HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 06-13-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
June 13, 2011
Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, June 13, 2011 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Lecklider moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of land
acquisition and legal matters.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Keenan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present were Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr.
Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Vice Mayor Salay was absent (excused).
Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr.
McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Tyler, Ms.
Crandall, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Gilger, Mr. Combs, Mr. Earman, Ms. Ott,
Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Leroy and Ms. Ray.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Regular Meeting of May 9, 2011
Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2011.
Ms Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion.
Mr. Keenan requested that in the third paragraph on page 13, the minutes be clarified
to reflect that he was inquiring about the market rents at Avondale Senior Village, not
making a statement regarding the rents.
Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes;
Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
Regular Meeting of May 23, 2011
Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of May 23, 2011.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was received regarding the
transfer of D1, D2, D3 and D6 liquor permits from Calimira LLC, 6644 Perimeter Loop
Road to Calimira LLC, dba Rusty Bucket Corner Tavern, 6726 Perimeter Loop Road.
There was no objection to the transfer of the permits.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Update from Council representative to the Dublin Foundation
Chris Kelley, Council representative to the Dublin Foundation stated that she is
honored to have been selected by the Dublin Foundation Board to serve a two -year as
their president. Since her last report to Council, the Foundation has awarded a number
of grants. She provided a brief overview of the grants awarded, noting that a more
comprehensive written summary was also provided to Council Members tonight. They
are in the process of drafting an extensive development plan that will allow them to
expand their fundraising efforts. They are affiliated with the Columbus Foundation, and
donations can be directed to the Dublin Foundation at their website. They recently
sponsored a grant- writing workshop through the Dublin Schools community program,
and Dublin nonprofit groups have benefited from that service. She thanked Council for
the $10,000 contribution in support of the Field of Honor event that will be held on
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011
Meeting
Page 2
September 11, 2011 in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
As the Dublin Foundation approaches its 30 anniversary in January, they are on the
threshold of an opportunity to expand their visibility and support of the community.
They welcome any suggestions regarding ways in which the Foundation can better
serve the community.
Mayor Lecklider thanked Ms. Kelley for her service and the report.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that a few years ago he shared with Council
that he had briefly visited the Shakespeare Theater in Stratford, Ontario and spoken
with someone familiar with that enterprise since its opening. He had recognized a
parallel between Stratford and Dublin and proposed a similar theater for Dublin. That
suggestion was not pursued, but Dublin does have the Abbey Theater, which is located
within the Community Recreation Center. Recently, he discovered that the theater's
location is not well known within the community, and essentially no one outside the
community is aware of it. A couple of his friends from OSU in Columbus attempted to
come to the Abbey Theater but could not easily find it. When they arrived at the Rec
Center, they were unable to locate the Abbey Theater within the Center for another 5-
10 minutes. Upon leaving the Abbey Theater, they could not find their way back to the
highway from the Rec Center. He has observed people who arrived late to a theater
performance as a result of being unable to locate the theater, and who missed most of
the performance they planned to attend. He has noticed directional signs for the
Abbey Theater at various intersections within the City, but it appears to be temporary
for a single event. This issue needs to be investigated. The Abbey Theater could be
another City amenity that resonates. It is important to determine the reason there are
no clear directions to the Abbey Theater and to address the issue. He does not know if
the problem is related to the City's signage code, but if so, the City has made
exceptions to Code requirements on numerous occasions when need dictated. As it
is, the Abbey Theater is losing audiences and is not able to develop potential
programs.
Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Maurer for his observation. City staff will take this under
advisement. He inquired if Mr. Maurer's recital has been rescheduled.
Mr. Maurer responded that it will likely be rescheduled for the end of September or
beginning of October.
Craig Barnum, CLB Restaurants owner and operator of Tucci's California Bistro in
Historic Dublin, Matt the Miller's Tavern on Avery- Muirfield Drive and Matt the Miller's
Tavern in Grandview, indicated that he was previously involved in a partnership that
owned and managed Oscar's of Dublin, Brazenhead Irish Pub in Dublin, and
Brazenhead on Fifth Avenue in Grandview, as well as the river development that is
being led by Bird -Houk. As of January 1, 2011, a business separation was finalized
that took him out of that partnership. He remains, however, in full support of the river
development's goals. Having more residential opportunities will enhance the character
and vibrancy of Historic Dublin. His comments tonight are related to his vision, and
hopefully the City's, for the Historic District. Both of his establishments in Dublin are
doing well and are growing. In 2010, he invested $200,00 in improvements at Tucci's,
and in the near future, he will request approval from the City for an additional $350,000
improvement project for Tucci's. If approved, a total of $500,00 will have been
invested in Tucci's in two years. He is committed to his business, his community and to
the Historic District. Yesterday, he executed a five -year agreement with J. Liu's for a
shared dumpster area, which will relieve the current unsatisfactory dumpster situation.
