HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 05-23-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of n stblin City Council
May 23, 2011
Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, May 23, 2011 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land
acquisition, legal, and collective bargaining matters.
Mrs. Boring seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Meeting
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.
Harding, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Crandall, M r.
Hammersmith, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Nardecchia, M
r. Smith, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr.
Langworthy, Mr. Thurman, Mr.
Combs, Ms. Bumess, Ms. Ott, Ms.
LeRoy, and Ms. Ray.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Regular Meeting of May 9, 2011
Approval of the minutes was delayed until the June 13, 2011 Council meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was received regarding a
transfer of D1, D2, D3, D3A and D6 liquor permits from Brewery, Inc., dba Bogey Inn
to 19` Hole Club, LLC dba Bogey Inn, 6013 Glick Road.
There was no objection to the transfer of the permits.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
• Historic Dublin Business Association Update — Bill Jacob, President, HDBA
Mr. Jacob stated that all of the HDBA meetings and correspondence are open to
members and non - members alike, and they enjoy a great partnership with the City of
Dublin. They had an opportunity to host Governor Kasich in the District today, and it
was exciting to hear his plans for promoting and helping businesses. The HDBA and
the District have made much progress over the last few months. They believe that for
Dublin to prosper, the businesses also must prosper. With the Bridge Street Corridor
Plan underway, Historic Dublin can be the heart of this corridor. With the Corridor
Plan objectives to promote population density and walkability, they are well on their
way to accomplishing this. The HDBA has promoted orientation sessions for the local
business establishment staff in the District, so that these individuals can provide
information to visitors and customers about other businesses in the District. There are
challenges in the District, but these are somewhat the result of the success in the
District. The work being done in collaboration with the City, the Dublin Community
Church and the Dublin branch library, and the enhancements at the Indian Run lot
represent great strides to address short-term parking needs. Implementing time -
limited spaces in the public lots and negotiating with valet services to use the Indian
Run lot will relieve the parking challenges in the District. He asks that Council and
staff not forget the future, as businesses continue to grow and open in the District. It is
important to look at the inevitability of the needs of the District — traffic signals at High
and North Street, at Bridge and Franklin Street, and additional parking. He expressed
the HDBA's willingness to help facilitate communication between the City and the
District.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Meetioe
Dublin City Council
May 23, 2011 Page 2
• Field of Honor Update
Ms. Nardecchia noted that this year marks the 10 anniversary of 9/11 and a
Committee has been working on Dublin's community tribute. "The Field of Honor,"
also known as "The Healing Field" is a visual display of full -sized American flags on
eight -foot poles. The concept is trademarked by the Colonial Flag Foundation of Utah, .
which partners with communities around the country. The Dublin community goal is to
fly 3,000 flags — one for each person who perished on 9/11. Flags are sold to
individuals or families and sponsorships are secured. They are flown on a four -acre
field to honor each victim. Those who purchase the flags will keep them as a
commitment to the weekend remembrance. Each of the flags in Dublin will sell for
$20, and any proceeds above the project costs will go via the Dublin Foundation for a
First Responder scholarship. This has been a community -wide project, initiated by the
Dublin A.M. Rotary. The City and Washington Township have contributed funds, the
Dublin Foundation has agreed to serve as the fiscal agent and will contribute, and the
Schools will provide the site and some staff support prior to the weekend. The Field of
Honor site is the practice field at Coffman High School, immediately across from
Cardinal Health and visible from 1 -270. The tribute will take place beginning Saturday,
September 10 and continue over the weekend through Monday, September 12. Local
police and fire community chaplains will lead the ceremonial parts, which will include
bagpipers and ringing of bells on the hour. The flags will be accompanied around the
clock by volunteers. Community education about proper display of flags and
distribution will also take place. The Committee will keep Council apprised of details
about the weekend. The website is dublinfieldofhonor.org and there is a link on the
City's web page as well. Flag sales began on May 4 and the response has been
excellent.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher commented that these events are done throughout the country,
and have been done locally in Westerville. She encouraged everyone to purchase a
flag and participate. She added that every year on September 11 at the Statehouse,
flags are flown in memory of each victim of 9/11.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments from citizens.
LEGISLATION
TABLED /POSTPONED ITEMS
Ordinance 18- 11(Amended)
Adopting Section 153.044 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning
Code) to Establish the New Technology Flex Zoning District. (Case 10- 064ADM)
Mr. Combs stated that this ordinance was previously reviewed at the April 25 Council
meeting, during which Council discussed the issue of accent colors and requested
additional research and information. The focus of this proposed ordinance is
modernization of uses in the industrial areas of the City; flexible, more appropriate
standards for businesses; and minor architectural requirements, while at the same
time maintaining economic competitiveness. The area of focus is the Shier Rings
corridor. The properties along that corridor, as well as some other outlying areas,
encompass a variety of zoning districts that will be rezoned into the Technology Flex
District. The rezoning ordinance will be scheduled for the June 13 Council meeting.
He noted the following:
The proposed Code requires that base colors be neutral, either off -white or
earth tones, to remain consistent with the surrounding area. It also provides for
the application of accent colors, up to but not exceeding ten percent of the total
exterior of the building. A couple of examples were researched, including Perio
on Wilcox Road. Based on staff's calculations, the application of accent color
to that building equals 9.5 percent. The other example discussed at the last
Council meeting was the Stanley Steemer building on Innovation Drive. The
accent color on that building is 5 percent of the total exterior of the building,
with minor applications around the entrance and some other window detailing.
[PowerPoint slides of the examples were provided.]
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meet ing
May 23, 2011 Page 3
• Another issue that arose was related to landscape requirements. The
proposed Code offers deferral of a couple of elements of the 25 percent rule in
the Landscape Code — the two that are the most costly to upgrade for
buildings. In those instances where the property owner is upgrading the
exterior materials of the building without expanding, a deferral clause permits
waiving the requirement for perimeter buffer landscaping as well as interior
landscaping for parking lot areas to be waived until future applications to
expand the site or the building are made. Revisions were made to the
proposed Code, per Council's discussion at the last Council meeting.
