. Tammy's working to set that up. She'll be giving you a call. Another piece of information just so Council's aware, as we've 29 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DA NEAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Reln June 3, 1991 19 '" f emphasized on several times previously, one aspect of the Capital Improvement Program that we wanted to address first in terms of the five-year program was defining which projects would be within the five-year program. The second key component of that which we have to begin on staff level is distributing those over a five-year period in accordance with the fiscal policies, financial policies that were contained in the program. We will be distributing to Council probably within a couple days for your review, some recommendations regarding how, probably several scenarios could be spread out over a five- year period so that we can start to think that part of the process through, and as you get closer to it, including the question of which projects ought to be included, we can also begin to address the question of how they ought to be spread over the five-year period. .' Nan Metz: I just wanted to confirm that the Finance Committee had received an application from Team Columbus, is that one that you received for Bed Tax Funding? O.K. we just received it May 31, so we'll make sure you get a copy of that and you can consider that at your next meeting. Mayor Rozanski: Team Columbus is a semi-professional bicycling team that is moving their headquarters to Dublin and has two races scheduled in Dublin, one June 30 in the old part of Dublin and then another one later on in July, July 26. ,", Nan Metz: Yea, and they are requesting the funds by June 22 so I would think you would want to have that on your agenda. The other thing, there was a memo in your prior packet and another one included in this packet from Laura Colwell regarding House Bill 314, and that's dealing with the court costs that we would be reimbursing the Franklin County Municipal Court and we aren't quite sure how it also may relate to Delaware and Union Counties, like we're getting more involved with utilizing Delaware County court operation as well, but one of the major points is that this could, there is currently a cap on our proportionate share of court costs that is, the cap is in the amount of fines that we may actually receive, a revenue that we will receive, and this proposal is that that cap may potentially be withdrawn. So she has written, you may want to look for that memo, she's done some research at the request of Mrs. King to review what some of the other cities have done with regard to this proposal, so, just wanted to raise your awareness to that, I don't know if Council would like to have a position to communicate on that issue. It could have some implications as to whether you would still retain a Mayor's Court, too, if you're paying to operate another court. A. Strip: The problem is, if you don't have a Mayor's Court, you're compelling all our citizens to go downtown and take part in the zoo atmosphere down there, and sit around all day on a minor traffic infraction. ----------1 have seen 'em both, and this is a picnic compared to downtown. Denise King: Follow up on this memo that has been provided by Laura Colwell on this and ask the staff to prepare a resolution in opposition to House Bill 314 so that the cap is maintained and we can continue to serve the people of Dublin as well as we're now serving them through Mayor's Court, it's really a question of financial responsibility and also of service. ",.. A. C. Strip: I would think some of the other surrounding communities ought to be feeling the same way - Denise King: They're ahead of us. A. C. Strip: Yes, I'mjust wondering if it isn't appropriate to pass an appropriate resolution at our next Council meeting to express our sentiments. Talking about formal resolution, etc., etc. 30 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A NK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Reln June 3, 1991 19 Mayor Rozanski: Is there a consensus of Council that we form a resolution opposing the House Bill. Can we get that done, then? O.K. .' Paul Willis: Yes, I have four items, if you will please bear with me. Since, 1 believe, 1988, we have been looking to ODOT to overlay Route 33 and safety upgrading. We first thought that would happen in 1990, then we thought it would happen this year, and I've learned recently it's not going to happen this year, it's probably going to happen next year. Recognizing that 33 is not in very good condition, it has a number of potholes in it and it's, technically it's quite dry and will continue to fall apart. 