He also understands that, recently, some Historic Dublin business owners proposed to
the City that vehicles be towed to alleviate some of the parking issues experienced in
the District. He was not included in their endeavor. In December 1998, he was part of
the opening ownership of Brazenhead in Historic Dublin. During the first six months of
operation, approximately 60 Brazenhead patron cars were towed from the Library
parking lot. This impacted their business very negatively. Towing anyone from the
District for any reason is a poor idea. Visitors to Historic Dublin should be met with a
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meeting
June 13, 2011 Page 3
warm welcome and gratitude for their patronage. All the businesses comprise an
entertainment district, and he will never support towing in the District. Historic Dublin
faces many challenges and has opportunities in its development. Based on his
experience in Grandview, he believes that the City of Dublin must make a significant
financial commitment to improve the District infrastructure. Grandview has many
similar restaurants and retail as Historic Dublin, but there is one significant difference --
a residential community in Grandview that has a large number of residents who walk to
the District daily. Since joining the Historic Dublin business community in 1995, he
has seen one opportunity to improve the District that has been consistently presented
by all parties — business owners, property owners, and visitors from surrounding
communities -- and that has been parking. After 15 years, he is tired of hearing the
District has a parking problem. Over the years, this parking problem has been
analyzed numerous times by outside consultants. In 2002, he served on a Task Force
that met for 12 weeks, which communicated to the City that parking was the main
opportunity for improvement in the District. Mezzo Italian Kitchen will open in a few
weeks in a 5,000 square foot space in the Historic District. He predicts that this new
establishment will be the tipping point and take the parking problem to a new level.
The District is surrounded by great hotels, vibrant companies, world -class destinations,
tremendous resources, healthy demographics, and business corridors. The
downtowns of other area communities do not come close to the potential of Historic
Dublin. The opportunity must be seized now to put the proper infrastructure in place so
Historic Dublin can take its place among Ohio's elite entertainment districts. Building a
parking structure and creating a pedestrian - friendly environment will help create a
District that can become the single most attractive place to visit in central Ohio. A
parking structure will be costly, but the potential benefits outweigh the potential
negatives. If this improvement is made, visitors will come, tax revenue will increase,
job opportunities will be created, property values will increase, and new development
and serious retailers will seek out Historic Dublin. Currently, two very compelling
reasons are given not to visit the District — lack of parking and lack of pedestrian
friendliness. Sufficient infrastructure plus parking and pedestrian friendliness equals
overwhelming potential for this District. He asked what Council members' visions are.
Do they agree it is time to make some important decisions to create an entertainment
district that is second to none in central Ohio? He is looking forward to working with
the City to make that happen.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher inquired Mr. Barnum's suggestions concerning pedestrian
friendliness.
Mr. Barnum responded that it could begin with much better lighting and streetscape.
When entering the District from the north on SR 745 at night, the District is dark. Upon
approaching the District, there is nothing that indicates there is much activity, including
pedestrian traffic. He has no suggestion for a safe pedestrian crossing from the north
to the south side of the District, other than an underpass or overpass. When he walks
the district in Grandview, he never feels that vehicular traffic is an issue as it is in
Dublin's Historic District.
LEGISLATION
Ordinance 28 -11
Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
Mr. Thurman stated that this legislation authorizes the adoption of the 2012 tax budget,
an early stage in the operating budget process. There is nothing additional to report
since the first reading.
Mr. Keenan inquired if this budget reflects a return to the previous inside millage
allocation levels between Parkland Acquisition and the Capital Improvements Tax Fund
- .95 and .80.
Mr. Thurman responded that it does. In 2011, it was allocated at 1.4 for Capital
Improvements and .35 for Parkland Acquisition.