• Staff believes the amendment is consistent with the Community Plan and the
larger plans for the COIC, and that it will help make the businesses along Shier
Rings in the Technology Flex District more competitive, with more flexible uses
and standards to help them grow and expand in the future.
Staff recommends adoption at this time. He noted that the Code reference provided in
the Landscape Requirements throughout the ordinance should be changed to Section
153.132.
Vice Mayor Salay thanked Mr. Combs for providing the additional information
regarding accent colors. She visited the buildings cited as examples, but found the
accent color for the one on Innovation Drive to be overwhelming and jarring.
Mr. Reiner expressed concern with the landscaping waivers. In many cases, metal
buildings are not architecturally significant or interesting. Two important landscaping
elements would be waived. The perimeter buffer also adds a screening element and
interest to the site. The interior trees in parking areas address the issue of three acres
of asphalt without breaks. The City specifically addressed this issue 30 years ago to
prohibit big box businesses with vast areas of blacktop. He is concerned with those
two elements of the ordinance, but he will vote for approval. He will monitor this
closely going forward, however.
Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony.
Tom Irelan, 6233 Avery Road stated that they are owners of four properties that will
be impacted by the Tech Flex zoning. They have been included in the process, and
they are in full agreement with the proposed ordinance -- even though it will change
some of the options available to them with any future changes or expansions desired
on their properties. However, this zoning will provide an opportunity for that area to
become more competitive with the surrounding communities, and encourages
redevelopment of the sites with metal buildings.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the concerns they have expressed in an earlier e-mail have
been addressed.
Mr. Irelan responded that they are in agreement with the changes that have been
made to the landscape requirements.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that she shares Mr. Reiner's concerns regarding the
landscaping waivers and would prefer to see efforts to maintain the landscape Code,
which will make these buildings more attractive.
Mayor Lecklider referred to "wind turbines" as listed on pp. 10 and 15. Are commercial
turbines prohibited but something on a smaller scale permitted in this district?
Mr. Combs responded that a commercial wind turbine is approximately 150 feet in
height to the tip of the blade. Given the proximity to residential areas, the commercial
turbines are prohibited in this district. However, the Code provides more flexibility for
smaller, residential -scale turbines, including those that can be mounted to rooftops or
a piece of architecture.
Mayor Lecklider asked the maximum permitted height with the smaller scale wind
turbine.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
MeetinL
May 23, 2011 Page 4
Mr. Combs responded that, generally, it is based on the height limitations in the Code.
Residential turbines are typically on a 35-45 foot monopole, which would comply with
the height regulations. Anything exceeding that height would require a Conditional
Use approval by the Planning Commission. The height must comply with the building
setback requirements. Generally, a height of up to 50 feet is permitted.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the term "to tip of blade" would mean it could potentially be
even higher.
Mr. Combs responded that there is a differentiation in the way that residential and
commercial turbines are measured. If the turbine complies with the height regulations
and is sited within the required setbacks, it would meet the District requirements.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the number of turbines permitted on a parcel is limited.
Mr. Combs responded that the Code requires that the purpose of the turbine be to
provide power for that site. Its purpose cannot be to provide energy for an electric
company. It can be incidental, however, so the property owner can sell back energy,
if extra is produced. However, the turbine's primary function must be to provide power
for the business on the site.
Mayor Lecklider stated that it would seem more than one turbine could be permitted,
depending on the size of the site.
Mr. Combs responded that, depending on the size of the site, there could be multiple
turbines. Roof applications would provide more opportunity for multiple turbines.
However, placement of wind turbines requires wind studies to determine the best
placement on a site. This is a developed area with a significant amount of existing
vegetation, so the opportunities would be limited.
Mr. Keenan stated that, to provide some perspective, the commercial wind turbine
along 1 -270 at Sawmill can barely provide sufficient electricity for the lights in that
building.
Mr. Combs noted that the alternative energy with the most application potential is solar
energy.
Mr. Gerber asked if a building owner wants to expand their facility, would this Code
take precedence or the prior Code.
Mr. Combs responded that existing buildings would be grandfathered into the District
under their existing approvals. However, once the new Code becomes effective, any
future expansions /changes to those buildings must comply with the Tech Flex District
standards. The intent of the new District is to provide flexible standards in order to
accommodate small business expansions more effectively.
Mr. Gerber asked for clarification regarding existing structures.
Mr. Combs responded that a structure already in place can remain so in perpetuity as
they were appropriately constructed according to the zoning standards in place at the
time. If expansions of those existing buildings cannot comply with the new Tech Flex
District standards, a variance would be requested.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
Ordinance 22 -11
Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan to Incorporate the Economic
Advancement Zone (EAZ) Plan as a Refinement of the U.S. 33 Corridor Area Plan
for Areas South of SR 161 /Post Road. (Case 11- 010ADM)
Mr. Combs stated that Ordinance 22 -11 was introduced at the May 9, 2011 City
Council meeting. Since that time, minor changes have been made in the maps in
response to public input. The dashed portions of Shier Rings Road have been
relocated from near Eiterman Road to Cosgray Road. In addition, a few technical
and grammatical updates have been made.
There were no questions.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dubli City Council
May 23, 2011 Page 5
Vote on the Ordinance Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes;
Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Ordinance 24 -11
Authorizing the Provision of Financial Assistance to Avondale Woods Senior
Housing Limited Partnership for the Construction of Avondale Senior Village, an
Affordable Housing Project for Seniors in the City, Authorizing the Execution of
Certain Loan Documents Evidencing Such Financial Assistance, and Declaring
an Emergency.
Ms. Ott stated that at the introduction of Ordinance 24 -11, Council Members requested
information regarding the timeline and rates for leasing at Avondale Woods. That
information has been provided by National Church Residences (NCR) in the meeting
materials. An NCR representative is also present to respond to any other questions.
Vice Mayor Salay moved to approve the ordinance by emergency.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber,
yes.