1 asked ODOT what they could do to hold it over, so they came back with an option which 1 believe is workable, but what they call staged construction, but to patch it and overlay it with a, what they call rollumac, it's essentially a slurry seal, something we've used on some of our streets here in town, and they've sent legislation, which Frances has now requesting permission to do that along with some financial cooperation to the tune of $6,000, 1 believe it is and that will be before you next Council meeting, seeking your input on that. Timothy Hansley: Quickly, it will probably come up when this is before you, but Danny will spend more than that just trying to patch it -- Paul Willis: Oh, absolutely -- Timothy Hansley: and technically because it's a state highway within the city, we're responsible for routine maintenance right now so that'll be money well spent. Mayor Rozanski: Now if they do this temporary rollumac, will that postpone the inevitable and they may put it back to '93 or '94 or are we still talking '92? Paul Willis: 1 don't know the answer to that for sure, 1 hope not, I don't think so. The plans originally, they were to have been completed by July of this year, I am finding out that they don't expect them to be finished for the overlay and safety upgrading until December of this year and perhaps it will be later than that, 1 don't know. Mayor Rozanski: So basically, the postponement's due that the plans aren't ready and not that they don't want to do it or they're just postponing or stalling. ~, Paul Willis: That's correct. Another item today, trying to keep on schedule with the requirements of the work from the Ohio EPA, we opened bids on the retention tank and we've received 7 bids ranging from $1,001,000 to $1,375,000. We will be evaluating over the course of the next few days the work experience and other peoples' experience with the lower bidders and will be back to you next Council meeting with a recommendation on a contractor for that work. Third thing, sometime last year Council approved an ordinance which set a procedure for accepting public streets, or streets that had been built as private streets, excuse me, into the public sector for maintenance and upkeep. I think we're going to get to implement that ordinance in the very near future for the first time, not with the first one that we were talking about at the time that ordinance was passed, but with another two streets in Muirfield, one is Camoustie Court and the other is Aryshire Court, two private cul-de-sac streets and we'll be looking at the way those streets were constructed and how to bring them up to date in terms of the ordinance that you passed. And the final thing is that a few of you may have noticed in your trips around town, the traffic signal is being installed at Dublin Center Drive and S.R. 161. This is being installed by the City of Columbus for us, though we will be paying for it. We budgeted $50,000 for this signal as well, but we think the cost will come in around 40. Mayor Rozanski: This is a span-wire signal? 31 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting AD N EGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 Reln June 3, 1991 19 Paul Willis: Yes it is, and it's a signal that we expect will be replaced when 161 is widened to 5 lanes. tJi.,~, ~ Janet Jordan: Summer and recreation programs are traditionally large, but this is the largest that we have during the whole year and I'm pleased to announce that between Saturday and the mail that came in that we don't open until Monday, we brought in over $25,000 in summer recreation fees, that by quite a few thousand dollars is the largest registration two days we've ever had in the history of the Parks and Recreation Department and that was comprised of 424 transactions, it was an average family investing about $60.00 is how it broke down on an average. So we are very pleased, and that was programs excluding the pool, it was all from tennis lessons to camps to playgrounds to summer bowling, so we're real pleased about that. Second of all, I would like to request that at the Finance Committee meeting, we be able to discuss some of the direct and indirect costs of the World Series and how it's going to affect the operating budget of the Parks and Recreation Department, some things are anticipated, some things because we didn't know that we were going to have this event when we put our budget together. We're not ---- A. C. Strip: We'll be happy to undertake that, Mr. Mayor. Sandra Puskarcik reported on upcoming special events. A. C. Strip: Nan, I'm probably going to steal the thunder of everybody else on Council by telling you that we will miss your smiling face, probably be in touch with you to look for something that we need your memory for but it's been a good experience and I wish you the very best, I think our loss is the bank's gain and still think you no doubt contributed much to our city, so, our very sincere thanks, without humor, what size shoes do you wear by the way? I would ask staff to at least start considering or maybe even go the next step as to what will happen, if in fact, we should have the Supreme Court rule in our favor or conversely, what would happen perhaps if we didn't and we went to the paper township, what would occur as far as transitioning funds between township and City of Dublin and how would it affect, 1 don't need an answer now, if you're prepared, but if it hasn't been looked into, I think we have to start looking into it and talking about transition with the Trustees, etc,. Maybe it's something you have already thought of. Timothy Hansley: I'm not sure 1 understand the total extent of your question, but 1 think Denise, and I don't want to steal her thunder. She has been working very diligent as the chairman of the Safety Committee, the inner process where in a nonadversarial setting, she and representatives of the various townships involved have been meeting almost on a social basis just to trade information and say "Here, is this happens, here's what's likely to happen, or here's what we think could happen, what's your reaction to that" and kind of playing some of those "what if" scenarios. A. C. Strip: My specific concern is in the event