Mr. Keenan stated that if the greater amount is allocated for Capital Improvements, it
could still be used in the future for parkland acquisition. He does not understand why it
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011
Mr. Thurman responded that when Council approved the inside millage allocation
change two years ago as part of the CIP process, it was with the understanding that
the allocation would be reviewed again this year. Before the amounts and rates are
accepted, Council will have the opportunity to review it.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the reason this is being changed back in the tax budget to the
previous allocation percentages is that was staff's commitment to Council two years
ago. The understanding at that time was it would be discussed again this year in the
CIP process. She agrees that placing it in the CIP fund provides greater flexibility, as it
can still be used for parkland acquisition.
Mr. Keenan responded that he believes this does warrant discussion again at the CIP
budget workshops. He asked what is currently collected for the Police levy of 1.2 mills.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the residential portion is approximately two- tenths of a mill
and the commercial is approximately three - tenths of a mill.
Mr. Keenan stated that he believes that at some point, the City should consider
whether it should continue to be collected. It was initially implemented in 1976.
Ms. Grigsby stated that levy was adopted as a continuous, ongoing levy.
Approximately $500,000 is collected annually, and it can be expected to remain at
about that level.
M eeting
Page 4
is being changed back, as leaving it as it was provides much more flexibility in the
years ahead.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr.
Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
Ordinance 29 -11
Adjusting the Existing Ward Boundaries of the City of Dublin, as Required
by Article 9.04 of the Revised Charter, and Declaring an Emergency.
Ms. Grigsby stated that at the previous meeting, Council's direction was to prepare the
map and description to maintain the existing wards. This legislation incorporates that
map and description.
Mr. Keenan moved for passage by emergency.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
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.
Ms. Gilger stated that the company has closed on the facility at 6397 Emerald Parkway.
Hull & Associates is currently in this building, and they will remain in the facility as a
tenant. This economic development agreement provides a $15,000 grant; a five -year, 20
percent performance incentive; and a sixth -year bonus of $25,000. The overall
incentive payment of the agreement is capped at $165,000.
Dr. Kalvan Lingam, Pain Care Specialists stated that their company has two office
locations, and they will be consolidating the two offices to provide more comprehensive
pain management and to incorporate ancillary services, such as physical therapy and
psychology, to improve treatment for the patients. They considered locations in other
surrounding communities. Important criteria in their search were the quality of the
buildings, ambience, and the surrounding commercial area. The Dublin location best
met those criteria. This site will provide ease of accessibility to patients, many of whom
come from out of town. In addition, discussions with residents and local business
people revealed their satisfaction with City services and fewer incidents of power
Minutes of
Hel
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011
Meeting
Page 5
outages than in some communities. These factors are critical in providing optimum
patient care.
Mayor Lecklider noted that the City strives to provide excellent service in those areas,
so it is good to hear that feedback. Council is pleased that they have chosen Dublin as
the location for their consolidated business and wishes them continued success.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Lecklider,
yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
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).
Ms. Ray stated that this rezoning adds new Subarea D to the Earlington Village PUD
for pre- existing church sites. The text amendment adds three new uses: day care,
educational facilities and religious and public assembly. No modifications are
proposed with this application. There are no changes from the first reading. Planning
recommends approval of the rezoning.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes.
Ordinance 32 -11 (Amended)
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. Combs stated that, as the memo provided to Council indicates, staff requests that
Council postpone this item to the June 27 Council meeting. Currently, they are working
with one of the property owners to resolve some issues.
Mr. Keenan moved to postpone Ordinance 32 -11 to the June 27 Council meeting.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 33 -11
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Conveyance Documentation
for the Acquisition of a Combined 2.294 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple
Interest from Michael and Heather Harber.
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Mr. McDaniel stated that this land purchase is related to Emerald Parkway, Phase 8
construction. The exhibit with the ordinance reflects a shaded area that denotes the
property that is required for this right -of -way; however, the proposal is to purchase the
entire property as a total taking. The value established by the City's appraiser before
the taking was $250,000. Following negotiations, the proposed purchased price is
$275,000.
Council indicated the intersection in the map is mislabeled.
Mr. McDaniel stated that a correction in the documents will be made for the June 27
Council meeting.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the agreement provides for the residents to enter into a lease.
Mr. McDaniel responded that the agreement permits the residents to remain in the
house for one year to allow them to transition out of the property.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the purchase agreement will allow the residents to remain in
their home for one year, which is similar to previous negotiated arrangements that the
City has had with property owners.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 27 Council meeting.