Ordinance 25 -11
Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31,
2011.
Mr. Thurman stated that this ordinance authorizes an amendment to the 2011
appropriations related to the City's financial commitment for the Avondale Woods
project. It includes some other appropriation items as outlined in the memo.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes;
Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Ordinance 26 -11
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to City Barbeque, Inc. to Induce It
to Retain and Expand a Headquarters and Associated Operations and Workforce
within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development
Agreement.
Ms. Gilger stated that the proposed economic development agreement includes a
$7,500 location grant, payable upon occupancy of a newly constructed headquarters
facility within the City, and a five -year, 20 percent performance incentive on
withholdings collected. This is in consideration of the company retaining 17 jobs and
creating ten jobs in Dublin by the end of 2015. Company representative Don Feibel is
present to respond to any questions.
Don Feibel representing City Barbeque, Inc. stated that President and CEO of City
Barbeque, Rick Malir could not be present tonight, but has provided a letter for Council
members (copies distributed). Currently, City Barbeque is located at 6277 Riverside
Drive. Mr. Malir has been a Dublin resident since 1997. From its successful start in
1999 on Henderson Road, City Barbeque has grown to 16 locations -- five in
Columbus and eleven others in Cincinnati, Kentucky and Indianapolis. They have
outgrown their space on Riverside Drive, but Mr. Malir would like to remain in Dublin.
With the assistance of Economic Development staff, a package has been created that
will be beneficial to both City Barbeque and the City of Dublin. They hope to begin
construction of their new headquarters in the fall and open in January or February of
2012. They anticipate adding three to four additional stores over the next four to five
years and increasing their corporate staff by 50 percent over that time. They have
been offered opportunities to relocate to other communities, but would prefer to remain
in Dublin.
ne
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
May 23, 2011
M eeti m*
Page 6
Mayor Lecklider responded that Council is pleased that City Barbeque has chosen to
maintain its headquarters in Dublin.
Mrs. Boring stated that Council appreciates the personal letter from Mr. Malir. She
suggested that City Barbecue open a store next to its headquarters for its employees
to patronize.
Mr. Feibel responded that they are a very conservative company, growing
conservatively, with zero debt. However, if they identify the right location, they would
consider opening a store in Dublin.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor
Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Ordinance 27 -11
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Netsmart Technologies, Inc. to
Induce it to Retain and Expand an Office and Associated Operations and
Workforce within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic
Development Agreement.
Ms. Gilger stated that they have been negotiating an EDA with Netsmart. The EDA
includes a four -year, 10 percent performance incentive on withholdings collected,
which is capped at $100,000 for the term of the agreement, in consideration of the
company retaining 104 jobs, creating 99 jobs in Dublin by the end of 2015, and signing
a five -year lease extension. Additionally, there are two separate $30,000 retention
grants, each tied to a three -year lease extension beyond the initial five -year term.
Michael Littman Assistant Vice President of Financial Planning, Netsmart
Technologies stated that they are the leading provider of enterprise software for the
behavioral health industry. Because of recent government regulations, the behavioral
health industry is required to acquire additional software for electronic health records
and services. This will result in Netsmart significantly increasing its number of
employees over the next several years. Their current headquarters is in Long Island,
New York, and they also have offices in Dublin, Ohio; Greenville, South Carolina;
Boston, Massachusetts; and in Florida and California. They recognized that Dublin
had certain advantages for a potential expansion of the Dublin facility — its location,
infrastructure and accessibility. However, the financial incentives that the City has
offered were the deciding factor. He thanked Council for their consideration of this
economic development agreement.
Mayor Lecklider stated that City Council is pleased that Netsmart has chosen to
expand its facility in Dublin. He inquired if, in addition to the Dublin expansion, other
expansions are anticipated.
Mr. Littman responded that they have employees in all 50 states. Additional personnel
will be added. However, those will be service employees, who typically work from
home or at the clients' sites.
Mayor Lecklider stated that Council looks forward to a continued relationship with
Netsmart.
Vote on the Ordinance Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes;
Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 28 -11
Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
Vice Mayor Salay introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Thurman stated that adoption of the City's annual tax budget is required by Ohio
Revised Code. Franklin County and Delaware County require that the tax budget be
adopted by July 15 and filed with them by July 20. As part of the CIP process, the
inside millage allocation for 2010 and 2011 was adjusted to allocate more funds to the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
May 23, 2011 Page 7
CIP tax fund and less to the Parkland Acquisition Fund. After 2011, this will revert
back to the 2009 allocation levels. The City has the option of changing that before
accepting the rates and amounts in early September, and this will be discussed again
as part of the CIP review process.
Mr. Keenan requested clarification of the statement in the first paragraph on page two
of staff's memo, "As a result, the estimated income tax revenue for 2011 has been
revised to match 2010 income tax revenues and represents an increase over the
original 2011 budget projections." Are 2010 actual revenue numbers being used to
estimate 2011 revenues?
Mr. Thurman responded that is correct.
Mr. Keenan stated that the 2011 revenues, however, reflect an increase over the
projected amount. He assumes staff is taking a conservative approach to estimating
revenues.
Mr. Thurman responded that is correct. Although revenues are up 3.8 %, the actual
2010 revenue is used as a basis to project estimated 2011 revenue.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 13, 2011 Council meeting.
Ordinance 29 -11
Adjusting the Existing Ward Boundaries of the City of Dublin, as Required
by Article 9.04 of the Revised Charter.
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Ott stated that, as required by the Revised Charter, City Council must review ward
boundaries no less than every ten years. The last time this review was done was in
May of 2001. According to the Charter, Council must enact legislation prior to July 1
of this year to establish or reaffirm ward boundaries for the future. City staff received
the U.S. Census Bureau data for 2010 earlier this year, and staff has evaluated the
population increase within the City and its impact on the population disbursement
among the four wards. The Charter stipulates a substantially equal population
disbursement among the four wards. Although the City population has increased by
over 10,000 residents during the past decade, the rate of growth varied somewhat
among the four wards. She reviewed the four possible scenarios that staff has
provided for Council's consideration:
Scenario 1 maintains existing ward boundaries.
