HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 02-14-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
February 14, 2011
Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, February 14, 2011 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Chinnici - 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 Chief von Eckartsberg,
Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Earman, Mr. Harding,
Ms. Ruwette, Ms. Oft, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Ray, and Ms. Nardecchia.
Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2011.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes;
Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Clerk reported that no correspondence had been received requiring Council
action.
PROCLAMATIONS /SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Mayor Lecklider welcomed United Health Care representatives Patricia Horvath,
Managing Director of Health Strategies for the Central/West Regions and Ms. Linda
Quick, Strategic Account Executive to the meeting. He invited Mr. Harding and Ms.
Ruwette forward to accept the "Well Deserved" award.
Ms. Harvath presented United Health Care's highest national award, the 'Well
Deserved Award" for the City's workplace wellness program. Over the past three
years, they have studied the program carefully and reviewed it in detail this year. Out
of hundreds of applicants nationally, the City of Dublin's program design was
extraordinary. The judges complimented the City on its incentive strategy, the
resources for employees, and the outcomes in medical trends and costs. She
congratulated the City on the award, which was also bestowed upon some much
larger municipalities and Fortune 500 companies. Dublin is in the group of ten elite
performers.
Ms. Quick added that this award recognizes customers that demonstrate their
commitment to improving the health and well -being of their members. Dublin is one of
ten organizations nationally that is receiving this award. Dublin has shown its
commitment through the programs provided to members, and through its enthusiastic
and creative approach to wellness. It is a pleasure to work with such a team of
dedicated individuals who care deeply about the health and wellness of the
employees. United HealthCare is proud to be part of the wellness solution for the City
of Dublin.
(They presented the crystal apple award and a cash gift of $1,000 in recognition of the
City's wellness program.)
Mr. Harding noted this "Well Deserved" award is very meaningful for the City. City
Council's support of the wellness program, which was first discussed six years ago
has been key to its success. He thanked Council for their ongoing support.
Engineers Week
Mayor Lecklider presented a proclamation in recognition of Engineers Week —
February 20 -26 — to Paul Hammersmith, City Engineer.
Mr. Hammersmith thanked City Council, noting that it is an honor and privilege for the
City engineering staff to practice their profession in Dublin, utilizing all of the tools and
resources the City offers.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meet
February 14, 2011 Page 2
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
• Quarterly update - Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau
Cheryl Herbert, Board President noted this is her last official appearance in front of
Council as the President of Dublin Methodist Hospital as she transitions to her new
role at Ohio Health. She thanked Council for 6 -1/2 years of support and for working
together with Ohio Health to build this wonderful facility for the community. She is very
appreciative of their support.
She noted that the DCVB is present tonight to provide an update on activities. Their
mission is to attract, service and retain overnight visitors to the City of Dublin, which
helps to increase hotel /motel tax revenue and generate monies for the City's
economy. The 2010 annual report (handed out by Mr. Dring) reflects the measurable
results of the DCVB. The business for the Bureaus' summer package increased 258
percent over 2009. Over 100 new group tours were attracted, generating an economic
impact of $5.2 million for the City. New business leads increased by 128 percent, and
the leisure- advertising program is now reaching more than 17 million potential visitors.
The DCVB information center in Historic Dublin hosted visitors from nine countries and
47 states.
Mr. Dring, Executive Director noted that the travel industry struggled with challenges
again in 2010. Some charts are included in the packet that indicate results from the
DCVB, Experience Columbus and nationally.
• Last year, bed tax revenue in the City of Dublin increased by 4.5 percent.
Occupancy rates were up 8 percent in 2010. However, the average daily room
rate decreased 4.5 percent. Corporate travel was hit hard in recent years,
and so the Bureau has pursued new business in the areas of leisure travel,
group travel, sports, and military markets.
• The outlook for 2011 is good, and their marketing plan focuses on positioning
Dublin as a great destination for visitors. They have a new partnership
program that has helped to raise additional revenue in an attempt to offset
some of the bed tax revenue losses in recent years. Local businesses have
the opportunity to promote their businesses through their web site and visitors
guide. They have 42 new business partners in the City of Dublin who are
engaged in this program.
• A new visitor and event - planning guide has been produced, combining what
were previously two separate documents. A copy is included in the packet.
• He highlighted their activity: the 2012 Ohio Travel Association Travel and
Tourism conference is confirmed in the fall of 2012; Alpha Eta Rho, the oldest
professional aviation fraternity in the U.S. will meet in Dublin in 2011; and
numerous out of state bus tours were in town over the recent holidays to
experience an Irish Christmas.
• They will also have visitors coming to Dublin as part of large groups coming to
Columbus, such as the Arnold Classic and the Ohio High School Athletic
Association state tournaments.
• They are a finalist for the Women of Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
annual conference in 2012.
• They are still a finalist for the U.S. Australian football conference bid, which
would bring in 1,000 room nights and have $900,000 in economic impact.
• Finally, they are beginning to market the 2013 Presidents Cup at Muirfield
Village and are working with HNS, the City of Columbus, and State of Ohio in
trying to leverage the visibility of this event. This is a weeklong event beginning
September 30, 2013. It also provides a great opportunity to promote Dublin to
a worldwide audience.
Mayor Lecklider congratulated the Bureau on all of their success, and for their recent
successful audit. He noted that the DCVB received numerous awards in 2010,
including a first place PRISM award for the web site and two second -place awards for
the newsletter.
On behalf of Council, Mayor Lecklider thanked Ms. Herbert for her service with the
DVCB and with Dublin Methodist Hospital.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meetine
February 14, 2011 Page 3
Mr. Reiner thanked Ms. Herbert for her efforts with the Healthy Communities initiative,
which has helped to improve the health of the citizens. He praised her for taking the
time to be involved in so many areas of the community.
Ms. Chinn ici- Zuercher congratulated Ms. Herbert on her new role with Ohio Health.
She noted that she heard a presentation at MORPC from the Sports Commission.
What is the DCVB's relationship with Experience Columbus and how is marketing
coordinated?
Mr. Dring responded that they have a good working relationship. The Columbus
Bureau's focus is generally on much larger conferences that could not be
accommodated in Dublin — conferences where arena -type venues are needed. Many
of the youth tournaments that Dublin pursues are not a primary market for Experience
Columbus.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments from citizens.
LEGISLATION
Ordinance 08 -11 (Amended)
Amending Section 72.058 of the Codified Ordinances of Dublin, Ohio to Create a
Subsection Prohibiting "Sending, Reading, or Writing a Text Message or
Accessing the Internet While Driving."
Interim Chief von Eckartsberg noted that the ordinance has been amended slightly. In
Section D(1), the word "manually" was inserted before "write" to clarify that this would
not pertain to voice activated instruments. In Section D(4)(b), the phrase "internet-
based vehicle navigation system" was replaced with "global positioning navigational
system." This clarifies that GPS devices and hand -held GPS devices would be
eliminated from this legislation. He offered to respond to questions.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if this would preclude someone from manually typing into a
GPS, similar to manually typing a text message.
Interim Chief von Eckartsberg responded that the ordinance would not prohibit it. The
way a GPS device is now designed, the ordinance does not apply. The ordinance
focuses on limiting texting.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that the voice- activated feature should be used and
encouraged versus manually inputting data into a GPS device or phone.
Interim Chief von Eckartsberg agreed. If someone is dialing a phone and is not paying
attention to driving, it would be prohibited under the distracted driving provisions of the
Code.
Mr. Keenan noted that most of the in car navigation systems will not allow the address
to be changed while in motion. The GPS devices and phones would be a different
matter.