Ordinance 34 -11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
June 13, 2011
Meeting
Dublin City Council
Page 6
Rezoning Approximately 105 Parcels from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential
District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; RI, Restricted Industrial
District; LI, Limited Industrial District; PCD, Planned Commerce District; and
PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex District. (COIC
Technology Flex District Area Rezoning) (Case 10- 074Z).
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Combs stated that this is one of a series of rezonings that will implement some of
the Plan work done over the past year. This rezoning is primarily located within the
Central Ohio Innovation Corridor in the Shier Rings area, between Avery Road and 1-
270. The purpose of the Tech Flex District is to provide for a large range of flexible
industrial spaces that can accommodate Office as well as Research & Development
uses. The future Land Use Map in this area calls for a mix of light and heavier
Research and Office uses, as well as Office and Municipal uses. This area contains a
variety of existing zoning districts; the ordinance proposes to consolidate those into
one consolidated district that will provide a broader range of uses and more flexible
standards to make the properties more marketable. The rezoning also includes some
outlying industrial properties along Avery Road, as well as up toward the Post Road
interchange. All of the properties will be placed into the Tech Flex District. Based on
the Community Plan, the future Land Uses Map, and the Business District model for
the COIC, staff believes the proposed rezoning will address those long -term plans for
the City, as well as address many nonconforming and illegal uses.
Mr. Gerber asked if the Law Director's office has reviewed this document.
Mr. Smith indicated that they have reviewed it; however, the Law Department always
conducts another review prior to the second reading. They are attempting to ensure all
property owners' concerns are addressed. They anticipate providing a report to
Council at the next hearing regarding the resolution of those issues.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 27 Council meeting.
Ordinance 35 -11
Rezoning Approximately 21 Parcels Located along Emerald Parkway, from R -1,
Restricted Suburban Residential District; LI, Limited Industrial District; and RI,
Restricted Industrial District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District;
and PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Coffman Park plan) (COIC Emerald
Office Area Rezoning) (Case 10 -073Z)
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Combs stated that this is the second portion of the conversion of the old industrial
districts. This is a rezoning of areas around Perimeter Drive and Emerald Parkway, as
well as some properties along Innovation and Emerald Parkway. Those coincide with
the Emerald Office Zone and the Perimeter Service Area within the Central Ohio
Innovation Corridor (COIC). The purpose of those two districts is to provide for a broad
range of office uses, as well as additional services. The Future Land Use Map for the
areas in question identifies those areas as Office as well as Municipal and Park
facilities. The existing zoning of the properties is a combination of Restricted Industrial
and Limited Industrial. The proposed zoning would modify those to Suburban Office
and Institutional, consistent with both the COIC and the Future Land Use Map in the
Community Plan. In addition, the municipal properties would be included in the
Coffman Park PUD.
He reported that an update of the Coffman Park PUD text is provided in the meeting
materials. It provides for the expansion properties to include a variety of municipal and
park - related uses. The Coffman Park Master Plan specifically addresses this area.
The development text for Coffman Park has been revised to include general language
for the expansion land and Justice Center site. The rezoning text was reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 2011, and they voted to recommend
approval to Council. If adopted, the Coffman Park Master Plan will serve as the
Preliminary Development Plan for that portion of the park. Any future approvals would
be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Final Development Plan, and would
then move to the permitting stage. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was
comment from one property owner regarding a pending building permit application for
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Meeting
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011 Page 7
Held 20
an industrial office development along Post Road. The Planning Commission
considered the property owner's request for Tech Flex or alternate zoning for the
property. Based on the timing and the fact the property was under permit review, the
Planning Commission recommended changing the map to Suburban Office and
Institutional with the understanding that the property owner would have additional time
to submit and secure approved permits while the actual rezoning is in process.
Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the Community Plan and the COIC
District Corridor concept. This rezoning will also address many nonconformities,
particularly in some of the older office developments, where there are uses that are not
expressly permitted in the current Code.
Joe Polis FJ &S 75 E. Wilson - Bridge Road. Worthington stated that they own property
at 5375 Post Road, a vacant site of 1.58 acres, which is currently zoned Limited
Industrial (LI). They purchased the property 26 years ago, in 1985, to build a
KinderCare Daycare Center. At that time, however, their plan was rejected by the City
of Dublin. They returned to the City with other project proposals in 1989, 1997 and
2000. Those projects also did not proceed due to discouragement and /or City
disapproval. In 2008, the City had the property appraised — he assumes because the
property abuts two parcels that are owned by the City of Dublin. In February 2010, he
asked to meet with Ms. Husak and some other City staff members to review an office
warehouse project that they had submitted to the City in 1989. He was attempting to
solicit City input before retaining an architect and engineer to upgrade the plan. The
plans have now been updated.