Scenario 2 moves approximately 1.8% (700) of the City's population from
Ward 2 to Ward 4. The area to be moved is labeled Area "B."
Scenario 3 moves approximately 3.7% (1,500) of the City's population from
Ward 2 to Ward 4. The areas to be moved are labeled Area "B" and Area
11
Scenario 4 moves approximately 5.4% of the City's population from Ward 3
to Ward 4. The area to be moved is labeled Area "A." The scenario also
moves 1.8% of the City's population from Ward 2 to Ward 4 in the area
labeled Area "C." Those two shifts would impact approximately 3,000
people.
Once Council identifies a preferred ward map scenario, staff will prepare the
necessary written description for that map to be added to the ordinance for the public
hearing on June 13. Adoption by emergency will be requested in order to meet the
July 1 deadline.
Mayor Lecklider invited Council to comment.
Mr. Reiner stated that he believes Scenario 2 represents the most equitable
disbursement, but he has no preference.
Mrs. Boring stated that the data indicates that Ward 2 has the fastest growing
population, and it is prudent to take that into consideration. However, she does not
have a preferred scenario.
M1@4903N Me] aW ;tiZal01a1811►[e�
Minutes of
May 23, 2011
Meeting
Dublin City Council
Page 8
Mr. Keenan stated that the differences are not significant. He, too, has no preference.
Mr. Gerber stated that the distribution is so closely aligned that leaving the ward
boundaries as they exist makes sense. However, he would support Scenario 2 to
improve the balance.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that her preference would be to maintain the current
disbursement as it would be less confusing to the citizens. However, she would be
satisfied with any of the scenarios.
Mayor Lecklider stated that adopting Scenario 2 would make Ward 4 the ward with the
greatest population.
Vice Mayor Salay responded that the scenarios are based on projections that may not
occur. Ward 2 is larger in physical area because it contains farmland that was
annexed. The anticipated development has not yet occurred. Currently, the numbers
are closely aligned and changing ward boundaries at this time does not seem
necessary.
Mr. Keenan moved to adopt Scenario 1, leaving the ward boundaries as they currently
exist.
Ms. Chinnici - 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.
Ms. Ott stated that the boundary description for Scenario 1 will be provided with the
ordinance for the second reading /public hearing on June 13.
Ordinance 30 -11
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Pain Care Specialists to Induce
It to Acquire a Facility and Locate An Office and Associated Operations and
Workforce within the City, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic
Development Agreement.
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Gilger noted that staff has been in discussions with Pain Care Specialists
regarding expansion opportunities for its two medical practice facilities in Hilliard and
Westerville. The company has explored facility acquisition, new facility construction,
and consolidation opportunities from Hilliard to Westerville, along the 1 -270 northern
arc. The company specializes in interventional pain management for chronic pain.
They have now identified an existing building on Emerald Parkway for acquisition.
The Economic Development Agreement proposed includes a $15,000 location grant
payable upon proof of ownership and occupancy permit of a Dublin facility, and a five -
year, 20 percent performance incentive on withholdings collected, which is capped at
$125,000 for the term of the agreement, in consideration of the company creating 34
jobs in Dublin by the end of 2014. Additionally, if the company meets all five of the
annual targets, it automatically qualifies for a sixth year performance payment of
$25,000. The overall agreement cap payment for the Pain Care Specialists incentive is
$165,000, and the City expects to net approximately $525,000 in new withholdings. A
company representative will be present at the second reading /public hearing on June
13.
There were no questions from Council.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 13 Council meeting.
Ordinance 31 -11
Rezoning Four Parcels Totaling Approximately 17.98 Acres from PUD, Planned
Unit Development District (Earlington Village), to PUD, Planned Unit
Development District. (Earlington Village PUD, Subarea D - Case 11-
019Z/PDP /FDP)
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin Citv Council
Meeting
May 23, 2011 Page 9
Ms. Ray stated that this rezoning proposes a development text amendment to permit
existing daycare and pre - school uses in a new subarea consisting of four parcels in
the Earlington Village Planned Unit Development District. No site modifications are
proposed. She presented a PowerPoint of the PUD site. Earlington Village is one of
the older planned districts in the City, rezoned in the 1980's. The PUD includes a
number of subareas, primarily residential, from single family to cluster single - family
and multi - family. It also includes subareas for churches and school uses. When the
text was approved with the Preliminary Development Plan, no particular development
standards were included for the churches. They were approved with the Final
Development Plan. The subjects of the rezoning are three churches in this area: the
Dublin Baptist Church, Coffman Road; the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Brand
Road and Earlington Parkway; and the Dublin Presbyterian Church on Dublinshire.
The proposed uses include religious or public assembly, adult or child daycare, and
educational facility. The proposed uses are consistent with use categories proposed
with the recent Zoning Code amendments. Any future modifications would be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission through their typical amended Final
Development Plan process or would default to the Zoning Code requirements.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if Subarea D shown on each of the properties actually
formalizes the location of the daycare or public assembly area.
Ms. Ray responded that the three sites designated as Subarea D are the existing
church sites. They already have the current church uses and the daycare uses in
place, as well. The rezoning applies to the entire site — it does not specify the exact
location of the daycare facility.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 13 Council meeting.
Ordinance 32 -11
Amending Sections 153.037 to 153.043 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances
(Zoning Code) to Modify the Central Ohio Innovation Center Zoning Districts as
the Innovation Districts. (Case 11- 011ADM).
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Combs stated that, as a follow -up to the EAZ plan that was adopted earlier this
evening, this ordinance represents the first reading of the Code modifications for the
EAZ. The general district purpose and intent of the Code in Section 153.037 includes
language that staff has been working on with property owners. The language
addresses existing uses and structures. In particular, they have been working together
regarding issues of financing and how updating the Codes would impact future
financing for businesses. The redlining indicates the language changes subsequent to
the Planning Commission review.
