Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 03-14-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council March 14, 2011 Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, March 14, 2011 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. 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, Mr. McDaniel, Interim Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Earman, Mr. Harding, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Combs, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Sweder, Ms. Martin, and Mr. Whittington. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 14, 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. Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 28, 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, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes. PROCLAMATIONS /SPECIAL RECOGNITION Dublin Business Appreciation Day Mayor Lecklider stated that Dublin would observe Business Appreciation Day on Thursday, March 17, 2011. In recognition thereof, he read a proclamation. Ms. Gilger accepted the proclamation on behalf of Dublin's businesses, noting that the proclamation will be presented to a Dublin business on behalf of Council. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no comments from citizens on items not on the agenda. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES 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. Grigsby stated that the staff recommendation of approval, which was included in Council's packets, was based upon the review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2009. However, Planning staff recognized that this site was currently part of the overall COIC area and will be rezoned in the coming months as part of a City- sponsored rezoning. The issue was further reviewed late last week. It was determined that if the rezoning were approved tonight, a risk would exist from this point until the City- sponsored rezoning is brought forward — namely, that the developer could act upon the high density zoning in place and available to the developer. Therefore, staff considered the options available in regard to the rezoning. 1. The first option is to delay any action on the rezoning until July, when the City - sponsored rezoning is brought forward. 2. The second option is to recommend denial of the rezoning. 3. The third option is to recommend a low- density POD zoning designation for the property versus a high- density POD designation, and refer the legislation back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetinv March 14, 2011 Page 2 Staff has discussed these options with the attorneys representing the property owners to learn if the applicant would accept a low- density POD zoning designation. If that is the case, Council could approve the rezoning at this time. However, without the applicant's willingness to accept the low- density designation, the application would need to be referred back to the Commission. The attorneys and the property owner have responded that they do not wish to accept the low- density POD zoning designation. Therefore, the legislation cannot be adopted tonight and must go back to the Commission for their review and approval of the low- density POD designation. Staff is prepared to discuss tonight the reasons this small parcel is important to the overall development of the COIC. Mr. Combs will also provide an update on the Economic Advancement Zone planning process, and how it relates to this parcel. Mr. Combs presented an overview. This site is located at the northeast corner of Shier Rings and Eiterman Road. The larger area that is currently in the planning process is the Economic Advancement Zone (EAZ), the boundaries of which are generally Avery Road on the east, Houchard Road on the west, Shier Rings Road on the south and SR 161 to the north. When the City originally began planning for the interchange area with the innovation center concept, it was with a general idea of a more suburban campus layout. Subsequent planning with some potential anchors for the area drove the road development planning. Simultaneously, the City was involved in a Community Plan update process, and the Future Land Use Map was adopted with the category of high- density office research and development for most of the EAZ area. There was some general area planning underway at the time, but staff was essentially looking at the road network that was being driven by the anchor tenant. Given that, staff also had to consider modifying the Code to implement an administrative process. Both that Code and some additional planning work that was done at the interchange at the time were focused on the concept of a much higher density or more urban type of development Since that time, with the recent economic changes and with the City's refocus on the Bridge Street Corridor that will have a much higher density, part of the overall planning process involves taking another look at not only the interchange area but the remainder of the 1,100 acres. The focus is to determine how, within the context of the larger SR 161 corridor, the City actually wants to plan infrastructure, including water and sewer, but also the roadway system, and how that would impact land use patterns in the future. Their recent work with consultants has redirected their previous focus on the COIC at the interchange area as the larger employment corridor. They have shifted the focus to an innovation corridor, including all of the 1 -270 and US 33 frontage. Within the EAZ on the west end of the corridor, staff has conducted planning work around the interchange and has implemented the Entrepreneurial Center as one of the key components to initiate that. With the inclusion of Bridge Street Corridor, the focus is now on a significant shift in density and proposed development patterns. Although the anticipation was originally for a much higher density in the EAZ, given the level of intensity on Bridge Street, there is a need to balance the City's economic portfolio and the ability to promote all types of future development. Therefore, staff is re- evaluating the land use character and whether there is a need to consider a more suburban pattern that can accommodate all types of users in the corridor. In addition, an Administrative Code has also been implemented to enable a quicker approval process to facilitate start of construction. Currently, the full rezoning process for planned districts can take 12 or more months. The intent is to reduce that to one or two months. There are three major components of the EAZ project: • First, to adopt a plan for that area that recognizes all of the contextual changes that have occurred over the past two years. • With that plan, review the Administrative Code that is in place to see how it should be modified to make sure that the Code matches the intent of the planning document. • Conduct an area rezoning of all the properties within that area. The area in question has a variety of zoning categories, a significant portion of which remains zoned as Rural for agricultural uses. When the plan and Code are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citv Council March 14, 2011 Page 3 implemented, that entire area will be designated under the new zoning classification, which will provide a consistent zoning for the entire 1,100 acres. To date, staff has met with the property owners in a series of public open houses and spoken with residents of the area residential neighborhoods. Throughout this process, staff has maintained a project page on the web, to keep everyone apprised of the most recent changes in the draft of the plan. The intent is to have this project completed by July. Last month, staff provided Council a memo outlining the process. In terms of the larger plan, staff is looking at the overall development character and architectural standards that will give this area of the City a very unique character that is evocative of innovation and technology. With the landscape character, they are also trying to make sure that the architecture fits into the larger context of the area, primarily focusing on the links approach of Ballantrae, the naturalized wetlands of Red Trabue and the Metro Park — blending the idea of man through architecture and nature through the natural environmental into a larger development area. In terms of the land use plan, staff is looking at a more tiered approach than existed previously. The areas along the interchange are where they envision the higher profile office and research uses. Within the area moving west toward the residential areas, they envision a more flex type of development — a combination of office, laboratory, research and other support functions. Further west along SR 161 there will be a focus on the clean manufacturing and assembly uses, a comprehensive type of development that can accommodate many types of companies. The tiered approach will enable the higher profile buildings also to be built in the lower categories. To the south, the residential areas will be consistent with the Community Plan. Along Hyland -Croy Road, the mixed residential will help augment the employment center, which will enable people who live there to walk or bike into the EAZ. In the areas designated in the peach color, they are looking at a combination of potential office and residential uses. Support services would be located around the interchange, the area of highest traffic levels, which would support both the traffic and the employees entering /exiting the EAZ. Typically, suburban development involves the traditional outparcel and small neighborhood strip retail. In addition to those, staff will also try to ensure that the typical vehicular- oriented uses can be appropriately included. They are trying to encourage a more mixed -use type of development in this area, and throughout the EAZ, to provide the ability to integrate some retail into the first floors. He noted that as part of the public process, a couple of significant changes have been proposed to the Thoroughfare Plan. 1. Realigning Shier Rings, directing it north up to Industrial Parkway, creating a roadway similar to Emerald Parkway, that would mirror US 33. This would facilitate the efficient movement of employees from the center of the EAZ to both interchanges. This would serve through traffic and minimize impacts on the neighborhoods. 