Mayor Lecklider stated that many of the latest generation of Smart phones have a
voice- activated feature for directions.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that there is considerable legal deterrence
with this ordinance. He would advocate beefing up the educational element, which
would dramatically reduce or eliminate texting while driving. He described the moment
of silence at OSU stadium when 90,000 plus patrons witness a play that renders a
player motionless on the field. These types of incidents follow the collision of players
on the field. Collisions of two cars on the highway at high speeds result in severe
injuries or death. He believes that witnessing or viewing the carnage of such an
accident is unforgettable. An educational program could include field trips for young
persons to the morgue to view accident victims. He believes this would be the best
deterrent to texting while driving.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011
Page 4
Sharon Montgomery, 572 Bonnington Way, Gahanna noted that she is speaking for
victims listed on the poster and for those who do not want to become victims in the
future. She stated the following:
• In 2000, a driver using a cell phone caused a three -car crash. The driver of
one car is now partially disabled; the driver of the other victim car, her husband,
died after six weeks in intensive care; she had life threatening complications
from her injuries, missed four months of work, and had mental health treatment
for three years. The driver who caused the accident paid a $75 fine and did not
stop using his phone while driving.
• She noted that a successful model for reducing dangerous driving already
exists with the approach used for driving while intoxicated. The approach
consists of enact, educate, enforce and evaluate. Enact a law to specify which
dangerous behaviors drivers are not allowed to engage in; educate the public
on both the existence of the law and the reasons for it; consistent, visible
enforcement is crucial; collect data, analyze it and use that analysis to improve
the language of the law, the penalties, the education and /or the enforcement
efforts.
• She noted that Dublin has an impressive collaborative effort for education, and
she is hopeful that Dublin will enforce the law more vigorously than other cities
that have enacted such legislation. The Dublin police already have the means
for evaluating, as evidenced by their compilation of data on texting and phoning
crashes back to 2007. The remaining item is enactment of the ordinance.
• Some Council Members have raised the same concerns as other City Councils
regarding the potential use of the existing full time and attention law. That law
does not acknowledge that this type of distraction has proven to be more
dangerous than other distractions. When the law specifies phoning or texting,
the citations in crash reports will indicate this. Therefore, more complete and
accurate data can be collected for evaluation.
• The generic law also relies too heavily upon reacting after harm has occurred.
The goal is to prevent harm. Drunk drivers are stopped just for being
intoxicated, before they cause harm -- due to the great potential for harm.
• This is a state issue, but the state has generally ignored the issue since the first
bill was introduced in 1997. Until Rep. Garland was able to bring HB 415 to the
House last spring, only one of the many bills has had public input, which was in
2002. HB 415 died when the General Assembly adjourned in December. The
Senate refused to act on it and its own SIB 164. A new bill mirroring HB 415 is
expected to be introduced in the House shortly and has a good chance of
passage in the House. She indicated that she fully expects the Senate to
ignore the issue once again.
• Local laws will create more roads that can be safe with sufficient enforcement.
With enough local laws, perhaps the Ohio Senate can be pressured into acting
to curb the growth of a patchwork of different local laws.
• Education has to supplement, but should never replace a traffic safety law.
Laws must tell people that they cannot phone or text while driving because it is
too dangerous.
• In terms of the studies that indicate the laws do not reduce crashes, the
Highway Loss Data Institute looked at 2008 insurance claims for crashes in
some of the places with laws prohibiting hand -held phones. They were
surprised with their findings — that when hand -held devices were restricted and
with hands -free devices readily available, many drivers switched to hands -free
devices. Crashes will still occur as long as behavior is allowed that has a high
risk of crashing.
• In terms of being enforceable, it depends upon the language of the law. If too
broad the police and drivers are not clear which behaviors are prohibited. If
too narrow, allowing some uses but not others, it is then difficult for police to
notice quickly how the device is being used. However, the problems with
enforcement should be viewed as challenges to overcome, not reasons for
inaction. Lives are at stake.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
February 14, 2011 Page 5
• 1 -270 runs through Dublin, and truck and bus traffic is already prohibited from
texting and driving on interstate highways. Therefore, the Dublin Police have
already had to determine how to enforce this.
• The City's intentions with the language of Ordinance 08 -11 are commendable,
as the focus was to be as consistent as possible with what is expected to
become state law in the future. However, the exceptions included in the
legislation will allow some of the dangerous driving practices to continue.
Some will be legal, because the specific practices are not prohibited, and some
practices will be illegal although police will not be able to enforce the law if they
cannot see the driver doing it. Lawmakers are only ready to address written,
but not oral communication.
• There is 20 years of research that shows unequivocally that conversation is a
dangerous distraction. The narrow focus on texting results from the worry
about drivers taking their attention off the road. However, drivers on the phone
have missed seeing things such as school buses and fire trucks.
She asks that Council take one of two actions tonight: pass this ordinance to
initiate the program and make a public commitment to further study and
discussion with the goal of improving the law; or postpone the ordinance until .
further discussion and study is done and then make a public commitment to
bring it up again, at least in this version.
She thanked Council for taking a leadership role in education efforts and for allowing
her to be part of the process.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 09 -11
Adopting and Enacting a Supplement (S -29) to the Code of Ordinances for the
City of Dublin, Ohio.
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Grigsby stated this is a housekeeping item and approves a Code update.
Mr. Reiner moved to dispense with the public hearing.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici -
Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 03 -11
Waiving Competitive Bidding and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Contract with Pebble Flex LLC for the Purchase and Installation of Aqua Flex
Flooring for the Dublin Community Recreation Center Leisure Pool.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Ms. Crandall stated that staff has identified what they believe is the best solution for
the surface material for the leisure pool at the Dublin Recreation Center. (She
distributed a sample.) Staff is requesting that Council waive competitive bidding for
this project. Pebble Flex is the only manufacturer and supplier of this material. Staff
has not identified a similar type of material in the market. In the 2011 operating
budget, $20,000 was budgeted for a solution to the problems identified in a study. The
only option that seemed feasible was complete tile replacement -- until this material
was found. With Council's approval tonight, the installation can be done at the end of
February. The staff report describes the material and process in detail. The material
would reduce slipping in the leisure pool area and it is non - porous, chlorine and
chemical resistant. It is a softer surface than tile or concrete — it has a fall height rating
assigned to it. It is easier to clean than the existing tile surface and is made of a
minimum of 20 percent recycled product. It can be applied directly to the existing tile
surface.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
M
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 6
The cost for this product to be applied to the entire 6,800 square feet of the leisure
pool is $97,500. Staff would review other capital projects to determine if funding could
be shifted to this project so it could be done this year. She offered to respond to
questions.
Mr. Reiner asked about the life of this product.
Ms. Crandall responded that she is not certain, although there is a three -year
manufacturer's warranty. They have looked at applications in place up to four years
and they have heard good feedback. An advantage of this is it is similar to the
playground surface where a portion can be cut out and re- poured in place. Staff has
not viewed an installation that has been in place for over four years.
Mayor Lecklider asked for the planned installation date.
Ms. Crandall responded that it could be done in the last week of February, if this
resolution is approved tonight.
Mrs. Boring noted that she appreciates staff's thorough research on this matter. Is
there any consideration for applying this to the lap pool?
Ms. Crandall responded that staff is not aware of issues with slipping in that pool.
People enter the leisure pool area with shoes and strollers, which results in oil on the
surface. There are many factors affecting the leisure pool area that do not seem to
occur in the lap pool area.
Mrs. Boring asked what is done to reduce potential slipping in the riser area or seats
where spectators view competitive swimming events.
Mr. Earman responded that for spectators at swim meets, they enter through the swim
meet entrance on the west face of the Rec Center near the aquatic area. They can
wipe their feet on mats before entering the facility.
Mrs. Boring asked if any rubber mats are used in this area, because she is aware of
an injury in the past.
Mr. Earman responded that the leisure pool area has multiple rubberized mats. In the
competition pool area, there has not been any notable slip and fall issues to warrant
any extended use of mats in that area. The environment is completely different from
the leisure pool.
Mayor Lecklider asked how this installation would accommodate doorways, given its
thickness.
Ms. Crandall responded that it could be beveled toward drains to account for
doorways.
Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider,
yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ms. Crandall credited Mr. Fabick, Recreation Administrator, who identified this material
and researched use of the material at other sites.
