Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 10-25-2010RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of DiffiHn CitV Cniincil Meeting October 25, 2010 Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, October 25, 2010 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Lecklider, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, and Mr. Reiner. Also present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith and Mr. Harding. (Mrs. Boring and Vice Mayor Salay arrived later.) ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land acquisition, legal and personnel matters. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 7 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present were Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, and Mr. Reiner. Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Interim Police Chief von Eckartsberg, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Husak, Ms. LeRoy, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Colley, Ms. Ray and Ms. Adkins. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the October 11, 2010 Council meeting. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. SPECIAL PRESENTATION /PROCLAMATIONS • Update from Dan Sullivan, Memorial Tournament Dan Sullivan. Memorial Tournament Director noted he is present to update Council on matters related to the Tournament. In 2010, they enjoyed the highest television ratings on the PGA tour, outside of major championships. Dublin, Ohio, therefore, received recognition across the U.S. and throughout the 100 countries where the Tournament was broadcast. There was great support from the local community in 2010 attendance, despite the weather and six rain delays. The Memorial Tournament has been recognized as one of the best on the PGA Tour from an organizational standpoint. Operationally, they are in the top three rankings of the PGA this year. Everyone associated with the City, the volunteers and Tournament staff cooperated to achieve this ranking. They also host successful community events throughout the year. The benefit concert in 2010 attracted more people and raised more money than in previous years. School programs were provided for over 100 schools throughout the area. In September, Nationwide was announced as the new presenting sponsor for the Memorial Tournament. This is significant because of the solid relationship that will be in place for at least six years, allowing the Memorial to grow locally and nationally. They are looking forward to a strong relationship with Nationwide in the years ahead. The 2013 Presidents' Cup will be held at the Muirfield Village Golf Club, as announced during the Memorial Tournament this year. Planning for this is already underway, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhlinl'ity ( incil Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 2 and it will bring thousands of visitors to Dublin from around the world. With this event and the Memorial Tournament, the international marketplace will come to Dublin. This is important to both the Tournament and to Jack Nicklaus. However, without the support and long- standing relationship the Tournament enjoys with the City of Dublin, these two events would not be possible. He thanked Council for their support in the past and for the future. This is a great partnership, and they enjoy working with the City staff, the residents and the City Council. He offered to respond to any questions. Mayor Lecklider noted that the City appreciates the 35 -year relationship it has enjoyed with the Tournament. From Council's perspective, it was a great Tournament this year and what the Tournament accomplished in challenging economic times was a credit to the Tournament staff and Mr. Nicklaus. Council is pleased to hear the encouraging news of Nationwide's commitment to a major sponsorship. Dublin looks forward to a continued successful relationship in supporting the Tournament in the future. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that in light of Nationwide's local presence in Dublin, she is hopeful that, as events are planned for the future, Dublin could have an opportunity to recognize the role that Nationwide plays in the City of Dublin as well as their support of the Tournament and Central Ohio. Mr. Sullivan responded that they are beginning to formulate plans, and as common goals are established, the Tournament will bring this suggestion to Nationwide for consideration. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring action from Council. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked for an estimate of the money the City has spent on the provision of water over the years, and how much money the City has spent annually on maintenance and /or updates to its water system. Ms. Grigsby responded that she cannot estimate that amount at this time; however, the City annually invests in maintenance of the water system infrastructure. For example, the Avery Park water tower was repainted this summer at a cost of approximately $500,000. Each year, funding is allocated for maintenance of the water system. Mr. Maurer asked if the total cost, over the years, would range in the millions of dollars. Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. Mr. Maurer asked if the annual maintenance cost would be estimated in the range of $1 to 2 million. Ms. Grigsby responded that would be a reasonable estimate. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 36 -10 Rezoning Approximately 28.42 Acres Located on the South Side of Perimeter Drive, West of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Northwest of Hospital Drive from PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside PCD, Subareas B and 61) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Avery Square PUD — Case 10- 115Z/PDP /FDP /CU). Ms. Husak stated this ordinance was introduced at Council's October 11 Council meeting. She highlighted the changes the applicant has made in response to the four main concerns raised by Council members at that meeting: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ci Meeting Held October 25, 2010 20 Page 3 (1) Update of the development text The applicant has worked with Planning and the Law Department to revise the text to require a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council regarding an application for development of the outparcel. The proposed language gives City