Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 09-13-2010 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC.,FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, September 13, 2010 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:05 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Reiner. Mrs. Boring arrived at 615 p.m. Mr. Keenan was absent (excused). ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition matters, legal matters and personnel matters. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, and Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent (excused). Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hahn, Lt. Heinz von Eckartsberg, Mr. Hirschy, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Husak, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Mr. Earman, Ms. Colley, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Nardecchia and Mr. Combs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the August 23, 2010 Council meeting. Vice Mayor Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. SPECIAL PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS • National Alcohol and Drug Recovery Month — September 2010 Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation to Julie Erwin Rinaldi, Executive Director of Dublin Counseling Center. Ms. Rinaldi thanked Council for this recognition, and Council and the community for their ongoing support. The Counseling Center has recently learned that the community has been awarded a federal grant to address youth substance abuse. The grant has been awarded through the Counseling Center to the Dublin A.C.T. coalition whose focus is to address youth substance abuse. She thanked Mr. Gerber and Vice Mayor Salay for their service on the Dublin A.C.T. coalition. • Arts in Education Week--- September 12-19, 2010 Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation to Dr. Sharon Buda, Wyandotte Elementary Visual Arts Education Coordinator and David Guion, Executive Director of the Dublin Arts Council. Dr. Buda thanked Council for the recognition and for their great relationship with the school district. Many opportunities are provided for students to share their artwork with the community, such as the pedestrian tunnels. Visual arts teachers are working to integrate their subject matter throughout all the other core content areas, as well as focusing on developing 21St century skills in the arts curriculum. They also enjoy an excellent relationship with the Dublin Arts Council. Mr. Guion commented regarding the various arts activities taking place in the coming months, including student art exhibitions and dance performances. Washington Township has just announced they will support a new group of riverboxes in the spring of 2011. Thanks to Council and the entire community for their support of the arts. • Teen Driving Safety Roadeo Day — Sunday, September 26, 2010 Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation to Karen Shepherd and Bob Donegan of the Kiwanis Club of Greater Dublin. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 2 Held 20 Mr. Donegan thanked the Council for this recognition. He noted that they hope that this event will save lives by improving the safe driving skills for teens. • Emergency Preparedness Month — September 2010 Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation to Tom Hirschy, Emergency Management Coordinator/Law Enforcement Planner and Interim Chief of Police von Eckartsberg. Interim Chief von Eckartsberg noted that emergency preparedness is extremely important for the City of Dublin. He credited Mr. Hirschy for the work he has done on this, partnering with civic groups, residents, and businesses in his outreach efforts. They are improving the capacity of the current emergency operations plan. Much information is available at the web site. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority— D5l liquor permit— Salvi's Bistro LLC - 5000 Upper Metro Place Council had not objection to the issuance of this permit. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that a friend recently told Mr. Maurer that his expressed views on the undesirability of a member of the City being a magistrate for Mayor's Court were off base. The friend indicated that Mayor's Courts are an anachronism and were created long ago because of the difficulties of travel at that time. Today, with modern roads and vehicles, these difficulties do not exist and one can easily travel to a county court. He recently observed proceedings at a county court, including the handling of issues with a system of defense lawyer and prosecuting attorney, and how they worked together to present the material to a magistrate. He found to his satisfaction that the solution offered under the system was profound and wise. He is therefore suggesting that the Mayor's Courts are an anachronism because a county municipal court can be easily accessed. Dublin lies in three counties and would have to rely upon each of those court systems. He summarized that he was very impressed with the entire judicial process at the county court level. LEGISLATION POSTPONED ITEM Ordinance 30-10 (Amended) Amending Sections 153.002 and 153.071 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Rainwater Harvesting (Case No. 10-033ADM). Ms. Adkins stated that there was discussion at the last hearing regarding the need to balance functionality of the rain barrels with the desire for high quality aesthetics in Dublin. Staff reviewed the options to promote rainwater harvesting while maintaining community standards. Some amendments are now included in the stormwater manual to address the types of rain barrels that would be appropriate for the community, maintenance of rain barrels, and some pictures of rain barrels for reference. Some design requirements are also included in the stormwater manual for those who are interested in other options for rain barrels. One small amendment was made to the Code section to allow rain barrels in the front of the home, with proper screening --similar to the recently adopted trash receptacle ordinance. She offered to respond to questions. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted she appreciates the modifications, which are consistent with the feedback she has received from citizens. The intent is to encourage use of rain barrels, and the modifications clearly indicate the standards needed for screening for a rain barrel at the front of the home. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the examples of rain barrels provided would not require screening and would be acceptable. Ms. Adkins responded that for rain barrels at the front of the home, screening would be required —even for those barrels which are attractive. Vice Mayor Salay asked for clarification: a rain barrel in front requires screening, but one placed around the corner of the front of the house does not? Ms. Adkins responded that the screening is required if a rain barrel is visible from the street. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin_City Gou ncil Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 3 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider stated that he supports the concept of rain barrels, but has concerns with allowing rain barrels at the front of the home. He would prefer taking a more conservative • approach, with the potential of lessening the restrictions as time goes on. In the stormwater design manual, it mentions plastic barrels, converted for use as rain barrels which must be neutral in color, painted to match the body or trim color of the home. This implies any plastic container could be used with such painting. This is of concern to him. The manual further indicates that rain barrels would preferably be located to the side or rear of the residence, but allows that a rain barrel by necessity can be located forward of the residence. This is of concern as well. He is aware of the practical considerations related to the location of downspouts in collecting the rain, but over time, a hallmark of the community has been aesthetics. This definitely competes with that value and gives him great concern, even with screening. Most of the examples appear to be located at the rear corner of the home, with a couple at the front corner or front of the home. He recognizes also that not everyone is likely to have a rain barrel, but his concern is focused on the portion of the regulation that allows rain barrels forward of or at the front of the residence or anywhere near the front corners of the home. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that if the front location is the only option for a rain barrel, it must be screened. The previous discussion was that a rain barrel visible from the street would require screening with landscaping. Mr. Reiner stated that the roof slopes would determine the location of the rain barrel. A rain barrel in the front would have to be screened, and for some, the front location is the only option based on roof slope. If not allowed in the front, the homeowner would be denied the opportunity to have a rain barrel. Mayor Lecklider pointed out that this is not a permit process. Ms. Adkins responded that it is not a permit process, but if a complaint were made to the City about a rain barrel location and screening, Code Enforcement would take action. Mayor Lecklider added that rain barrels may be prohibited by deed restrictions in certain neighborhoods. Ms. Adkins responded that this is possible. Rain barrels are not specifically called out in deed restrictions, as they were likely not anticipated at the time the documents were drafted. Mayor Lecklider asked if the Muirfield Association deed restrictions allow a rain barrel to be placed at the front of the home. Mr. Reiner responded that there is nothing in the deed restrictions at the current time addressing this. Muirfield is reviewing this for potential amendment. The Mayor has raised some good points about maintenance of painted barrels. However, in its present form, he will support the ordinance as drafted. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the screening provision should be clarified. Perhaps it should state "100 percent opacity" as was done with the waste receptacles. Mrs. Boring asked if this would be 100 percent opacity year round. Ms. Adkins responded that the language could include evergreen materials, 100 percent opacity, if Council desires. That would achieve a year-round screening. Mayor Lecklider stated that he remains concerned with the front placement of the barrels and the enforcement issues that could be created. Personally, he would prefer to begin with allowing rain barrels in the rear of the home and consider revising the legislation in the future. Vice Mayor Salay asked if he is suggesting a motion to modify the proposed ordinance. Mayor Lecklider moved to modify the ordinance to prohibit rain barrels at the front of the home. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Salay added that the rain barrels visible from the street -- around the corner on the side of the house -- would be screened with evergreen landscaping at 100 percent opacity. Mayor Lecklider clarified that his motion is to amend the legislation to prohibit a rain barrel placement in front of the home or around the front corner of the home. He added that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10198 September 13, 2010 Page 4 Held 20 even with evergreen screening at 100 percent opacity for rain barrels in these locations, he would have concerns. Mrs. Boring stated that the issue is with a rain barrel at the corner of the front of the home or one that is a certain distance back from the corner of the home. She conceded that a rain barrel at the front corner still constitutes the front of the home. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the ordinance defines what "around the corner" means. If it is visible from any location, screening is required —whether in the front, side or back— depending upon how the house is situated. Her concern is that because of the way the legislation is drafted, any location for a rain barrel that is visible from the street must be screened. Mayor Lecklider stated that there is a greater potential for complaints being generated for rain barrels at the front or front corner of a home. He recognizes there are some concerns with respect to the volume of capacity of rain that can be captured if only allowed at the rear of the home. He is trying to represent what he believes is a community value. He would prefer to approach this in an incremental fashion going forward. Vice Mayor Salay asked what distance a rain barrel must be from the front corner of a home to be allowed. Mayor Lecklider responded that, practically speaking, based upon the downspout location, it would likely be at the rear corner of the home — not at the midpoint of the side of the home. Mr. Smith noted that for a house situated on a corner, this becomes problematic from an enforcement standpoint. Mayor Lecklider responded that the vast majority of homes are not on corner lots. He believes the aesthetic values of the community will prevail in this initiative to collect rainwater. Mrs. Boring stated that the language indicates the preferred location for rain barrels is to the side or rear, and by necessity, could be located forward of the home. What determines this necessity, and who makes this judgment? Ms. Adkins responded that most homes have both front and rear downspouts. When people understand the benefit of having one rain barrel, they may want them on multiple downspouts. The determination of the best location in terms of functionality is left up to the resident. They are required to screen a rain barrel visible from the street. Mrs. Boring asked how "necessity" is defined in terms of location of a rain barrel at the front of the home. Ms. Adkins responded that this relates to how a roof drains. This would provide options and choices for residents. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a motion on the floor to amend the ordinance. Mayor Lecklider stated that he has clarified the motion he has proposed. His further concern is that rain barrels are not to be installed with a permit process, and if someone by their determination of necessity installs the barrels at the front of the home, the City could theoretically be in a position of requiring removal of the rain barrel. He would prefer the City not be in this position. Allowing rain barrels at the front or the front corners of the home is potentially problematic from an enforcement perspective. Mrs. Boring stated she has concerns as well and would prefer a phase-in of the program. Some of the rain barrel examples provided are not attractive. After allowing rain barrels in the rear, Council could consider expanding this in the future. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher pointed out that if the motion on the floor is approved, only two areas of a home —the two back downspouts — are permitted to have rain barrels. If these are visible from the street, they will also require landscape screening. Mr. Reiner stated that this would eliminate the possibility of using the rain barrel water for the front portion of the property. Mr. Gerber asked the Mayor to restate the motion on the floor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 5 Held 20 Mayor Lecklider stated that his motion is to prohibit installation of rain barrels at the front or the front corners of a home under any circumstances. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Mr. Smith noted that the motion would effectively restrict rain barrels for most areas of the patio homes in his development. Mayor Lecklider stated that the deed restrictions may already prohibit this. Mr. Gerber agreed that many deed restrictions may come into play. He understands the concern with placement at the front of a home. However, there are homes situated on a corner lot and the "front" of the home would be debatable. if the goal is to keep the rain barrel from being unsightly to others, he is not certain that the prohibition on the front and front corner would resolve the issue. Mayor Lecklider added that this would not be the only regulation that is not applied uniformly across the community. Not every lot can accommodate a screened-in porch, for example. The individual home and how it is sited on the lot would be a consideration. Perhaps many could not accommodate a rain barrel on their home. Moreover, it is possible that up to 50 percent of the homes in the community have deed restrictions prohibiting rain barrels. Mr. Gerber responded that the overall goal is that the rain barrel not be unsightly from a streetscape perspective. The front and front corner of the house prohibition may not address this consideration. Mayor Lecklider stated he understands that a rain barrel visible from the street in the other locations would have to be screened. That addresses the issue for him. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the ordinance as currently drafted calls for screening any rain barrel visible from the street, wherever it is located. The Mayor's motion is regardless of screening, any rain barrel is prohibited in the front of the home. Mr. Gerber stated that a rain barrel visible from the street on the side of the house must be screened. Mayor Lecklider agreed. However, the landscaping planted at the installation of the rain barrel may not thrive. It then becomes a Code enforcement issue. Vice Mayor Salay stated that, practically speaking, with this motion, rain barrels are prohibited at the front and front corners of the house. Could a downspout be run five-six feet back across the wall and down into a rain barrel that is technically not on a corner and screened, and would this comply with the amendment on the floor? Mr. Smith responded that this could be done, but would create even more issues. Vice Mayor Salay stated that most homes in Dublin have landscaping at the corners, most of it quite thick. If a rain barrel were placed directly behind that landscaping and further screened to the height of the rain barrel, it would not be offensive. The existing landscaping would help buffer the rain barrel from the front. Those who are adamant about having a rain barrel will find a way to place them where they are needed for functionality. Mr. Reiner stated that if a rain barrel is screened, it is acceptable and this is the best option for legislation to allow rain barrels. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he found some typos in the documents, which he will identify for the Clerk. Mayor Lecklider withdrew his motion. Mrs. Boring withdrew her second. Vice Mayor Salay moved to require that rain barrels not be forward of the house, but be placed just around the corner. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the discussion tonight was that a rain barrel at the front corner of a house would already be screened with the existing landscaping. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she does not want to allow rain barrels in the front of the house, but instead around the corner-- for aesthetic reasons. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of [Zial� tGity_C_o_un�iI Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO,10148 September 13, 2010 Page 6 Held 20 Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of the motion. Vice Mayor Salay clarified that her motion includes that rain barrels can be placed at the front corner, behind the front of the house. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if downspouts exist in this location. It seems that the intent of encouraging people to use rain barrels in the interest of environmental benefits has been lost. She does not understand the difference between the front of the house where the downspout is located versus a downspout around the corner. Ms. Adkins responded that some downspouts are on the front plane of the house; the diverter attached to a downspout could wrap around the corner to a rain barrel placed at the corner. Mayor Lecklider stated that most downspouts are on the side plane of a house, however. Ms. Grigsby asked if some of the concern is with use of plastic containers being painted that were not intended to be rain barrels. Some of the decorative examples appear as planters, and an existing planter at the front of a house could appear as such a rain barrel would. Is the concern with the re-use of an item not intended to be a rain barrel? Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the screening requirement in the ordinance addresses this issue. Mr. Reiner seconded Vice Mayor Salay's motion, with the amendment to require that the rain barrel not break the plane of the front of the house and be screened. He explained that the rain barrel would be at the corner of the house and does not therefore break the plane of the front of the house. Vice Mayor Salay accepted this amendment. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a resident had e-mailed Council regarding an historic replica home in Wexford Woods, and with this amendment, the rain barrel she references in the e-mail would not be permitted. Mayor Lecklider stated that, personally, he would support a review process that would allow for an exception. Vice Mayor Salay asked who would review such a request. Mayor Lecklider responded that he assumes that Planning would do so, as they are responsible for Code enforcement. Mr. Smith that that if Council provides for such a process, standards must be in place upon which to review such a request. Mayor Lecklider agreed. Mr. Gerber stated that, given this proposal, if there is a rain barrel in front of a home that is deemed unsightly, could the Law Department defend this? Mr. Smith responded that a definition of what is termed unsightly would be needed; otherwise, any definition is voided for vagueness under the law. Mr. Gerber stated that if a rain barrel is screened and compatible with the architecture, would that be acceptable under the current version of the ordinance? Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. Mr. Reiner withdrew his second to the motion, and called the question. Mayor Lecklider suggested that Council hear testimony from the resident who sent an e- mail to Council about this topic. Kathy Speelman Kramer, 6290 Wexford Woods Drive stated that she sent Council an e- mail regarding their home, which is a reproduction of a house from Colonial Williamsburg. There is a downspout in the middle of the front of the house, which is where they have planned to install the repurposed wine barrel, a historically accurate item from that time period. In a picture of the original home in Williamsburg, Colonial Williamsburg has repurposed a barrel to use as a trash can. It seems to meet the aesthetics desired. However, with the screening requirement of this ordinance, they would not be able to have this repurposed wine barrel, as there no place to plant a landscape screen due to a brick wall. She believes that the ordinance now defeats the purpose of what it was designed to encourage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 7 Held 20 Vice Mayor Salay asked the Law Director about a case such as this, with a repurposed wine barrel placed in front of a home and not used as a rain barrel or trash container. Is there anything in the Dublin Code that would prohibit this? Mr. Smith responded there is not, as it would be considered part of the landscaping plan — unless there is a deed restriction that would come into play. It would be merely a decorative item. Vice Mayor Salay stated that before this legislation was proposed, if this resident had installed a repurposed wine barrel in front of her historic home to function as a rain barrel, how would the City have responded to a neighbor's complaint about the rain barrel? Mr. Smith responded that if someone complains, staff would check the Code to determine if there is a Code violation that would apply. It is difficult to balance the aesthetics and the functionality desired for rain barrels within this legislation. The ordinance can be amended if it is not workable, or if exceptions are needed. Mayor Lecklider summarized that Mr. Reiner has withdrawn his second to the motion made by Vice Mayor Salay. Vice Mayor Salay confirmed that is correct. Mayor Lecklider noted that the vote will be taken on the ordinance submitted in the Council packet, which includes the amendments incorporated by staff in follow-up to the first reading. Vote on the Ordinance (as submitted): Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, no. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 29-10 Adopting the 2011-2015 Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Thurman noted that a recap of the modifications made during the CIP workshops was included in the packet. They include the following: • Under Administration, a separate line item was included for the Bridge Street Corridor, with an allocation in 2013, 2014 and 2015 for potential improvements to the corridor area. An annual allocation of$500,000 for 2012-2015 was reserved for debt payments, which could support $5-6 million in debt if desired. • Under Parks, in 2010, $30,000 was added and in 2011, $250,000 was added for the redesign of the filtration system at Ballantrae Park spray park. • Under Transportation, related to railroad quiet zones, monies were reserved in case the City receives state capital budget funding for this project. In order to understand the scope of the project, an allocation of$20,000 for 2010 was added. • For bikeway connections and additions, an additional allocation in 2011 was included to complete both a multi-use path and bike lanes on Brand Road between Muirfield Drive and Dublin Road. An additional allocation was included for 2012 to complete bike lanes between Hyland-Croy Road and Muirfield Drive. An allocation of $50,000 was included in 2011 for the preliminary design and alignment of bike lanes on Muirfield Drive between Brand Road and Glick Road. • In 2010 and 2011, sharrows for Emerald Parkway are programmed. In 2010, a portion will be done and evaluated; depending upon the results, the sharrows can be extended in 2011. Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance 29-10 at this time. Mrs. Boring noted that Mr. Keenan had sent an e-mail to Council about the possibility of acquiring the land needed for both the bike lanes and multi-use path along Brand Road at the same time. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of the discussion was to consider the overall need for [and for the bike lanes and multi-use path, recognizing that in some areas it was not desirable to pursue land twice from the same property owners. Mrs. Boring asked if staff has reviewed Mr. Keenan's suggestion to acquire land at the same time for a roundabout at Brand and Coffman. Ms. Grigsby responded that Engineering would evaluate this intersection further. Currently, it does not meet warrants for an improvement, based on the crash history. Engineering will review this in the context of the multi-use path and bike lane project. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City.Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC_,FORM N0-1014$ September 13, 2010 Page 8 Held 20 Mrs. Boring commented that it is difficult for motorists to make turns at this intersection safely, especially between 5-7 p.m. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will provide more information in follow up. Mrs. Boring asked whether staff would propose a modification to the CIP, if the details indicate a need for a roundabout. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can bring back a recommendation, based on findings, as well as the impact on the capital budget in terms of modifying already funded projects to provide funding for another project. Vice Mayor Salay commented that a true test of the sharrows may require a greater length of roadway than what is proposed. Mr. Reiner responded that before investing more funds, it is important to test these in a limited area. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is discussing the timing of paving on Emerald Parkway to ensure the sharrows are not installed in an area scheduled for repaving in the next year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented it would be important to install them in an area where bikers would travel. Mr. Hammersmith added that the Task Force believes that the section of Emerald Parkway between Dublin Road and Coffman Road is a good representative piece for bikers. This is the portion identified for the sharrows. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if a roundabout has been scheduled in the future for Brand and Coffman, or is this merely a suggestion to execute this land acquisition, if needed, at the same time as the bike lane and multi-use path projects? Ms. Grigsby confirmed this intersection is not currently programmed in the CIP. Mr. Hammersmith added that he indicated to Mr. Keenan that this is an intersection of focus beyond the five-year CIP, within the next ten years. It is not currently programmed. Staff monitors the crash history as one component of the evaluation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in this case, however, there is an issue of movement of traffic due to the high school traffic. The high school boundaries for Coffman will likely not change in the next years, and the left turn from Coffman onto Brand is extremely difficult. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the other components evaluated are level of service at an intersection, capacity and safety. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the timeframe of this intersection study. Will it be done in the first quarter of 2011? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is part of the evaluation of the Brand Road alternatives. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road commented that the proposal he outlined at the last meeting has apparently not yet sunk in. He encouraged Council to investigate the federal law passed a few years ago, which made available $4.5 billion for bicycle systems in the country and determine if there are any remaining funds. Perhaps the application is quite time consuming, but it may be worthwhile. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 31-10 Rezoning Approximately 15.19 Acres Located on the North Side of Perimeter Loop Road, Approximately 430 Feet East of the Intersection with Avery-Muirfield Drive within Perimeter Center, from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center, Subarea F) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Perimeter Center, Subarea F4, Perimeter Center Shopping Center/Giant Eagle — Case 09-115Z/PDP) Ms. Husak noted that her presentation addresses the discussion items from the last hearing. The packet includes a revised development text, and the items addressed are printed in blue. • The amended development text provides that Council will have final discretion on the approval of the conditional use of a fuel station in the final development plan. • The conditional use process is clarified in the amended text, requiring that the current process in the zoning code be followed. • Window signs are prohibited for the shopping center. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 9 Held 20 • For signs in general, a clarification was included in regard to existing signs in that portion of the center which has 10 signs currently — 2 for the grocery store and 8 for the tenants. With the proposal, there will be five signs — one for the grocery store, three of which will be used for their subtenants and one for the pharmacy drive-thru. • A sample of the spandrel glass proposed for the southern portion of the building has been provided to Council. A more detailed graphic in the packet depicts where that glass is proposed and the second story window treatment. • Staff included a map that shows the pedestrian/cyclist connections — both planned and currently existing —and the installations of the bike racks. There is a photo of the current grocery store frontage and the southern portion of the building. There are eight signs for eight other tenants located in that portion of the center, which will be replaced with the one main sign Giant Eagle is retaining and three additional signs — one for the café, one for the pharmacy, one for a bank tenant, and the sign for the pharmacy drive-thru at the end by the canopy. She showed additional slides depicting the portion of the building for which Council had concerns — namely, the spandrel glass location and second story window treatment above the walk through. The architect is present to respond to any questions about this space being finished completely with drywall and painted. From the outside, only lighting will be visible through this area. Spandrel glass is proposed for the lower portion of the windows, along the three windows in the very southern portion of the building with clear glass over top. Vice Mayor Salay asked staff to comment on the appearance of this versus the Walgreen's across the street. Ms. Husak responded that Walgreen's selected a more white or blue spandrel glass, where this proposal is for a darker spandrel glass. Vice Mayor Salay responded that at night, this glass will appear similar — as a vacant storefront. Is tinted glass a possibility, so that one could still see activity behind the glass versus a vacant storefront? Ms. Husak responded that, in this case, the concern is for privacy for items, including treatments in the pharmacy area. For this reason, they have proposed the spandrel glass and not clear or tinted glass. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher commented that the location of this is not at the street as is Walgreen's. The stores in the Shoppes at Athenry have dark glass fronts, including the restaurants. She is not certain this spandrel glass is different from that in place for establishments throughout Dublin. This glass is more attractive than the white glass at Walgreen's. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the contrast of the white fluorescent band at the top and the completely opaque glass at the bottom is what concerns her. Ms. Husak clarified that the glass at the top is clear, yet the lighting behind will be fluorescent. Mr. Reiner commented that the uses in this pharmacy area, such as treatments and related matters requiring privacy is what drives the request for the spandrel glass. Mrs. Boring stated that some of the gas station canopies appear very high. Is there a federal or state regulation about the minimum height of such canopies? The pharmacy canopy to the top of the roof is 23 feet, but to the top of the bottom part is only 10 feet. Some of the canopies are very unattractive. Ms. Husak responded that staff has done some research regarding fuel station canopies. They are approximately 14-15 feet to the bottom of where the canopy begins in order to have sufficient clearance. There was some research about the fuel station when it was part of the proposal and 22 feet to the top of the canopy is what exists across the street at the fuel stations and for the Kroger fuel station on Sawmill Road. Therefore, 22 feet was the elevation considered when the fuel station was part of the proposal. Mrs. Boring summarized that these details will be reviewed in the final development plan. Ms. Husak confirmed that is correct. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC-.FORM NO 10148 September 13, 2010 Page 10 Held 20 Ms. Husak noted that a sidewalk to be built as part of the improvements is highlighted in red, and the yellow highlighting is the existing route from Perimeter Loop Road to the site itself. Bike rack locations for the tenants and for Giant Eagle are also shown. Staff's recommendation and that of the Planning & Zoning Commission is for approval. The four conditions appended by P&Z have been met prior to this being submitted to Council. Mr. Gerber asked what is required by Dublin Code for the preliminary development plan submittal. Ms. Husak responded that the preliminary development plan requires submission of a development text and a plan that shows generally the location and layout of uses on the site. It would also include landscaping and building elevations, if they are known at the time of submittal. Mr. Gerber asked why applicants are then required to provide as much detail as was presented tonight at the preliminary development plan stage. Ms. Husak responded that in this case, the applicant has filed simultaneous applications for a preliminary and final development plan. Therefore, much of the final development plan details shown tonight were packaged together and reviewed together by the Commission. Much of the detail shown tonight is not required for the preliminary plan submission. Mr. Gerber stated that it seems many of the preliminary plans submitted recently have a higher level of detail than what is necessary. Why does the Planning Department require this level of detail from applicants? Ms. Husak responded that if the applicant is fairly far along in their development and site design, they have that information and are willing to share it. At other times, the Commission is comfortable reviewing more detail, if it is available. Mr. Gerber asked with respect to the fuel station whether the City would have more discretion and review if it were maintained as a conditional use versus being