2. Identifying a new entrance to Darree Fields, as development occurs in the area. This will downplay the impact on the residential neighborhoods, create a more formal entrance to the park, and integrate some of the new residential and office components into the entry points. 3. Considering a new roadway network that would parallel SR 161, east to west, which will provide the greatest level of connectivity within the employment center. In regard to the specific site involved in this application — at the northeast corner of Shier Rings and Eiterman, the site is slightly more than four acres. There are significant limitations on the site in terms of setbacks and a stream corridor protection zone. The site is 50 percent developable. The future land use map calls for the site as well as the larger area to be High Density Office Research and Development, which is intended for a high intensity development, multiple stories, parking structure and integrated commercial uses. Those were uses that were considered at the time the City was looking at a more urban fabric for the area. The high- density POD zoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 4 district that is requested tonight mirrors the classification within the Community Plan, which provides for larger uses that would have support services. Initially, the delay on this development request was to provide the City with time for the planning process that was looking at significant changes for a more suburban development pattern in this area as a balance to the plans for Bridge Street Corridor. Different road networks and potential alignments were being considered, which would likely have significant impact on this site. There were also concerns about the potential for retail in a high density POD. Looking at the larger EAZ, initially it was believed that this request might be workable, but there has been a change in the economic climate. This is a quite removed site on two -lane roads. Dublin has sites close by that are zoned for retail that have not been able to build, even though they have zoning and permits in place. Regarding this site, the property owner has indicated that they want to be able to market the property. However, the City does not have a mechanism to address retail. Recent discussions have not resulted in an agreement with the property owner. Although the application matches the designation in the Future Land Use Map, it does not address the intent of the District or the general intent of the Area Plan. General planning principles require consideration of the compatibility issues with the adjacent neighborhood and the lack of supporting infrastructure (currently two -lane roads) for potential retail use. He indicated that staff therefore recommends disapproval of this rezoning request, and allowing the City to proceed with its current planning process. An additional option for Council is to consider a low density POD zoning for this site, which would allow all of the general Office, Research and Development uses that are expected in this area, but would limit the retail capability of the site. Mrs. Boring asked if Council could table this ordinance again, as it has been tabled previously. Mr. Smith responded that Council could do so. Mrs. Boring asked if Council disapproves this request, would there be additional fees for a revised rezoning request? Mr. Smith responded that if Council disapproves this zoning request, the first issue is whether or not the applicant can file a rezoning earlier than one year. However, the rezoning could be part of the City's rezoning of the entire area, so there would be no additional fees involved for this applicant. Ben Hale Jr Smith & Hale 37 W. Broad Street, representative for the applicant stated that the suggestion is that they consider low density POD for this property. However, the site is currently 50 percent developable. With a low density POD, the required setbacks would be twice as much, and there would basically be nothing left to develop. A low density POD also has to be a minimum of ten acres; this site is four acres. He has been personally supportive of staff's planning work on this area, and he was also supportive of the original COIC. A couple of the projects in Dublin that have been very well received — Cardinal Health and Dublin Methodist Hospital -- were the result of the regular discussions of a group that included the Planning staff, Service Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief and Engineering. That process is now institutionalized in the COIC Code and will be in the new Code that Planning staff is generating. Successful development districts around the nation have stressed the need for certainty of process, standards, and timely action. Without those elements, the City cannot be competitive with other areas. Those three elements are in the COIC. The standards in the COIC code are as high as or higher than any of the City's PUDs or districts. Developers need to be certain of the rules. This particular applicant has been extremely patient. They initially discussed this property with Planning staff in 2006. At that time, staff indicated that, although the Community Plan identifies the area as Residential, they believed the land use would be changing. Subsequently, the COIC Code was approved, and their understanding was that the City would rezone that entire area. However, in 2008, the only land rezoned was that which the City owned, not the entire area. His client's position was that this application was in compliance with the Plan, he was willing to accept all the City's standards and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeti March 14, 2011 Page 5 comply with the Code, and so he would go forward with his application in order that they could proceed with marketing the property. Initial inquiries had determined that, once it was zoned, business brokers were willing to list the property. They were unwilling to work on property with undetermined uses and a yearlong rezoning process. That was three years ago. His client does understand that there will now be a revision to the Code. He personally believes that revision should be judged against the Code currently in place, which he considers to be an excellent Code with excellent standards and an excellent process. Hopefully, the major portion of that Code will be retained in the new Code. The Planning Commission has approved their rezoning request, which totally complies with the Community Plan and the applicant is agreeable to all the standards. An issue has been raised that some of the uses may change, and his client has indicated that as a condition of this rezoning, they will agree not to file for any building permit or development plan until the end of June. Planning staff has indicated that the City will have its new plan in place by that time. They understand that this property will be part of the area rezoning the City will be proposing. His client has waited five years to proceed. Mayor Lecklider stated that all of Council understands the applicant's frustration. He asked staff if the intent of the new Economic Advancement Zone is that applications would be considered and approved within a three -month period of time. Mr. Combs responded that the administrative process of the COIC regulations would be retained. Mr. Hale noted that the COIC code indicates 60 days. Typically, during that time, the applicant receives an indication of whether his application is favorable, but it actually takes longer than that to work through the details to be able to file for a building permit. Mayor Lecklider requested that staff address Mr. Hale's comments regarding the relatively severe setbacks of a low density POD. Mr. Combs responded that, as currently written, the Code primarily addresses larger sites, a minimum of 10 acres, and requires larger setbacks. However, in this case, that would not be an issue when the site is rezoned into that district. This is already an established lot, and would only need to meet