Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 04-25-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Meetine Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, April 25, 2011 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:05 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Reiner 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, Jr., Chief von Eckartsberg, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Burness, Ms. LeRoy, Ms. Colley, Mr. Somerville, Ms. Nardecchia, Mr. Combs, and Ms. Ott. Mr. Smith arrived at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of April 11, 2011 Mr. Gerber moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 2011. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority of New D51 liquor permit for American Italian Golf Association dba Riviera Country Club, 8205 Avery Road Council did not request a hearing on this matter. • Notice to Legislative Authority of New D5 liquor permit for Emerald LIQ TWO LLC, 5665 -91 Woerner Temple Road Vice Mayor Salay asked whether there have been liquor permits recently filed for this same location. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would check on this and report back to Council. Council did not request a hearing on this matter. PROCLAMATIONS /SPECIAL RECOGNITION • Gold Star Awards —City of Dublin Communications Technicians, Christopher Burkhardt and Stephanie Skipworth and Supervisor Carolyn Fergus Mayor Lecklider recognized Dublin Communications Technicians, Supervisor Carolyn Fergus, Christopher Burkhardt and Stephanie Skipworth, who were recently honored by the Ohio Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) for their handling of the shooting incident at NCR Financial on December 14, 2010. At the after - incident debriefing, Police officers praised the dispatch team for their quick relay of information. Bureau Commander Somerville stated that the responders modified their response approach based on the information provided. Had the response been delayed by a matter of seconds, the suspect would have been outside the reach of the responders and outside the City's jurisdiction. The team of three received 16 calls reporting the incident. They coordinated the Police response and the fire and EMS response, including the landing of MedFlight to transport the victim. On behalf of Council, Mayor Lecklider presented plaques to the dispatchers, noting that they provide a vital link to public safety, and thanking them for their outstanding service to the City. Mayor Lecklider invited Chief von Eckartsberg to comment and Civilian Bureau Commander Somerville to comment. Jay Somerville Dublin Police Civilian Bureau Commander thanked Council for honoring the communications technicians. They are so often the "unknown responder" to every emergency incident, handling everything from inside the confines RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 2 of the 911 center. The three technicians handled 16 different 911 calls about the incident in less than a five - minute period of time. They did a wonderful job of sorting through the information and providing medical instruction to the witness who was on the scene, all while gunfire was occurring. Chief von Eckartsbero noted that Council recently honored Officer Kevin Rickenbacher, who apprehended the shooter at the incident. He thanked Council for also recognizing these communication technicians, whose coordination and professionalism ensures a quick and appropriate response. • Update from Leadership Dublin Dave Cecutti Council representative to Leadership Dublin, presented a brief report to Council on what has transpired during his year of service. The organization's mission is to prepare individuals for effective community leadership. There are 25 individuals in this year's class. The curriculum focuses on community leadership and enables the class to see what occurs behind the scenes in the City. Last month, members of City Council participated in a Q &A session, which the class members really enjoyed. Two of Leadership Dublin's cornerstone pieces are the Community Service Day, which takes place on Saturday, May 7 this year, and the four class projects, which include preparing a public service announcement for PERC (Parents Encouraging Responsible Choices; establishing a community committee and vision for Dublin with the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day; assisting Dublin Counseling Center with records retention flow and various implications and effects of healthcare policies; and assisting with the Dublin Farmers' Market. Another program component is the Youth Leadership program, which is provided to sixth and seventh graders. He added that the Leadership Dublin office was relocated to the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center, which should provide additional opportunities for engagement. They are currently working on a new website. On behalf of the Board of Trustees and 300 alumni, he thanked Council for their support. Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Cecutti for his report and encouraged Council members to participate in the Community Service Day, which is both fun and rewarding. CITIZEN COMMENTS Richard Taylor representing Historic Dublin Business Association (HDBA) announced the District Scavenger hunt (DASH) will occur in May, which is "Historic Preservation Month" throughout the nation. The DASH will involve the entire Historic District and 16 "gems" of historical pieces. The forms will soon be available online or from Historic District merchants. Last year, there were 65 participants. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 15 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation for the Acquisition of 0.023 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.048 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Candice R. Barnhardt and Steven C. Barnhardt. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this acquisition is necessary for the extension of Emerald Parkway Phase 8 between Riverside Drive and Billingsley Creek. Adoption of Ordinance 15 -11 will authorize purchase of the land for a total cost of $3,000, to be used for a temporary construction easement. Vote on the Ordinance Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Ordinance 16 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation for the Acquisition of a 0.171 Acres, More or Less, Sanitary Sewer Easement, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 3 and a 0.129 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from TALG, Ltd. Mr. Hammersmith stated that relates to acquisition of land at 7672 Fishel Drive North for a sewer extension project. Total compensation for the easement will be $11, 361. Vote on the Ordinance Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 17 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation for the Acquisition of a 0.117 Acres, More or Less, Sanitary Sewer Easement, and a 0.086 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Fishel Investments, LLC. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is related to the next portion of an easement necessary for the Central Ohio Innovation Center sanitary sewer Phase Two. This acquisition and easement are from Fishel Investments, LLC, located at 7680 Fishel Drive North. The compensation for the easement is $9,045. Vote on the Ordinance Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 18 -11 Adopting Section 153.044 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Technology Flex Zoning District. (Case 10- 064ADM) Ms. Gilger, Economic Development Manager stated that in the Dublin Code, Restricted, Limited and General Industrial zoning districts have limitations that have hampered economic development. In order to remain competitive, the City needs diverse building stock at varying price points and predictability of process and end building results. By broadening the uses in a Tech Flex district, small -sized businesses can become competitive by keeping a growing operation under one roof in a flexible environment. This will facilitate expansion and modernization of uses, which maintain diversity in the building product. Mr. Combs, Senior Planner stated that when staff reviewed the industrial districts, they found that those districts date back to the 1970s and have not been updated. Businesses have changed significantly since that time period. In upgrading these districts, three goals were identified: (1) to ensure that the Industrial Districts match the uses preferred in the corridors; (2) to ensure that the standards are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the growth of a business and their need for additional space without adding substantial approval time to the development timelines; and (3) to determine if modest architectural requirements could be included in the process and yet continue to maintain economic competitiveness. The proposed Code for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC) addresses the area around Shier Rings from Avery to I -270, as shown in the PowerPoint. He identified the properties that will be within the Restricted Industrial District and the Limited Industrial District; those that will be within the new Tech Flex District; and those that will be addressed by the Bridge Street Corridor or the Economic Advancement Zone. The proposed Code will also provide for a much broader range of uses. An attempt has been made to match those with the processes underway for Bridge Street and the EAZ to ensure the ability to have the desired uses in that corridor, which are Office, Laboratory, Research and Flex space. The Code also includes Accessory and Temporary uses, so there is more predictability for the