Resolution 04 -11
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Memorandums of Understanding with
the Franklin County Board of Elections for Use of Municipal Property in the
Administration of Public Elections.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Ms. Grigsby stated that beginning last year, the Board of Elections entered into
agreements identifying expectations for use of facilities as voting locations throughout
the county. This authorizes use of facilities at the Rec Center and City Hall for use by
the Board of Elections.
Mayor Lecklider asked whether this imposes any greater responsibilities upon the City
than in the past.
Ms. Grigsby responded that it does not. It is just intended to formalize the
arrangements.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
February 14, 2011 Page 7
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
OTHER
• Request to Remove Ordinance 47 -09 from the Table (tabled indefinitely on
January 25, 2010) (Ordinance 47 -09 - Rezoning Approximately 4.18 Acres,
Located on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Shier Rings Road and
Eiterman Road, from R, Rural District to HDP, High Density POD District
within the Future Central Ohio Innovation Center - -Case 08 -107Z)
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to take Ordinance 47 -09 from the table for discussion.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Council Members concurred.
Mr. Langworthy noted that a memo was included in the packet regarding this request,
updating Council on the progress of the Economic Advancement Zone, and the
planning work being done with various neighborhood groups and property owners in
the area. Staff would like to complete this work prior to undertaking rezoning in the
area. Upon completion of the work, staff would return to Council with an amendment
to the Community Plan and an initiative for an area rezoning for numerous properties
in the area south of the current COIC- described area. Staff desires to complete that
work prior to hearing individual rezonings, including the subject rezoning.
Mayor Lecklider invited applicant representative Mr. Underhill to the podium, with the
understanding that Council is not planning to discuss the merits of the case, but simply
the process.
Aaron Underhill. Smith & Hale, representing the applicant, stated that this is a simple
rezoning case and is in conformance with the recommendations of the Community
Plan. They have been frustrated with the length of the process and would like Council
to considering hearing this rezoning sooner than later. They initially approached the
City five years ago, with a letter in January of 2006 suggesting some possible
development concepts on this site. At that point, staff responded that the Community
Plan update was underway and they would prefer that this be delayed. In 2007, the
Community Plan was updated and the particle therapy project was being discussed,
together with a planning effort for the Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC). The
applicant waited until the COIC process was completed, and in 2008, it was
completed. Staff had indicated they could file an application once that process was
completed. In November 2008, they filed a rezoning application. The COIC code was
adopted; there was a Community Plan update adopted, with a High Density POD
recommendation for this area, which is what they requested. They proceeded to
Planning Commission in June of 2009, where they received a 6 -1 vote in favor of their
rezoning request. All this time, they have not had any particular development
proposal in mind, but wanted the zoning on this small piece of 4.1 acres to position
this piece to be attractive to potential users. The purpose of the COIC Code was to
make development more predictable and quicker, and they want that to happen in this
case. Despite the fact that in June 2009 they secured approval from P &Z, they came
to Council with the rezoning and were asked to table in August of 2009 for three
weeks. Since that time, they have been told there is another planning effort underway
and that staff is taking another look at this area. They are very frustrated and have
been very patient in cooperating for a long time. Therefore, they request that Council
give serious consideration to placing this rezoning on the next Council agenda. He
added that there will not be any development occurring on this site short -term, but they
want to have something viable to market this asset. The City has the power to change
the zoning, even if this property were zoned as requested. If the standards changed
and development had not begun, they would be forced to adhere to the new
standards. He asked that Council not postpone this ordinance until July, but schedule
it for hearing at the next meeting. They want to position this property so that they can
bring forward a project that can help the COIC and be supportive of some of the larger
uses to come in the future.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 8
Vice Mayor Salay asked about the meetings that are to take place regarding this
rezoning. She would like information about where and when they are scheduled so
that Council can be notified and obtain the feedback from the residents.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has tried to keep Council informed about when
the meetings are taking place. They asked the applicant to attend a Ballantrae
meeting and discuss this situation with them. They learned later from Ballantrae
residents that the meeting took place, but the discussion did not focus on this corner,
but instead on the larger picture of the Economic Advancement Zone.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if staff attended the meeting.
Mr. Langworthy responded they were not in attendance. When they heard about it,
staff contacted Ballantrae residents and asked to meet with them to more directly
focus on this 4.1 -acre property and obtain feedback. He does not believe this meeting
has been scheduled at this time, but will take place as part of the Ballantrae annual
meeting.
Vice Mayor Salay responded that all of Council would be interested in knowing when
the meeting is scheduled. She is aware that the Ballantrae neighborhood is very
interested in this huge amount of vacant land across from their properties. It is
incumbent upon Council to receive feedback before anything further is done in this
area.
Mr. Langworthy noted that staff is aware of this as well. Ballantrae residents have also
been invited to the area planning meetings and the EAZ open houses, and some have
attended. Their comments will be taken into consideration.
Mr. Underhill noted that they are more than willing to meet at any point with the
neighbors and they have done so. They also commit, due to the way the COIC Code
is currently configured, that there is a process they must go through when an actual
development plan is proposed. It is a staff function to review it. However, if Council
would approve the rezoning, before they would move forward with anything, they
would be willing to meet with the neighbors and invite the staff to attend as well.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked for clarification. Mr. Underhill is requesting that this
rezoning, which was tabled indefinitely, be set for hearing at the next Council meeting.
Staff is indicating that the work underway regarding this area for the past two years will
not be completed for Council to review until at least June.
Mr. Langworthy responded that this particular process has not been underway for two
years. The Economic Advancement Zone has been in process for approximately eight
months. The request is that this property, rather than being rezoned individually, be
included in an area wide rezoning that staff plans to bring to Council in that time
period. The related Code changes will also be brought back to Council in that
timeframe.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that she recalls when this was first brought to Council,
staff indicated they wanted to create an area -wide plan versus having an isolated
rezoning. That was more than eight months ago.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the longest part of this process has been meeting with
individual property owners prior to developing concepts for a master plan. Once the
concepts are developed and all the property owners have been interviewed, the
concepts are taken back through a series of open houses. Some of the property
owners have been re- interviewed, based upon the concepts developed. Staff is now
narrowing the concepts to be brought forward for hearings.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher recalled that Mr. Hale shared a concept plan with her several
months ago, which he was given by staff. Is the concept plan for the area now
available?
Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, noting that there is considerable material
available online about this as well.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the concept plan is to be available on the website on
February 22. Why will it require three to four more months to have the work
completed?
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meetin <*
Dublin City Council
RYT N LEGAL FLANK. INC.. FORM N 1 8
February 14, 2011 Page 9
Held 20
Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code must be amended, and that requires
hearings by the Planning & Zoning Commission and then two readings at Council.
Staff also anticipates an amendment to the Community Plan to be done concurrently
with that work. Staff hopes to bring forward the area rezoning and the amendment to
the Community Plan at the same time for action. This property will be included in that
area rezoning, along with the Code.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that the process in total will then require 18 months, based
upon this application being tabled in December of 2009.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the work began just after that time.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that she is struggling with the fact that if the plan
currently on the website is the zoning desired by the applicant, the zoning
recommendation for this particular land will not be changing.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the zoning designation itself will not change, but the
Code surrounding it will. The COIC Code is being amended to streamline it, which will
ultimately benefit this property.
Vice Mayor Salay inquired the reason for the applicant pressing for a hearing at this
point.
Mr. Underhill responded that with a zoning in place on the land, it becomes viable to
interested parties. The lengthy PUD process in Dublin sometimes discourages
development. They were pleased to discover this area will be within the COIC. With
the zoning, they will be able to indicate the permitted land uses. The City is also
protected. If the City adopts a new code that applies to that District, the developer is
then subject to those standards, assuming no development has begun. This will
permit them to begin having conversations with potential users.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her concern is that it is not likely anything can occur
with this specific case, because of the extended timeframe. In the future, it would be
advisable to set a timeframe when asking an applicant to agree to tabling their
application. The City should set a tight timeframe to accomplish the desired goal. It is
not fair that the process is indefinite, when the issues are property ownership and land
use. The City has not had an excessive amount of development in the past two years,
so it may have been possible to tighten the timeframes for this process to have been
completed.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is ironic because the point of the process was to make the
process more speedy.