Council jurisdiction over the final details of the future outparcel on the site. The text has also been revised to include language regarding the applicant's commitment to dedicate right -of -way to the City for the planned intersection improvements surrounding the site. A redlined version of the proposed text was provided in tonight's meeting materials. (2) Pedestrian /cyclist connections. Council members expressed concern with the adequacy of pedestrian and cyclist connections to and interior to the site. The applicant has provided an exhibit that indicates all existing paths connecting the site to the public bikepaths and sidewalks, and the locations of proposed crosswalks and proposed bike racks. The applicant is also planning to implement the installation of sharrows from the main intersection into the site. (3) Vehicle stacking at Wendy's/Tim Hortons. The applicant has revised the plans for the site to include a dedicated eastbound, right -turn lane for Wendy's/Tim Hortons. (4) Fuel station architecture. The applicant has revised the plans to increase the width of the columns by one foot for the fuel station canopy on both the north and south elevations of the Kroger store. Ms. Husak displayed images of the site, as it exists today, and with the roundabouts contemplated by Engineering in the two intersections as indicated. She reviewed the proposed elements of the site. In summary, the two areas of changes with this rezoning are the fuel station for the Kroger store and, potentially, the outparcel, which Council would review in the future if /when development is proposed. Vice Mayor Salay asked for the width of the bike lane with the sharrows. Ms. Husak responded that the lane width has not changed. It is typically 22 feet, which she can check and confirm later for Council. Mr. Keenan stated that there is no specific lane width for sharrows. The sharrows are simply markings that are applied to the existing lane that indicates the lane is to be shared with bicycles. Ms. Husak noted that she can check with Engineering on the width of this particular lane. Vice Mayor Salay asked when the construction is scheduled for the roundabouts at the Avery Road /Perimeter Drive intersection and the Avery Road /Hospital Drive intersection. Ms. Grigsby responded that they are scheduled for 2013. Vice Mayor Salay asked if consideration could be given to moving that construction up a year or two. Ms. Grigsby responded that the construction is scheduled for 2013 to align with the design schedule, which will be completed in 2011. This scheduling also allows the ability to coordinate the funding for the two projects from the revenue generated from the TIF districts identified for the projects. However, if additional dollars are generated within those districts, it would be possible to consider modifying the CIP schedule. The projects were previously accelerated in the CIP from year 2014 to year 2013. Vice Mayor Salay stated that if this proposed rezoning is approved, there will be more activity in this already congested corridor. A vehicle sometimes waits three to four cycles at the traffic light before being able to make a left turn. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin CitV Cmincil Meeting October 25, 2010 Page 4 Ms. Grigsby stated that it is estimated that the design contracts for the projects will be entered into early in 2011. When better design information is available, an estimate of the actual construction costs will be feasible. At this time, only preliminary construction estimates are possible. Ms. Husak stated in response to the question about lane width, the width of the lanes is 12 feet each, two exiting north and south from the site, and one entering the site. Mr. Reiner stated that the turning movements into the fast food businesses have now been addressed. Is Engineering satisfied with the number of cars the stacking lane will hold in terms of those turning left into the new driveway? Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff believes there will be sufficient stacking capacity in that location. Mayor Lecklider noted that it appears that the bicycle sharrows are on the perimeter of the site. In front of the Kroger store and the entire west end, there is a significant lane with sharrows. Is there any intention to install sharrows in other locations, such as the lane on the north side? Ms. Husak responded that the intention is to facilitate the cyclists' access to the bike racks, and therefore there are sharrows in the three main areas exiting the public road onto the site. The bike racks are located near the stores. Eric Leibowitz, Casto Properties, 191 West Nationwide Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus thanked Council for their comments at the previous Council meeting and for staff's help in resolving the issues. With the added sharrows, the site now better accommodates the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. The Wendy's /Tim Hortons stacking situation has also been greatly improved, and he thanked Council for making them aware of this. The Kroger elevations have been changed per Council's suggestion. The development text has also been amended to address the outparcel approval process and the dedication of right -of -way. The applicant believes they have addressed all of the concerns raised by Council, and would appreciate Council's support for this rezoning. Vice Mayor Salay asked for clarification about the future outparcel approval process. Mr. Smith responded that the application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission; the Commission will then make a recommendation to Council; and Council will either approve or disapprove their recommendation. Mrs. Boring stated that, as she understands, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the final plat or amended final development plan. Mr. Smith noted that they would also make a recommendation regarding the conditional use. Mrs. Boring asked if what is developed on that outparcel would always be a conditional use -- even if it does not follow the conditional use guidelines. Mr. Smith responded that it will always be a conditional use, which Council will decide following the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council. As in the recent Giant Eagle rezoning, Council has removed the final decision - making authority from the Planning Commission who will be the recommending body. That applies