developers. They have also addressed Additional Use standards, depending on the use, to achieve the desired requirements, depending upon what that use might have in terms of impact. The proposed Code also includes an upgrade to building heights, as there is currently no limitation within the district. The height will be set at 56 feet. A greater height would require Conditional Use approval. That height will be regulated via setbacks, which will be a tiered structure based on the height of the buildings. As the building height increases, there is an established setback RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Counci April 25, 2011 Page 4 required. Currently, the Industrial Districts have a sliding formula, so it is difficult to convey to the developer exactly what setbacks they need to adhere to, depending on the type of building they are considering. They essentially have to create the architecture and then determine if it can be accommodated on the site. The intent is to keep the residential buffers consistent, but also clarify the pavement setbacks, so that it is possible to demonstrate clearly to developers what the requirements are. Included in the proposed Code are also Outdoor requirements. One of the key implementation items is the requirement that overhead doors are on the side or rear of the structure, for overall aesthetic reasons. The major component studied and discussed with residents, property owners and the Planning Commissioners was the intent of architecture for that district. The goal was to find a minimal level that would provide the City with a higher quality but still maintain competitiveness within the region. The regulations initially proposed focused primarily on additional requirements to the elevations that face public streets or residential districts. However, the Planning Commission believed there was a need for more discretion for architects to have design flexibility. Planning and Economic Development believe this is a good route, giving them flexibility while still having an architectural intent in the Code that can be applied. Therefore, the Commission recommended a generalized approach that addresses all four elevations and allows designers to have more flexibility rather than prescriptive requirements. Significant feedback was received from property owners and developers regarding the materials requirements. Currently, the Code as it is drafted would require architectural metal, prohibiting the standard corrugated and ribbed metal as a building material. The architectural metal panels shown on the PowerPoint generally have a much higher cost than the traditional ribbed construction because of the application of it and costs. That created concerns for the property owners and for Economic Development and Planning in maintaining viability for the types of businesses desired in the Technology Flex District. The corrugated /ribbed metal is typically a vertical or horizontal application of ribs, generally having exposed fasteners. However, those are usually not seen from the right -of -way because of the coloration of the materials. Most of the area that will be zoned for Tech Flex is already developed with that metal construction, and so in large part, the requirement would primarily apply to minor additions and upgrades to buildings. The Tech Flex District will accommodate small to midsize start-up businesses that need to grow in place up to a certain level. An example would be the Hidaka building, which has the ribbed metal construction. There are other industrial uses toward the interchange area that have more concrete slab or tilt -up type of construction. (He shared examples of these styles.) Ribbed metal construction can be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner. In the larger picture, this District will correlate with the Economic Advancement Zone underway, which will include three tiers of districts. Along US 33 where there is interstate visibility, larger office development is desired, which will include some of the architectural metal panel work, as well as glass and other primary materials, but will have an office focus. The corollary to the Tech Flex would be the Research Flex District within the EAZ. A variety of different metal architecture /metal panel applications, as well as some other materials, will be permitted. The final correlating district within the EAZ would be the Research Assembly District, which will be located to the west. This will include a focus on architecture for Industrial Assembly uses. A mix of the architectural panel as well as the ribbed /corrugated materials will provide a mix of price points. The Code also addresses base colors, making those generally consistent. The Code also waives full site compliance for landscaping. There is currently a 25 percent rule, whereby if an upgrade to the outside of the building exceeds 25 percent, it triggers compliance with upgrading the entire site to meet all Code requirements. This is fairly onerous in view of maintaining the older buildings in the district. Therefore, the Code proposes waiving that for exterior finish upgrades. The Code also requires that Accessory Structures have coordinating design and materials. It also addresses integration of renewable energy as part of the site design standards. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 5 Based on the considerations in the Code, staff believes that with minor adjustments to the materials, the proposed Code is a great improvement over the existing Code. Much positive input has been received from property owners. It will keep the City more marketable with other industrial areas and suit the needs of growing businesses. Therefore, staff recommends approval with two modifications to ensure Dublin's economic competitiveness: (1) That Section 153.044(F)(1) be modified to remove "concealed fasteners;" and (2) That Section 153.044(F) (4) (a) (5) and 153.044(F) (4) (b) (3) be modified to state the following: "Use of corrugated or long span, high - profile fluted or ribbed metal panels is not encouraged. Included in Council's meeting materials tonight is a copy of a letter from a business owner who could not attend tonight's meeting. The letter addresses the materials issue. In addition, there may be some business owners in the audience who would like to testify. Mayor Lecklider invited public comment. Rich Irelan Dublin Building Systems 6233 Avery Road stated that they support the new zoning text. As a developer, business owner and owner of vacant land in this district, the new zoning will make it much easier to attract new businesses and for them to be aware of the requirements. Without the modifications that staff has recommended, the materials requirement would prohibit buildings such as Hidaka and Applied Innovation in this area. Therefore, they strongly support the modifications recommended by staff. Mark Chaffin, Hidaka USA stated that they also support staff and Dublin Building Systems' position. The Hidaka building is constructed of the material in question. They could expand on approximately half of their land, but if they could not do so with the same type of material, it would create a problem for them. Council Comments Vice Mayor Salay stated that a couple of businesses in this area have recently remodeled, using some very garish colors — a very bright gold and bright orange. She is somewhat confused about the color palette encouraged. She would prefer the use of more subdued colors, in keeping with the overall Dublin look. She asked staff to comment. Mr. Combs stated that the philosophy of the proposed Code keeps that particular requirement as flexible as possible for the designers to work out. The proposed Code provides for the use of a neutral or earth -tone base color, but permits the use of brighter colors for detailing and trim. If there is an issue with the overall chroma of the colors, perhaps the review process can include a means to mute that. Vice Mayor Salay indicated that a more subdued color palette is her preference. An exception is always possible, but she would prefer the regulation include a more neutral color palette. Mrs. Boring concurred. Trim can be of different sizes, and therefore, she would prefer that the issue be further examined. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that Planning discuss the matter with Economic Development staff to ensure modification of the color requirement will not cause issues. In regard to landscaping, there was a slide shown as an example, and in this case, she believes perimeter landscaping would make the building more attractive. What are the landscaping requirements in the proposed Code? Mr. Combs responded that the Code generally defers to the Landscape Code. What is shown on the slide is an older building constructed prior to adoption of the current Landscape Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citv Council April 25, 2011 Page 6 Vice Mayor Salay stated that the building shown was constructed in the mid 1990s. The front is landscaped, but the side that face Innovation Drive is not landscaped. There is also another building in this location. The buildings are acceptable, but would be more attractive with the addition of landscaping. There is another issue she has observed related to outdoor display. At the corner of Shier Rings and Avery Road, large equipment is on display, and some of it is rusting. This is a primary corner, and that is not the appearance desired for this location. How is that type of issue addressed in the Code? Mr. Combs responded the area on the west side of Avery Road would be included in the Economic Advancement Zone district. That Code amendment will be forthcoming. Vice Mayor Salay noted that, based on past experience, she assumes the existing business would be grandfathered, if a new district is created. If this business relocates, any future development on the site would have to comply with the new regulations. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher referred to the Landscaping provisions on page three, which state that the Technology Flex District would allow exteriors to be upgraded without full landscape compliance, as long as the building footprint is not expanded. In that type of situation, the site would never be brought into compliance with the landscape code. It would seem desirable to require the landscape code to be met if there is an upgrade to the building, even if the footprint does not change. Why is it being suggested that an applicant could upgrade the exterior but still not meet the landscape code? Mr. Combs responded that many of the properties were developed some time ago and have lot coverage substantially beyond what would be permitted today. When an older building is upgraded, the Code requires them to install all of the perimeter buffers and interior landscape islands for the entire property. When the property owner is attempting to upgrade a building, to repair the deteriorating skin of a building to attract companies to locate into the building, it can be onerous to be required to do more. The concern is that property owners will allow the buildings to go into decline if the City does not provide an avenue whereby they can upgrade the exterior. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired if a phasing situation for landscape would be a possibility. Perhaps there needs to be a special landscape code exclusive to this area, not as extensive as the existing landscape code, due to the industrial nature of the area. She understands the cost issue, but it would seem the process would work toward a totally improved appearance. At a minimum, she would like to have discussion about a phased -in approach. Mr. Combs responded that staff review this, and based on the different criteria in the Landscape Code, determine which requirements could be more easily met in the short term, and identifying a way to implement that in revised text for a second reading. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated her understanding is that, originally, the text was more prescriptive in architectural requirements, but the proposed text would be more flexible. She is not certain how that achieves the goal of reducing the length of the process by providing clear instructions to interested developers. Mr. Combs responded that instead of being prescriptive and providing quantitative requirements, a generalized approach will be taken. This will enable staff to work with the developer upfront to ensure they come in with a complete proposal through the permit process. It doesn't add any additional review time. It allows Planning and Development Review staff to work directly with the developer to quickly achieve a desired look, and then move them quickly through the permit. process. That philosophy is consistent with the EAZ zone as well. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the difference is that the process does not include a review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct. This is a standard district, so it would be an administrative review process that staff would work through Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how a level of integrity and consistency is ensured in the process, when there is no overview involved. Various staff members may analyze a case differently. What is "the look" that this is designed to attain? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Combs responded that whenever dealing with architecture, there would be opportunity for interpretation. The intent is to compile a working set of various architectural examples. If at any point in time, there is disagreement with this process, there is the Administrative Appeal process available. Mr. Gerber stated that with the COIC process, if an application meets requirements and criteria, the application proceeds with permitting, subject to the review of staff. If it does not meet the criteria, it is forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. What occurs in a case where staff and the architect do not agree on an issue? Mr. Combs responded that when there is disagreement, the applicant has the right to appeal. It would be an Administrative Appeal of a staff decision. Those generally go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gerber asked if it would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Combs responded that it would not, unless specific language is written in the Code to direct that. Mr. Reiner stated that he is in agreement with the proposed text. An applicant using rolled metal, assuming it is framed correctly, can be an attractive look. Who is responsible for ensuring that the City obtains the attractive appearance? Mr. Combs replies that it would be the permit review staff, a combination of staff members from different divisions — planners, engineers, Fire Department — the same people who would typically review a building permit. There would also be the capability of adding architects to the review process, if desirable. Mr. Reiner stated that the opinion about color palette is subjective. He is not certain that only neutral colors are desirable. Adding striping to some buildings can enhance them. In regard to the landscaping issue, many of the older buildings do have extensive landscaping, including large trees. It would not be desirable to discourage a client from expanding a building, as such an expansion would improve the City's tax base. Is there a means of conducting an analysis on a building? In some cases, it wouldn't be necessary to lock the applicant into a landscape code when updating their building. However, if the building appearance were beginning to deteriorate, the existing landscape would provide a good service in screening the building until a new tenant buys it and makes improvements. The City should not require anyone to add a lot of plant material that is not necessary, if it has adequate landscaping from an older installation. Mr. Combs responded that staff would also evaluate that aspect, and consider how best to address it in the revision that is brought back for the second reading. Mr. Gerber stated that with a planned district, the City would certainly have some criteria regarding aesthetics, architecture, fit within a community, etc. How can that be codified in some manner? While the process may work well for many cases, there may be some when the application does not fit within the given area. Is there something else that could be included to address that situation? Mr. Combs responded that it would depend on the type of approach Council prefers to take. Given that this is within a standard district with a building permit process, the desire is to find a way to stay within that process in terms of the overall timelines. There are different processes available. The Economic Advancement Zone has a special architectural review team. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan implements some of the same philosophy. That is handled by an administrative team, as well, so it would serve the same function as what is proposed through the building permit process. The issue is whether Council desires to establish a different approach to any appeals, if there is disagreement about the proposed architecture. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in this draft, there is redlined language proposed by Planning Commissioner Hardt as alternative architectural language. Is that part of the draft that staff is requesting feedback from Council tonight? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Combs responded that it is the language that was crafted into the final ordinance. Most of the language in the green color was reviewed by the Planning Commission, except for the architecture portion. The architecture language in green addresses the elevations that face public streets or residential districts, and contains specifics, regarding fenestration and office components. The Planning Commission approach, which is in red type, is a more generalized approach. It allows the designers for the property owners to devise a workable solution, to address the details based on the specific needs of the flex space, which can change over time. The proposed ordinance has the red language. Adopting the ordinance will adopt that language — including the modification to permit ribbed or corrugated metal, which is the typical construction method at this time. It is staff's opinion that modification is necessary in order to remain economically competitive for the types of uses that would be proposed for these buildings along the Shier Rings corridor. Mayor Lecklider stated that there are strictly defined boundaries to this district, beyond which this type of construction would not be seen. This language appears primarily to capture what Council has been trying to achieve in this location. This ordinance will provide much more guidance to development than what currently exists. Mr. Combs responded that is correct. Currently, the Restricted Industrial and Limited Industrial districts have no architectural requirements. The intent is to provide a minimum level of requirements. It is hoped that this ordinance, in combination with allowing more office uses as permitted by right, will provide the opportunity for more office -level architecture to be integrated. The Code is flexible in terms of the overall materials, allowing those that are common for industrial architecture. Mr. Keenan requested the slide be displayed that depicts the remaining area to be developed versus the area to be rezoned into the Flex District. He asked if the ribbed metal is already incorporated into that area. Mr. Combs responded that it exists in most of the area. This legislation will address primarily minor building additions. Hidaka and Mr. Valentine, who owns the property next to the 5800 Building, are considering the possibility of future expansion of their industrial -type operations. That expansion could hinge upon the permitted building materials. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if those businesses expanded, wouldn't they upgrade from the existing building material, as matching the existing material would not be possible. Mr. Combs responded that, in general, the buildings have the traditional ribbed metal construction, which can be custom matched. Achieving a match for an addition to an existing building is not usually difficult. Staff's concern is that businesses will be encouraged to undertake expansions, because it is cost efficient to do so. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the hesitancy is due to the fact that this is a major departure from what has been the practice in Dublin. She anticipated the Code would be more prescriptive. Her only concern, however, is the extent to which the timeframe of the process has been reduced. A primary goal was to allow development to reduce the timeframe substantially from the outset to completion. Can it be anticipated that, with this change, months could be reduced from the current approval timeframe? Mr. Combs responded that the real time savings is reflected in how permitting of a Conditional Use is addressed. Currently, most of the preferred uses in Industrial Districts require a Conditional Use permit. That additional public process can add three months or more to the process. Often, retaining a tenant who desires to expand their space by a few hundred square feet involves side yard /rear yard and other development standards requiring Board of Zoning Appeals variance approval. In the past, there have been a few economic development agreements that hinged on their ability to obtain approval of variances, which could require a couple of months to obtain. This is where a timesaving can be achieved. Staff is also reviewing the architecture, because the Code currently has no requirements. It would be desirable to achieve a base level agreement, which staff can then use to work with the developers to obtain a quality appearance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 9 There will be a second reading /public hearing at the May 9 Council meeting. Ordinance 19 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Delaware, City of Powell, City of Westerville, Village of Ashley, Village of Ostrander, Village of Shawnee Hills, Village of Sunbury, Genoa Township, Delaware County Preservation Parks Authority, Ohio Wesleyan University Police, and the Ohio Health Network. Mr. Gerber introduced the Ordinance. Chief von Eckartsberg stated that this renewed agreement would provide for cooperation with all the various municipalities within Delaware County. When the services are provided in an emergency situation, it would be on a no -fee basis. Dublin's services would be provided subject to availability and can be recalled at any time. The agreement is non - binding and does not impose any liability upon the City for failure to act or respond in an emergency situation. Mr. Keenan inquired if there are statistics available on the services provided by Dublin to other entities and the services provided to Dublin by other entities for Council to review prior to the next meeting. The City has been a party to these mutual aid agreements for quite a few years. Chief von Eckartsberg responded that he does have some preliminary information, but there are not many calls for services. The greatest occurrence is with the Sheriff's office, which has contacted Dublin Police for assistance on 16 occasions. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important that no entity be taken advantage of as a result of this agreement. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if this basically involves most of the jurisdictions within Delaware County. The Village of Sunbury is quite a distance from Dublin. Chief von Eckartsberg responded that Delaware County is updating the agreement for consistency purposes. Every municipality in Delaware County will be signing an agreement. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the May 9 Council meeting. Ordinance 20 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation to Accept the Dedication of a 0.033 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.076 Acres, More or Less, Perpetual Multi -Use Easement, and a 0.243 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Duke Realty Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Gerber introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City has been working cooperatively with the City of Columbus to improve Emerald Parkway between Rings Road and Tuttle Crossing Boulevard. This has involved discussions with various property owners, and one of the primary property owners is Duke Realty of Ohio. They have indicated their willingness to donate right -of -way and easements necessary for the execution of the project. This ordinance will accept a land dedication at 6397 Emerald Parkway, at the southwest corner of Emerald Parkway and Rings Road. Dedication of this parcel has been accelerated because Duke Realty desires to sell the building, and the City desires to acquire the right -of -way prior to the transfer of ownership. Therefore, staff requests that Council dispense with the public hearing and adopt this ordinance as an emergency. Mr. Reiner inquired why a temporary easement is proposed. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the temporary easement is for grading purposes. A shared -use path will be constructed along this side of Emerald Parkway, which will require modification of the grading of the turf area along that property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council MeetinLl April 25, 2011 Page 10 Held 20 Vice Mayor Salay inquired the anticipated timeframe for that project. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City of Columbus anticipates bidding the project later this year, probably in September. The project is being redesigned, and it is nearly complete. The original design was for traffic signals at Glendon Court and Lakehurst Drive, but the new design is for roundabouts to address access management. Not all of the necessary right -of -way for the project will be donated; some will require acquisition by purchase. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if the earliest construction could occur would be spring 2012. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the underground work could occur during the winter, and the roadway work would occur in the spring of 2012. Mayor Lecklider suggested that a letter of thanks be directed to Duke Realty of Ohio for their contribution to this effort. Council Members concurred. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this ordinance as an emergency. Vice Mayor Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinance Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 21 -11 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation for the Acquisition of 0.058 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and 0.044 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Triplex Company, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the improvement of the intersection at Perimeter Drive and Commerce Parkway to a roundabout is scheduled in this year's CIP. The resolution accepting the bid for that project is scheduled later on this meeting agenda. The project requires one acquisition of right -of -way and a temporary construction easement from a private property owner, Triplex Company, an office complex located at the northwest corner of the intersection. All the remaining parcels around the project are owned by the City. The cost of the acquisition is $23,710. Staff recommends that Council dispense with the public hearing and adopt the ordinance by emergency action to enable construction to begin. Vice Mayor Salay moved to dispense with the public hearing and to treat this ordinance as an emergency. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS Resolution 18 -11 Adopting the City of Dublin's Goals for 2011 -2012. Vice Mayor Salay introduced the Resolution. Ms. Grigsby stated that this resolution is based upon the goals Council identified at its 2011 Goal Setting session. A minor change was made in the description of one of the strategic focus areas, incorporating community wellness. In Section 2, the first three goals identified last year for 2010 -2011 have been retained. Based upon Council's discussion at the retreat, Goals 4 — 6 have been added, which relate to: community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 11 health, shared services, and Implementation of a citywide training and professional development program. Mayor Lecklider noted the goal- setting facilitator pointed out that not every elected body engages in this work, which was surprising. It is a time - honored tradition of Dublin City Council, and the effort provides good results. It is a testament to Council's ability to work together to establish the goals and the support of staff to ultimately achieve the goals. Ms. Grigsby concurred. In a recent discussion involving Council Members of another community, she mentioned the goal- setting session, which was scheduled for a Thursday evening and all -day Friday. They were impressed with the length of time Dublin City Council had set aside for that purpose. The positive results of this practice can be seen throughout the community. Vote on the Resolution Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Resolution 19 -11 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the 2011 Sidewalk Maintenance Program. Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this is an annual program, scheduled in the CIP. This year, the focus will be on the subdivisions of Belvedere, Shannon Glen, Bristol Commons, Dublinshire, Waterford Village and Llewellyn Farms. The project estimate was $125,000. Four bids were received. The lowest and best bid was received from P.J. Martin & Sons in the amount of $120,868.09. In the past, Council has inquired about communication efforts with residents. In addition to the Council meeting agenda, a letter is sent to homeowner presidents to notify them of this year's program, City staffs anticipated presence in their neighborhood, and the properties that will be impacted. Door hangers are placed on the doors of the homes approximately one week before work is initiated in a neighborhood. Information about the program is provided and City contact information, if they have questions. Lastly, the Engineering project inspector is on site, communicating with residents, monitoring the contractor's work, and coordinating the work, including with Forestry staff, who are an integral part of the work. Mr. Keenan asked if the door hanger informational item indicates that this service is provided by the City at no cost to the homeowners. Most public entities require the homeowners to pay for these types of repairs. Following discussion, it was suggested that the communication include the fact that sidewalk repair is another benefit of living in Dublin. Mrs. Boring noted that at a recent National League of Cities meeting, municipalities were encouraged to assume the costs of sidewalk maintenance programs to ensure consistent sidewalks are provided throughout their communities. It is likely that an increasing number of cities will be assuming that cost. Again, Dublin has been a leader in doing so. Mayor Lecklider asked for the criteria whereby the neighborhoods have been selected for this year's maintenance of sidewalks. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the practice remains the same as in previous years. An inventory of the deficiencies of the City's sidewalks is done, and those in the worst condition are addressed first. An attempt is also made to cluster the work by neighborhoods to provide some efficiency for the contractor. A deflection of 2 -1/2 inches or greater is addressed, and lesser deflections are addressed when adjacent to the first home. On another note, the bids received and contractors selected are typically different every year. This is partly due to the small program, the frequent need to move from one area to another, and perhaps also due to the intensity of the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council Meetine April 25, 2011 Page 12 work, which involves tree root pruning. This is not necessarily a highly profitable job for a contractor, and possible retooling of this program will be discussed during this year's CIP workshop. Mayor Lecklider noted that he was surprised to see a couple of communities that are on the list, as they were built fairly recently. Mr. Hammersmith responded that most of these neighborhoods have not been addressed for ten years or more. Dublin plants street trees, and the tree lawn can be from five to seven feet wide. As a result, there is some root upheaval. The deficiency can also be due to utility trench settlement. Sidewalks are not addressed according to their age, but according to their deficiencies, and the deficiencies are not the result of construction or installation. It is primarily the result of tree roots impacting the sidewalk. Mayor Lecklider asked what coordination is involved concerning the trees. Mr. Hammersmith responded that their efforts are coordinated with Forestry staff, who prune tree roots when sidewalks are removed. Mayor Lecklider asked if this is then an unavoidable result of the City's tree lawn. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the tree species is of consequence. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff has focused on that issue over the last six years, and the species has been narrowed to two or three. The tree lawn has also been widened from five feet to seven feet where possible. Mayor Lecklider asked if the negative effect is being minimized to the extent possible. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. Mrs. Boring stated that there have been email exchanges concerning tree - trimming efforts. When neighborhoods are scheduled for tree trimming, could a general email be forwarded to the homeowner associations? Ms. Grigsby responded that an email regarding the City's tree trimming schedule could be forwarded to homeowner associations in the spring, and additional information can be provided in the City Manager's column regarding the City's tree trimming plans. Mrs. Boring requested that those efforts be initiated. Mayor Lecklider asked if the door hanger information provides the hours of operation in the neighborhoods. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it indicates the work could begin as early as 8 a.m. and last approximately 8 hours each day, excluding weekends. Vote on the Resolution Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Resolution 20 -11 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Perimeter Drive /Commerce Parkway Roundabout Project. Vice Mayor Salay introduced the Resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that this project is scheduled in the 2011 CIP program. The Engineer's estimate was $1.3 million. Eight bids were received, and all were below the Engineer's estimate. The lowest/best bid was submitted by Double Z Construction in the amount of $1,118,034. The company has provided work satisfactorily for the City in the past, most recently with the Dublin Methodist Hospital ingress lane project. This project will require maintenance of traffic along Perimeter Drive, and there will be four phases of maintenance of traffic. One phase will involve a closure. Communication will occur through many different channels. Construction is anticipated to begin in May and continue through completion of the project to the end of September. Construction will occur through the Memorial Tournament and the Dublin Irish Festival, due to the project's complexity and size. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 13 Ms. Grigsby noted that Ordinance 21 -11 authorized the Triplex land acquisition. However, this construction contract will not be executed until the right -of -way agreement has been executed. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that during the Irish Festival, there generally is significant parking within that area. Visitors to that area may be confused about where to park. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the intent is to communicate what is occurring in the area as clearly as possible to all of the audiences. Vote on the Resolution Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. Resolution 21 -11 Waiving Competitive Bidding Requirements, Pursuant to Section 8.04 (`Contracting Procedures'), Paragraph (C) ( "Waiver of Competitive Bidding "), of the Revised Charter for the Purchase of Alcoholic Beverages for the 2011 Dublin Irish Festival. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher introduced the resolution. Ms. LeRoy stated that this year, as in past years, the beverages would be from Coors. They have been a great partner and sponsor of the Festival. Vote on the Resolution Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes. OTHER Request for Waiver to Serve Alcohol in Coffman Park for the Dublin Irish Festival — August 5, 6 and 7, 2011 Mr. Gerber moved to approve the waiver. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes. Historic Dublin Parking Demand Study - Findings and Recommendations Mr. Langworthy stated that the purpose of the study was to look at the parking demands for the District, how the spaces were actually utilized and operated, and to recommend any physical or management strategies needed to improve parking supply and demand. A comprehensive approach was taken, reviewing not only parking supply, but also the operations and how that is affected by the parking location. Each of the quadrants have unique characteristics that causes the parking demands and needs to be different. He acknowledged the property owners and businesses in the District who gave generously of their time in this study. He highlighted some aspects of the evaluation process: 1. The pedestrian intercept survey involved approaching 800 individuals in the District to ask their purpose for being in the District. 2. The business owner /manager /staff survey was sent out. 3. Stakeholder interviews and stakeholder work sessions were held, which were well attended, providing valuable information. He reviewed the findings: 1. The district has approximately 1,324 parking spaces in total, and based on the demand, the number should be sufficient to meet the needs. The graph reflects that the parking use is roughly half of the parking supply available. 2. In order for more efficient utilization of the available supply, a greater proportion of those need to be publicly available. The ability to have access to public parking is currently deficient. Consultants Rich & Associates indicate that best practices would indicate that the City needs to control or be able to manage at least 50 percent of the available parking in order to manage the parking allocation, availability, use and maintenance of it. In the district currently, 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 14 percent of the spaces are public and 73 percent are private spaces. He clarified that the private spaces include the Dublin Community Church as well as the public library parking spaces. 