1. The Code creates four innovation districts, which are based generally
geographically on visibility, access, other site selection elements, the expected
architecture and types of uses.
• The first district is the ID1 or Research Office District, which is the most
proximate to U.S. 33, and will have more emphasis on higher profile office
and research type uses.
• The Research Flex District or ID2 District is an intermediate zone and focuses
more on flexible space much like the tech flex District with upgraded
materials.
• The third district is the ID3 or Research Assembly District, a site most
proximate to the western edge of the EAZ. This is geared more toward the
larger manufacturing and clean assembly type uses.
• The fourth district is the ID4 or Research Mixed Use, which includes a variety
of residential /live /work and office type uses that are intermixed.
2. In terms of District uses, there is also a designated research support buffer
within the Code. Those areas most proximate to the interchanges are areas
where conditional use requests can be made for additional types of retail and
support uses. Under the District uses — much like Tech Flex and the Bridge
Street Corridor -- there are new use categories in the table as well as additional
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
May 23, 2011
Meeting
Page 10
use regulations that, based on the specific use, can designate additional
requirements.
3. The Innovation District requirements in Section 153.039 have development
standards that more closely reflect the suburban type of character desired in
this portion of the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. That is designed to
balance the work on the Bridge Street Corridor, where the expectation is for
higher density, urban development. In terms of economic competitiveness, a
broad range of different types of sites for development can be provided.
4. In regard to height, there is a height - regulating plan approved in the EAZ Plan
that is referenced in the Code. It helps to look geographically at how proximate
sites are to the interstate and residential areas. It is used to help limit height
requirements. Any structures over 68 feet require a conditional use approval
from the Commission. Yard and pavement setbacks are similar to the current
commercial zones and planned district requirements.
5. Architectural requirements in Section 153.039 are generally focused toward
contemporary design, as highlighted in the EAZ Plan. There is an applicability
section that addresses existing buildings and how those are expanded over
time. The Code references the pattern book portions of the EAZ Plan, and
some of the graphics shown in the District slides help to interpret portions of the
Code in terms of architecture. Much like Tech Flex, language has been added
to seek additional external help in terms of architectural review when needed.
6. Materials were the two key areas discussed at the Commission prior to
approval. The Code requires primary materials to be used for 80 percent of the
building. Accent colors are limited to 10 percent of the exterior of the building,
similar to Tech Flex. One issue discussed at length was corrugated or ribbed
metal, which was also discussed in the Tech Flex ordinance. The Commission
recommended approval of that as a primary material in the Assembly District,
but limiting it up to 65 percent of the exterior versus 80 percent.
(He shared a slide depicting architectural metal, with an underlying fastener system
versus the ribbed or corrugated metal, which is common to the Tech Flex district, and
affixed with external fasteners.)
7. Landscape requirements, based on the EAZ Plan, are focused on naturalized
landscaping. The Plan calls for adding deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses
when screening is required to help meet the overall character instead of solid,
singular evergreen hedges that would blend into the overall character of the
open space areas. Required mounding must be modified so it is not uniform in
height and so it will have changing height and width to match the more
naturalized form of landscape.
8. For parking, the requirements have been updated, based on recent Code work
as well as including some new provisions for live /work units. Employee and
service parking is also required to be to the side or the rear of the primary
structures. It allows for visitor parking to be located upfront in order to minimize
the overall impact of parking and to help maximize the overall effect of the
landscaping.
9. Bicycle parking has been added, requiring one per 15 vehicle spaces. Each
site will be required to provide no less than four spaces for bicycle parking.
Parking structures have also been modified from the original COIC district to
accommodate clearance for accessible vans as well as service vehicles. There
have been changes based on the overall character of the area, looking at
singular types of office or research developments. Parking structures are no
longer required to provide liner retail or display area.
10.The Code also provides a simplified sign table, based on the current sign
Code. It also looks at modifying the areas of the sign faces to be more
appropriate to the types of applications in the planned districts, as well as in
areas expected to be more pedestrian oriented to consider options for
projecting and window signs that are more in keeping with that general
character. The sign portions of the Code also focus on monument signs as a
type of ground sign. When there are multiple panels of multiple tenants, those
are limited to two in order to prevent sign clutter. Secondary images will help
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meetinn
May 23, 2011 Page 11
increase the focus on tech companies, and graphic images have been
increased from 20 to 30 percent and the Code allows for the use of trademark
logos. Those are limited within the overall three -color scheme. Any type of
trademark logo would count as one color, which provides a bit more flexibility.
The Code would broaden the ability to have a combination of ground or wall
signs for more flexibility, based on the sign location. The Code also extends
the interstate sign options allowed along 1 -270 to the EAZ along U.S. 33.
11. Section 153.041 provides for development incentives. This is a new
consolidated area within the Code in order to have one location within the
development regulations. The provisions of the existing COIC District have
been modified. Based on Economic Development's work, staff is reviewing
some of their incentives and over time, hopes to add zoning incentives as
appropriate.
12. The review process is the same as that approved for COIC Districts. He
showed a slide outlining the general review process.
13. The definitions Section 153.043 coordinates with the Tech Flex District and the
Bridge Street Corridor code.
14. The appendix of the ordinance includes an overall flow chart to help provide an
overview of the process for developers and provides for modification to
annexation procedures for properties within the EAZ. Instead of being placed
in a holding zone upon annexation, the properties are given the appropriate
Innovation District designation so that the properties are prezoned and ready
for development upon annexation to the City.
Planning believes the proposed Code is consistent with the Community Plan and the
Neighborhood District concept for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. Staff believes
this will help establish zoning that can foster development within the area and will also
help with long -term redevelopment of existing areas within the EAZ. Planning
therefore recommends approval at the June 13 Council meeting.
Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony.