of, what happens with tax collections which are collected by the township for fire and emergency services, when would the next tax collections affect the City of Dublin, do we prorate with the township, do we not, does it cut the township's fire department's budget, or they all of a sudden with less money than they have right now, is there a windfall, my guess is it's not, my guess is it's a shortfall---- "', Timothy Hansley: One thing that we are hopeful of, and Steve and I haven't talked about this for a few days, but one thing we're extremely hopeful of is that the Supreme Court in their wisdom, will give us some direction. We have made some reference to that in our filings and we hope they don't just say the boundary is shifted and then throw us a hot potato to say mechanically "You guys figure it out". We all know John Peterson, Delaware County, and the auditor of Franklin County, our own staff, we know there is a mechanical 32 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 issue, I think with us and in Concord and Delaware County would like the Supreme Court to give us some guidance. "iF...."" A. C. Strip: I'm really concerned about nuts and bolts, as to where does the money go, whose account does it go in, when does it come out, how does it affect the budget, real nuts and bolts issues. ..' ".,ii Timothy Hansley: Let me tell you something for free that was alluded to by, I think Mr. Wilt for one, and then it's been referred to other people, 1 don't think it's any major secret, 1 think you need to know as a Council member and as a resident of the area, that if the Supreme Court doesn't tell us very precisely how and what we can do with the tax dollars, that very likely somebody's going to take that back to court to get that guidance from some judge. We think we know mechanically how to do that, by working with staff here and staff in the two counties, we think we have a statute that tells us how to do that, but it's never been done before. A. C. Strip: What I want to know though, will there be any budgetary impact on fire and emergency services as a result of, should we win in the Supreme Court? ..~ Timothy Hansley: Absolutely, yes absolutely. They will lose, Concord Township will lose, 1 forget the number, 75 to 90 percent of their present tax base and they're aware of that. We hope the Supreme Court tells us exactly how to do that and what effective date and how to do that, but if they don't, then the two county auditors working with our City staff will help the scenario, then may be challenged by somebody, a resident, or the township group, or Delaware County, commissioner, somebody may challenge that. "F A. C. Strip: But in view of all that, again, 1 am recommending meetings between the Fire Department, the township trustees and ourselves in whatever form so that we don't start scrambling if we get a quick decision. Timothy Hansley: I'm saying that Denise is taking the leaderhip to say before the decision is made, "Can we agree maybe to disagree, but at least do it in a friendly fashion, etc., etc." That's happened the last couple months. If'Il''"''''''' Denise King: Just to comment on that. We did have two meetings, one with Tim, myself, Kurt Proegler from Washington Township and Dick Byrd from Perry Township and no decisions were made but it was an opportunity to get together and talk about the status of things and then we decided to have another meeting and include what was clearly a missing party there, and invited Jane Antanapolous and she came, it was the first time since 1987 that the three townships had gotten together and talked about fire protection, that alone was an event that needed to take place. By building these personal bridges and discussing each person's hopes for the future of fire protection objectively before there is a winner and a loser, we hope to be able to deal with whatever comes out of the Supreme Court's wisdom, in a more productive manner. Because clearly if you take the folks that were involved in that meeting, and the level of dedication that they all have, think how much we could achieve if we weren't fighting with each other, and if we were working productively to resolve this issue. And 1 hope that one of the results down the line of that one informal discussion was, that we will be able to work better together and that the chiefs of all those departments will have gotten together and be more up-to-date as a trio as to exactly where each one of them is in terms of providing the best level fire protection that can be. 1 share your concern, we did not talk about the nuts and bolts part, Dana's done a lot of work on that, evidently Steve has to. We need to make sure we're up to speed on that. Ii<< A. C. Strip: A couple other quick items here. May 1 ask that, whenever if possible, if staff has a memo, whatever extra lead time you can give us in getting it to us would sure be 33 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DAYT N EGAL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 ~. appreciated. Sometimes we get it on the table the night of Council meeting, sometimes it's even in the packets, and the packet get pretty thick, and if you're out of town on the weekend and you're back in Sunday at midnight, it's an awful lot to digest when some of these memos may be available a week or ten days in advance so, just a request, when you know you got a memo, rather than wait 10 days to put it in the packet, mail, fax, or do something. That