to the final development plan as well, providing Council additional flexibility. Mrs. Boring stated that she had not understood earlier that this outparcel would be a conditional use. Mr. Smith responded that is true only in the case where what is proposed for the outparcel is a conditional use. However, if it is not, it will still come to Council for final development plan approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 _ Page 5 Mrs. Boring stated that Council could then determine that the proposed use is not appropriate for the site. Mr. Smith responded that Council would then disapprove the application. Mrs. Boring pointed out that it is a zoning issue, and so there is nothing Council can do if they do not like the plan. Mr. Smith responded that Council would still have the ability to disapprove a final development plan if it does not fit the neighborhood, if the traffic does not work, if the lot coverage is too high, and for many other reasons. Mrs. Boring stated that such a situation would result in more potential for litigation. Mr. Smith noted that the square footage in the center has not changed from the initial rezoning of the property. However, the language of the original text was written in such a way that it could result in litigation. If Planning Commission disapproved it, the applicant could appeal it within the county court system, and Council would have no input whatsoever. In this revised development text, that has been changed, based on Council's direction. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he has three questions. (1) What is an `Soutparcel ", and where is it located on this site? Ms. Husak responded that it is the hatched area in the plan. Mr. Smith stated that it is similar to the Burger King and Wendy's outparcel sites, which were developed for those tenants. (2) On page 4 of the proposed development text, item 5A states that, "All bike racks must have two lock -up positions." Does that mean two parts of a bike must be locked up, or are there alternative spots where the bike is locked up? Mr. Reiner responded that the bike racks are designed to secure two portions of the bike. (3) Mr. Maurer inquired if the sharrow markings appear at certain intervals along the road to mark the bike lane. Mr. Reiner responded that the sharrows are different than bike lanes. The sharrows indicate that the road is to be shared by cyclists and motorists. Mr. Maurer inquired if cars can also use the lane with the sharrow markings. Mr. Reiner responded affirmatively. The sharrows are designed to alert drivers that there could be potential bicycle use of the roadway, as well. Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Leibowitz and his staff for working collaboratively with City staff to make the requested revisions. The City is looking forward to the future improvements at this center. Vote on the Ordinance Vice Mayor Salay, no; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Gerber, yes. Ordinance 37 -10 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Conveyance Documentation to Convey Franklin County Parcel No. 274 - 000025 to R. Steven and Dorothy J. Marcus in Furtherance of Litigation Settlement. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the previous exhibit showed the entire area as being transferred to Marcus. In reality, what will occur is that the right -of -way will be split both north and south. Upon vacation, the northern half will go to the Lowes, the current property owners on the north side of Dan Sherri Road, and the southern half will go to Marcus. At the time of vacation, a shared use agreement would be entered into, whereby there would be cross access for both adjoining properties. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of nublin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 -_ Page 6 Vote on the Ordinance Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 38 -10 Amending the Annual Appropriations Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2010. Ms. Grigsby stated that there are no changes from the first reading. Staff recommends approval. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he was struck that the ordinance included amendments to the appropriations ranging from tens of thousands of dollars to a $2.00 transfer from a fund to Franklin County. He asked who makes the judgments and recommendations for these transfers. Ms. Grigsby responded that the funds that are appropriated are based upon the fees that are charged or assessed by the Franklin County Auditor when they collect and distribute real estate taxes. These are the fees that they assess and withhold from Dublin's distribution, and Dublin is required by State law to appropriate those dollars to provide funding authority so that they can then be recorded as an expenditure. Any of the transfers within the funds relate to the tax increment financing (TIF) districts, how they were established, and the infrastructure improvements that were identified within the legislation. Vote on the Ordinance Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 39 -10 Amending Chapter 35 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Fee and Service Charge Revenue /Cost Comparison System and Establishing a Schedule of Fees and Service Charges for City of Dublin Services. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Kennedy stated this ordinance provides for an update to the City's fee schedule. If approved, the fees will be effective on January 1, 2011. During last year's fee schedule review, the City's consultant assisted staff in completing a comprehensive update to the Cost of Services Study. The Finance Committee reviewed the proposed fee changes at that time. This year's review involved some minor changes to existing fees and some new fees, as outlined in staff's memo. She noted that during last year's Finance Committee review, there was considerable discussion about the fact that raising fees is not always the best solution to address revenue reductions resulting from reduced development activity. In keeping with that discussion, the fees were analyzed this year, but some of the development fees were not proposed for increase. Staff is requesting Council's desire in terms of scheduling a Finance Committee meeting for review of the proposed changes to the fee ordinance. Following a Committee review, if desired, the ordinance will be scheduled for second reading /public