Tom Irelan, 6255 Avery Road stated that, as he indicated in regard to the previous
Tech Flex District zoning, they have four properties that will be impacted by this
zoning. They have been included in the process of drafting the new zoning
requirements. Originally, there were concerns with some of the existing uses
becoming nonconforming. In the current financial market, it is difficult to finance or
refinance any property. They are required to provide a current zoning certificate that
indicates the property has a conforming use. That language has been added to this
ordinance. Another section they have discussed with staff is the applicability and the
architecture. Many of these existing buildings are metal. If they needed to expand or
make changes to the buildings with the current uses, they wanted to be able to do so
using the current architecture of the buildings -- without having to meet the new Code
requirements. These two items have been addressed in the ordinance, and they are
in agreement with the ordinance as now presented.
Bill Westbrook 1974 Keswick Drive Columbus OH 43220, representing Steele Land
Company and Allen Shepherd 6295 Cosgrav Road the original developers of Sports
Ohio, stated that they have met previously with Mr. Langworthy and Mr. Combs to
discuss existing uses of structures. They agree with Mr. Irelan about existing facilities
and uses, and appreciate that those concerns have already been addressed. They
also appreciate that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff will be
recommending a proposed change to the Plan, so that the 70 westernmost acres of
Sports Ohio will now be identified in the ID3 category, which is more consistent with
the facilities in place of larger, corrugated metal buildings. However, what the
proposed Code does not address are the standards that will be required for the
existing Planned Industrial Park (PIP) zoning. There are vacant properties in that area
that presently have outdoor uses, including a driving range and a golf course. This
Code does not address those existing uses. Sports Ohio youth programs have very
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meeting
May 23, 2011 Page 12
high standards for the present recreation and athletic uses. The facilities are enjoyed
by millions of visitors annually. Mr. Shepherd indicates that four million people used
the facility this past year, including both indoor and outdoor activities. They believe
Sports Ohio is a big benefit for the community as a whole. If Sports Ohio did not exist,
the residents would likely request the City to provide such facilities with tax dollars.
Because Sports Ohio exists as a private entity, the City is able to spend public dollars
on other capital projects. This 20 -year business is very price sensitive, and requires a
very nimble business plan to adjust to trends. It is important to have a synchronism of
those uses, which drives the business as a whole. The rate of return on this property is
poor, and it has worsened during the recent economic downturn. The situation would
worsen if additional costs must be incurred to build a higher standard building than the
existing one. It is an attractive park with good quality buildings and landscaping.
During a recent discussion about changing zoning districts, some Commissioners
commented that the existing park elements were of a high standard.
He noted that there are two ways to address their concerns. The first option is to allow
the existing Planned Industrial Park (PIP) standards to remain in place for only the 70
acres to the west. They do not request those standards for the 30 acres on which the
existing outdoor soccer fields are located, as they do not anticipate that any athletic
building facilities will be constructed on those sites. They are in agreement with the
designation of ID1 on the proposed new zoning map that will soon be presented to
Council. The designation of ID1 is the highest standard on the easternmost side of the
30 acres. The next highest standard, ID2, would remain as proposed on the map.
The balance would be the ID3 for the western 70 acres. The other option is to allow
the recreational and athletic uses in the ID3, making the standards for those uses as
they presently exist in the Planned Industrial Park district. He and Mr. Shepherd
offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Lecklider requested examples of how the new standards would dramatically
raise the cost of a new building.
Mr. Westbrook responded the proposed standards would limit the percentage of
corrugated metal on a building to 65 percent. Most of Mr. Shepherd's existing
buildings are approximately 90 percent - corrugated metal and 10 percent split -faced
block. Another standard would prohibit standing ribbed roofs or standing seamed
roofs. If they are used, a high parapet is required to screen them. This would
represent significant cost additions. In addition, the landscape standards are higher
and adds costs.
Mayor Lecklider asked if these concerns have been discussed with staff.
Mr. Westbrook responded affirmatively, and they will continue to work with staff to
achieve some resolution of the issues between now and the next reading.
[At this point, the meeting was recessed due to a tornado warning for Union County.]
The meeting was reconvened at 9 p.m.
Mrs. Boring stated that, in the past, discussion has taken place about what is
considered a sign and where signs for retail buildings may be located. There have
been occasions in which business owners have mounted large signs within five feet
behind a store window. Has staff identified an effective way to address the situation?
Mr. Combs responded that the general rule is that if the sign is within a certain
distance away from the window, it is not considered a sign. This matter is discussed
from time to time, and would likely be reviewed in the context of the broader sign code
on a citywide basis. The proposed Code under review tonight only applies to the EAZ.
Mrs. Boring asked at what point the City will address this problem. In an area where
nice uses are developed, but with large, unattractive signs, it downgrades the area.
Mr. Combs responded that as the Code is presently written for the Innovation Districts,
more or less, all of the freestanding types of retail uses are in the buffer area along
Avery Road. Those would require a conditional use review by the Planning
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meeti
May 23, 2011 Page 13
Commission, which provides a level of oversight. Staff can look at this issue in
conjunction with a future review of the overall sign code.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked if the trademark sign logos would be limited to three
colors.
Mr. Combs responded that what staff is proposing is to allow the trademark to appear
as it is trademarked. If it has more colors than the City typically allows, that trademark
or logo would count as one color. Therefore, in effect, a maximum of two other colors
would be permitted for a total of three colors on the full sign. The intent is to provide
flexibility for a trademark design.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she understood that an expected outcome of
creating this zone with these standards was to reduce the process time. However,
when she reviewed the document, she could not understand how a developer's
process time would be substantially reduced.
Mr. Combs responded that, typically, for a standard district, there would be multiple
trips through the permit cycle to secure approval. The intent of the administrative
review team process is to work collaboratively with the developers, and to speed up
the front portion of the process. By the time the application is submitted, the pre -work
has been done, speeding the process. It still requires building permit review, but this
can be expedited.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked staff's expectation regarding the time involved for a
typical approval of a complete application under the new Code.
Mr. Combs responded that, initially, staff's expectation is for 60 -90 day processing
time. Their hope is that, eventually, if an applicant is working with staff from the outset
of the development process, the length of time can be reduced to approximately one
month.