In the months following the meeting with Planning staff, he was contacted by Ms.
Gilger, Economic Development. She asked if the property owners would be interested
in working with a potential prospect for the site. They agreed and began working with
this prospect. Eventually, the project expanded to include the two adjoining parcels
that are owned by the City. The project is now a 35,000 square foot Tech Flex building
and a $5 million project. Unfortunately, in December, that company decided that the
price of $5 million was too high for them, and they chose to rent warehouse space
elsewhere in Dublin. Meanwhile, he was invited to attend two public meetings on the
Tech Flex District, conducted by Mr. Combs, on December 13 and 17, 2010. That
proposed zoning would affect their property, and they thought it would work well with
their warehouse concept. He provided copies of their plans to Mr. Combs and received
some general comments from Mr. Combs on February 24, 2011. On March 2, he met
with Mr. Combs and Ms. Gilger to discuss the comments on their revised plans for an
office- warehouse project, the pending Tech Flex Code, and the proposed area
rezoning. At that meeting, however, he was advised that his parcel was no longer
being recommended for Tech Flex, but instead, Suburban Office. With that zoning,
warehousing would not be permitted. He spoke with Mr. Combs at the April 7 PZC
meeting and told him they were too far along with their plans and would proceed with
their project. They applied for a building permit on April 21, 2011, and subsequently
received a disapproval, marked -up plans and comments. They have worked to make
those changes and plan to meet with staff to review those changes. They are
financially committed to completing this project and respectfully request that their
property, which is zoned LI, be zoned into the Tech Flex District, as originally
proposed.
Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Combs to respond.
Mr. Combs responded that the PZC minutes outline the same discussion. When staff
began work on the Tech Flex District, they met with any of the property owners who
had industrial zoning and who attended the public meetings. As the rezoning phase
developed, staff further evaluated its fit with the Community Plan, the COIC Districts
and the new Delta Energy development, which establishes a certain character at that
key interchange. Staff decided that it would be more consistent to consider Suburban
Office and Institutional for those properties.
Mayor Lecklider asked if this particular property would be grandfathered, based on the
fact that the permit has been filed and reviewed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of MeetinL
Dublin City Coun
June 13, 2011
Mr. Combs responded that it is currently LI, and when Mr. Polis requested staff input,
they did give him feedback as to whether his plan complied with the LI District, as well
as the Tech Flex zoning, which was under development at that point. The question is
whether that provides the applicant with any legal standing. It is his understanding that
they are in the permit submission process, and until the point the rezoning becomes
effective, they need to meet the legal requirements for obtaining the building permit.
Mayor Lecklider noted that would be the existing requirements for Limited Industrial
(LI), because this rezoning has not yet been approved.
Mr. Smith stated that the issue relates to when the property owner's rights are vested.
He has provided previous legal opinions on that subject, and will forward a copy for the
next Council packet. Mr. Polis was assured of his standing, unless his building permit
has been pulled.
Mrs. Boring asked if Mr. Polis has filed for a permit, and if it was denied.
Mr. Combs responded that his permit was denied based on engineering and building
issues. He has the opportunity to continue re- applying until he has obtained the
permit.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the denial is based on other issues, and not zoning.
Mr. Combs responded that he believes the denial is based upon building, engineering
and landscaping issues, which Mr. Polis may resolve, and then re- submit his
application.
Mr. Keenan asked if Mr. Polis' project then will continue to move forward.
Mr. Combs responded that is his understanding.
Mr. Keenan stated that the City has a duty to act responsively and quickly if another
permit request is made, and not have it delayed because of the rezoning in process.
Mr. Combs responded that when a permit request is submitted, standard review
procedures are followed in terms of schedules.
Mr. Keenan asked if there is an issue related to the schedules.
Mr. Combs responded that he is aware of none.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he assumes that all the parties are fully aware of the status
of this matter.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is essential to ensure that everyone has fair consideration.
He has been aware of an issue with this particular property for 15 -20 years. Mr. Polis
has testified about the many different times he has attempted to bring this forward.
Ms. Grigsby noted that the major issue with this property has always been access.
Based upon where it is located, full access is very difficult resulting in engineering
issues.