the site development requirements for that lot. Given the small nature of the site, the Code provides an alternative for the staff to consider an administrative departure, due to the fact that increasing the setbacks to the required amount would create a practical difficulty, making the site essentially undevelopable. This would address the concerns regarding rezoning to that district. Staff's purpose for suggesting rezoning to that district is that it specifically addresses retail uses. A high density POD provides the opportunity for any type of retail use indicated in the presentation. A low density POD restricts the retail use to integrated retail, which could be located on the first floor of a larger use, such as an office. In consideration of the market conditions and the potential impact of high - density retail on the neighborhoods to the south, a low density POD would seem to be a good compromise. Vice Mayor Salay stated that Mr. Hale indicates that his client's major issue is the need to market their property with the high - density designation that will not work for Dublin. Rather than risk Council's denial of their application, why wouldn't his client prefer to accept what staff has offered and use that to market the property accordingly? His client would have as much clarity on the type of uses permitted as is possible. She does not understand what the issue is, unless it is that the applicant wants a high density, which as staff has indicated, is not consistent with the overall City's goals. Mr. Hale stated that the new Code has not yet been written, so any comments are somewhat speculative. His understanding of the Code is that, except for commercial, the uses are quite similar in terms of the base of the land uses. For the high density POD and low density POD, the primary difference is that the high density POD allows a lot coverage of 80 percent, while a low density POD allows only 50 percent coverage. This site is on the corner, has setbacks, has a creek and has side yard RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeti Dublin City Council March 14, 2011 Page 6 setbacks next to the church. Therefore, there would be 60 percent maximum lot coverage on this site. It is not possible to reach the upper limits of the high density POD. The applicant has also provided written assurance to the City that the buildings would be next to the street, and that upfront parking would be limited to the side and behind. Under the Code, the Planning Commission has the right under certain circumstances to review development applications if the requirements are not met. With the low- density POD requirements, this site would have nothing left to develop, unless staff exercises a process for divergence. Mr. Reiner stated that, in fairness, Mr. Combs was alluding to the small size of this parcel and the likelihood that it would warrant what essentially would be a variance. Therefore, he does not understand the applicant's reluctance to accept a low- density designation, which should occur in approximately 90 days, given the risk of denial of approval by Council. Mr. Hale responded that it would more likely require four to five months. Vice Mayor Salay asked for confirmation that this land is owned by a group of individuals for investment purposes. Joe Smiley, 8084 Winterhill Court, Westerville. Ohio responded that is correct. Unfortunately, they are being perceived negatively and have been asked why they are pushing for this rezoning. They have been waiting for over five years and have done all that the City has asked them to do. However, not one timetable provided to them by the City has been met. Their request to speak with previous City Manager Terry Foegler was denied. They have met with Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Smith and Mr. Combs. They have worked with staff on letters, which staff indicated were acceptable and which would enable their case to be scheduled for a Council hearing. The letters accomplished nothing. Council has now asked the reason for their reluctance to be rezoned low density. The low density zoning setback requirements for this four -acre lot would be 150 feet from a primary road. When they initiated this process, the setback from the stream was to be 50 feet; it is now 100 feet. Every day that they wait, their development potential erodes. This greatly encumbers an interested developer. They purchased this property because it was in Dublin, and they fully understood Dublin's high development standards. In regard to the concern about retail, the market dictates what needs to develop in this location. Their research indicates that the neighborhood residents do not want to travel a long distance to pick up small items. There is a concern about traffic in Dublin, yet this generates more traffic. When the COIC was initially discussed, they were part of that discussion, were supportive of the plan, and understood the direction it was going. He and his partners in this proposal represent 150 years of development experience. Last week, they were under the impression that the entire application was now satisfactory. On Thursday, they received a letter from staff indicating that they would recommend approval to Council. On Friday afternoon, they received a phone call from staff indicating that they would recommend approval only if the applicant would accept a low density zoning designation. They understand that staff's intent is to have the area rezoning completed in July. However, the intent was also that the COIC would be in place in 2008 and that did not occur until 2009. They will work with the City going forward, but with each extension of the timetable, more of their development potential erodes. They are now back to the position they were in five years ago of not knowing what they will have until it is presented to Council. They have attended several meetings on the new EAZ. Last week, they asked what the uses would be, but were told the uses were not yet known. They asked what the Code requirements were, but were told they have not been written. They asked if this was the last opportunity for public comment on the EAZ; they were told that it was. How can they comment on something that they cannot review? They do know what the COIC high- density POD requirements are and what low- density POD requirements are. If necessary, they will agree to another tabling of their application, but it has now been five years and he is at a loss of what to do. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 14, 2011 Page 7 Meet Mayor Lecklider asked if they would be willing to forego any retail on this site except for that which would be integrated within a larger development, which was portrayed in the presentation. Mr. Smiley responded that he would take that proposal back to the other partners for review. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council must have a formal commitment that staff will meet the timelines that have been updated twice for completing this process. She agrees with the Mayor that this case has not been managed well and should never have taken this length of time. The COIC was completed years ago, and there has been ample time to have completed this particular area. Ms. Grigsby responded that is staff's intent. In the past, there was not an established timeframe. The only variable in the current timeframe is associated with the Planning Commission's review, depending on whether it requires one or more reviews. Aside from that, the EAZ process is on schedule to meet the identified timeframe. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the Planning Commission should schedule a special meeting if needed to complete this. She asks Council's support for that request. Mrs. Boring stated that her concern is with the quality of the Code being presented to the Commission. The timeframe assumes that what is presented to the Commission is of high quality and ready to adopt. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that she is making that assumption. Is there a consultant assisting staff with writing the Code for this area? Mr. Combs responded that there are consultants assisting with graphics and with analysis of the retail and industrial components. Ms. Chinni ci-Zuercher stated that Council would assume that the City Manager would ensure the required quality level is present. There has been sufficient time to draft a quality Code for the Commission's review. Mr. Gerber agreed that the process for this case has been quite lengthy. He concurs with Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher's recommendation that to ensure the process is completed within the prescribed timeframe, the Commission should schedule a special meeting, if necessary. He would support tabling this application to enable that process to be completed. Mr. Hale stated that if the current Code, which was approved unanimously by the Commission and Council is the template for this Code, he is strongly supportive. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Council has not reviewed the Code and does not know whether or not the same template was used. Mr. Smiley added that, throughout this process, they have spoken with members of the Ballantrae community. Other than one couple, they have not heard any concerns expressed. They will be happy to meet with any residents who have concerns. He noted that when they previously went before PZC, the rezoning of all the parcels was not an option. However, if Council would prefer to table their request again, with the assurance this would be accomplished within the defined timeframe, they are in agreement. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher moved to table the ordinance. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 12 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Purchase of 3.824 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest from the Muirfield Village Golf RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 8 Club, Said Acreage Located on State Route 745, City of Dublin, County of Delaware, State of Ohio. (Land Acquisition for Dublin Road Water Tank) Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the 2007 Community Plan identified the area in the vicinity of the Dublin and Glick roads intersection as a future site for a water tower to improve the City's domestic water system. In May 2010, Council approved the purchase of land from the Muirfield Village Golf Club for the construction of a new elevated water storage tower. The identified property consists of 3.824 acres. The City has reached agreement with the Muirfield Golf Club for a purchase price of $255,640. Staff is in the process of completing phase one of the project, which is environmental and geotechnical analysis. [Mr. Hammersmith showed a PowerPoint, including a view of the proposed site and a rendering of the proposed tank.] Mrs. Boring requested that Mr. Hammersmith indicate the access points on the site depiction. Mr. Hammersmith indicated the access point on Dublin Road. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification about the appraisal and the purchase price. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of the discussion with the property owner included reviewing the differences between the treed land and the open land. The appraisal at $60,000 is the negotiated agreement taking into account the treed portion of the parcel, and the untreed portion. The agreed upon amount was $70,000 /acre. Based on recent land appraisals and resulting purchases on the Hard Road side, that amount seemed equitable. The untreed land is much more developable than the treed area. A breakdown on the acreages will be provided for the next Council meeting. Mayor Lecklider asked if the appraisal of $60,000 per acre was the City's appraisal. Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the March 28, 2011 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 09 -11 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Blazer Water Tank Repainting Project. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this resolution is for repainting of the Blazer Road water tank. The project was bid in January 2011. A pre -bid meeting identified some issues to be addressed in the project, one of which involved the coating material. That was addressed at the last Council meeting, at which time Council approved waiving competitive bidding to permit use of the product that the City has used satisfactorily over the past several years. That product was included in the bid documents for this project. Another factor with this tank is that it houses the Washington Township Fire Station 95. It will not be possible for them to work out of this station while the repainting is in process. Therefore, a temporary location for the station's daytime operations has been found, and during the night, they will operate out of Station 91. A rigid containment system outside the tank has been included with this project. A suspended containment system (suspended from the roof) was used with the painting of the Avery Road water tank last year; however the extensive internal mechanisms required within the tank would be too disruptive to the Fire Department operations within the tank. The City's original estimate for the project was $675,000.00 and $500,000 was the amount budgeted. Of the eight (8) bids received, the lowest and best bid was submitted by MK Painting, Inc. for $532,000. The City had good experience with MK Painting in the painting of the Avery Road tank last year. Also, as occurred last year, a third -party inspector will oversee the operations. Mr. Reiner asked if the coating material was upgraded to achieve a longer life. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the material was not upgraded. At the last Council meeting, staff requested approval to continue with the material used last year — an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 9 epoxy material that has exceptional durability and warranty. It provides the protective features the City desires. Mr. Reiner asked about the life of the repainting, given the cost of $550,000. Mr. Hammersmith responded that a minimum of 15 years is expected. The Tartan West water tank is coated with the same material and still appears glossy and new. 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. Resolution 10 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Optical Fiber Lease Agreement with Mercury Fiber and the Ability to Lease a Total of 18 (9 Pair) Optical Fibers. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. McDaniel stated that, previously, Council authorized staff to lease up to 12 (six pair) of the City's optical fibers that lie dormant and which staff does not anticipate using within the near term. Staff has successfully negotiated those leases. This request is for authorization for a lease with Mercury Fiber and to lease fibers beyond the original amount approved, bringing the total leased to 9 pair or 18 fibers. It is anticipated that will bring $3.2 million in revenue for the City, which represents almost exactly the money the City spent building the system. Therefore, the City is essentially recovering twice its costs, as the City has saved money by its own use of the fiber and also realized economic development from this fiber. The staff report also mentions a future request related to the potential of multiplexing over two fibers with additional leases, which would not deteriorate the City's dark fiber. Mr. Keenan asked how much fiber would remain available for additional economic development, should this request be approved tonight. Mr. McDaniel responded that approximately 12 pair or 24 dark fibers would remain, which can be leveraged for economic development. This amount remains after the City has set aside what it needs for its own institutional use. However, technology has changed, and if the City moves toward multiplexing over the same fiber, an exponential number of users are possible. Mr. Keenan asked if he envisions a need to pull additional fiber. Mr. McDaniel responded that he does not. Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. McDaniel for having the foresight to do this. Initially, there was some concern about the risk and whether fiber optic would prove to be useful technology and not superseded by other technology. There has been a good return on this investment. Mayor Lecklider commended Mr. McDaniel on his efforts. Vote on the Resolution Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. OTHER Bicycle Advisory Task Force Recommendations Tom Merritt Bicycle Advisory Task Force Chair noted that the task force has been meeting regularly over a period of 17 months. He thanked City staff who worked with the task force, noting they were very insightful and provided useful information regarding best practices throughout the country. The Task Force used that information in developing its recommendations to improve the quality of life in Dublin and attract businesses. There are two key points to emphasize in the memo provided to Council. 1. A recommendation that City Council consider the continuation of the Task Force in some capacity. This could take the form of a smaller RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meefim_* March 14, 2011 Page 10 standing committee that meets on an as- needed basis to help develop and implement the attached recommendations. 2. A recommendation that a City employee or position be designated as the City's official bicycle coordinator to bring the City and community resources together to achieve the recommendations. Mr. Merritt presented a PowerPoint of the recommendations. The Task Force attempted to follow the five E's — engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation — in assembling a plan that will hopefully lead to Dublin becoming a "Bicycle Friendly Community." Their recommendations address all age groups, all skill levels of cycling, and all sections of the City. Mr. Merritt reviewed the complete recommendations. Mayor Lecklider stated that Council heard the community's support for this initiative and committed to the expedited process of a task force to develop recommendations. The City has committed resources to this initiative. He thanked the members of the Task Force, including the students for their many hours of hard work. He asked if a resolution formally accepting the recommendations would be provided for the next Council meeting. Ms. Martin responded that staff would provide a resolution for Council's review at the March 28 meeting. The packet attachment was missing some portions, and a complete list of the recommendations will also be provided for the March 28 meeting. Mr. Reiner stated that the Task Force has suggested that a staff member be appointed to serve on a continuing basis as a coordinator to implement the recommendations. Ms. Martin has volunteered to serve in that capacity. Another suggestion was to have some form of the Task Force continue in order to address the issues as the program evolves. He supports these two suggestions, as well as the formal task force recommendations. He thanked the Task Force members for their efforts. Mrs. Boring asked that the staff coordinator not be name specific, but rather a general designation, which would allow for future staffing changes that do often occur. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that because the two recommendations highlighted by Mr. Merritt are separate from the formal Task Force recommendations, it might be appropriate to refer them to one of Council's standing committees for discussion. Brand Road (Muirtield Drive to Dublin Road) — Multi -Use Path and Bike Lanes Alternatives Assessment Mr. Hammersmith stated that in the fall of 2010, Council requested that staff review the Brand Road corridor between Dublin Road and Muirtield Drive to consider different alternatives for bicycle and pedestrian use. Several years ago, the City programmed a bikepath, now more typically called a "multiuse path," along Brand Road. The Task Force reviewed that corridor and asked that consideration be given to adding bike lanes. In the CIP discussions in 2010, Council asked that staff assess three different alternatives for bicycles and pedestrians focusing on: (1) what the impact would be and what it would look like; (2) what would the impacts be for bike lanes only on both sides of the roadway; and (3) what would happen if Council were to consider both bikepaths and bike lanes. He shared a PowerPoint presentation on the topic. There are many Brand Road residents present tonight, who are concerned that this is in final form. However, staff's recommendation tonight is that Council pursue further development of one of the alternatives -- Alternative 3A. Most importantly, staff recommends that the City conduct a public involvement meeting with the adjacent and surrounding residents to seek their input. This is the same process followed for Dublin Road South, when Council directed staff to pursue a bikepath in that corridor. Another recommendation is that staff report back to Council with that input and additional recommendations regarding a preferred alternative. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeti March 14, 2011 Page 11 He noted that at the end of February, Council received a copy of the completed study on Brand Road multiuse path alternatives. Mr. Hammersmith reviewed the alternatives. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Sweder are present to respond to comments or to discuss these alternatives with residents. 1. Alternative #1 is a multiuse path on one side of the road only, eight -foot wide and a minimum of ten feet from the roadway. He explained that bikepaths were sometimes placed closer to the road in the past, and that raised concerns from the users. 2. Alternative #2 is a four -foot wide bike lane on both sides of the roadway. This would require an eight -foot widening of the current pavement on Brand Road. 3. Alternative #3 is a combination of the two preceding alternatives. Preliminary cost estimates were also prepared; there are programming level cost numbers. A construction total for each of the three alternatives was prepared and an evaluation matrix to assist in evaluation of the alternatives. He reviewed the three alternatives. He noted that Alternative 3 is the highest cost alternative, as it attempts to combine both Alternative #1 and Alternative #2, providing both a multi -use path and bike lanes. Alternative #1 is the least expensive, estimated at $1.14 million. Alternative #3 cost is estimated at $2.6 million. The bike lanes alone are estimated at $1.7 million, due to widening the road and regarding of ditches that would be required. Mr. Keenan asked if the ditches would be enclosed in conjunction with the project. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, in most cases, they would be maintained, but in some cases, they might need-to be enclosed. Mr. Keenan asked if the cost of utility relocation is also cost prohibitive. Mr. Hammersmith responded that, although most of the utilities are overhead, some are underground. Most will not be costly to relocate. He noted that staff's recommendation is for a hybrid, Alternative 3A, which is Alternative 2, both bikepath and bike lane from Dublin Road all the way west to Earlington Parkway. From Earlington Parkway, only bike lanes would be constructed. For a multiuse path, this alternative calls for use of the path along Earlington to Dublinshire to the Muirfield Drive corridor. The cost estimate is $2.4 million. Staff's recommendation is to develop Alternative 3A, preceded first by public involvement meetings. This will provide the needed information for addressing residents' concerns. Following those meetings and responding to residents' input, any potential modifications would be brought back to Council. This process is similar to that followed for the Dublin Road South bikepath. Mr. Keenan asked if the 10 -foot recommended setback could be compromised in some instances on residents' properties. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is possible, depending on the drainage features and utility locations. Mr. Keenan stated that he understands the desired setback, however, in some areas, particularly on Dublin Road, the existing bikepath lies within a foot or two of the roadway. Mr. Hammersmith responded that if that type of situation would occur, some type of barrier must also be created. Mr. Keenan stated that after the public input is obtained, some modifications, perhaps for less than a 10 -foot setback, would be possible. Mr. Hammersmith responded that any such modifications would be reported to Council. Tonight, staff seeks Council's direction on which alternative to pursue. Vice Mayor Salay asked if there would be bike lane the entire length of Brand Road on both sides. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Salay asked if there would be bikepath on the north side of the road and none on the south side for the portion from Brandonway heading east. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council MeetinL March 14, 2011 Page 12 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification regarding the right -of -way needs. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the size of the existing right -of -way varies in locations. In areas where there has been development, such as Asherton, the development included right -of -way dedication, so there is sufficient right -of -way for the bikepath. With some of the other properties, there has been no development, and the right -of -way is that which existed many years ago. That will change at the property line, perhaps from 80 feet to 60 feet. Mr. Keenan asked what level of funding is programmed for this project. Ms. Grigsby responded that for 2011, $2,050,000 was programmed in the CIP Tax Fund for construction, with the understanding that any funding needed for right -of -way acquisition would be taken from the Parkland Acquisition Fund. Money has been programmed in the Parkland Acquisition Fund for that purpose. Mayor Lecklider asked if the amount programmed for right -of -way acquisition is $200,000 to $250,000. Ms. Grigsby responded that the total amount budgeted for right -of -way acquisition for the length of Brand Road is $325,000. Mayor Lecklider stated that the amount shown in the matrix is less. Does that imply that, after further evaluation, the cost estimate was reduced? Mr. Hammersmith responded that on a preliminary basis, it is less. The detailed study has provided more information than was available at the time that amount was budgeted. Ms. Grigsby stated that it was necessary not to underestimate the amount and potentially have an impact on the funds remaining for parkland acquisition. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the south side of Brand Road from the City -owned barn at Bristol Parkway to the Fire Department is all within the corporate limits of Dublin. She thought this land was within the Township jurisdiction. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this area is shown as being within the City, but they will re -check that. Ms. Chinni ci-Zuercher inquired if uses were "grandfathered in" for these properties, because there are businesses operating in that area. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the land uses were not evaluated, but only the alignment. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff will review the use and zoning of these properties. Mayor Lecklider requested the Task Force Chair to comment on the Brand Road alignment study and recommendation. Mr. Merritt responded that he has not had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Task Force. However, their focus is safe bicycling. The recommendation seems to be reasonable and consistent with the effort to allow safe bicycle travel along the Brand Road corridor. Mr. Hammersmith noted that he believes the BATF's preference was for bike lanes in the corridor. Mike Stovskv, BATF Vice Chair stated that prior to the CIP meeting, he came before Council for clarification purposes. One of the Task Force's primary objectives was the establishment of an east -west corridor for more advanced cyclists than currently exists. At that time, the request was ultimately to have bike lanes along Brand Road from Dublin Road to Hyland -Croy Road. To make it more economically appealing to the City, they suggested constructing one -half at a time. They did not want to preclude more casual cyclists from the opportunity to have a multiuse path system. This summer, they also talked about the option of using existing bikepaths, as Mr. Hammersmith suggested. In his opinion, this is a wonderful compromise. This alternative is sensitive to the need to minimize the impact for property owners, as the alignment is for the most part within the existing right -of -way. It also provides on- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 13 street bike lanes that do not exist anywhere within the City. Brand Road is a relatively narrow, somewhat winding road that is presently very dangerous for cyclists. The BATF also identified Glick Road as a future area envisioned for bike lanes. Part of this alignment provides for conversion of existing sidewalk into multiuse path, so Engineering staff has created a solution that is very sensitive to bikers' needs, multiuse path needs, and homeowners' needs. They have not had an opportunity to discuss this with the BATF, but he believes it is consistent with the desires of the BATF. Mike Teets, BATF member, indicated that he owns the first property east of the Fire Station on Brand Road. He has attempted to represent the homeowners' needs /interests on the Task Force. He agrees with Mr. Stovsky's assessment. The alternative appears to achieve a nice balance in providing a safe bicycle route in the east -west corridor, yet limiting the impact on the residents, particularly on the property owners whose houses are close to Brand Road. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he may not have clarified sufficiently that where there is existing sidewalk along the north side of Brand Road west of Dublin Road, it would be replaced with the multiuse path. Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony. Neil Hahn, 5505 Brand Road stated that the Brand Road residents would have had concerns with this initiative without this hearing, where an excellent portrayal of a balanced plan has been portrayed. A good deal of time has been put into this effort for the safety of Dublin bike riders. He appreciates the Task Force's efforts. He inquired what the right -of -way acquisition fund is and how is it used. How does it benefit a Brand Road property owner? Ms. Grigsby responded that when the City acquires right -of -way or easements for a roadway project, the process includes appraising the property to determine the fair market value. Dollars are then programmed in the Parkland Acquisition Fund to purchase the property. Mr. Hahn asked if the land in question is beyond the existing easement. Ms. Grigsby responded that if the City needs easements or right -of -way beyond what currently exists along Brand Road, the City would perform an appraisal to determine the value of the additional right -of -way or easements that are needed. Mr. Hahn asked if the land needed is within the existing right -of -way, what the residents receive. Ms. Grigsby responded that if the existing right -of -way can accommodate the improvements, the City would not need to acquire additional land and there would be no additional compensation paid. Mr. Hahn responded that the resident then loses the land. Ms. Grigsby responded that the right -of -way would have already been dedicated to the City. Mr. Hahn stated that he has lived in Dublin for 24 years. He received a notice in June 2008 that a bikepath would be constructed along Brand Road. He heard nothing more for a few months. Mike Sweder of Engineering then visited him and showed him what would occur in front of his home, which is located on the south side of Brand. Later, he learned of the formation of the BATF and of their intended goal. He has the minutes of the BATF meetings on this topic. He asked how many people will use this path and how many people will need it to commute to work? Vice Mayor Salay responded that the intent is that many people could use it in the future. Mr. Hahn responded that no one yet knows how many people might actually use it. Nevertheless, Council has approved a CIP budget -- not only to install a multiuse path, but also to widen Brand Road for this purpose. He does appreciate that in his area, it will only include bike lanes, but he is concerned about the resulting drainage issues. In a recent rainstorm, he had rainwater puddles in his backyard that would not abate, and on the other side of the street, they remain. He believes an insufficient amount RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 14 has been budgeted for that purpose, because that issue will require much work to address. Mayor Lecklider noted that the time limitation for individual citizen comments is five minutes, which has expired. However, staff would be happy to meet with him to discuss his concerns. Vice Mayor Salay noted that staff will also schedule a public meeting for residents for the purpose of gathering public input. Staff then shares all the residents' comments with Council. When this subject is scheduled again before Council, there is further opportunity for public comment. This is not anyone's final opportunity to comment, and modifications can certainly be made to the initial plan. Mr. Hahn responded that he would then defer the remainder of his comments to that later opportunity. He hopes Council understands his concern, however, as he has 30 trees and 250 feet of hedge that have grown over the 24 years he has resided on this property. No one else present tonight is in a position to lose as much as he will, according to this plan. Mayor Lecklider stated that the City was sensitive to the residents' needs with the Dublin Road bikepath project, and will do the same for the Brand Road residents with this project. Colleen Reynolds, 5151 Brand Road, stated that her property is east of Coffman Road. When the bikepath route goes from the south side over to the north side of the road by Brandonway and Earlington, how will the bicycle traffic be moved from one side of the road to the other? Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be handled the same as it is presently — with an existing crosswalk. Ms. Reynolds asked if the intent is for the traffic to move across Brand Road rather than underneath, as with the Dublin Road bikepath. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed that is correct. Ms. Reynolds asked if staff has accounted for the traffic speed. It is zoned for 35 mph, but has a speed study been done? Mr. Hammersmith responded that stealth stats have been done in that area. This is a high volume area, due to the school on Dublinshire and the church, so there is an at- grade crossing. There have not been concerns expressed with this crossing, and the information is tracked closely. Similar to other areas, a push button activator and pedestrian traffic warning signs will be installed. This would be similar to the at -grade crossing on Glick Road. Ms. Reynolds asked if there is any intention to have a tunnel crossing. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is no intent for a tunnel at this location. Andy Keeler, 5281 Brand Road stated that he lives in the brick farmhouse at the corner of Coffman and Brand Roads. If the attempt is to determine the best way for cyclists to travel from Coffman High School to the Metro Park on Hyland -Croy, it would seem that Post Road, from which traffic has been completely redirected, would be the safest and most direct route. He would much prefer to be on a road with no traffic versus Brand Road, which is very narrow, winding and treacherous. If the City is trying to establish the best east -west route for cyclists, it would make sense to use an established route that has no traffic. Secondly, in view of the investment for this project, how many will actually use the path? Perhaps the $1.6 to $2.3 million would be better spent for another fitness facility in the City, serving more people. The people who will use the on -road lanes are serious cyclists — with road bikes, helmets and all the appropriate gear. They are not families with children on tricycles or wagons. These are serious cyclists riding down a very narrow and dangerous road. To him, that does not appear logical. Why would a serious cyclist choose to ride this versus a road such as Post, with little traffic? The eight -foot multiuse path would serve families. What group is the City building this facility for — serious cyclists? It seems a great deal of investment will serve a small number of people. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meetin Dublin City Council March 14, 2011 Page 15 Steve Rand, 5790 Brand Road stated that they live on the north side of Brand Road, next to the Muirfield -Brand roundabout. In reviewing the slide shown, the easement goes up to their door. They purchased the home in 1997 and have been working to restore it since that time. They were aware of the easement's proximity to their door, but they had received numerous assurances, including from neighbor Mr. Geese, that Brand Road would never be widened in this location. On page one of the Brand Road pedestrian study, there is a list of the general guidelines for development of these roads. The first item on the list is: "Brand Road to remain scenic in nature." In his opinion, if a bike lane and bikepaths are installed, the road almost immediately loses its scenic nature and becomes a generic road. There are many historic homes on Brand Road and the older the homes, the closer they are to the roadway. Much of the front yards will be given up to this project. If Brand Road truly is to remain scenic and historic, the bike lanes and bikepath will remove that characteristic. Bruce McLaughlin, 5131 Brand Road requested clarification. Regarding the crossing where the bikepath passes from the south side of the road to the north side of the road, he would want his children to be able to cross that road in a manner other than at the surface. He is also confused by staff's memo, which indicates that on March 28, the Bicycle Advisory Task Force will present to Council a proposed resolution accepting the Task Force recommendations. As he listened tonight, he understood that there would be additional hearings about this topic before Council accepts the recommendations. Could someone clarify? Vice Mayor Salay clarified that the recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force are a separate item from the Brand Road multiuse bikepath discussion. Mr. McLaughlin responded in regard to the BATF recommendations that his assumption is that if Council accepts them, they will approve the project for funding and proceed to construct it. Mr. Reiner stated that, at this time, Council is discussing an Engineering proposal for a Brand Road bikeway. The previous topic discussed was the BATF's general recommendations about bicycle safety and education in Dublin. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the traffic on Brand Road clearly does not move at 35 mph. He has lived in his home, east of Coffman Road, for 30 years. It has grown from a rural to a heavily traveled road. He often has difficulty exiting his driveway. Providing for cyclists to move up and down Brand Road in bike lanes seems to be very risky. Deer often run across the road. In a case where a driver swerves to avoid a deer, they may strike a bicyclist. They support the eight -foot multiuse paths, which have been used successfully in Dublin for a long time. It appears that it should be possible to use the existing path from Muirfield to Brandonway, and then build a multiuse path on the north side of Brand Road at a cost of $818,000. There would be much less easement acquisition cost -- $141,000 versus $280,000 — and much less pavement installed. It appears that little is gained by having the bike lanes and a multiuse path along Brand Road versus Option 1A. That option would be to use the existing path to Brandonway, cross the street and construct an eight -foot multiuse path. That would save $1.6 million, which could be used for buying the 16 acres across the road that the multiuse path would run through and provide additional greenspace for Dublin. It strikes him that the same thing could be accomplished for $800,000 instead of $2.4 million. He believes Council should direct staff to take a closer at that option, because it makes much more sense than Option 3A. Mayor Lecklider invited Council Members to comment. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this is a very major project, and after reviewing the information, she is not in a position to provide any significant direction at this time. Council needs to make a policy decision about the level of bicycling to be supported within the City system. In the past, Council has considered different options for creating these connections, and this was an option. However, for Brand Road, it RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 14, 2011 Page 16 represents a major change. She travels the road frequently and does not want to lose the character of the road. Therefore, she would need to understand better how the character would be retained with this recommendation. Mr. Keenan stated that for years, he has advocated that the City acquire the Wallace and Distelhorst properties and other lands to maintain that look and the historical nature of Brand Road. At what point was Brand Road identified as a scenic roadway, and what legalities would be involved with this road widening? There is a need to strike a balance. There is a need to have access for bicycles, but there is also a need to be cognizant of what currently exists in that area. Are there legalities encountered with widening a road that has a scenic roadway designation? Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes the designation is merely in the City's Community Plan as a character designation. It is not a statewide designation of a scenic byway that would have restrictions. Mr. Keenan stated that it is clear that many more meetings are needed. There was a long process involved with the Dublin Road multiuse path system. He needs more information about this project before any vote occurs. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is difficult to host public involvement meetings when there is not a plan to share of the proposed improvements and impact on individual properties. There needs to be a beginning point for that conversation. He also understands and respects that Council needs more time for consideration. At the next Council meeting, staff will present the Muirfield Drive bike lane alternative, which Council asked staff to review. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Council does not yet have the Muirfield Drive report. However, that road makes more sense for bike lanes than Brand Road, simply due to the topography issues with Brand Road. There is also a challenge with the Brand Road homes, some of which are very close to the road. That factor should be considered when choosing roads for bicycle traffic movement. She is not opposed to bicycle lanes. She is concerned about the number of cyclists who are using roads without designated lanes. Motorists are not as conscious of cyclists on the roads, when the roads are not marked. She would like to move in that direction, but is not comfortable with the Brand Road proposal at this time. Vice Mayor Salay recalled that the BATF came to Council with suggestions for potential bike lanes and multiuse paths. She would be interested in reviewing those recommendations and then considering Brand Road as part of the big picture. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff would provide that information. Mr. Gerber stated that he is not certain Brand Road is the best choice for this. He is trying to determine the benefits of a bike lane or multiuse path on that road, considering that the City has worked so hard to retain Brand Road's rural characteristics. The cost is also an issue. Typically, the City does a very good job of gathering input from the residents, and there are usually public input meetings before a proposal comes to Council. There are many people present tonight who are alarmed, and so he is hopeful the public input meetings will occur soon. Mr. Hammersmith responded that Council's direction to staff last fall was to report back to Council with an assessment in regard to the three alternatives, and that is why this information has been presented tonight. Mr. Gerber stated that he is not sure how this should best proceed. He is not convinced Brand Road is the appropriate road for the bicycle facilities, and additional discussion is needed. Mrs. Boring stated that during the Community Plan update, there were several roads that Council determined would never be widened. When the BATF presented the possible bikeway connections to Council, Council did instruct them to proceed and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 17 develop some recommendations. Budgeting for the project was also mentioned. The BATF did have public meetings for those discussions. However, now that the recommendations are before Council, including pictures of the options — all of which Council did request, she is now conflicted. She apologized to the BATF for not considering some factors at the outset, because she certainly did not intend for all this work to have been completed and for Council then to voice concerns. On the other hand, she is very interested in learning how the character of Brand Road would be impacted by this bikeway. Mr. Geese was