would just be appreciated. Just a thought, I just saw that the City of Baltimore, Maryland, a city with probably a very high illiteracy rate, developed a logo, and their logo is "Baltimore, the city that reads". It just occurred to me that even though it's probably terribly inaccurate for Baltimore, it's really good P.R. and maybe we ought to have some kind of a logo that's on all our cars and trucks, and letterhead and billboards, and while we're doing a lot of P.R., saying maybe this may be the time, whether it's Dublin, the tree city, or Dublin, the green city, or whatever, a logo, I think, it's kind of neat for a city and something we can kind of splash around, so just --if Baltimore can get away with a total inaccuracy, then we can certainly present something that's quite accurate. I'd like to engineer it to continue to review the possibility of more and more lights going on flashing, as we keep installing lights. We've talked about it at one intersection, but as we keep putting in lights, I think it's more important to review, should some of these lights be flashing at 10:00 at night or 11:00 at night? Paul Willis: I'd like to report back to you about your last request. We've taken no action at this point because we've had some problems with the operation of those two signals. And I think at this point they're now operating properly but we had a problem with one of those signals as recently as last week. A. C. Strip: I wasn't nagging about that one intersection, but I'm saying as we continue to put in lights in what are very important daytime intersections, maybe Village Parkway or something, they may be very less important at midnight, and I think sometimes you cause more problems when by asking people to stop at a red light when there's nobody there and tempting them, than maybe to put it on caution or something, just a thought. Lastly, with the opening of O'Shaughnessy, is there something doing within the city where we are starting to have any final planning on widening 161, which is badly needed. I haven't heard anything about it for a while. Is there a timetable or anything? Terry Foegler: The point we're at, we just recently obtained the legal descriptions of all the parcels and we are notifying the adjacent property owners hoping for a cooperative gift of abutting property. It's agreed that if that doesn't work out, then we're going to have to get involved in a more formalized acquisition process. It's strictly a function of acquisition, but since you do have the power to quick take, the design is complete, it is essentially biddable when we get right-of-way. So I would think if Council would make the decision after some relatively short negotiations, you could certainly be under contract for this by the end of the summer. Terry Foegler: Some are very minor amounts of land, some are a little more substance. I think the largest take is about 8'. Paul Willis: Six feet. ijr;,. Dave Amorose: Is this section from Franklin to Dale Drive, that you're speaking of! Terry Foegler: That's correct. The design's complete, the legal descriptions are ready, and it's a matter of acquisition. A. C. Strip: Would some of the bridge have to be closed in order to add a lane. Paul Willis: The bridge across the Scioto River? No. In fact, the construction of this is 34 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A N LE A BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 ... going to be a rather difficult sequence of operations because of the, to maintain traffic, during the busy hours of the day, and still be able to do the construction. Construction is taking place essentially on one side of the street, which is the north side. We have not calculated or not figured the amount of time yet that will be needed to do the construction because it is a very complex sequence of operations. We will be doing that and it likely will extend into next calendar year. A. C. Strip: But, it would end up giving us one additional lane all the way across the river? Paul Willis: It will give us five lanes through the Bridge and High intersection and with the removal of the east bound to northbound left turn at Riverside Drive, it will allow us to have two westbound through lanes across the river, and two eastbound through lanes across the river. So we'll have two lanes of traffic going in each direction at all points everyplace west of Riverside Drive. Terry Foegler: One new westbound lane, in effect. A. C. Strip: On the bridge? Terry Foegler: Yes, what now is a left turn storage for northbound Riverside will be abandoned and that additional lane will become continually westbound lane, so you will have twice the capability to carry westbound traffic. Paul Willis: It's converting the use of one of the lanes to another operation. Dave A morose: Terry, for you, certainly appreciate the project status report that you've been sending us every meeting. I'm concerned with this State Route 257 ditch repair which I feel is a, quite a simple and straightforward construction project of just cleaning out some ditching and installing some tile and filling and seeding. That project started back in February 21 and it still is far from completion. Granted that the contractor stated that he ran into some rock, but if you've ever dug over there along Riverside Drive, you know you're going to hit some rock. I guess this project, along with many others, just concern me. They seem to get started and they never quite