Mr. Smith noted that, over the years, he has participated in other meetings concerning
the development of this site. Safe ingress /egress and line of sight have been the
issues.
Mr. Gerber asked if in that respect the applicant has worked with the City to resolve
those issues, and whether a fair "give and take" has been provided.
Mr. Smith responded that he believes that definitely has occurred.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that until very recently, the City believed this area was
appropriate for the Tech Flex zoning.
Mr. Combs responded that when staff began the process, the intent was to convert the
RI and LI Districts to Tech Flex. As the process advanced, staff evaluated its fit with
the Community Plan; the long -term implications of those particular areas that are
specifically identified as Office in the Community Plan and the COIC Districts; and its
frontage on 1 -270. Those were placed in the Suburban Office category.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked when that decision was made, because it seems Mr. Polis
has had recent conversations with the City that indicated his property would be
included in the Tech Flex District.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 13. 2011
Page 9
Mr. Combs responded that the Tech Flex District was being discussed in public
meetings during the November - December 2010 timeframe. Staff did not begin to
consider the rezoning phase until the beginning of 2011.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that it was relatively recent that the City changed its mind.
In relation to the type of building that is proposed, how does it integrate with the IGS
building, Delta Energy and other buildings that have been constructed in that general
vicinity?
Mr. Combs responded that it is much more of an industrial type of use, lacking the
office appearance that IGS or Delta would have as frontage properties.
Mr. Reiner asked if that was part of the rationale for this change in zoning — to upgrade
this area visually.
Mr. Combs responded that was the intent, which was based on the Future Land Use
Plan, as well as the Coffman Park Area Plan.
Mr. Keenan noted that it does seem the Tech Flex District would be a better option
than an LI zoning for this area in terms of the use and results. What is staff's opinion?
Mr. Combs responded that he agrees that Tech Flex would be an upgrade from the
Industrial zones currently existing.
Mr. Keenan stated that because this property was not included in the Tech Flex
District, the owner can continue to proceed under the current LI zoning.
Mr. Combs responded that with any area rezoning, the property owners would still
have the opportunity to do that.
Mayor Lecklider noted that there are challenges with this particular site.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that situation will not change with this property. She is
interested in how the re- design of Frantz, SR 161 and Post Road might impact this site.
It is important to make sure this property is not negatively impacted by that re- design.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the realignment will impact properties to the east of that
intersection — on the other side of the Post Road overpass over 1 -270. It will not impact
the west side.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the owner has proceeded according to input received
from the City. She would like to encourage the owner, even within the LI zoning, to
take steps to make this visually compatible with the surrounding development —
Cardinal Health, Delta Energy, and the Justice Center -- and enhance the area.
Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Polls to respond.
Mr. Polis stated that they have considered rezoning the LI to Tech Flex to be a step
forward, and they were very supportive of a Tech Flex District in all meetings they had
with Mr. Combs. Mr. Polls was not aware until March 2 that the City would no longer
support the Tech Flex zoning for this property, but would be proposing Suburban Office
instead. They had been working on this project for nine to 12 months — too advanced
to change. This project would have been completed much earlier, but when Mr.
Combs and Mrs. Gilger involved him in a proposal with the prospective user, he put his
plan on hold for three to four months. Again, the plan City staff was discussing with
that prospective user was for a 35,000 square foot Tech Flex building. Their plan was
not for a Suburban Office building. In March, their design was essentially complete,
and they were ready to proceed to the permitting stage, which they initiated the
following month. He purchased this property 26 years ago, and is running out of time.
It is time for him to do something with this property.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the City worked on a couple of projects in an attempt to steer
Tech Flex type uses to that site. One of the obstacles they encountered was the cost
of the land, and they contemplated leveraging City -owned land adjacent to that site.
They were not able to bring down the price of the land. In addition, Tech Flex use is
difficult for this site, as there would be some level of truck traffic. If the property next to
it were to develop — the "bow bow tie piece -- there would be access in that location. The
recently revised Community Plan reflected a higher use than LI or Tech Flex.
However, the area was never rezoned to match the intent of the Community Plan. This
Meeting
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011 Page 10
Held 20
is what staff is now attempting to do. This particular site next to the "bow tie" piece is
highly visible from the highway, and should attract a high -end user. It has been
undeveloped for 26 years, but if the economy takes a positive turn, the City can
attempt to attract a user. They believe that a Tech Flex use will be difficult to house on
the site. Staff's recent recommendation to change the zoning was the result of
unsuccessful attempts to make a Tech Flex use work in this location.