hearing. Mayor Lecklider suggested that in view of the few changes, an alternative to a full Finance Committee review could be for Council to identify any issues they may have about the proposed fees tonight for response by staff. The ordinance could then be ready for second reading /public hearing on November 1. Mr. Keenan stated that he has reviewed the proposed changes. They are consistent with last year's discussion and direction. He does not believe a Finance RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhlin City C ounril Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 7 Committee review is necessary this year. He recalls that last year, Mrs. Boring had questions about Recreation Center senior membership fees. He asked if Mrs. Boring considers these fees to be consistent with the previous direction. Mrs. Boring stated that no increases have been proposed for those fees this year. Ms. Kennedy has outlined the changes clearly, and she has no further questions. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked if the City had previously charged fees for a wireless facility administrative review. Ms. Kennedy responded that no fee had previously been established for that review. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the proposed fee is substantial, in view of the fact that there was none previously. She recognizes that the fee is recommended based on the actual cost of processing the application. Are there a large number of requests for new towers? Ms. Grigsby responded that the activity is not consistent year to year. This year, there were several, which related to the Avery Road water tower project. The wireless facilities were displaced while the tower was being repainted. This situation did highlight the amount of administrative work involved in this review. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked if charging a fee for the application review of wireless towers is consistent with the practice in other cities. Mr. Langworthy responded that cities typically charge for the review, as it is included in their zoning process. Dublin utilizes an administrative review process, as these generally do not involve building a new tower. Dublin does not receive many requests for new towers; they are typically for co- location within water towers and for attachments to other structures. However, the review does involve staff time. Meetings are held with the applicant for each case. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the staff memo indicates if the wireless facility is located on City property, no fee is involved. Ms. Kennedy responded that is based on the fact that the City would receive lease payments for such a wireless facility. Mayor Lecklider summarized that it is the consensus of Council that a Finance Committee review of the ordinance is unnecessary. The ordinance will therefore be scheduled for second reading /public hearing on November 1. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 50 -10 Adopting the Bridge Street Corridor Study Vision Statement, Vision Principles, Vision Report, and Implementation Strategy. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Langworthy stated this resolution adopts the Interim Vision Report and Strategy prepared by Goody Clancy & Associates. The presentation of the document occurred at a Council Study Session on October 4. This is the first step in a rapid, but complex and involved process going forward. The purpose of the Vision Report is to identify the "30,000 foot view" of what is desired for the Bridge Street Corridor. The next steps will begin to define the terms, terminology and illustrative nature of what is shown in the Interim Vision Report by assembling a pattern book. The pattern book will be the description of what is meant by elements of the Vision. From the pattern book, almost simultaneously, a set of development regulations will be created. Staff's intent is that Goody Clancy will work on the pattern book as part of the last phase of their project. The intent is to engage a consultant who will work on development regulations, hand -in -hand with Goody Clancy as they are developing the pattern book. The goal is to ensure those documents coordinate well with one another. At the same time, the land use parameters will be further defined and transportation utility modeling will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dijhlin C'tysbuncil Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 8 initiated as well as the fiscal modeling that will be necessary for the City to understand fully what all of this will mean for the future. This is a 20 to 40 -year plan, so the expectation is there will be some transitional elements. In the interim, there will probably be some development that will not always meet the exact requirements of the Plan, but it is acceptable, as redevelopment will occur over time. He emphasized that this is a long -term process. Council is to be congratulated for laying the foundation for this vision to occur. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Council has received a letter from Matt Stavroff, and perhaps Council could engage Mr. Stavroff in a discussion about this letter. She did have an opportunity today to discuss with Mr. Stavroff his concerns, and she indicated she would ask Legal staff how the adoption of this vision would impact the City and future decision makers. Mr. Smith responded that as the Vision Plan indicates, it is meant to be a guide. He read Mr. Stavroff's letter as well. He noted that when the City created the Community Plan, they specifically included a paragraph that states that the Community Plan is not a Code or a law, but rather a guide. In the Vision Plan, it is stated that "development should take the Vision framework as a guide." He does not believe a Court ruling would be based upon the opinion that the document constituted a law. However, if Council has concerns about the Vision Plan's "authority," the document could be appropriately clarified. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Vision Plan is similar to the Community Plans, which Council has adopted over the years. It is a guide and establishes a framework or foundation for what will be developed in an area. It identifies the principles that will be followed in reviewing development applications. This study also identifies various districts and the unique features of those districts that the City wants to preserve and protect. An example is the greenspace to be preserved in the Scioto River corridor and the Indian Run corridor. David Dixon of Goody Clancy & Associates stated that this Vision Plan is for an area that constitutes four percent of the land mass of the City. It does not change how development is processed in Dublin, but how the City views development in this particular Vision Plan area. It focuses on the next decades and century of development that will occur in Dublin and the anticipated demands on the City related to the development. Mr. Gerber stated that he has similar concerns as those of Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher. He has no objections to the concept, although he is concerned that the Vision Plan would be interpreted to mean this is exactly the way development is expected to appear. For example, development is not shown along Riverside Drive in this Vision. Further, the Vision may call for condominium development in a particular area, but a developer may want to build something entirely different. He wants to ensure that Council will have the flexibility to address those concerns in the future. Mr. Langworthy stated that the City has deliberately included language in the Vision Plan that the City recognizes that it is unlikely that development will occur as depicted. As Mr. Stavroff has indicated, the market will be key in what happens in this area. The Vision attempts to illustrate some of the principles for the development, not the actual development that will occur. Mr. Gerber stated that the Traffic Study will suggest some ways in which the area should be developed as well. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting there may be some adjustments to be made as a result of the Traffic Study, in terms of densities and intensities of land use and the ability to accommodate the traffic and utilities. The pattern book and the development regulations will serve as a guide for the City to follow. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhlin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 _ _ Page 9 Mr. Keenan stated that this is fine, assuming the market forces are permitted to operate in terms of how this area will be developed. The importance of the market conditions has been observed with respect to the COIC. Mr. Langworthy agreed. The City will not be developing this area; it will be the marketplace that drives development. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher recalled that a city visited on a field trip by City Council and Planning Commission had such a pattern book. The developers indicated that having the pattern book helped them to sell their projects and obtain funding. One of the challenges that is frequently brought to Council is the inconsistency and confusion regarding the City's expectations. A pattern book would provide better understanding of the expectations. For her, the purpose of this initiative was to seek out a new opportunity for the City in a unique area of the City, and to incorporate the river into the heart of the community in a way that would draw a new population into the future community. The vision is very exciting. It is also very interesting that the vision area is anchored by OCLC and the Stavroff property. Stavroff is prepared to move forward with development as soon as the market permits. When there is activity on these large parcels, it will draw the attention of others who might not otherwise notice the area. It could result in reducing the 40 years anticipated for future development of the area. Mr. Langworthy noted that he believes the same is also true for the OCLC development area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that if this Vision Plan is approved, she would hope that it is with the intent of doing business differently in this area of the City than has occurred traditionally. Mrs. Boring stated that she has significant concerns. She does not believe any of this will negatively impact OCLC, because that activity center already exists. She does not like some of the concepts reflected in the Vision Plan. As with the Community Plan, the vision becomes the "bible" for the City, and there are many things she does not care for in this Vision. There has been previous discussion about the possibility of curving Riverside Drive and creating more greenspace in that location. Housing is proposed where shopping centers now exist. There is not adequate greenspace in one of the areas. When the pattern book is being developed by staff and the consultant, she wants to be sure that feedback is obtained regarding each of the activity centers. The plan also moves from four activity areas to eight in another portion. Some of this is not clear to her. She cannot support this with the draft Vision Plan included, because the draft Vision Plan is binding. Mr. Langworthy offered a suggestion, similar to what was done with the Community Plan. Similar concerns existed regarding the area plans at that time. In a corner of an area plan, a text box was inserted with the caveat that the area was not expected to develop exactly as shown, but that the plan was intended to serve as an illustrative guide. Similar language could be attached to the Vision Plan, so users would understand it is not to be used as a "bible." Mrs. Boring responded that each of the area plans in the Community Plan were handled separately and very well. The area plans were considered separately, and an attempt was made to ensure each area plan was consistent with the principles. This Vision Plan does not seem to do that. Mr. Langworthy responded the Vision Plan is intended to be only illustrative of the principles. Initially, he also had concerns when he looked at the area activity centers, because what exists there currently is different. However, in 40 -50 years, the existing development may no longer be in place. Regardless, the statement should be included to ensure the Vision Plan is viewed only as an illustrative guide. More important is the pattern book and development regulations, which will define RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhlin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 Page 10 what is meant. Over time, this illustrative plan will probably fade into the background, because it will no longer be needed. Mrs. Boring asked why it is then necessary to include a Vision Plan along with the principles