Mr. Gerber inquired the last time the application was tabled.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it was tabled in December 2009.
Mr. Underhill stated that it has been tabled on a number of occasions. They would be
willing to discuss whether this is the right thing to do at the next meeting. They just
want to make sure they have that opportunity sooner rather than later.
Mr. Langworthy requested that staff first have the opportunity to meet with the
Ballantrae residents, which would be in the applicant's interest, as well.
Mr. Underhill responded that they are happy to remain reasonable, but would like to
see this occur in the next month, if possible.
Mr. Keenan inquired if it would be acceptable to schedule this for a mid -March
meeting.
Joseph Smiley, 8084 Winterhill Court, Westerville stated that he is one of the property
owners. Only two Ballantrae residents, a couple new to the area, attended the
Planning Commission hearing. At the meeting, they agreed to meet with those
individuals. They attempted to contact them on four occasions, but never received a
return call. Therefore, it can be assumed that the individuals were satisfied with the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
February 14, 2011 Page 10
Dublin City Council
Meetin
conversation that occurred at the meeting. Staff requested that they have another
meeting with Ballantrae — that was over a year ago. They scheduled the meeting,
made the contacts, and attended the meeting. That meeting dealt with the zoning
designation on this property -- the high - density zoning and the potential uses. Then,
approximately 8 -9 months ago, staff requested that they prepare a letter of clarification
concerning a couple of issues, after which they would be scheduled for a Council
meeting. They worked with staff regarding the letter and provided it to the City in
March of last year. On numerous occasions, they have requested that their case be
removed from the table, and received no response from the City. Their intent is to
provide a nice development in Dublin. All they ask is that they be able to move
forward with a concept plan that was presented nearly five years ago. They have met
the City's requests, each step of the way. Now the request is to wait another three
weeks, when they have waited over a year with no response from the City at all. Not a
single timetable provided by the City has been met. This process has been painful
and very frustrating. The City's Code is well thought out; it contains voluminous
requirements. What they ask is that the City permit them to proceed with marketing
their property, if it is zoned the same as the City's property. If the City changes the
Code, then they will subject themselves to that. They have received tremendous
pushback and are concerned about retaliation; however, they have followed all the
rules, spent a lot of money and now cannot do anything with it. They respectfully
request that their case be heard.
Mayor Lecklider suggested that the case be scheduled for the March 28 Council
meeting.
Mrs. Boring stated that if all of those steps were followed, as indicated by Mr. Smiley,
she would also be very frustrated. She can agree to wait until then, but she is
disappointed that the case is now at this point. What is the downside of hearing this
case in two weeks?
Ms. Grigsby responded that it could be scheduled and the discussion begun. If there
are issues or concerns about the current zoning and plan versus potential
modifications -- she is not aware of any. If it is somewhat within the established
parameters, it could be possible to begin that discussion in the near future.
Mayor Lecklider stated that the reason he proposed the March 28 date was to permit
time for a meeting with the Ballantrae residents. He is trying to find a compromise
between the next meeting, February 28 and staff's recommendation for the July 6th
meeting. He would prefer not to schedule it for Council's next meeting and have the
risk of needing to table it again. Two weeks is not sufficient time to meet with
Ballantrae residents.
Mr. Gerber inquired if the applicant has already had meetings with the Ballantrae
group.
Mr. Underhill responded that they have.
Mr. Gerber inquired how many.
Mr. Underhill responded that they had one meeting with a large group. Two residents
were also present at a June 2009 Commission meeting. They attempted to reach
them later, but were unsuccessful.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates that their initiative. However, staff was not
involved.
Mr. Underhill responded that staff was not involved. In that meeting, their message
was their view of what the COIC code permits, because they are not proposing a
particular development. They attempted to be honest in pointing out the possibilities
due to the uses permitted. However, they will not be asking for any variances, only
what the Code allows.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that staff was not looking only at this four -acre site, but a
much larger area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 11
Mr. Gerber inquired if the process could be started, as it appears this will involve a few
Council meetings.
Ms. Grigsby responded that it will be necessary for Planning to clarify what has been
discussed with the Ballantrae residents and the amount of additional time needed to
address this issue.
Mr. Langworthy stated that there were difficulties initially for staff and for Mr. Hale's
office in determining whom to contact at Ballantrae. Eventually, a contact was
identified.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that Ballantrae did not have a homeowners association at
that time; they now have an organization in place.
Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct.
Mr. Keenan moved to schedule the rezoning for hearing on March 14 th
Mrs. Boring seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes;
Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
• Muirfield Association, Inc. Signs
Mr. Hammersmith reviewed the staff report. The Muirfield Association has submitted a
request to replace three existing signs as follows: the first at Memorial Drive /Muirfield
Drive; at Muirfield Drive and Carnoustie; and at Glick Road and Dublin Road. The
existing signs have been in place for a long time and are deteriorated. Muirfield
Association desires to replace them with new signs. The sign at Memorial Drive and
Muirfield is a double -faced sign; the other two signs are single face. There is no
lighting on the existing signs or on the new signage. He showed a rendering of the
proposed signage, which will sit on pillars of masonry with a placard between the two
pillars. A requirement for all proposals is that the sign include the City of Dublin logo
for identification purposes, further reinforcing the association of Muirfield Village to the
City of Dublin. One of the reasons this is before Council for consideration is the
encroachment into the right -of -way, where the existing signage is located. These are
not necessarily entry feature signs, but informational signs, which are not addressed in
the City's sign code. Because they reside in the right -of -way, they are being
addressed as a right -of -way encroachment and must be approved by Council.
Additionally, there is no development text with Muirfield that addresses entry feature
signs. Staff has reviewed each of the signs and determined that they are acceptable.
Each location was reviewed and staff confirmed that the sign was outside the clear
zone. The sign at Carnoustie Drive will need to have a breakaway foundation. Staff
will work with the Association on that issue. They are also working with the
Association to ensure that the sign at Dublin and Glick roads not be placed in harm's
way with any future improvement to the intersection. It will be located in the existing
sign's location and angled to the intersection; however, it cannot be guaranteed that a
future improvement to the intersection will not affect the sign. Muirfield Association
has applied for a "Beautify Your Neighborhood" matching grant for $5,000 toward the
cost of these signs. The Association has also requested that the City waive the fees
associated with this project — the $1,200 right -of -way encroachment fee and a right -of-
way permit fee for $390. Staff's recommendation is that the proposed signs be
approved in the locations indicated, and that the fees be waived as requested.
Mrs. Boring inquired if this request is consistent with previous encroachment signage
that the City has permitted. Also, are fee waiver requests made by homeowner
associations typically granted?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he could not state that the City has universally
waived such fees; however, on many occasions, the City has done so.
Vice Mayor Salay noted that it is important to be consistent.
Mrs. Boring stated that she believes the fees are typically waived for homeowner
associations, as they are attempting to improve the look of their neighborhoods, but
not for commercial purposes.
Vice Mayor Salay inquired if this is a homeowners association request.
Mr. Keenan responded that it is.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
February 14, 2011 Page 12
Mr. Hammersmith noted that a representative of the Muirfield Association is present to
speak on their behalf.
Walter Zeier, Muirfield Association General Manager offered to respond to any
questions.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if the City has consistently waived fees for homeowner
associations in similar cases.
Mr. Zeier responded that he has spoken with the former president of the Muirfield
Green Association, who indicated that when they installed their stone signage, the City
waived their application fee. Staff advised him that it was not uncommon for Council
to waive the application fees. If their application is approved, the Association will be
spending in excess of $3,800 for these signs. Not having to spend an additional
$1,600 for the permits would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Keenan inquired if there were any line of sight issues involved.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that, together with reviewing the clear zone
requirements, the sight visibility triangle was also evaluated at all three locations.