Mrs. Boring stated that she does not disagree that Suburban Office would work well on
the site, but if staff was working with Mr. Polis on a Tech Flex use until spring and it
was then changed, it seems there was either a lack of communication or foresight.
Ms. Gilger stated that she worked closely on the economic development opportunity
with the prospective user. They were primarily an office user that needed a flexible
warehouse space in the back of the facility. The blended use seemed to fit with the
site; however, the only way it was feasible was to combine the site with the adjacent
City -owned land. Staff was trying to identify the right type of zoning areas for the
potential user, considering RI and LI sites and potential new Tech Flex sites. Although
over 50 percent of the prospective use was Office, some flexible space was also
needed. When the user attempted to engineer the turning radius for their truck, they
recognized the site was not large enough. Because these issues existed even when
combining the adjacent City -owned parcels to make the site a Tech Flex use, removing
the City -owned land would leave this site with even more challenges for a Tech Flex
use.
Mr. Gerber stated that he understands there might be a more appropriate zoning
classification for this property, but what he finds troubling is that, despite those
negotiation difficulties, this applicant has not been deterred from proceeding with an LI
application while staff was discussing other classifications. He has heard of this type
of issue with some other property owners. There is a need to engage the property
owners and thoroughly discuss these situations. The applicants should not be misled
with false expectations. If Mr. Polis will not have his permit approved in the next few
weeks, that should be communicated.
Mr. McDaniel stated that some clarification is needed. The Tech Flex use staff was
proposing related to an active economic development prospect. The permit that Mr.
Polls has submitted is for two metal warehouse buildings.
Mr. Polis responded that the two buildings are pre- engineered buildings, but they are
not all -metal buildings. They have 35-40 percent office, and the balance is warehouse.
There are no loading docks, so they would appeal to a small, incubator -type company
with that type of combined use. There are small drive -in doors, but no loading docks.
All the units are small, 2,200 -2,300 square foot units. These are the building plans that
were discussed with Mr. Combs last year in November, and the plans on which Mr.
Combs provided input on February 24.
Mr. McDaniel clarified that staff has not denied his application. He can pursue the
building permit, if he wishes.
Mr. Reiner stated that this has now become an upscale corridor, so he is hopeful this
project will be in keeping aesthetically with the rest of the community. One reason
people build in this community is that they can be confident the buildings next to them
will be of equal value, and that their investment will be protected.
Mayor Lecklider stated that it is assumed the dialogue will continue between Mr. Polis
and staff. Council looks forward to receiving the memo that Mr. Smith has indicated he
will circulate.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the June 27 Council meeting.
Ordinance 36 -11
Rezoning Approximately 62 Parcels from R, Rural District; R -1, Restricted
Suburban Residential District; RI, Restricted Industrial District; LI, Limited
Industrial District; GI, General Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and
Institutional District; PUD, Planned Unit Development District; PIP, Planned
Industrial Park District; PCD, Planned Commerce District; and HDP, High Density
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
M eetine
June 13, 2011
Page 11
POD District to ID -1, Research Office District; ID -2, Research Flex District; ID -3,
Research Assembly District; and ID-4, Research Mixed Use District. (COIC /EAZ
Innovation District Area Rezoning) (Case 11 -012Z)
Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance.
Mr. Combs stated that this is the third phase of planning efforts for the Economic
Advancement Zone (EAZ) within the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC). This
deals primarily with the area of the Innovation Corridor where they are expecting the
administrative approval process to provide speedy approvals. Based on the Future
Land Use Map, the entire area is generally designated for Research and Development
uses. There are a variety of districts, which would be consolidated.
Proposed zoning changes were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
May 19, 2011. They considered the applicant's request to adjust the proposed district
designation for the SportsOhio complex on Cosgray Road. As recommended by the
Commission, the 73 -acre development (not including the eastern 32.5 acres used for
soccer fields) was moved from the Research Flex (ID -2) District to the Research
Assembly (ID -3) District to match the general building types of the sports complex. At
the first reading of Council, the property owner also requested that the complex be
allowed to retain its current Planned Industrial Park (PIP) zoning or that most of the
complex be placed within the ID -3 District. At that meeting, some architectural and
landscaping issues were raised. Staff has reviewed the specifics of the PIP text in an
attempt to address those issues, and it has become apparent that some of the
standards and uses in the ID -2 District are more consistent with the PIP text. On that
basis, it is proposed that SportsOhio be placed within the ID -2 District. Before the next
Council meeting, discussions will be held with the property owner to work through the
various issues. Staff anticipates it will be possible to accommodate all the PIP
standards within the ID -2 District, and that the issues will be resolved.