Mr. Reiner thanked the Commission for their excellent, thorough review of this
document. He is somewhat concerned, however, with the parking provisions in this
ordinance. What originally set Dublin apart was Dublin's great landscaping ordinance,
particularly related to parking areas. Some standards were discarded on the last new
zoning ordinance, and the same is occurring with this zoning district. He will monitor
this going forward, because he wants to ensure the quality is maintained into the
future. To him, the language proposed in this ordinance is somewhat lax and vague.
Mr. Combs responded that the way in which this Code is written with references to the
City Landscape Code, so in general, all those requirements apply. That level of the
City's standards will remain. What they are attempting to do with this ordinance is
provide some modifications to ensure that the character comes through. In general,
all the basic requirements will remain.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 13 Council meeting.
OTHER
Accepting the Reports of the Tax Incentive Review Council and
Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council
Ms. Grigsby stated these Councils are required to meet annually to review the City's
TIF districts and CRAs. For the Community Reinvestment Areas, each year the CRA
Housing Council must determine that the property has been properly maintained. The
Tax Incentive Review Council is required to provide a status report on the TIF
districts. At the recent meetings, all was found to be in order. The Tax Incentive
Review Council and CRA Housing Council accepted the reports and recommend that
Council formally accept the reports.
Mrs. Boring asked whether any action was taken in regard to delinquent parcels.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff follows up and typically sends letters to these
property owners. Many of the parcels that are delinquent are currently being
considered at the Board of Revision where they are contesting some of the valuations.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
May 23, 2011
Page 14
Compared to the total, the number of delinquent parcels and property owners listed is
minimal.
Mr. Gerber moved to accept the reports of the Tax Incentive Review Council and
Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Griasbv stated that:
1. A memo was distributed on the dais regarding a request to serve alcohol in
Coffman Park for the closing dinner of the Race Across America cycling
challenge on October 8, 2011. Staff recommends that the Community
Development Committee review this request at their June 13 committee
meeting.
Mr. Reiner indicated the item would be scheduled on the committee's agenda.
2. Staff has reviewed the City's emergency operations and emergency
procedures. Last week, an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) orientation
was conducted for all employees who could potentially be part of the EOC.
The Police Department and Tom Hirschy have done an excellent job ensuring
that good procedures are in place.
3. Last week, she had the opportunity with the Ohio National Guard to attend a
meeting with Ohio's Homeland Response Force. Mr. McDaniel is the
commander of that force. They were undergoing training on disaster and
emergencies. The Ohio National Guard trains heavily for preparedness and is
available to provide support as needed.
Mr. Smith reported that last week, a number of Emerald Town Center liquor permit
applications were filed for two restaurants. They were withdrawn, but have now been
filed again by the owner of the center. The owners were very close to closing on one
of the restaurants, but a glitch was discovered. They learned that the subject location
is a dry area on Sundays by local option. They may put this on the ballot in
November. There are some issues regarding the date of annexation and whether the
land was occupied. For this reason, a lease has not been executed and the
restaurants have not yet opened.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Mrs. Boring
1. Noted there was a report in the packet about the Hard Road noise level. There
was a neighborhood meeting about this in the past couple of weeks. Is there a
difference accounted for between a constant noise versus a sudden, jarring
noise such as a truck? It seems there should be some level of differentiation.
Is this taken into account?
Ms. Grigsby responded that the decibel readings are only based upon the noise
generated.
2. Added that at the same neighborhood meeting, she was invited to view the
plantings in Riverside Woods funded through the Beautify Your Neighborhood
grant program. The plantings were beautiful! They did an excellent job.
3. Reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission recently approved a final
development plan for Riverside Drive Park. There is a partnership involved
with Dublin City Schools at this park, which will serve as their cross - country
grounds. It is important to note that the City is partnering to provide this facility
in a passive park.
4. Asked Mr. Hahn when the City will go to bid for the bikepath project to access
the Hutchins property, and whether the design will be shared with the adjacent
Wedgewood Hills neighborhood prior to the bid solicitation.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meeti
May 23, 2011 Page 15
Mr. Hahn responded that the bridge design is not yet completed. Once completed, by
sometime in June, it will be shared with the neighborhood. The remainder of the
project consists simply of pavement.
Mrs. Boring asked staff to contact the Wedgewood Hills neighborhood to show them
where the path will run in terms of distance from their homes. She would prefer that
any minor tweaking in the alignment that is necessary be done early in the design
process.
Mr. Hahn responded that there will be flexibility with the sections of bikepath
immediately behind the homes up until the time the paving begins. Staff wants to wait
until the exact bridge location is determined before contacting the neighbors.
5. Asked about the status of the multi -use path project on Dublin Road, south of
Historic Dublin.
Ms. Grigsby responded that Engineering staff has continued to have follow -up
discussions with the property owners, and some minor modifications to the design
have been made. The next step is to bring that report back to Council for further
review. The project remains programmed in the CIP for construction in 2012.
6. Noted that she has concerns with some information in the April 20 Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commission minutes. On page four, there was discussion
about a magazine being distributed by the Schools, but she believes it was
actually distributed by Sports Ohio.
Mr. Hahn responded that was eventually clarified. However, the discussion related to a
brochure that the School produces that is comparable to a Parks and Recreation
brochure.
Mrs. Boring stated that the Sports Ohio brochure arrived at the same time. As Sports
Ohio is a private business, it would be good to recognize that some of their
programming provides relief to the use of the City's fields. She also was surprised at a
reference in the minutes for a need for direction from Council. Previously, Council
requested all boards and commissions to provide an "Items of Interest' list to Council
for potential projects, which Council then reviewed and provided back to the various
boards and commissions. Is there additional direction from Council needed?
Mr. Hahn responded that he believes the issue was resolved at a PRAC meeting on
May 18.