Mayor Lecklider stated that staff's memo indicated an alternative for the sign at
Carnoustie — either that the sign be modified or have a breakaway column. He would
prefer a modification.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the association has already chosen the breakaway
design option. Staff is satisfied with the breakaway column, as long as it is
appropriately designed. With that sign, it is impractical to reduce the size of the sign,
as it will not be possible to convey the same information. At Carnoustie, the median is
narrower than that at Memorial Drive.
Mayor Lecklider inquired if he could cite other examples in which the City has
permitted breakaway signs to accommodate a similar situation.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City has done it infrequently, but he cannot cite
an example at this time. There are, however, breakaway devices in the right -of -way,
such as street light signs, other signs, and informational signs. It is not uncommon to
have breakaway signs.
Mayor Lecklider noted that they are City directional signs.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. However, private light posts are also
breakaway.
Mayor Lecklider responded that he assumes that is because the City requires them to
be.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is true, and also the case in this situation. The
City is requiring them to be a breakaway design or be modified — either is acceptable.
Mayor Lecklider stated that what he is requesting is an example of a situation in which
the City has permitted a breakaway sign for a homeowner association or a business to
be in the right -of -way.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he cannot recall a particular situation at this time,
but will be happy to research it. Staff's concern was that the existing signs were not
designed to be breakaway, even under their existing configuration.
Mayor Lecklider noted that the positive aspect would be that the City would see an
improvement over the existing condition.
Mrs. Boring moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the three proposed
signs at the three locations as identified, and to waive the application fees involved
with the ROW encroachment plan review and inspection and with the ROW permit.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired if it would be necessary for her to abstain. She is a
resident in that neighborhood, but does not serve on their Board.
Mr. Smith responded that it would not be necessary for her to abstain.
Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
M eeting
February 14, 2011 Page 13
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay,
yes.
• Historic Dublin Parking Demand Study Update
Mr. Langworthy presented the initial findings and recommendations for this study,
which was conducted by Rich & Associates and City staff. The purpose of the study
was to look at what the parking needs are in the District, parking operations, and
space utilization turnover. Extensive examination, including surveys, public meetings
and interviews were involved. The unique characteristics and qualities of the four
quadrants were evaluated. Mr. Langworthy reviewed the list of recommendations of
the study.
Supply
• Make an effort to increase supply of public parking. The consultants indicated that
their recommendation to cities is to have at least 50% available public parking.
The Historic District has 27% available public parking compared to private parking.
Agreements with private property owners can be used to achieve this.
• Make more of the private spaces available on a public basis. The City may need to
participate in making physical improvements to some of the spaces to enable
efficient use.
• The Indian Run lot is under - utilized. Better walkways, lighting, etc. should be
added to enable efficient use of that lot.
• Encourage cooperation between business owners to permit existing surplus
spaces to be used by adjoining and near businesses.
Operations
• Eliminate /reduce conflict for employees using public parking lots, utilizing possibly
a shuttle, or parking permit system.
• Begin a valet registration and coordinated valet system.
• Reduce the Code - required parking to account for more shared use and shared
parking arrangements.
• For parking deficiencies, rather than granting variances, require payment of a per
space fee to apply toward development of or improved parking conditions. Initial
recommendation is $1,500 per space fee, but that can be further evaluated.
• Make the enforcement program more visible. A recent study indicates a violation
rate of 4 %. It is the practice of some employees in the District to move their
vehicles every two hours; that is not a parking violation.
Vice Mayor Salay inquired if employee parking permits would resolve that issue.
Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively.
Locations
• Bridge Street creates a psychological separation between north and south
sides of District. Until that can be reduced and a second pedestrian crossing
added that is perceived as safe, it will be necessary to work on both sides of
the District. People are reluctant to walk from the Darby parking lot to the
Bridge & High intersection where there is a protected crossing.
• Use marketing initiatives to increase the knowledge and visibility of public
parking, availability of valet services, and hours of available public parking in
private spaces. The Library, for example, is considered private parking, as it is
not available at all hours.
He noted that the preliminary report will be finalized next month, and a public
workshop will be held in the District in March. Details of the final recommendations for
physical conditions, cooperative efforts, and CIP elements that are desired will be
assembled, and staff will bring back to Council the recommended implementation
costs for review in April and May.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 14
Vice Mayor Salay clarified that the final recommendations will be brought to Council,
with an implementation schedule and cost estimate.
Mr. Langworthy confirmed this is correct.
Mr. Reiner stated that several years ago, he served on a committee that studied the
Historic District parking issues. This report confirms the earlier findings that the issue
is under - utilized parking areas in the District. Previously, the major obstacle in the
southeast quadrant was a drainage problem and that need was addressed with storm
sewers. Then, a parking authority was to have been established. The City was to pay
for landscaping, lighting and paving, but a shared use agreement was needed.
Unfortunately, the property owners were not very interested. Now may be the time,
however, to establish a parking authority in order to address the parking problem. If
the available space is organized and used efficiently, and if the employees in the
District are willing to walk a block or so to work, that will resolve a major part of the
problem. The parking space is available, but an agreement between the City and the
landowners is essential. In the southwest quadrant of the District, employees of
businesses are using the parking, which is needed for patrons of the restaurants.
Either the parking restrictions must be enforced, vehicles must be towed, or other
methods used.
Mrs. Boring stated that the comments of some people who work in the district are on
page 10. Apparently, they are moving their cars every two hours. Is education
needed to address this issue? It will be difficult to convince those employees to park
elsewhere.
Mr. Reiner stated that a meeting between the employers and a Parking Authority will
be necessary. The City may also need to be more involved with the business owners.
He believes the parking problem is resolvable -- not the big problem it is usually
perceived to be -- if everyone works together with the property owners.
Mr. Gerber agreed. This is not government's responsibility to resolve. He has spoken
with some of the business owners, and they are interested in meeting to discuss this
issue. A Parking Authority would be a good concept to explore. There is no reason
that meetings about this topic cannot begin soon.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that most Council members have been involved in many
discussions during the time of their service about the parking issues in the Historic
District. The recommendations are always the same, and she is not certain why the
City has never been able to establish a Parking Authority. The City may help to
facilitate a meeting, but the parties that are needed to participate do not attend. The
businesses that need the parking attend, but not the landowners. Perhaps the City will
need to provide an incentive to have the owners of the properties involved in the
dialogue.
Mr. Gerber stated that the valet parking in Columbus uses parking lots two to three
blocks away.
Mrs. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that with Oscar's expansion, she refused to support it
unless they instituted valet parking. They did so, and obtained the agreement with the
parking lot owner, which Council also required. Nevertheless, the current information
indicates that the valet parking employees are using the public parking lots that are
close to the businesses for which they are working. Unfortunately, it seems there is a
continuing need to manage this situation. She has also observed people moving their
cars every two hours in the parking area around La Chatelaine. Therefore, that parking
lot remains full, but it is not being utilized as intended.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that if she were a District business owner, she would not
consider that efficient use of their parking.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it may not be efficient, but unfortunately, the parking
needs of that business were not addressed in the economic development agreement.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
_M eeting
Dublin City Council
AVT N LEGA NK, INC. FORM NO. 1
February 14, 2011 Page 15
Held 20
They established a business with 30 employees in a building with no parking spaces
owned by the building. The City created the problem, and of course, in the past, the
City has granted parking waivers to other establishments as well. She sees merit in
the recommendation of requiring a fee for waivers to be used to develop more parking.
Therefore, while it can be said that there is not really a shortage of parking spaces,
those spaces are not in the areas where the majority of the people need them. People
are not going to parking in the southern end of the Historic District to have dinner and
socialize in the northern section. Consequently, she believes it is time to aggressively
identify how to orchestrate a meeting with the owners of the properties that are located
in the right place.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the study has indicated this is not a single issue, which
can be solved simply by building new parking spaces. The conundrum is that the City
is creating an environment in Historic Dublin in which people want to work. Therefore,
more employers in the District can be expected, who, in turn, will attract more
business.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates the report. It is interesting that the
consultants' findings were that there is more available parking in the Historic District
than in some other areas that they have studied. Also of note is that "the aggregate
parking occupancy throughout the Historic District does not exceed 50% of the
existing parking supply.... Much of the privately controlled parking supply remains at
or below 50% occupancy throughout the day." In some ways, this is a matter of
perspective. He was in the Short North recently for dinner on a snowy and icy Friday
evening. He walked at least three blocks on treacherous sidewalks that were not
shoveled. He does not understand why people are willing to do that in the Short
North, but not in Dublin.