get fully underway and they don't seem to come to an end or a completion within a reasonable amount of time. I feel that it's very unfair to the property owners to have their frontage torn up for a whole season over a matter of cleaning out a ditch. Second, I don't think it's fair to the other bidders that possibly price may have been a little higher, 'cause they were going to get in there enough equipment and enough manpower with the materials and get the job knocked out, finished, punched out and do it right and get it finished. It's just dragging. '" Terry Foegler: I understand your concern. I'll let Engineering in a moment respond to your specific concern with that particular project. It's a matter of general policy and it's a frustration that we fully understand from Council in terms of projects. Some of these have stipulated time frames and some do not. Our leverage with contractors in terms of timeliness of the completion of projects is not large. Liquidated damages is one of our few routes and I'm sure the City Attorney can tell you that's a very difficult thing to try to I impose. Our biggest single lever by far with contractors is the withholding of future contracts, that is our single biggest way to obtain conformance with timeliness concerns and those types of things. We are much more restrictive than the kind of things that a typical private developer might do in terms of holding up payments or sitting on their things in state law that just restrict our ability to keep large amounts of dollars in escrow or the kind of thing that might be done on --- Dave Amorose: Well, I think that we need to meet with Steve and get some kind of penalty clauses built into these. 35 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting A i AL BLANK CO. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 Terry Foegler: That was my next point, I think similar to what you've done with the Muirfield project, you've looked at ways to be more aggressive with penalty clauses on projects. We can certainly look into that. I think if anyplace, this issue will apply to the detention basin which has a time frame established by administrative order of the State of Ohio, and we certainly impose serious penalties there. Dave Amorose: That's just one example, I mean, you go to Blazer, you go down Frantz Road to turn westbound on Blazer, it's still torn up, the whole corner's still just earth, never finished, and that's been going on for over a year. I get a call about every 30 days on that job. The striping, the paint is already worn off, the striping, you can't hardly even see that it's there, if you didn't know it was a three lane highway and you were going down there in the evening, you wouldn't know what lane to be in. Terry Foegler: I think the issue with Blazer connection is even similar concern. Staff raised it to me today with some concern that the contractor hadn't been out there within a week when he was supposed to be in terms of doing things and we share this concern. We are going to need to look for other ways to impose penalties for nonperformance, and those penalties are going to have to be stuck to, and word's going to have to get out that Dublin is serious on timeframes with projects, clearly on those that you do have a timeframe concern with. And we're more than willing to explore those. Right now those are very limited. ~". Paul Willis: I think we need to delineate between two different types of projects and two different types of concerns, and I'm not sure that it's being clearly stated at this point. If you look on that project list, project status report, you'll notice that the 257 project has a completion date of the end of July, and that's in accordance with the terms of the contract that we have with the Reiter Company. In terms of the extension of Blazer Parkway, that is beyond its contract completion date and there certainly is a difference in those two. Dave Amorose: My concern is the management of a job like 257, you should be able to dictate to the contractor where to start and how to progress up the road. He went up the whole road for two miles and tore the whole thing up all at one time, not completing any one section as he went on through. And that's kind of a project that you can clean out and do in sections. Because I've seen he had a straw blower and everything else on site for a month now but he hasn't really final graded and seeded and strawed much of anything. But that's just the kind of frustration that I know as a council person, I'm getting a lot of calls on. Why isn't anything happening and why isn't getting completed on time. Another issue, too, is the one of the storm water basin over at Dublin Village Center. Had a couple of calls on that and I called Paul on that. Here we have a storm water detention basin that the applicant came in, wanted to move the existing basin, relocate it, and fine and good, it was approved by P & Z, and went through the process, etc. Well, all of a sudden, I was called up by two residents there to come over and take a look at this thing now that they were hydro seeding it, so it was finished as far as the contractor was concerned. And the outlet of the basin is probably 18" higher than the bottom elevation of the dry detention pond. So there we have 6" of water, just muck and weeds and algae and mosquitoes in a pond that isn't wet and it isn't dry, it's an inbetween type of situation which is nothing but a nuisance. ~....,",! \l"A