incorporated as part of the final development plan. Ms. Husak responded it is still a conditional use. Because it is in a planned district, there are two application components: the conditional use where the consideration is whether it is an appropriate use and whether it meets the criteria for a conditional use, and the final development plan, which provides the details of aesthetics, architecture, landscaping, etc. Mr. Gerber stated that this is done with conditional uses in any scenario. Ms. Husak responded that this detail is often needed in order to determine whether it meets the conditional use criteria. However, many conditional uses are housed in planned districts. Mr. Smith added that in this particular case, Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation on the conditional use and Council will have the final determination on this. Council will review both the conditional use and final development plan and will make the decision. In the next couple of months, staff will bring forward an amendment to the Code regarding the appeal procedure in general. Mayor Lecklider summarized that for this application, the process has been altered to allow Council to have the ultimate review. However, in terms of criteria applied under a conditional use, Council would have no more or less authorization than the Commission in the course of reviewing a conditional use in this case. Mr. Smith responded that there will be somewhat more, as Council will also be reviewing the final development plan. The goal was for Council to make the final determination regarding the conditional use for the fuel station. Mr. Gerber noted that under the Dublin Code, there is specific criteria for a preliminary development plan. There seems to be a tendency to disregard that and have the applicants undergo an initial final development plan review at the preliminary development plan stage. Secondly, with respect to a conditional use, he believes there is more discretion for the City in that matter than there is with the final development plan. Mr. Smith agreed, but emphasized that Council will be the body applying the standards for a conditional use in this case. In this text, it is provided that Council will also make the final determination regarding the final development plan. Mayor Lecklider pointed out that, with respect to the conditional use, insofar as the fuel stations are called out and as was discussed at the last hearing, the fact of the matter is — RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Cit Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 11 Held 20 as opposed to a rezoning — for all intents and purposes, the fuel station is a fait accompli. He wants to make sure this is understood. Vice Mayor Salay pointed out that the fuel station must still fit on the site and the traffic must be maintained. Mayor Lecklider stated that in that respect, insofar as the fuel station is listed as one of the conditional uses, there is very limited discretion. Mr. Smith stated that Council does have discretion about its location, the traffic pattern, the landscaping around it, the appearance of the canopy, and how it fits on the site. Mayor Lecklider summarized that with a favorable vote on this rezoning, Council is "blessing" the concept of a fuel station on this site, with details to follow. Mr. Smith concurred. Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant stated that Council has had a thorough discussion, and the applicant is in agreement with all of what has been stated. The architect is present to respond to any questions. He added that one reason Giant Eagle agreed to remove the fuel station from the plan is the concern about sufficient parking. It is not possible to secure actual traffic counts until a few years after the construction is complete. In that regard, the fuel station is not really a fait accompli, because if it cannot be shown that the traffic and parking can be accommodated on the site for the tenants, Council has the right to disapprove this. Vice Mayor Salay asked about the timetable for commencement of this project. Mr. Hale responded that the Rusty Bucket restaurant must first be relocated, and the project will be done over time while the store remains open. They do want to move forward immediately upon approval of the rezoning. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked about the use of the mezzanine area shown on the Giant Eagle plans. Mr. Hale responded it will be used for administrative offices. Mr. Maurer asked if there are any greening directives or LEED requirements for this project, or is it the discretion of the builder? Wal-Mart is moving in this direction with their stores. Vice Mayor Salay responded that in this case, it is the developer's choice. There has been discussion about LEED requirements for new buildings in Dublin in general, but not specific to this project. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Ordinance 32-10 Rezoning Approximately 1.6 Acres Located on the West Side of Avery Road, Approximately 140 Feet North of Kendall Ridge Boulevard from R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Dan- Sherri Marcus PUD - Marcus Rezoning Case 10-024Z/PDP) Mr. Combs stated that the proposal includes a 10,000 square foot neighborhood office building. Planning Commission recommended approval based upon the criteria in the Code. The Commission recommended approval with two conditions. The first condition will be addressed at the final development stage; the second condition related to revisions to the text regarding building materials, and those were made prior to the first reading at Council. Based on the Council discussion on August 23, staff made some additional modifications. • Some of the sign standards regarding multi-tenants were changed in the text. The main identification sign along Avery Road would include one business only. If the building has multiple tenants, only one identification name would be used versus a number of small tenant panels. • The text was also modified to clarify that the fencing will be maintained by the property owners and/or the tenants on that site only, and will not be the responsibility of other adjacent property owners. • Staff also reviewed some of the buffers that were placed in the text, as there was a suggestion that the plantings be done upfront so they would mature over time. The major buffer proposed in the development text is shown in red, and it would directly surround the parking lot. Without a specific office proposal to know what the building footprint would look like and the final designs for a parking lot, and given the level of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citic Coouncil Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 12 Held 20 existing trees on the site, it would be difficult to estimate the location of the buffer. Staff is therefore recommending the planting of the buffer be done in conjunction • with the final development plans. • There were some minor issues regarding the traffic, and Engineering has done some additional traffic counts. Those counts were generally similar to the first set of traffic counts. • Issues were raised about u-turns at Avery and Woerner-Temple, and staff submitted a computer-generated model that indicates that vehicles can make that movement. The City Engineer also has reviewed this. • An issue was raised about construction traffic through the neighborhood, and that will be addressed at the final development plan stage. Based on this review and the conditions of the Planning Commission, staff is recommending approval of Ordinance 32-10. Mr. Reiner noted that this proposed development backs up to a residential community. He asked Mr. Combs to address the overall height of the proposed building versus the two-story houses behind. Mr. Combs responded that the standard Code limits on residential construction are 35 feet in height. The office building proposal is consistent with the residential Code, and the building is limited to 35 feet in height. This will accommodate a two-story building, generally consistent with residential construction. As part of the final development plan review, architectural and roof elements will be reviewed to ensure they are broken up and give a more residential appearance. Vice Mayor Salay noticed that EIFS was mentioned in the discussion regarding building _ materials. Is stucco called out as well? Mr. Combs responded that stucco is not included in the text. Vice Mayor Salay noted that she spoke to Engineering regarding u-turns, after making the turning movement. There is a concern with drivers making a right turn on red from Woerner- Temple. They don't anticipate someone making a u-turn. How will this intersection be signed to notify drivers of the u-turn movement? Mr. Hammersmith responded that a warning sign will be added on Woerner-Temple Road advising drivers to yield to potential u-turn movements at the intersection. The southbound Avery Road motorists can only make that movement on a green light, so the obligation for the motorist turning right on red from Woerner-Temple is to ensure they have clear travel right and left. There is a clear line of sight in this location. Vice Mayor Salay asked if driver making a u-turn movement on Avery has the right of way versus a motorist turning right on red from Woerner-Temple. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Mary Longo, 6337 Dan Sherri noted that one of her major concerns was the traffic, but it appears these issues are being addressed. She is pleased with what the City is trying to do in terms of protecting the residents with the trees and buffer. However, in the text, under "Architecture," the language indicates that it will be of high quality and residential in nature to match the general character of the Avery Road corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. However, most of the residents and businesses in this area are one story and the prototypes do not resemble any of the existing homes. The average home in their area is either a ranch or a two-story home, with a height of 22-25 feet, and a square footage of 2,200 square feet. A 10,000 square foot office building at 35 feet in height does not fit within their neighborhood. There are two one-story brick office buildings about 100 feet from the Marcus property—the Whelan Insurance Agency and Empire Food Brokers. She would prefer to see this type of development on the lot, if it is to be zoned commercial. In her area, some one-story residential ranches have been converted to office use. In an earlier review meeting, for the corridor of Avery Road up to Woerner-Temple, the buildings shown were all one story. She asked that Council consider having smaller buildings on this site, and not this massive office building. Mayor Lecklider noted that in the last discussion of this rezoning, with respect to the height of the building, it was stated that this resulted in a smaller footprint for the building, allowing for more greenspace and preservation of more trees. He appreciates her comments, but RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK{NC..FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 13 Held 20 pointed out that the Kendall Ridge subdivision is predominantly two-story homes. The survey of the surrounding environment would have included the Kendall Ridge area as well. In addition, the square footage allowed on this space, given the size of the parcel, is less intrusive than the relative square footage of a two-story home in Kendall Ridge on a much smaller parcel. Mr. Combs commented that this accurately reflects the discussion at the last meeting. The interest was in maximizing tree preservation versus an expanded building footprint. The two-story office building met these interests as well as addressing the site criteria and resident concerns. In looking south in the corridor, there are many two-story buildings. To the north, there are one-story homes converted to office and some one-story construction done within the township zoning years ago. Given the size of some of the parcels to the north that are expected to redevelop in the future, there will be site constraints encountered and the solution will be two-story architecture, minimizing the footprint. Vice Mayor Salay asked what the lot coverage is for an average suburban lot. Mr. Combs responded that he would estimate 25-30 percent, but no more than 50 percent maximum. In this case, for the site proposed for rezoning, the overall percentage is 33. The entire back lot is undisturbed, retaining the visual quality and park-like look. For office development, the Code maximum is 70 percent. This proposal is significantly lower than the typical lot coverage. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the proposed office building would fit within the building envelope of the existing buildings on the site. Mr. Combs responded that, generally, they looked at what was currently developed on the Marcus parcel, which included a main structure and an out building with pavement in between. Generally, to maximize the distance between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood, they tried to give a bit on the building setback along Avery Road in order to facilitate pushing the building into that general area. The height of the office building proposed will be higher than the existing home, but will have a roof mass that is broken up to make it more residential in character. Mr. Reiner stated that there were concerns about screening, but the design intent seems to be to shrink the footprint and increase the greenspace. What type of trees will be preserved? Mr. Combs responded that the trees preserved are protected ones of six to twelve inches in caliper, and in the back of the property, there are some landmark trees of 50 feet in height or more. Moving the parking lot will ensure their survival. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 33-10 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Sertek LLC to Induce It to Locate an Office and Associated Operations and Workforce within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Vice Mayor Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that staff has been working with Sertek over the summer to help them identify a facility in the Dublin area. They have looked at sites in various other locations. This company is a designer and manufacturer of custom restaurant equipment and they service the national quick service changes, including Wendy's/Arby's. They have identified a facility in Dublin and in consideration of their purchase of the facility and the creation of 60 jobs, staff has proposed a four-year, 18 percent performance-based incentive. It is capped at $32,500 and it is estimated that the City will net approximately $114,800 over the term of the agreement. The company representatives will be present at the second reading/public hearing on September 27. Vice Mayor Salay asked if this is the former Vincent Graphics building. Ms. Gilger responded that is correct. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 27 Council meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Gity Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC..FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 14 Held 20 Ordinance 34-10 Authorizing the Acquisition of 21,49 Acres of Land Located at 4279 Bright Road, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Real Estate Purchase Agreement, and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby stated that this ordinance provides for the acquisition of the property known as the Holder property. The City has been working on this for quite some time, coordinating the acquisition and future development of the property with the family. As noted in the memo, the Holder-Wright Works or Hopewell Indian Mounds are located on the property. The acquisition price is $1.5 million, which was negotiated between the City and the property owners and is based upon two appraisals done by the City. The funding has been reserved in the Parkland Acquisition Fund, as discussed at the capital improvements plan update. As they have done in the past, Washington Township has agreed to be a financial contributor to the acquisition and preservation of this property in the amount of$460,000. Mr. Hahn, who has worked with the family for quite some time, is present to respond to questions. Staff recommends passage of the ordinance at the second reading/public hearing on September 27. Mr. Gerber stated that he supports the acquisition of this special property, and he appreciates the generous contribution of Washington Township to this acquisition. However, the appraisals are dated January 2005 and 2008. If this were an eminent domain case, the City would be using 2010 appraisals. Ms. Grigsby responded that when the updated appraisal was completed in May of 2008, it was done because the negotiations had been ongoing for quite some time. Staff recognized the potential of change in the appraisals from 2005 and for that reason had an additional appraisal done in 2008. Mayor Lecklider noted that in Exhibit C, there is reference to the City agreeing to the restoration of the Ferris house. Is there an estimate of that cost? Mr. Hahn responded that the City agreed to restore the original part of the house, which is a small portion. There is not an estimate at this time. However, the house was inhabited up until last year and was in good condition, given the fact that the original portion is nearly 200 years old. The portion for restoration is small in size and is in fairly good shape, so staff does not envision this to be costly. The language indicates "best efforts" and the timeline is within ten years of purchase. The proposed capital budget for 2011 includes a study for this land, which will include the restoration of this portion of the house. Mayor Lecklider asked if the designation in Section 5 of the earthworks on the property as the "Holder-Wright Earthworks Complex" otherwise prevents the City from naming the park. Mr. Hahn responded that he believes this refers to the earthworks itself, and not the land mass entirely. Mr. Smith added that legal staff discussed this matter and is in agreement with Mr. Hahn. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the September 27 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 39-10 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Easement with American Electric Power (AEP) for Installation of Electric Service for an Emerald Fields Restroom/Maintenance Building. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn stated that this easement is needed in association with Phase 3 of Emerald Fields, which is now in the final stages of construction. This service line will serve the park. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC FORM NO.1014B _ September 13, 2010 Page 15 Held 20 Resolution 40-10 Intent to Participate in a Watershed Planning Partnership to Develop a Balanced Growth Plan for the Upper Scioto Watershed. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Goodwin stated that this is a formal statement of intent for the City of Dublin to join this partnership. At the August 23 Council meeting, staff was asked to propose a staff member as a City representative to this partnership. Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning is recommended as Dublin's representative, with Jamie Adkins, Sustainability Administrator serving as alternate. MORPC has indicated that the partnership may elect to form a subcommittee to review detailed analysis conducted by MORPC staff. In that event, the representative may assign a staff member to serve as a technical liaison. The first meeting of the Partnership is scheduled for Thursday, September 30 in Dublin. Planning will provide regular updates to Council, as the process moves forward. Vice Mayor Salay asked about how much staff time will be involved in this project. Mr. Goodwin responded that MORPC has indicated that the commitment will not be significant. There is a monthly meeting and occasionally an extra meeting for the Dublin rep to attend, as well as a subcommittee meeting that a staff member would attend. The Partnership will primarily review materials produced by MORPC, and the Dublin staff would not be involved in preparing such materials. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 41-10 Appointing a City Manager for an Interim Period and Authorizing a Temporary Pay Supplement. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mayor Lecklider stated that in light of Mr. Foegler's resignation, this resolution appoints Deputy City Manager Marsha Grigsby as Interim Manager. The resolution is consistent with those approved on two previous occasions when an Interim City Manager was needed. He thanked Ms. Grigsby for her willingness to serve in this interim capacity as the search for a new City Manager takes place. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. OTHER • Final Plat—Tartan Ridge, Lot 160, 9359 Burnett Lane (Case 10-043AFDP/FP) Ms. Husak responded that this relates to clean-up of an easement included on the plat for a shared driveway. The home proposed on the lot would sit within that easement, and the owners of the lots have decided to do this versus an encroachment into an easement. Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the final plat as recommended by Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. • Leaf Collection Program Mr. McDaniel stated that staff is seeking ratification of the service level proposed for 2010. What is being proposed is a two-zoned approach to leaf collection, which is shown on the staff report. Each zone would be served five times during the course of the leaf collection season. For the week of October 11, a citywide pick-up would be done and then rotated over the next six weeks between zones. A final citywide sweep would be done the week of November 29. This is fairly consistent with the program established in mid 1990. Since 2004, staff had tried to do weekly pick-up, but now believes that five pick-ups per season is adequate, especially in combination with the existing weekly curbside yard waste program. A communications campaign will be launched, based upon Council's approval RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council_ Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM N0-10148 September 13, 2010 Page 16 Held _20 of the program. He shared information about programs in other Central Ohio cities. He pointed out that the City has two new leaf collection trailers in service, which will create much more efficiency for the program. Vice Mayor Salay stated that November 29 is late in the season, but in view of some trees that retain leaves into December, is it possible to do another sweep for these trees? Mr. McDaniel responded that with the dry season, staff anticipates leaves falling earlier, once frost occurs. Staff does reserve the option of doing another sweep at the end of the program as needed. Mr. Gerber agreed that another sweep after November 29 is appropriate for areas which are heavily wooded. Mr. McDaniel responded that this pick-up can be added, if Council desires. In the first week and last week of the program, the entire city is done. Mayor Lecklider clarified that the leaves from some trees don't drop until early December, and so could not be collected on the November 29 pick-up. Mr. McDaniel has indicated that staff could make another sweep at the end of the season in areas where it is needed. It was the consensus of Council to leave this to staff's discretion. Mayor Lecklider moved approval of the 2010 leaf collection program as outlined in the memo provided by staff. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. • • Report re. Council Goals and Strategic Focus Areas —2010/2011 Ms. Grigsby stated that Mr. Foegler provided this draft resolution to Council. It was prepared and submitted to Council on Friday, with the intent of allowing Council time to review and modify the resolution prior to scheduling the resolution on the Council agenda for September 27. Following brief discussion, it was agreed that any proposed modifications should be submitted by Council Members to Ms. Grigsby or to the Clerk by Friday, September 17. Ms. Grigsby agreed to submit a redlined version for Council's review on September 27. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked for a copy of the resolution. (The Clerk provided a copy to Mr. Maurer.) Mayor Lecklider moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution formally adopting Council goals for the September 27, 2010 Council meeting. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby reported that: 1. Mr. Foegler had served as one of the two City representatives to MORPC. Council will need to make an appointment to replace Mr. Foegler. She indicated to the Mayor that she would be willing to serve as the MORPC representative during her service as Interim City Manager. Mr. Gerber moved to appoint Ms. Grigsby as MORPC representative during her service as Interim City Manager. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. 2. Information has been in the newspaper regarding a proposed fee increase for SWACO in 2011 and in 2012. City staff members Ron Burns and Beth Lazier have been attending those meetings. Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Burns have had meetings with Mr. Mills, and will attend a meeting tomorrow for discussion with SWACO. They will bring information back to Council at the September 27 meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetintr__ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.. FORM NO,10148 September 13, 2010 Page 17 Held 20 3. Ms. Ott, Senior Project Manager gave birth to a baby boy early on Friday morning, after labor began during the Thursday, September 9 study session. Congratulations to the Ott family! COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE • Community Development Committee recommendation re. alcohol for future events held on City property Mr. Reiner, Chair reported that the Committee members and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher met on August 25 regarding serving of alcohol on City property in conjunction with requests from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau related to future conferences held in the City. To facilitate the DCVB's efforts to bring such groups to the community, the Committee recommends that they review such requests on a case-by-case basis and bring their recommendation to Council for a vote. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification. Will requests continue to be handled on a case- by-case basis? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the DCVB wanted Council's endorsement of their solicitation of groups who want to serve alcohol in a park. The Committee felt that for a family-oriented event or youth event, it would not be appropriate. However, the Can-Am Games or Australian Football League would have an adult orientation and it would therefore be appropriate to serve alcohol in these venues. The DCVB was in agreement with those distinctions. Mrs. Boring stated that Council as a body has always addressed requests to serve alcohol on City property. Given this, why will the DCVB have to undergo an additional step of Committee review versus taking the request to the entire Council? Mr. Reiner responded that the DCVB prefers to use the committee as a sounding board, • and the venue allows for more in-depth analysis of the event. In some cases, many cities are vying to have an event, and this provides an opportunity for the DCVB to meet with the City officials at an earlier date before submitting a proposal. The DCVB did request that the committee meet on a fairly timely basis to review such requests and make a recommendation to Council. City Council will continue to make the final decision on these matters. Mr. Gerber was in agreement with this process. Mrs. Boring stated that in a conversation with the DCVB staff the following day, they were not clear about the Committee's direction/recommendation. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Committee had indicated to the DCVB that they could go forward and consider events, and if desired, could bring these requests to the Committee and to Council. They indicated that they have not sought these kinds of events because of the City's strict policy prohibiting alcohol on City parkland. Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is that the Bureau would have an endorsement from the Committee and would proceed to seek an event, and then Council would not later approve the waiver. The Bureau cannot seek an event to be held in the parks with alcohol until all of Council makes the decision. Mr. Reiner agreed, noting that is why the Bureau requested a timely meeting with the committee to facilitate the discussion. Vice Mayor Salay commented that the Bureau wanted to use the committee as a sounding board before coming to the entire Council about whether to pursue such an event. There are very few events each year that would fall in this category. There was no objection from Council to support this process going forward. Mr. Reiner also reported that the board and commission items of interest was reviewed by the Committee. A summary has been provided on the dais. Council can consider these recommendations tonight, or schedule it for the September 27 meeting. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this item for the September 27 Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher: 1. Noted that in the packet, there was a request from the Dublin Cornet Band in regard to the use of their bed tax grant monies for alternative items. Her question relates to the "rent" referred to in the letter. Is this rent for a location for storage of instruments? She is not aware of any need for office space rental, as they don't have paid staff members. Mr. Thurman responded that he has not been involved in this discussion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council_ .. . Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK,INC.,FORM NO,10148 September 13, 2010 Page 18 Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would not be opposed to this request in general terms for the other items, but rent is not an item generally covered by the grant. The question, ultimately, is how the organization plans to be self supporting in the future. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will follow up on this. Ms. Gibson had discussions with Mr. Jameson. Staff can clarify what the rent was to cover and make it clear that Council would not want to reimburse them for rent. Mr. Gerber stated that he spoke to Mr. Jameson after he had spoken with Ms. Gibson. In the presentation to the Finance Committee, Mr. Jameson set forth a list of musical instruments, clothing, etc. As this has unfolded, there are different needs for the group, depending upon what they were able to secure. Mr. Jameson is requesting some flexibility for this start-up band. However, in reviewing this list, Mr. Gerber does not see office supplies something the City grant would typically cover. He suggested that the bed tax award could be amended so that office supplies or rent would not be acceptable items for reimbursement. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there is a letter from Mr. Jameson to Ms. Gibson, outlining unforeseen expenses, including rent and insurance. She assumes this is rent of a storage space. Mrs. Boring recalls that at the outset, the group indicated they would work with the Dublin Schools and that those kinds of spaces would be provided by the Schools. She is concerned that if they had need of a $9,000 tuba, but it was later donated to them, yet Council's grant provided $9,000 for the tuba, the group would then spend this money for other items. Other bed tax grants are specific and receipts are provided to obtain reimbursement from the City. She is also concerned with the fact that they are trying to develop a community brass band, and hopefully not to the detriment of a community band. She does not want to set a precedent of having funds used for something other than the grant award items. Vice Mayor Salay agreed. She is concerned with using grant monies for rent and expendables. She had understood the grant was for assets that the City was investing in for the band. Mr. Gerber stated that it was for musical equipment, uniforms and music. Personally, he does not have concern with using this for different instruments. However, office rent and insurance are different items altogether. He is willing to provide some flexibility for an organization starting out, which may not know its needs at the outset. Mrs. Boring responded that they had thoroughly researched this and provided a comprehensive report, indicating these were the needs identified. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the statement regarding unforeseen rent drives the need to find out what happened with the anticipated storage space. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will follow up. Based upon what was approved by Council and the fact that changes were being made, the Finance Chair was notified as well as the applicant. It was determined that direction was needed from Council about what would be allowed for reimbursement. Mayor Lecklider stated that his understanding is that the applicant will provide this additional information. Mr. Gerber suggested that this be reviewed at the next Finance Committee, scheduled for Monday, October 11. Mayor Lecklider noted his concern is with an expectation that the group would receive an annual grant for rent, after the purchase of instruments. In his view, this was not the philosophy behind the grant. Mr. Gerber asked that staff contact Mr. Jameson and that this matter be scheduled for the October 11 Finance Committee meeting. Ms. Grigsby noted that in terms of the reimbursement, staff will reimburse them for the sheet music and instruments purchased to date. The remainder of items —office supplies, rent, etc. —will be reviewed at the Finance Committee. Council concurred with the reimbursement for sheet music and instruments. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher continued: 2. An article about hotel check-ups for sanitation in the September 4 Columbus Dispatch listed Dublin as not knowing about the county program and yet indicated that Dublin was instrumental in initiating the county program. It further indicated that the City is not using the county inspection program for its hotels and relies upon the state to do so. Apparently, the state inspections are geared to safety and not sanitation. Has there been any internal discussion about this matter, given the number of hotels in Dublin? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin C.ity_Counci.l Meeting DAYTON LEGAL BLANK.INC..FORM NO.10148 September 13, 2010 Page 19 Held 20 Ms. Grigsby responded that discussion was held at a recent staff meeting, and Community Relations and the Building Department are following up with the DCVB about this. Staff will provide an update at the next Council meeting. Vice Mayor Salay noted that the Franklin County Board of Health sent a memo regarding the mosquito program and an increase in costs for participating communities in the future. She asked for additional information. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff met with the Board a couple of months ago, and that was an item on their agenda for discussion with Dublin. They are currently undertaking an RFP process to select a vendor for performance of the service. The Board indicated at that time that the City could anticipate an increased cost in 2011 for this service. Staff does not have specifics, but expects to have the information soon. Vice Mayor Salay responded that if the costs increase, the City may want to bring that service back in-house. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff would review the cost of the City providing the services versus having the services provided through the county when the information is received from FCBH. Mayor Lecklider asked how many communities participate in the mosquito program. Mr. McDaniel responded that, generally, FCBH provides health services to all communities around Central Ohio with the exception of the City of Columbus, and the mosquito service is provided to most of these. FCBH decided that the costs of this service could be isolated and charged back to the individual communities, based upon the level of service the community requested. The Board is currently in discussion regarding this matter. Mayor Lecklider stated that that the chart provided indicates that 20 or more entities use the mosquito services of the county. He is not certain what the cost is for the city to administer the program, but he would be interested in this review. Mr. McDaniel stated that the FCBH has had ongoing dialogue with the communities, looking at a consortium approach as is done for solid waste with the goal of obtaining better costs for these services. Different communities desire various levels of services, and the costs are increasing. The FCBH cannot continue to absorb these costs on a per capita basis, so they are considering several options. Dublin staff will review various options as well, including a hybrid of county and city provided service. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. - 04/4a Mayor— Pr-siding Officer Clerk of Council