Ms. Grigsby stated that not long ago, the Indian Run public parking lot was
constructed, but was used almost immediately as a staging area for the BriHi
construction. That negatively impacted the timing of making that lot available for
public parking. However, Mayor Lecklider's point is very well taken. People want to
park as close as they can in the District. In an urban setting, walking is not generally
considered negatively. It is rare that there is a car in the Indian Run parking lot with
88 -93 parking spaces. There is a need to focus on implementing the valet parking.
Staff meetings discussing the steps to do so have been held the last two weeks. They
have had preliminary conversations with Randy Bowman, City of Columbus, to learn
from the Columbus process in the Short North. At a minimum, the intent is to resolve
the issue of valet parking using the parking spaces in the Darby parking lot and other
nearby parking. Valets have been observed going about 10 -15 feet from the
restaurant to park a car. A system needs to be established to ensure that any valet
parking program uses the Indian Run parking lot, or primarily so.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that is the purpose of the City's investment in the Indian Run
parking lot.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council also intended to adopt a valet parking
ordinance.
Vice Mayor Salay agreed that probably should be the next step.
Ms. Grigsby concurred. Currently, they are missing the opportunity provided by the
Indian Run lot. That may not address the daytime parking needs on the south side of
SR 161, but it could potentially help by freeing up many spaces in the Darby Street
parking lot.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he is reluctant to spend public funds to obtain more land
for parking and make major investments in parking infrastructure. However, he would
support spending funds to manage a parking cooperative or to improve walkways and
lightings to the Indian Run parking lot for the valet services and the public. He would
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011
Meet
Page 16
20
also support funding for improvements to the disorganized parking lots in the
southeast quadrant, such as asphalt surfacing of the gravel parking lots, and a
redesign to make them more efficient, with the understanding that the owners would
cede some authority to the City or a Parking Authority to accomplish those efforts.
Mr. Gerber commented that there appear to be short, mid and long -term needs.
Immediately, there are Code enforcement issues and valet parking needs. For that
reason, he would support the City reaching out to the Historic District Business
Association to develop a plan to resolve the short-term issues. More businesses will
be opening in April and May of this year, which will only compound the problem in the
northwest quadrant. In addition, the City wants to advance the Bridge and High plan,
and that will compound the problem in the long -term. It is important to begin to
address the short-term issues immediately.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that there will be differing parking needs, as this area
develops. At this time, for instance, there is adequate parking, but it is not being
utilized properly. She agrees with the Mayor that there are things it is appropriate for
the City to do and things the business community must do to address the problems.
Mr. Gerber stated that Council does want to support the businesses in the Historic
District and encourage customers to patronize them. Council should make a
statement of their intent to help resolve the issue, and begin that effort.
Mrs. Boring stated that the issue is one of human nature. The City has tried to make a
statement with the two -hour enforcement. A meeting of the necessary parties was
attempted previously, but the parking lot owners did not want to be involved.
However, this is a new day; perhaps it will work now.
Mr. Gerber stated that he would take an optimistic approach, because it is essential to
try. The District will not maximize its opportunities, unless this issue is addressed.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher that some of the previous property owners who were opposed
to shared agreements are no longer the owners. She is not sure why HDBA has been
unsuccessful. Have they tried to bring any parking lot owners together?
Mr. Gerber stated that he is not sure what occurred previously, but the HDBA has new
leadership, and they are very interested in discussing this issue. Mr. McDaniel
approached them about this subject at one meeting, and he is hopeful additional
meetings will follow.
Ms. Grigsby stated that in the last few weeks, both Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Tyler have
met with HDBA, and HDBA is interested in working with the City to resolve this issue.
Therefore, City staff will continue those discussions and efforts to look at options for
solutions.
Mr. Langworthy stated that staff is aware that the businesses are undertaking other
initiatives among themselves, separate from the City, to discuss the parking issues.
But looking at the issue district -wide will not work. It is essential to look it by quadrant.
He has some graphics to share with Council depicting the utilization of the parking lots
over a daylong period. He will post those at the City's website, and would encourage
Council members to view them, as they are very enlightening.
Mr. Reiner stated that some of the businesses in the southwest quadrant are really
having challenges. In the short term, a more aggressive enforcement program,
including ticketing and towing, may be necessary. Then, establishing a Parking
Authority must occur. With the assistance of the City, the businesses with many
employees need to identify appropriate parking locations for their employees. If the
City takes a firmer approach in organizing the parking, the parking will be resolved
without a massive expenditure of taxpayer funds being committed to a parking garage.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meet ing
February 14, 2011 Page 17
Held 20
Mr. Langworthy stated that most of the businesses do not mind doing that, but they do
want to ensure that wherever their employees park, they have a safe route from the
parking to their place of employment. That is where the City can help — in ensuring
that those routes are safe.
Mayor Lecklider stated that the issue has been well discussed this evening. He
thanked everyone for their input.
• National Church Residences
Ms. Grigsby stated that as Council is aware, National Church Residences is currently
in the process of the Planning & Zoning Commission review of their project, located at
the southern end of the City on Avery Road, called "Avondale Senior Village." This
project has been discussed with Council over the past couple of years. Because of
P &Z's and staff's recognition of Council's desire to have this type of senior housing
option available in the City and the fact that the City is a financial partner in this
project, P &Z wanted to ensure that they received additional direction /feedback from
City Council as well as from National Church Residences. Staff prepared a memo
regarding background information and the current process and hearings held. Some
of the issues raised have been addressed at the recent P &Z meeting. Some of the
remaining items can be addressed at the next P &Z meeting, based on some proposed
language outlined in the memo to Council. The final development plan is rescheduled
for hearing at P &Z on Thursday, February 17.
The two items where resolution is needed relate to the height of the three -story
building and the HVAC systems. Staff has provided detailed information about these
issues.
1. Regarding the height of the three -story building, the approved development text
for the project limits the height to 35 feet. The proposed height is currently at
42 feet.
2. Regarding the HVAC units, the Code simply states that the HVAC system
needs to be screened, and the system is screened as shown in the
submissions. Typically, this is an area reviewed closely and options for
modification are often considered to address issues of noise and aesthetics.
NCR has concerns about making further modifications to the plan, partly based upon
the cost — specifically with the HVAC system. The costs for a centralized system are
significant versus the modification proposed where units are dispersed in groups of
four or less and a portion of the units are placed on top of the community center.
In order to address some of the timing issues NCR must meet for their financing
mechanisms, they must have construction completed by the end of 2012.
Staff has therefore provided a recommendation for Council to consider tonight to
address these two issues of concern — the building height of the three -story building
and the HVAC system. Potential language for a motion has been drafted, should
Council choose to provide this direction.
She noted that this project is a different type of one for the City, involving a housing
option identified as being needed in Dublin. Council has supported the project, and
P &Z wants to ensure that their direction from Council is clear before making
modifications to the two areas as outlined. Mr. Langworthy and Ms. Ray are present
to respond to specific questions about the project.
Mrs. Boring stated that she is disappointed that she did not have the P &Z minutes
prior to this evening for review. Addressing some of these items requires a text
amendment. She is somewhat confused about the process. Her recollection in
meeting with NCR before the project was brought forward was that it was clearly
communicated to NCR that the project must undergo Dublin's review process and
must meet Dublin's Code. NCR responded that, if needed, they had additional funding
available that was not as restrictive. At what point in the process did NCR realize they
were not able to meet the text, and why did they not return to staff so that these issues
could be discussed? For her, it is difficult when the applicant does not meet the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
February 14, 2011 Page 18
zoning text and they want to proceed at this point versus having worked long ago to
resolve these matters at the staff level.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the issue with the approved development text in the
zoning relates to the three -story building height. The text indicates a 35 -foot height,
and the current proposal shows 42 feet. This was discussed as part of the P &Z
meeting on January 6, 2011 and at that time, there were discussions regarding
potential modifications. Some slight modifications were then presented at the
February 3` P &Z meeting. Concerning the other matters, Planning staff can
comment.