Terry Foegler: If you've got a particular question on a design project like that, we'd certainly be happy to look into it and report back to you on that. I'm not familiar with ___ Dave Amorose: I just get, I know the citizens are feeling they are getting the run around, I feel as a member of Council that I, in turn, get a run around because why was something like that approved in the beginnging knowing that it would lead to a nuisance, granted there were some problems with the adjoining property owner, Vogel, apparently the property to the west, he did not fulfil his end of the bargain by developing in the same time frame that 36 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting NK co. FORM NO. 1C148 Rein June 3, 1991 19 we had hoped he had, but we should have made some provisions in case that other property p Terry Foegler: I think it's more involved with that. There's been, just relating to that dispute between those two property owners on the resolution of storm drainage, I've seen no less than probably 10 or 15 letters in the course of the last 6 months of what is a personal disagreement between those property owners, how that'll be resolved. Staff has tried on repeated efforts to get the parties to the table to work it out. One of the parties, as I understand it ---- ,. . Paul Willis: We are trying to do that again at this moment, and we received a letter today from Mr. Vogel, which basically didn't respond to our inquiry about getting together to resolve the differences. There seems to be less than full cooperation on everybody's part. Dave Amorose: I guess my thoughts on the matter, if it's temporary, it should have been filled in so that the elevation of the bottom of the pond is the same elevation as the exit, outflow type, so that we wouldn't have standing water in that area. Terry Foegler: And if it's determined that an inner solution is needed because the two property owners won't get together, we'll certainly look into that. But, quite honestly, in terms of your comment on private improvements that are installed that we inspect, I get far more comments that, I guess commenting on how strict our compliance requirements are in terms of testing of sewer systems and some of these other requirements. ]!P"''''' Dave Amorose: Oh, I think the quality is there, I'm not doubting the quality, I'm really questioning the timing of the projects, that's all, because they're just torn up, what seems to be forever, longer than necessary. .... Terry Foegler: I think the issue of getting better conditions within contracts, construction contracts that complies more serious penalty. Some of these contracts, by design, are being done within the established timeframes. Like the 257, perhaps it could have been spec'd in a way to make it a cleaner, neater job. Will certainly look into that. Denise King: The Solid Waste Authority will meet here tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 as part of our continuing efforts to bring that meeting allover central Ohio and be accessible to people. And we appreciate being able to use the room -- with fans. Maybe these doors can be opened, too. And secondly, I think that the record-breaking signup for summer Parks and Rec programs is a pretty strong endorsement from the public of their level of satisfaction both with the programming and with the staff. And we ought to interpret it that way. And lastly, I might have gone along with that cupola of State Savings if it had been a cupola. But it wasn't, it was nearly a steeple, and that's what bothered me. It was a huge structure and I think calling it a cupola was a misnomer, it was a steeple. ""'11II. Joel Campbell: We were talking projects and I don't want to take long, last time I said Muirfield really seemed to be moving along. I haven't seen anything happen the last two weeks after I said that. Don't let Mr. Savko take my comments last time to think they were gonna' stop looking at it. Make sure he knows that, as we have said before, if the job doesn't get done, like Dave said, we've gotta' start holding to the line, they don't get any more contracts, that's the only way we can deal with that. On the Frantz Road entry feature, it struck me when I was sitting at the traffic light the other day, you know it's a beautiful looking facility we've got there with the flowers and stone wall and all that. It looks great, it looks like the property owner right next door built it. We gotta' get a sign there that says something about Dublin doing that, so that the city who spent all the money to do it gets credit for having done the job. It is a very nice feature, I hope we get the sign there one of these days. And lastly, I want to wish Nan the best of luck in her new t&. ...., 37 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting OA LE AL BLANK co. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn June 3, 1991 19 employment, and you and Vern the best of everything in the future. You've been great here, and I'm sure you'll do great for the bank, so good luck to you. That's it for me. ~"'-'.... Mayor Rozanski: I have nothing tonight. I had entertained a motion to go into Executive Session on two matters, one is land acquisition and one is pending litigation, both be very brief. "" Moved and seconded. Roll call was unanimously in favor and motion carried. Meeting adjourned. ,/ ~.. I /1 '/1 I' . "v Lel/ L/t ." "/( /-<~ , 7<- (/~: / l.- I / ! Clerk of Council ,/ ~-~. . " """'--""~ \,. . 38