Vice Mayor Salay added that she and Mayor Lecklider had discussion with the
leadership of PRAC immediately prior to the May 18 Commission meeting. The
members of PRAC had some issues /questions regarding the list of items of interest
Council had approved. The issues were essentially related to the semantics versus the
content. Based on their 20- minute discussion with the PRAC leadership, it was
evident that there was some confusion about the role of PRAC. Their discussion with
the leadership focused on opportunities for PRAC to provide feedback to Council and
PRAC's desire to serve as an idea - generating body for staff and Council. PRAC was
encouraged to propose ideas for consideration. It was acknowledged there is a
natural tension among staff, boards, commissions and Council and that each entity
has an important and distinct role. The discussion was productive and she and the
Mayor encouraged PRAC members to contact any Council Member with questions or
concerns.
Mrs. Boring commented that in reading the Commission's discussion about this, she
hopes they understand it is not a matter of PRAC "pushing the envelope" with ideas
proposed to Council. It is instead an issue about who makes the policy decisions.
There seems to be a difference of opinion about the role they fulfill. She hopes that
the differences in the roles of Council, the Commission and staff were conveyed to
them.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he and the Vice Mayor encouraged more communication
between PRAC and Council. In retrospect, it would have been helpful if a member of
PRAC had attended the Council Committee meeting in which the items of interest lists
were reviewed. It also might have been helpful for PRAC to have reached out to
Council in advance of Council's consideration of the recommendations PRAC was
making to Council about items of interest. In essence, more communication was
encouraged between the bodies. He does not believe there was as much
disagreement as the minutes might have reflected.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
May 23, 2011 Page 16
Vice Mayor Salay noted that the items of interest process is fairly new, and there is a
learning process involved.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted the reason Council requested such lists was because
some boards and commissions wanted to undertake more tasks than assigned to
them. Further, some were requesting that staff work on projects that were not initiated
or supported by Council. Council decided it would be preferable for the groups to
share their ideas, so that Council could review them and identify a work plan for the
board or commission for the coming year.
Mr. Hahn responded that at the March PRAC meeting, they assigned work to the
members. The May meeting agenda included strategizing on how to follow through on
the tasks assigned for 2011. It appears that the work plan should cover the remainder
of the year.
Mrs. Boring continued:
7. Recognized the Parks staff for all of their work on the Emerald Fields, which
was dedicated on May 10. It has a fabulous design in terms of interactivity.
She credits the Parks staff for the design and development of the many
distinctive and wonderful parks throughout the City. It is possible to visit a
different park every week in Dublin and have a different experience with each.
It is the vision and work of these City staff members that makes Dublin such a
great city. She thanked staff for their efforts and encouraged them to continue
their good work.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher reported that
1. She attended the MORPC board meeting last week with Ms. Grigsby. On
Thursday of this week, the regional subcommittee that she co- chairs will meet.
There are many important topics for discussion related to the State budget,
which has a significant impact on all MORPC members. They are working on
a better understanding of the budget and on strategy.
2. She and Mrs. Boring recently met with a number of individuals — including Matt
Stavroff, Kevin McCauley, Janet Jordan, and Julie Skolnicki. They are
interested in further discussion regarding recreation and athletic opportunities
in the Bridge Street corridor area. They have met with and provided the
information to Ms. Grigsby, who is discussing this with staff and with the
Stavroffs.
3. She recently had a conversation with an individual regarding the left turn lane
at Riverside Drive and S.R. 161, which was eliminated quite a few years ago.
The comment was made that if the left turn were restored, it would alleviate
much of the SR 745 northbound traffic through the Historic District. She is
aware of future plans for a major improvement at that intersection. What is the
reason the left turn was eliminated?
Ms. Grigsby responded that the left turn was removed in the early to mid 1990s to
provide two continuous east and westbound lanes. The width of the bridge creates a
constriction, so including a left turn lane requires elimination of one of the through
lanes. Essentially, elimination of the turn permitted better movement for the east -west
traffic.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she found the individual's suggestion interesting, as
it did suggest a reason for so much traffic moving through the Historic District to
access Emerald Parkway as well as US 33 west. Because much of this is through and
not local traffic, the vehicles travel at higher speeds. It is certainly another factor to
consider in evaluating the traffic patterns and traffic speeds within the Historic District.
4. Requested an update on the Karrer barn bicentennial art project.
Ms. Ott reported that the piece is under fabrication in the artist's studio. Staff has
been viewing fabrication photos, and the City's website will be updated with the
photos. The artist is seeking assistance from the community by requesting donations
of "forged" objects or tools used in forging for possible inclusion in the project. Soil will
begin to be moved on the site in late June /early July with installation of the art piece
following shortly thereafter. The installation will involve two phases, and the first
phase is the masonry installation. When the installation dates are more firm, a
Dublin City Council
Meetinn
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetin
May 23, 2011 Page 17
programmed /interactive viewing of the installation process will identified. A name for
the artwork is also under discussion, and an announcement will be made soon.
Mr. Gerber stated that if traffic disruption is anticipated in conjunction with the work,
the residents should be notified.
Ms. Ott responded that that no disruption is expected due to the location of the artwork
on the site. There may be temporary lane closures on Waterford Drive, but it will be
set far enough back that it creates no sight distance issues.
5. Reported that she and Mrs. Boring attended the Brand Road bikepath public
meeting. When is the next scheduled meeting?
Ms. Grigsby responded that she does not have that information. Staff will compile the
information, obtain additional resident feedback, and provide this for the next Council
update.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that she wants to be able to respond to resident inquiries
with information regarding the process.
Mayor Lecklider reported:
1. He recently attended several events, including the Emerald Fields playground
dedication on May 10; a May 16 ceremony hosted by Welcome Warehouse to
recognize Muirfield Village Civic Association for raising $26,500 for the
Welcome Warehouse; and a Life Care Alliance breakfast for elected officials.
2. He also attended the Nestle Quality Assurance Center 20 anniversary
celebration on May 13. This company has 120 employees and recently added
50 scientists /researchers at their facility on Eiterman Road. This global
business is truly a "hidden gem" within the community.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Clerk of Council