Mr. Langworthy stated that at the preliminary development plan stage a development
text would typically be drafted with the normal height of 35 feet as permitted by Code.
As NCR proceeded into final development plan with construction details, because
there were lobby and common areas with higher ceiling requirements not normally
found in multi - family units, and because their architecture required additional space of
two feet between the floors, the height was pushed higher than what was anticipated.
Mrs. Boring asked when the applicant brought this new information to staff.
Mr. Langworthy responded that this was identified at the time NCR submitted the final
development plans.
Mrs. Boring noted that is her concern. NCR knew what the text indicated, yet went
ahead and made these changes in the final development plan submittal. In addition,
the memo indicates they need a text modification for a six -foot fence. Looking back, a
team should have been assembled, as was done with the hospital project, to work
through the details. P &Z is trying to be very fair about this, but they want the residents
to have the same quality of building required of other developers.
Vice Mayor Salay asked about the roof height. She had understood that for a two -
story building, the maximum height was 35 feet.
Mr. Langworthy responded that, in general, residential development height limits are
35 feet, which accommodates a 2.5 to three -story building, depending upon floor
elevations.
Mayor Lecklider recalled that the residential building height limitation is 35 feet
Vice Mayor Salay agreed. She added that the office building along Avery Road
recently approved was a 35 -foot, two -story building.
Mr. Langworthy stated that ceiling heights are generally higher for commercial
buildings.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that, according to the NCR letter, the issue relates to 38.5
feet in height versus 35 feet -- a four -foot decrease from the last submission.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff clarified this with NCR and displayed a graphic.
The previous proposal had a 50 -foot main ridge height. The building as measured per
the Zoning Code was 42 feet. He noted that the superimposed yellow line on the
graphic shows the 35 foot height restriction. Subsequent to the P &Z meeting in which
concerns were expressed about the height, the overall roof peak was brought down to
just over 46 feet; the height as measured per the Zoning Code remained at 42 feet.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if, visually, this would be similar to Craughwell Village.
Mr. Langworthy responded that P &Z asked that staff compare the building height of
Craughwell Village — where the top of the roof is 43 feet and the height as measured
per the Zoning Code is slightly over 33 feet. One of the comments the Commission
made was that the height of Craughwell Village, even though the building is closer to
the road, is not as dominant due to the architectural features on the building that take
away from the visual aspect of the height. Staffs comment regarding the NCR
proposal is that the building is set back approximately 250 feet from the roadway,
which staff believes would visually detract from the perception of a higher building.
Mr. Gerber noted that staff indicated that the internal ceilings of the building must be
higher. Is that why the height of the building was modified?
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
February 14, 2011 Page 19
Mr. Langworthy responded that NCR representatives are present to respond. He
noted that the building has lobbies and common areas that are not typically found in
multi - family developments and are related to the nature of this project.
Mr. Reiner stated that he is not opposed to the additional height in view of the large
setback of the buildings. He commented that the larger roof area is nicer in
appearance than a smaller one, from an architectural perspective. However, in regard
to the HVAC units on the roof, how screened will these be? Dublin has never
permitted HVAC units on a roof without adequate screening.
Mr. Langworthy responded that they all are screened per the Code requirements. In
fact, both submittals have met Code requirements for screening of the units. The units
are difficult to discern on the plans. They have added nine units to the roof of the
community center, which serve the center. The other units are scattered in groups of
up to four in different locations around the building. They are all screened per Code.
Mr. Gerber asked for confirmation that the HVAC units are Code compliant with
respect to location and to screening.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code does not address the location of units. It
only states that if service structures are located on the gravel or on the roof, they must
be screened.
Mr. Gerber asked what the specific concerns are with the HVAC units. He could not
determine that from reading the packet information.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the preference of the Planning Commission was that
more of the HVAC units be located on the roofs of the buildings and /or that a new air
conditioning system be installed that would be more of a central system. This would
eliminate having units on the ground.
Mr. Gerber asked what prompted this request.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the issue was aesthetics, with units scattered
throughout the site versus on the building.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if the units would be screened with perimeter landscaping.
Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively that they were to be landscaped.
Mrs. Boring stated that an additional concern was with the noise from the HVAC units.
Mr. Langworthy responded that concern was voiced with a previous submission where
a large number of units were grouped together. This would have impacted nearby
residents.
Mrs. Boring asked if drawings are available that depict these units.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the details are on the site plan, but they are difficult to
discern due to size.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that she is very appreciative of the work done by the Planning
Commission on this, and that PZC members are in attendance tonight. She
understands that they desire some additional guidance from Council regarding some
specific issues — not necessarily the entire review of the final development plan.
There are some standards not being met that P &Z is not comfortable about, and they
want some input from Council. She appreciates their diligence and attention to detail
with the first building to be constructed in this development. For her, there is a
balance needed in terms of the City's desire to have this facility and the special
considerations needed over the typical Dublin projects. She agrees with Mrs. Boring
that having a team as was done with the hospital project would have been worthwhile.
However, given the explanation from NCR and their need to contain costs since they
do not have the flexibility of a private developer, she is comfortable with what NCR is
proposing. She is also comfortable with P &Z asking for Council's input. Based on the
fact this is a unique project, that it is not precedent setting for later development that
will have to adhere to Dublin's standards, and that it is a beautiful and needed facility
in the community, she is prepared to take whatever action is recommended tonight to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 20
continue the process. She asked for clarification of what exactly is needed from
Council.
Mr. Smith responded that P &Z is requesting direction on the policy decisions related to
the HVAC units and the height. They want to know that Council is comfortable with
the proposed HVAC units and with the proposed building height. This is not precedent
setting, as has been stated, and this type of housing is needed in the community. P &Z
is seeking direction on the two items as outlined in the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Salay moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission consider approving
a text modification to allow the building height to exceed the permitted height by seven
feet as recommended by Planning staff, and that the Planning & Zoning Commission
consider approving the final development plan application for the Avondale Senior
Village with the conditions recommended by Planning staff relative to the HVAC units.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Mrs. Boring stated that she would not support the motion because these matters were
not handled well from the outset. The plans did not include minor items such as the
location of trash containers, the location of the HVAC units, and the text was not
followed. The project is needed in Dublin, but NCR was aware from the outset that the
project must meet Code. It is located at the gateway of the City. She is disappointed
with the process, with the information that was given and when, and she will not
support this motion. In the future, she is hopeful that staff provides the P &Z
Commission with information at an earlier stage in the process.
Mr. Reiner thanked P &Z for the great job they have done in reviewing all of the details
of this project. This is the only low- income senior housing in the city and it is
desperately needed. He understands that keeping the development costs contained
will make the rental costs more manageable for the senior citizens who want to utilize
the facility. He agrees with Mrs. Boring that it would be desirable for the project to
meet Dublin's standards. However, he will support this motion because it is a unique
project and one that is desperately needed.
Mrs. Boring noted that there is already an NCR housing project located in Dublin.
Were any waivers or variances granted for that project, or did NCR meet the Code?