3. A more efficient use of the available supply should be the first option versus building new parking lots. Currently, eight percent of the land in the District is devoted to parking. The more land developed as parking, the less land available for development. Making the best use of the parking available should be the first option. The slides indicate the largest peak occupancy of parking in the District was on Thursday afternoon, based on looking at occupancy on Thursday through Saturday. He reviewed the slides, which depicted a time study of the occupancy of spaces throughout the day and early evening. The study also considered how long vehicles were parked parking in spaces, tracking this by license plates. There are consistent patterns of parking longer than three hours in many of the close -in lots. 4. The extent of the lack of knowledge of the Indian Run parking lots was a surprise, and there is a need to inform people of the availability of this lot. Therefore, marketing and identification of available parking is needed to override the negative perceptions of poor parking availability — making sure people understand where parking is available in the District and when such parking can be utilized. He noted that Bridge Street is perceived as a barrier between north and south portions of the District. The goal would be to make people more comfortable in walking throughout the District, parking once and visiting several places. He summarized that Council has already reviewed and approved the improvements to pedestrian safety for Bridge Street and S. High Street, which will help improve safety for pedestrians. 5. Improving administrative processes and regulations can modernize the District's parking operations. The parking requirements need to be more appropriate and relevant for how the Historic District operates. The parking conditions in this setting should not be that which is seen in the traditional suburban parking lot location. He reviewed the recommendations, as outlined in the staff report. Short-term Improvements Indian Run Lot • Provide a pedestrian path from Indian Run parking lot to North High Street. • Improve walkway lighting from that lot to North Street. • Refurbish parking lot striping and improving the lighting in the Indian Run lot, perhaps using the existing fixtures. Ensure that merchants and employees are aware the Indian Run is available to them; provide mailings to businesses with appropriate maps, cooperating with HDBA and other organizations. • Improving way finding to the Indian Run lot. The current identification is inside the lot, and a new sign is needed at the bottom of the hill to alert drivers to the public parking available. With more utilization of the lot, the Police will increase their patrols, consistent with their goals to reduce break -ins in automobiles. Other short-term improvements • Improve perceived safety of the Bridge and Darby Street pedestrian crossing to encourage employees throughout the District to park at Indian Run lot. This recommendation is in process. • Striping parking spaces on North and South High Street for on- street spaces. • Provide vertical separation (planters, railing or other appropriate items) to improve separation from sidewalk and street. The planters approved by Council for Bridge Street will provide not only beautification, but will provide protection and will channel people to the intersections to cross. • Continue to place bike racks in appropriate locations. These are now being implemented. • Organize valet services to the extent possible; consider signing valet parking locations; increase awareness of valet services (locations, hours of operation, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 15 Held 20 cost). Mr. Tyler will provide recommendations at an upcoming meeting about how to utilize valet services to the best extent. Initially, a voluntary approach will be used, but the back up will be a regulatory approach. • Increase parking lot time limits from two to three hours and increase on- street parking time limits from two to three hours for reasons of consistency. Another reason for this is the increasing number of service- oriented businesses, such as spas, which require more time for their patrons to park. • Provide more marketing efforts and cooperate with HDBA and businesses in advertising available parking, including valet. • Approach property owners of private parking areas to make spaces available for public use during off - business hours. Discussions with the church and library have been positive to date, and they hope to identify others who will make their parking available during off hours. • Identify resources for more consistent enforcement hours. Other divisions may assist with enforcement. • Tow vehicles parked in undesignated locations where safety is compromised and writing citations for others who violate parking laws. • Utilize hand -held violation tracking equipment to monitor license plates to track actual violations. People are parking in a two -hour space and then move to another space for an additional two hours. By tracking plates versus chalking tires, this can be monitored and the driver can be cited. • Development applications will be required to have an approved parking plan. The Bridge Street Corridor Code also includes this requirement. • Adjust Zoning Code parking requirements to better accommodate conditions in the District, including shared parking, individual use requirements, parking exceptions, etc. Mid -term Improvements • He noted that there has been a lot of pressure and information from people who believe that more parking spaces should be built in the District, including a parking garage. However, the Indian Run lot is not being utilized, and adding parking should not be considered until the existing parking is utilized. Once the Indian Run lot is utilized and other private parking spaces are made available, the need for more public parking can be re- evaluated. • Study reconfiguration of Town Center lots to improve traffic flow and space availability. • In lieu of granting variances, require payment per space and utilize those funds for parking and pedestrian improvements. • Approach property owners to consolidate and improve parking areas and make those available for public use during off - business hours. • Investigate appropriate management methods to improve cooperation between District business /building owners (dedicated staffing, funding management, etc.) regarding cooperative parking. Long -term improvements • Parking garages are not recommended, but should be investigated should the school site ever be made available for development. Depending upon the intensity of the development that would occur, a parking garage may be necessary at that time. • Regarding circulation improvements, investigate the removal /relocation of alley side obstructions such as poles and fences to improve circulation between rear parking areas. • Investigate potential purchase and removal of smaller accessory structures in various locations for potential parking; design and landscape consistent with the character of the District. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 16 • Depending upon long -term need, consider the possibility of negotiating off- site parking locations and provide morning and evening peak hour shuttle service. In terms of next steps, the recommendations that can be implemented administratively will be done. A number of these can be done within existing budgets. Mr. Tyler will bring a list of projects related to this for priorities and budgeting consideration. The CIP budget will include proposals regarding these projects. Mr. Reiner noted that a major problem appears to be long -term parking by employees in the District, who should be parking in the Indian Run lot. This should be clearly communicated. He would like staff to accelerate the discussions with private property owners regarding making spaces available for public use during off - business hours. He and Mr. Gerber have recently observed that Blacksmith Alley is a good example of this potential. The City could pave some of this area, resulting in a lot of additional parking. This area would not be subject to the safety concerns about crossing Bridge Street. There are parking clocks available for service businesses to give to their customers, providing an hour or two of extra time if needed. The business owners have indicated potential interest in helping to fund a parking authority, if the City would pursue that option. They are losing customers due to the lack of available parking. These are all good recommendations, but what is the timeframe for implementation? Businesses are suffering and this effort needs to be accelerated. Mr. Langworthy responded that the vast majority of recommendations are short-term and can be implemented in six months. Some are already in progress and others can be done quickly. He estimates that 90 percent of the short-term recommendations can be done within six months. Mr. Reiner noted that there seems to be reluctance about citing drivers who violate parking laws. However, citing and towing is the quickest way to secure compliance. Mr. Langworthy responded that enforcement is a dual -edged sword — if it is too strict and results in towing, the visitors and long -term employees are impacted and this could discourage visitors from coming to the District. Mr. Reiner stated that to solve the problem, this may be the only option. A passive approach does not seem to be effective. Having a three -hour parking period should be workable for everyone. The businesses are losing revenue and need this to be resolved quickly. Mr. Langworthy responded that the pedestrian improvements that Council has authorized will address the concerns of employers about requesting their employees to park in the Indian Run lot and crossing Bridge Street. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Reiner that the businesses have been very patient. He believes that most of the short-term recommendations can be implemented within six weeks to accommodate the existing businesses and those opening in the summer during peak times. The Code enforcement can be initiated immediately. Mr. Langworthy agreed that most can be done quickly, but some may require up to six months to implement. Mr. Gerber stated that he does not believe that a voluntary program for valet parking will work. This has been a long- standing problem. Valets should be required to park in the far lots, including 94. N. High Street, the Indian Run lot. The Darby lot must be available for patrons of the District to use. Vice Mayor Salay added that the valet parking issue is critical. Having the employees of businesses and the valets use the Indian Run lot will free up the close spaces. Mr. Tyler agreed. Staff will bring back a more comprehensive approach to the valet parking. The City of Columbus staff indicated that their biggest issue with valet parking in the Short North is monitoring and enforcement. The issue is not whether valet parking is voluntary or whether it is regulated; it is the system of monitoring and enforcement. Mr. Gerber noted that he believes the businesses will embrace this, as it will free up parking spaces for their patrons. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of April 25, 2011 Page 17 Mrs. Boring asked if a vehicle parks in the Town Center for two hours and then moves to the Darby lot for two hours, is that a violation? Mr. Langworthy responded that this is acceptable. The issue is moving a car within the same parking area to circumvent the parking restriction. Mrs. Boring encourages towing in situations where safety is compromised with illegal parking impacting sight distance. She supports implementing the walkway as soon as possible, which will help people to feel safer. Mr. Keenan asked about the valet parking stand at the BriHi Square and who owns it. Is it for everyone to use, or only the businesses in BriHi? Mr. Langworthy responded that the details of that are still being worked out. Mr. Smith stated that the City controls it. A meeting is scheduled this week with the owner of a new business at BriHi. Staff intends to have an executed agreement before that business opens. Mr. Keenan noted that several business owners have indicated to him that the "pull through" at the valet stand is not conducive to traffic movement. The arc is not adequate. Mr. Keenan added that he questions the validity of the parking stats, based on his experience. With more businesses opening and patio space, there is heavy demand for parking at peak times. Mr. Langworthy responded that the statistics were done at the end of July 2010. The review was of patterns, especially during peak hours. Mr. Reiner thanked staff for this report. He asked about creating a parking authority, in cooperation with the HDBA. Instead of the taxpayers funding enforcement of parking regulations, the businesses may be interested in funding a full -time parking attendant in the District. Mr. Langworthy responded that the recommendations were framed broadly, investigating appropriate management methods to improve cooperation between District building owners. A parking authority is one approach of several that can be considered. Mr. Gerber added that business owners are willing to invest their own monies in a long -term solution. Mr. Langworthy stated that mandating where their employees can park — in the Indian Run lot -- would be an important step for the business owners to make. Mr. Gerber noted that on the southern portion of Blacksmith Alley, there are lots that could be utilized for parking if they were paved. Mr. Langworthy noted that the 2007 Community Plan included a layout for this. Staff has approached property owners in the past about this but has not been successful. This can be initiated again. Mr. Reiner recalled that the installation of the sewers was one of the obstacles to this, but that has all been completed long ago. Nothing has moved forward since that time. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it was over ten years ago that a nearly identical report was generated when there was much less activity in the District. Mr. Reiner is correct about the need to install sewers in the District as a first step, and that was completed years ago. The busiest season for the District is fast approaching, and she encouraged staff to prioritize any signage that can be installed as suggested tonight. She emphasized that the people parking behind Town Center II work in the building. The City erred in providing economic development agreements to these businesses without a requirement to provide parking for their employees. Changing the time limit from two to three hours will not change the habits of the employees who move their cars every two to three hours to avoid citations. Mr. Langworthy responded that in one of the meetings, an affected business owner agreed to mandate the Indian Run parking for employees, but expressed concern about the safety of the Bridge Street crossing. He indicated he will cooperate with the City in this regard. Dublin City Council Meeting RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 18 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the City needs to ensure that the employees of the business do not park in the Town Center lot. In terms of the valet parking, the east side valet parking was addressed when the building expansion for Oscar's was approved. The City can certainly require an agreement that the valet parking and the employees in the District park at Indian Run. This was required of Mr. Eggspuehler with the Oscar's expansion. It is in the best interests of all of the businesses to agree to this versus having valets and employees using parking directly next to the businesses. The valet company is likely a separate entity, and their employees must be required to take the cars to the Indian Run lot. Mr. Langworthy noted that there is a natural conflict as those who work in the District contribute to the businesses in the District. Having available parking for employees, including the workers of the service businesses, and the customers creates a natural tension. It is in the business owners' best interests to make as many spaces available for customers as possible. Mr. Reiner noted that German Village experienced the same problems for years, but they have worked this out. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that the issue was quite different and involved a conflict between residential and businesses. It was handled by a parking permit system for the residents. This situation is quite different. Mr. Reiner stated that it is similar in terms of retail business interests versus commercial office interests. Mayor Lecklider noted that everyone is clearly passionate about this issue and is hoping for the best outcome for the District. One suggestion is to partner with the HDBA on a Slainte Thursday evening to stage an event in the Indian Run parking lot area. This would draw people to the parking area and increase awareness of its existence. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff has discussed various ideas to attract people to park in the Indian Run area. At one time, based on some conflicts with timing at the Community Church, there was discussion of having the Farmers' Market located closer to the library with parking in the Indian Run lot. Staff is in agreement that making people more aware of the Indian Run lot, knowing how to access it, and being able to travel to and from the lot safely is key. The hope is to use this lot for the valet services and for those who work in the District. Staff is meeting internally on a regular basis on these issues and is working to implement any recommendations as quickly as possible. Mr. Reiner stated he would prefer to have an update each two weeks on these recommendations. The enforcement of the parking regulations is a key aspect. Mr. Gerber agreed, suggesting an action plan be prepared with due dates for implementation of the recommendations. Council receives many phone calls about these issues, and spring and summer are the busy seasons for the District. Val Wielezynski, La Chatelaine noted that he is a member of HDBA and also represents the businesses in the southwest portion of the District. He noted that the employees must be made aware that they cannot park in the prime customer spaces, and this can only be accomplished with enforcement by the City. Alan Reuter, owner of Woodhouse Day Spa, 19 N. High Street stated that he concurs with Mr. Wielezynski. The challenges are financial, and the longer this situation continues, the worse it becomes. He noted that at 11:30 any Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 80 percent of the Darby lot is filled with employees. His employees park at the Indian Run lot, and are the only employees who do so. The Darby lot has a very small percentage of time - constricted spaces. He recommends, as does the HDBA that the entire Darby lot be time restricted. This would have an impact. Additionally, enforcement must occur — even towing. The valet situation is deplorable at this time. It is very convoluted in the evening and the first spots taken by the valets are the ones near their stand. At night, even the handicapped spots are taken. Without enforcement, there will be no improvement in the situation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 19 Held 20 Mr. Keenan asked for his recommendation of the time restriction for parking. Mr. Reuter responded that a three -hour time limit would be acceptable. If he has clients scheduled for a longer service than three hours, their cars can be valet parked. Currently, there are no parking spaces available for their clients. The issue is having the business employees park in the Indian Run lot — not the closer lots. He added that enforcement being done by two staff members, twice per week is not adequate. Mayor Lecklider thanked everyone for participating in this discussion tonight. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby noted that: 1. The new project- monitoring tool prepared by staff was provided in the packet, and it includes information on Historic Dublin. Based on discussion tonight, the Historic District updates will be provided more frequently than the regular monitoring tool updates. 2. In follow -up to the Historic Dublin crosswalk design discussion, a decision has been made to pursue the dual mast arm over the crosswalks, based on assessment of the space available. 3. Staff will bring forward legislation for the next Council meeting related to the National Church Residences and the City's financial contribution to the project, as discussed in the past. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Keenan reported that a resident contacted him about the Historic Dublin crosswalks, indicating that people are not using the push button to activate the lights. This is a very serious problem and risk. He believes the City needs to add motion detectors for these crosswalks, as he has proposed previously, whether the in ground lighting is used or not. The motion detector will set off the signal automatically. He encourages Council to let staff know of their position on this, but he believes this will greatly improve safety. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that This Week Newspapers, together with Stanley Steemer and Columbus State is sponsoring a recognition program for young people who volunteer. This is an opportunity for everyone to nominate young people who give back to the community so that they can be considered for these scholarships. The General Manager of This Week is Stephen Zonars, a Dublin resident who was instrumental in establishing this new program. She shared the nomination forms with Council. The deadline is April 30` Mrs. Boring commented: 1. Information was included in the packet regarding the Community Development Committee review of the updated "Beautify Your Neighborhood" grant application. Is there a need to refer this by motion to the Committee? Ms. Colley responded that the Committee needs to set a meeting date for this review. 2. She attended the Metropolitan Club luncheon, which featured speakers on public art and its relationship to economic development in communities. She urged Council to continue to keep public art in the forefront in terms of its importance to economic development. 3. She attended the annual MORPC luncheon, and congratulated Mr. Hammersmith for being a finalist for a leadership award. 4. The Dublin Arts Council will hold a silent auction in conjunction with the annual Garden Party taking place on Friday, April 29 at OCLC. She encouraged everyone to attend and participate in the bidding. Mayor Lecklider stated: 1. Many Council Members attended the Bridge Street Corridor workshop on April 14, and the presentations were excellent. He encouraged RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 20 everyone who was not able to attend to watch the video on the City's website. 2. He attended the Dublin Community Champion awards program on April 16 at Dublin Jerome High School. He encouraged Council Members to attend this event in the future, if they have not done so, as it is a great event and recognizes students for their accomplishments in community service. Their accomplishments are remarkable and speak well of the Dublin community. The volunteerism spirit has been instilled in these young people, based on the awards given. 3. Noted that at the last Council meeting, it was stated that during the 2011 CIP workshops Council would further review the proposal for the Muirfield Drive bike lanes. He is interested in understanding how this project will fit into the context of the entire CIP proposal. This does not indicate in any way that he does not support the project, but is an issue of timing. He wants to ensure this is everyone's understanding. Ms. Grigsby responded that by the time of the CIP workshops, the public input sessions will have taken place regarding this project. As part of the CIP update, each project is evaluated, based on cost and where they fit most appropriately in timeframe, recognizing that this is always subject to Council's review and modification. Council can certainly accelerate, defer, or modify any project proposed in the CIP. Staff will provide a recommendation regarding timing, and any update on cost estimates, based upon feedback from residents, and bring this information to Council for review at the CIP. Mayor Lecklider noted that the residents could have been left with the impression that this project was necessarily an immediate project. That is possible, but will not be determined until the outcome of the CIP discussions in late summer. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff's role is to clarify that this is an alignment study and that it will be part of the CIP review and subject to programming and final adoption by Council. Vice Mayor Salav stated that, following the Bridge Street Corridor workshop, she spoke to Mr. Langworthy and reiterated her suggestion that Council consider a field trip for Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission, and perhaps BZA and ARB to view some of the concepts presented in the workshops. These field trips are very helpful, as they provide an opportunity to develop a common language for reference in discussions. She is interested in hearing whether Council is in support of this concept. Mrs. Boring responded that someone contacted her about visiting family in Hudson, Ohio and perhaps this would be a similar location to visit to view the development. Ms. Grigsby stated that she is not certain this would be an example of a form -based Code, if Council's interest is in viewing form -based Code examples. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked what the goal would be in this field trip. Vice Mayor Salay responded that these concepts are different, and Council is on board and embracing this. It is a newer concept for the other boards and commissions. Perhaps viewing some corridors that are similar to what is being considered in Dublin would be worthwhile. There are some areas where the concepts are being implemented and these locations could be visited to see whether the concepts are desired for Dublin. Viewing the bridge in Greenville, SC is something she recalls as important in imagining the river area for the future. She believes these exercises are very helpful. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated she is not opposed to field trips, but believes Council has seen many of the concepts in trips already taken. She recalls hearing about form - based Code during these previous trips. Personally, she would want to be clear about the goal for this, due to the need to take time away from work as well as the expense of these trips. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that there has been some hesitation about the change in process, such as with the tech flex district. She has read recently that New Albany has done this process in some areas for purposes of economic development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 21 Therefore, she suggested a field trip to New Albany to observe their Planning Commission and to understand the process they use for such areas where the rules are already established. This would help Council and the advisory boards understand the different interaction that would occur with this process. The angst may be what such a process change would mean to the development community and the applicant. Observing this firsthand may help to allay some of the concerns. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff can follow -up to find out what types of projects are under review in New Albany, and perhaps meeting with staff in New Albany would be worthwhile to understand how the process works. She believes this could be scheduled relatively quickly. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher acknowledged that New Albany is quite different from Dublin and other communities because of the single landowner involved. But perhaps the City could learn from visiting New Albany and viewing their process. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will bring information back to Council about this matter. Mr. Langworthy commented that what is being discussed is viewing a process or viewing a result. There are several options available to meet these interests. He has asked the consultants for suggestions of locations that would show best the examples of what is being proposed for Dublin. Acting Clerk of Council Mayor Lecklider moved to appoint Ms. Beal as Acting Clerk of Council for the period of May 9 through 13, 2011. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. &7 Mayor — a iding Officer Clerk of Council