and regulations. Mr. Langworthy responded that he is not certain that an illustrative plan is necessary. The individual districts identified probably do an adequate job in describing what needs to be looked at uniquely within the individual areas. However, without Goody Clancy's input, he would not want to eliminate it from the Plan. The clarifying caveat could be inserted, however, as suggested. Mayor Lecklider stated that he just received Mr. Stavroff's letter this evening, and has not had an opportunity to review it. However, he believes the language included in both the Vision Report and in the adopting resolution now before Council clarifies the intent and addresses possible concerns regarding specificity. For example, Section 1 of the resolution states: "The findings and concepts of the Vision Report, which is intended to describe the market opportunities, districts, and design elements of the Bridge Street Corridor and illustrate a potential development scenario, are hereby endorsed to guide planning efforts in the Bridge Street Corridor." In the Vision Report, on page 16 is the language "illustrative vision scenario." For him, that describes its purpose clearly. If Council is not establishing the vision and illustrative examples, then who will do so? It is Council's role as leaders to provide this. This is not Council's first experience with community plans, community plan updates, etc., and no Council Members would expect a plan to develop detail by detail, pursuant to the illustrations provided with the plan. Mr. Reiner expressed concurrence. Further, the illustrative Vision Plan provides ideas about where biking trails, light rail, and different kinds of housing might occur in the future. He does not view the Vision Plan as something rigid or fixed. It has been designed by its architects solely to provide a potential "vision." Mr. Gerber asked if Council will review the pattern book. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Gerber stated that he anticipates there will also be an opportunity for public comment at that time. Mr. Langworthy responded that there would likely be work sessions with Council scheduled for this review. Tonight is only the first step in the process. Vice Mayor Salay concurred with Mayor Lecklider's comments. She is very comfortable with this Vision Report and the implementation strategy as outlined. What excites her most about the Plan is that something completely different will be done with this part of Dublin. Council wants the development community to participate in something other than "business as usual." Perhaps a conventional shopping center will have to be re -made into something quite different. A new era is beginning for this corridor. There are high expectations, but also very different expectations than the other 90 -95% of the City. Mr. Langworthy noted that he hopes Council has had an opportunity to view some of the recent positive media coverage regarding this Vision Report and Plan. Mr. Reiner stated that the projections are aligned with the City's demographic survey. The next vision for this community should be "a step up." The Easton development includes housing separated from commercial. For the Bridge Street Corridor, it would be desirable for commercial or retail activity to occur on a lower floor and housing to be provided on the upper stories. That may or may not work, depending on the developer's interest in being progressive. There is a need for a portion of the community that will appeal to and attract the younger generation — RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of iblin CitV Council Meeting October 25, 2010 _ Page 11 those now living in the Short North area of Columbus. As leaders, it is Council's role to establish a Vision to accomplish that. Mrs. Boring stated that there is no disagreement about that aspect. Her objection is that in the past, people have become tied to the illustrations provided. If the Plan contains the principles that Council wants and agrees upon, and if Council supports how the Vision is written, then she does not see the necessity for the accompanying illustrations. Mr. Gerber pointed out that in the process, there will be an opportunity to review the pattern book and discuss the various illustrations. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not certain that Council is providing the needed direction about their concerns, including her concern that the illustrations do not seem to match the principles in certain areas. Mr. Gerber stated that the work sessions should provide the opportunity to do just that. Mr. Langworthy stated that the work sessions could occur early in the process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this would be an opportunity to attract developers who are interested in doing something creative and bold and who have new ideas -- something to help the City move forward from great to something even better. She asked if Council would provide Mr. Stavroff the opportunity to speak, if he would like to do so. Mr. Gerber concurred. He is also pleased that the City will be involved in traffic studies upfront, versus later, as has often occurred. Mayor Lecklider noted that he is hopeful that this initiative will attract a national interest/inquiry as well as local. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has already had some attention from various entities who are awaiting the results of tonight's Council review. Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Stavroff to address Council, if he would like to do so. Matt Stavroff, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Dublin indicated that he clearly articulated his concerns in the letter sent to Council, and he has heard some good responses tonight about what the expectations are in adopting this Vision. He is somewhat concerned with terms such as "walkable" and "density." No one objects to walkable, but the issue is in defining what this means to everyone. "Density" relative to what? There are comments in the Vision about transit, and he wonders if Council is serious about that. Do they believe transit will be in place in Dublin in the next 30 -40 years? Has Council considered the alternative perspective? The federal government currently subsidizes transit at $20 million plus per year, and given the current budget, is it likely that more will be subsidized in the future? He wants to ensure that this Vision Plan being adopted is not viewed as the "bible" — but as something with many good qualities, as a target to aim for, and perhaps what tomorrow's market wants. There will be a different Council and staff in place years from now, and how will they interpret what is in this document? Dublin is a very special community. He is excited about the redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center and it is not that far off. However, he is concerned that when he brings back something with users who are excited and which captures much of this vision, but not everything, what response will it have from the City? He wants Council to think about this. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that it occurs to him that this Vision Plan is a massive stimulus package. It is something that will keep Dublin out of recession. Dublin is now one of the "Smart Cities" of the world, an "Intelligent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duublin Cwtys mindl Meeting October 25, 2010 - Page 12 Community" of the world, and has the ear of some of the greatest thinkers in the world. This is a "sky is the limit" stimulus package. Dublin is a magnet market with this plan. A monthly meeting is needed to bring in people who have thought hard about what this City should be. It is important to take risks and have an ear open to everyone. Few cities on the planet are so situated to move and "exfoliate." He added that he will not move out of Dublin for a while. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolution 51 -10 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Installation of Median Cable Barrier on U.S. 33 from S.R. 161 /Post Road in Union County to 1 -270 in Franklin County. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that, as indicated in the staff report, ODOT has requested Dublin's consent to allow them to program a median cable barrier installation for this area. There is existing median cable barrier installed in 2002 on 1 -270 within Dublin's jurisdiction. The purpose of the barrier has been and remains to prevent crossover crashes. Crossover accidents typically result in head -on collisions and fatalities. ODOT is proposing this barrier be funded 100 percent by them; if Dublin requests additions to the project, Dublin would be asked to fund them. Dublin does not anticipate requesting any additions. Staff recommends approval by Council so that this installation can be programmed by ODOT. Mr. Reiner asked who maintains the grass around these posts. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, as Dublin currently does along 1 -270, the City will mow the median. A herbicide is used around the posts to keep the vegetation down. The City will not maintain the cable barrier itself, but only the vegetation. Mrs. Boring recalled discussion when the median cable barrier was installed back in 2002. Were any modifications requested from ODOT at that time? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there were not. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that ODOT is very consistent in repairing any damaged median cable barrier along 1 -270. These barriers do improve safety, as staff has indicated. Her concern, as she expressed to Ms. Grigsby, relates to the S.R. 161 ramp over 1 -270, which is not Dublin's responsibility to maintain. This area accumulates much litter on a regular basis, and she has contacted Mr. Burns about this. Now there will be another area where ODOT indicates their responsibility is only for repair of the cable. Dublin will continue to take care of mowing of the grass. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that Dublin would take care of mowing, litter removal, and snow removal of this area, as is done today. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification about what distinguishes this median barrier area from the SR 161 bridge over 270 in terms of litter, etc. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that the debris and road trash on the bridge are routinely cleaned up by the City, as ODOT does not seem to have the resources to maintain this to Dublin's standards. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff will raise this issue with ODOT in conjunction with this consent legislation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City C OUncil MeetinP October 25, 2010 _Page 13 Mayor Lecklider asked what is the distinguishing factor between Dublin taking responsibility for keeping the overpass clean versus the median where the cable barrier will be erected. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it relates to staff's understanding and a cooperative agreement with ODOT in terms of practice. Dublin mows more frequently than ODOT would do, as Dublin has a different standard of maintenance than elsewhere in the state. Ms. Grigsby noted that for this reason, language is included in the resolution that identifies that the City will continue the maintenance in that area. Mayor Lecklider stated that he can appreciate why Dublin would want the grass cut more frequently. He is merely trying to understand these distinctions. Maybe there are practical reasons why Dublin does not want to take responsibility for that overpass on a formal basis. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this can be discussed internally, and staff can bring back a response to Council. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that this is a "lose /lose" situation. He can visualize what would occur if a speeding car hits a cable barrier. It could result in a fatality. One solution is to lower the speed limit, which would be done at the federal level. In the past, metal guardrails were protected by bags of soft material, which would reduce the impacts of a vehicle collision. This cable median barrier will not resolve the fatality issue, but apparently, there is not much that can be done other than at the state and federal level. Mr. Hammersmith stated that on 1 -270, the average in this portion is 44 accidents per year and one fatality per year based on crossover accidents. After the installation of the 1 -270 median cable barrier in this portion, there have been no fatalities. Therefore, it has actually prevented fatalities and not caused any. The cable barrier captures the vehicle and prevents the crossover accident. There are online videos that demonstrate its effectiveness. Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. OTHER Adoption of the 2011 Council Meeting Schedule Mayor Lecklider suggested that Council continue with the schedule of meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of each month, with a slight modification for August. To accommodate the Dublin Irish Festival schedule, he suggests that Council have Regular Meetings on Monday, August 1 and Monday, August 22, with the CIP workshops on Monday, August 15 and Monday, August 29. Council expressed concurrence with this schedule. Vote on the 2011 Schedule as Modified: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby reported that: 1. Kenny McDonald, Senior Vice President/Chief Economic Officer for the Columbus Partnership will be providing information and an update to Council on November 15 regarding the Columbus Partnership and the Columbus 2020 initiative. 2. On Wednesday, October 27, the public input meeting for Emerald Parkway Phase 8 will be held at Dublin Scioto High School from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of niihlin City Cnunril Meeting October 25, 2010 - Page 14 3. Ms. Colley, Management Assistant attended the ICMA conference last week in San Jose, California and the City received several awards relating to the Citizen Survey and to Performance Measurement. She is here to present these to Council. Ms. Colley reported that the City received two awards from ICMA at the annual conference held last week. The first was the "Voice of the People Award for Excellence." Dublin received recognition from ICMA and the National Research Center for qualifying for awards of excellence in nine of ten award categories. These include Police services, garbage collection, street repair, parks, recreation programs or classes, Code enforcement, overall City services, emergency medical services and fire services. She noted that fire and EMS services were included in the National Citizen Survey when administered in 2009, and Washington Township as the provider of these services should also be recognized. The second award presented was the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement Certificate of Achievement award. Dublin has been involved in this program for just two years, and receiving this award is significant. Only one other city in Ohio — Loveland — received this award from CPM. She presented both plaques to Council. Mayor Lecklider noted that Council has received notification of these awards, which are very impressive. These are quite a testimony to Dublin staff and all of their efforts over the years, and to Chief Woo, the Township Trustees and their staff. Dublin can be proud of all of these achievements in these difficult economic times, and Council appreciates staff's continued dedication to this standard of excellence. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE • Community Development Committee Recommendation re Permission to Serve Alcohol at Darree Fields for U.S. Australian Football National Championships Mr. Reiner, Chair, Community Development Committee noted that the Committee recommends that Council grant an alcohol waiver in conjunction with the U.S. Australian Football League National Championship to be held in Darree Fields, if the DCVB bid is successful. Mrs. Boring moved approval of this waiver. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Salay asked for clarification: the report lists $6,000 in hotel /motel tax revenue and $90,000 in economic development impact. The Clerk indicated that this figure should be $900,000, as noted in the corrected report distributed tonight. Vote on the motion Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. Mr. Reiner noted that: 1. On October 17, Dublin hosted a remarkable event — the two- phased race of Cyclocross, held in Coffman Park. The event was attended by a large number of fans from other areas. He complimented Michael Teets of OCLC for his hard work on this project and the support from the Bicycle Advisory Task Force. There were many vendors in attendance, and no taxpayer funds were used to support this event. He believes this type of event should be pursued by the City, as it brought out of town visitors who stayed in Dublin hotels. This race is the fastest growing sport in Europe, and now in America. He thanked Michael Teets, the BATF, and the City who helped to initiate this event in Dublin. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of itV Coi inril Meeting October 25, 2010 - Page 15 2. The Spooktacular event was very enjoyable once again. He thanked the staff for their hard work on this. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that: 1. The draft evacuation plan for Franklin County was sent out by e -mail recently. If anyone has an interest in this, she can forward the plan to them. MORPC and a large group of citizens and First Responders have been working on developing a comprehensive evacuation plan for Franklin County. 2. She recently received a letter from Ed Leonard, Franklin County Treasurer regarding a property with delinquent taxes. She asked if staff receives this. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff may receive this information in case the City is interested in acquiring a property for economic development purposes. 3. She, too, concurs with Mr. Keenan's comments about being disappointed with the City of Delaware being ahead of Dublin on the iPhone application issue. Ms. Grigsby has shared with Council that this matter will be addressed in the 2011 budget. She encourages the City to consider the full utilization of all social media to communicate with the citizens, both corporate and residential. This is the new wave of how people are sending information out to the public. She was surprised that, given Dublin's progressiveness with implementing WiFi and such, Dublin fell behind in the use of all of the application capabilities for the citizens. She noted that it was interesting that the City of Delaware indicated they are using this application in responding to complaints. Citizens can easily communicate Code violations or other issues to the City through this application. Mayor Lecklider noted that at last week's Homeowners Association Presidents' meeting, staff did a good job in making presentations to the group on various topics. It was well attended, and the City continues to receive positive feedback from these sessions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. e 0 4 1! ✓ May •• - aztp__� Clerk of Council