Ms. Grigsby responded that the project was built years ago and did meet Code at that
time.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that she will support the motion on the floor. However,
there have been some questions in the past week by some community members who
felt that Council was no longer supportive of this project because of the process used
to reach this point. She responded to those who called her that the City initiated this
project with NCR — NCR did not approach the City. Several years ago, there was
concern over the potential sale of the land on which the Ponderosa mobile homes are
located. Most of the residents of Ponderosa are senior citizens, have lived there for
many years and have limited incomes. This was what prompted the City to initiate
conversations with NCR about an opportunity to bring their expanded model of more
independent living to Dublin. The City officials took field trips in an educational effort
to learn about this product and whom it would ultimately serve if built in Dublin. She
does not believe that the City has ever waivered on its interest in having this facility in
Dublin. It was understood from the outset that there was an expectation that Code
would be met with the project. A commitment was made to NCR that if the project
could not meet the City's landscape Code, the City would help them to do so in order
to have this facility in Dublin. It was therefore important to pay special attention to this
project and lend them assistance as needed — with such things as drafting text. If the
project was being brought to P &Z with the exceptions to Code, as reflected in the
written documents, the staff should have recommended approval of the exceptions
and provided the basis to create a clear record of why the City was doing so. If that
had occurred, it may not have been necessary to have the discussion at Council
tonight. Lessons have been learned in terms of a process that makes it easier for
everyone involved. Things of this importance should be treated at the high level that
Council expects. Council welcomes NCR to Dublin and expects they will be full
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Meetine
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 21
community members, participating in all the City activities, bringing new people to
enjoy the amenities enjoyed by those who live in Dublin.
Mr. Gerber noted he appreciates the comments, because he received many of the
same calls last week. He recalls that about five years ago, when he served on P &Z,
discussion occurred about affordable housing and these types of projects. There was
a commitment made by staff at that time that they would support this process. He is
disappointed that did not occur, and that P &Z was placed in a difficult position. He will
support the motion and welcomes National Church Residences to Dublin.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs.
Boring, no; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Grigsby noted:
1. It was reported at the MORPC meeting last week that U.S. Representative John
Mica, Florida, Chairman of the Transportation Improvement Committee, is holding
hearings throughout the nation regarding transportation projects in preparation for
the Transportation bill. A hearing will be held this Saturday at the State Capitol
building at 9:30 a.m. Congressman Stivers has been authorized to select
individuals to speak on some projects. He represents a large section of Union
County and has requested that Mayor Chris Schmenck speak on behalf of the I-
270/US 33 project. Staff has been working with Mayor Schmenck to provide
information to present at that hearing this weekend. At least one City staff member
will attend. The hearing is open to the public, but only a limited number of people
will be able to speak. The City is fortunate that this project will be discussed at this
hearing. It is hoped that will result in future federal funding.
2. The packet included a report on the applications for the "Beautify Your
Neighborhood" grant program. The applications have been reviewed by the staff
committee, and staff requests that Council refer the applications to the Community
Development for their review and recommendation.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that the meeting should occur soon, so that the
neighborhoods receiving grants will be able to proceed with their plans.
Mayor Lecklider inquired if there is a fixed amount available for the 2011 grant awards.
Ms. Grigsby responded $15,000 was budgeted, and the requests total $17,000,
Mayor Lecklider noted that each of the homeowner associations applying is a forced
and funded association.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the grants are awarded annually.
Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct.
Mrs. Boring requested a one -page summary of the grant application reports, listing the
total amount each association has requested and their scores.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the summary will be provided for the Community
Development Committee's review.
3. At the recent joint work session on the Bridge Street Corridor, the group indicated
a desire for a discussion regarding public and open spaces in the area. Due to
the fact that the consultants and meeting space at the DCRC are available on
March 9, that date is recommended for the meeting.
4. At the last Council meeting, a desire for discussion of the Brand Road multi -use
and bicycle lane at this meeting was indicated. That item will be scheduled on the
March 14`" Council meeting agenda.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
• Community Development Committee Recommendations for Board and
Commission Items of Interest for 2011
Mr. Reiner Community Development Committee Chair stated that a report on the
items of interest recommended by the Committee was provided in Council packets.
He thanked Ms. Colley for the excellent report, and fellow Committee members for the
thorough discussion. If Council members have reviewed the information and concur
with the recommendations, the Committee is ready to proceed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
February 14, 2011 Page 22
Mr. Reiner moved to adopt the Committee's recommendations.
Ms. Chinn ici - Zuercher seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici -
Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
Dublin City Council
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher:
1. Stated that Council's goal setting retreat is scheduled for this Thursday
evening and Friday. What items are included on the agenda for discussion?
Vice Mayor Salay responded that Mr. Gerber has provided some information regarding
a topic of communication and recommended that be included on the retreat agenda.
That item is scheduled for Thursday evening. Other items suggested are the library
expansion, a refocus on last year's goals, shared government services, update on the
Healthy Dublin initiative, branding campaign and project tracking system.
She asked if discussion of all of those items is scheduled for Thursday evening.
Vice Mayor Salay clarified that only the communication discussion topic is scheduled
for Thursday; all other items are on Friday's agenda.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that, other than the library issue, all the other topics are
primarily informational. Historically, Council's goal setting discussion has been
focused on what is desired for the future. Council has invested significant time in
discussion of the Bridge Street Corridor vision. It would seem there would be some
strategic issues related to that plan that should be "fleshed" out. The agenda topics do
not seem to set a stage for future planning for Council or the staff.
Ms. Grigsby responded that regular, ongoing meetings are scheduled for the Bridge
Street corridor discussions, and Council has recently received an update. However, if
Council would like an additional update, and if Council would like to identify an area for
additional discussion or attention, that can also occur. With some items, such as the
Healthy Dublin initiative, the potential for a much broader initiative should be
discussed. Also, in regard to shared government initiatives, there are opportunities
that could be explored; however, that may not be Council's direction. While they are
not global ideas, such as the library or Bridge Street corridor, they are long -term
initiatives that could have significant impact on the City.
2. Noted that at the MORPC meeting last week, Linda Logan of the Columbus
Sports Commission provided a presentation. Also, MORPC has created an
excellent public policy agenda, which indicates their plans for the next year.
Copies can be obtained for Council members. She was also elected as Vice
Chair of a subcommittee of the MORPC Board.
3. Received notification this week from the Ohio Municipal League (OML) of her
reappointment to the National League of Cities (NLC) Public Policy and Crime
Prevention Policy and Advocacy Committee.
Mrs. Boring
1. Suggested that an executive session for personnel matters be included on the
retreat agenda.
2. Wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day!
Mr. Keenan stated that approximately a year ago, Council discussed concern related
to the deterioration of the tunnels that serve the Country Club at Muirfield golf course.
He requested that an update be provided via email or in the next meeting packet.
Mr. Gerber
1. Thanked Mr. Burns for the Street crew's excellent ice removal efforts two
weeks ago. He has received numerous phone calls from the public expressing
positive comments.
2. Noted there will be a 10 anniversary commemoration of the September 11,
2001 attack this year on that date. The City will participate in activities, together
with the Dublin A.M. Rotary, Washington Township, and Dublin City Schools. A
visual field of 3' x 5' American flags will be displayed representing the fallen
victims of that day.
Meefinn
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
February 14, 2011 Page 23
Mayor Lecklider
1. Also expressed kudos to staff for their excellent ice and tree limb removal
efforts.
2. Reported that he, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Puskarcik, and Interim Police
Chief von Eckartsberg recently met with the Consul General of Japan, Kuninori
Matsuda during his recent visit to Ohio. Mr. Hidaka joined them, as well. Mr.
Matsuda has served in many interesting positions in the Japanese government.
One of the reasons for his visit was in recognition of the 8,000 Japanese
residents in Ohio, the largest concentration of which is in Dublin, approximately
1,800. He thanked Dublin for its hospitality, commented positively on Dublin's
schools, and expressed interest in economic development opportunities. He
also noted that they are seeking a location within Ohio for a commemorative
cherry grove. There are four similar places in Ohio. Mr. Hidaka extended an
invitation to their April cherry blossom event. Mr. Matsuda also presented gifts
to the City; one gift will be on display at City Hall and the other at the 5800
Building in Economic Development.
3. Expressed congratulations to Sara Oft on her selection as preferred candidate
for Village Manager of Granville. This is a testament to the good experience
Ms. Ott has obtained in the City of Dublin. He wished her well.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
V, � a
Mayor — P<es ding Officer
Clerk of Council