correct — Council did indicate that this portion of Brand Road would never be widened. Mr. Reiner stated that he worked years on the development of the bike trails for Muirfield. There was a great deal of opposition to them at the outset, but eventually, they became considered a great amenity for the community. The mission of the BATF was to develop proposals that considered the community needs first and to do the right thing for all the citizens in Dublin. Moving forward, staff should obtain public input and then assemble the best recommendation for the good of the entire community. Currently, bicyclists in Dublin may be at risk because the City has not developed the appropriate bike lanes and trails. The BATF worked very hard on the goal to protect that group of citizenry and to provide the facilities for that type of transportation mode within the community. The question has been raised regarding how many people would use this facility. But unless it is provided, that can never really be known. The suggestion was also made to use Post Road instead. He agrees that Post Road is a very safe road, but BATF's concern is providing the appropriate linkage for various parts of the community to the schools and work. BATF is an impartial group of citizens who developed the best recommendations possible for the community. The question is whether there is the will and desire to proceed with this recommendation or is there a compromise that would better satisfy the citizens? He would like to see staff investigate that further with the goal of doing what is best for the entire community. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the BATF did exactly what Council asked them to do, and this is the next step in the process. Council did not ask staff to obtain community input. They were asked to provide information on the options and the costs. This is a process, and it is Council's responsibility to ultimately take all of the information and make a final decision. Council is not prepared to do that tonight. She personally believes staff should move forward with public meetings to share what has been presented tonight, so that Council can receive the input from the community. They might have great ideas on alternatives, as well. Mayor Lecklider asked if Council's direction for staff is to proceed on the premise that Alternative 3A is the preferred option, or to present all three alternatives in the public input meetings. Mr. Hammersmith stated that what he has heard from Council Members is they would prefer having input from the public on all three alternatives, including whether or not the public has a preference. Ms. Chinn ici- Zuercher stated that she agrees, and Alternative 3A does incorporate all three. Mr. Reiner asked that those present tonight who are opposed to this project maintain an open mind. He encouraged them to discuss this type of amenity with other neighborhoods. The experience of many Muirfield residents and others is what they initially viewed negatively, they later came to appreciate. A bigger vision may be needed. Mayor Lecklider noted that Vice Mayor Salay's suggestion that the information the BATF previously brought to Council about potential bike lanes and multiuse paths should also be incorporated. Mr. Hammersmith indicated he would do so. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting March 14, 2011 Page 18 Mayor Lecklider stated that he personally enjoys biking and the City's bikepath system. He looks forward to the opportunity to have more east -west routes. He enjoys traveling Brand Road from Dublin Road to Avery Road on a regular basis. For Council to make a decision on this issue, a work session for the purpose of this discussion will probably be necessary. There will be substantial discussion in the future on this topic. STAFF COMMENTS • Appeals from Administrative Decisions of Planning & Zoning Commission Mr. Smith noted that a report was provided in Council's packet, in which staff attempted to respond to all of the concerns raised by Council during their previous discussion on this item. The next step would be to refer this to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Based on Council's direction, the intent is for the Commission to turn this around quickly so that the ordinance and the Commission's recommendation can be back on Council's agenda in the near future. Mr. Reiner moved to refer the draft ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, no; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes. Vice Mayor Salay explained that she does not support the motion because she believes this proposal misses the opportunity to permit residents to appeal a decision of the Commission to Council. She believes it is appropriate to allow residents to file an appeal, with Council having the discretion of whether or not to hear the appeal. • Historic Dublin Crosswalks Ms. Grigsby stated that at the last Council meeting, there was additional discussion regarding Historic Dublin crosswalks. There is a staff report in Council's packet regarding the options currently being studied. A more detailed report with the cost estimates Council had requested is anticipated to be prepared for the next Council meeting. • Public Art Ms. Grigsby stated that at the last Council meeting, Council also requested an update on the public art agreement. A memo was provided in Council packet with a recommendation. Staff seeks Council direction regarding: (1) staff exploration of ways in which to improve the site selection process for public art; and (2) potential Community Development Committee review of the draft public art agreement for recommendation to Council. She will be seeking Council direction tonight or at an upcoming meeting. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer to delay giving any direction about the public art agreement until the next Council meeting. However, in regard to the crosswalks and parking situation along High Street, she suggested that staff review the restaurant deliveries from large trucks. The view of the intersection and crosswalks are blocked when such trucks are parked in the "No Parking" zone to make deliveries. Ms. Grigsby responded that this issue has been discussed, and she is not sure there is a satisfactory option to address this. However, those deliveries are completed in a short time and therefore the trucks are not parked in these locations for a long period of time. Mrs. Boring responded that when they do park in this location, it is not possible to see a pedestrian in the crosswalk. This is very problematic. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would review any possible options, and provide a report to Council. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeti)IL March 14, 2011 Page 19 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher 1. In regard to the Dublin Arts Council agreement, Council had a lengthy discussion after the last public art selection process. Council asked staff to begin to consider other methods that would improve site selection decision making. She would like staff to pursue that direction and provide Council with some alternatives to consider. The process has not worked well for the past couple of public art sitings. Mayor Lecklider asked if she would like suggestions on how to improve the process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded affirmatively. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would do so. Staff could also look at possible recommendations or solutions that could be incorporated into the draft agreement for the Community Development Committee to consider. Mr. Keenan asked if they are referring to the mutual expectations of the agencies for the use of City services, etc. That section does need to be better articulated. Ms. Grigsby stated staff would review the selection process and compile the information for the Committee review. 2. Stated that in conjunction with her work at HandsOn Central Ohio, she recently hosted a group of college students from Japan. They visited Dublin City Hall, met Ms. Nardecchia and learned about volunteerism within municipal government. The student representative on the Bicycle Advisory Task Force also attended and met with them. In Japan, it is not usual for citizens to be involved in service to the local government, and the students received some good ideas for citizen volunteerism outside times of disaster. Mr. Keenan requested an update from Engineering within the next two weeks on the Muirfield tunnel issue that he has discussed with them. Mayor Lecklide 1. Thanked staff for a successful St. Patrick's Day parade. 2. Noted that the State of the City event was held tonight at Dublin Coffman High School. It was a nice opportunity to demonstrate how the Schools, City and Washington Township work in partnership. Mayor Lecklider moved to appoint Judy Beal, Deputy Clerk of Council, as Acting Clerk, effective Tuesday, March 15 through Friday, March 25. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:20 p.m. for discussion of personnel, collective bargaining and legal matters. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 11:00 p.m / s Mayor — • ing Officer Clerk of Council