Mayor Lecklider asked if staff's original recommendation was that this area be placed
in the ID -1 District, but the property owner is requesting an ID -3 District.
Mr. Combs stated that, based on the architecture and materials, staff believed it could
fit within the ID -3 District for the short-term; in the long -term, it could be considered for
a rezoning into the ID -2 District. However, evaluating the issues raised at the first
reading revealed difficulties with an ID -3 zoning.
Mr. Smith stated that staff has been working with Mr. Hale, the attorney for Mr.
Shepherd, on this issue. Mr. Hale is currently out of town but will return next Monday.
They will then meet with him and attempt to find solutions to the issues.
Bill Westbrook 1974 Keswick Drive Columbus representing the applicant stated that
they have been working with staff, but are not close to resolution. They disagree with
staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission for ID -3 District, which the
Commission did approve. They believe it should be ID -3 as it relates to the City's
zoning map. They have proposed to staff that the SportsOhio portion that is within the
portion staff proposed for ID -3 be permitted to operate under its present Planned
Industrial Park (PIP) zoning, so that it can continue to develop as a sports park. If it
were to be changed from a sports park, then it would be an appropriate use for the ID-
3. With the existing market conditions, the sports park cannot meet the standards of
this EAZ zoning and succeed. The rate of return on the facilities is inadequate to pay
for significant upgrading. The site presently is 100 percent screened with a large
evergreen hedge surrounding the site. Mr. Shepherd has also agreed not to retain the
PIP zoning on the eastern part of the site — the 30 acres that are outdoor soccer fields.
That area will be rezoned ID -1 and ID -2. They believe that the continued viability of
Sports Ohio is dependent upon having the PIP zoning. The applicant has expended
great effort to work with the City to meet its goals for the new EAZ zoning, but it does
not work for the SportsOhio buildings.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Westbrook's comments -- except
for the statement that the applicant and staff are far apart on this issue. He spoke with
Mr. Shepherd last Friday, and expressed the value the City places on the SportsOhio
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Mee ting
June 13, 2011 Page 12
Held 20
facilities. It is important to work with them and keep that facility viable. Staff is trying to
identify appropriate language whereby this "island" within the greater acreage can
continue to thrive. The applicant's willingness to work with staff with a zoning
modification to the eastern portion of their site is appreciated. It is hoped this will
provide the property owner with some great opportunities, as well. Staff requests this
ordinance be postponed to the June 27 Council meeting to resolve the issues.
Mrs. Boring asked what is the issue with the ID -3 zoning category that the applicant
requested and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended.
Mr. Combs responded that at that point in time, staff's understanding was that the key
issue for the applicant was architectural materials. For that reason, the Commissioners
discussed at length the use and application of corrugated metal, including the
appropriate percentages for use. However, when the Code proceeded to Council for
consideration, public input indicated that there were additional issues regarding the
architecture, as well as landscaping and other elements of the PIP text. Based on the
issues raised at the Council meeting, staff reviewed the specifics of the PIP text and
looked at the ID -3 District as well as the ID -2 District. Based on the uses and the
development standards, it fits more comfortably with the text proposed for the Flex
District, not the warehousing district, due to the standards and narrow frame of
permitted uses. As the redlined text in Council packets indicates, staff has addressed
for the applicant the issue of existing uses, existing structures, and added clarification
to the architecture to allow for considering future development in that area under the
ID -3 District, even though the facility would have an ID -2 District. The ID -2 text, as
revised, can
comfortably achieve most of what the PIP district provides. This fits within the larger
picture. If, however, this area were to be placed in the ID -3 District, there would be a
significant level of issues with the proposed uses and the impact on the larger plan.
Mr. McDaniel stated that staff will continue to work on this to determine how it can meet
all of the PIP provisions.
Mr. Gerber stated that is encouraged to hear that staff will continue to work toward
resolving these issues with the landowner.
Mr. Keenan asked if there would be any issue with rebuilding a facility within this
district, if the existing building were lost due to an unexpected event. This discussion
has occurred in relation to the Bridge Street Corridor.
Mr. Smith responded that there are no such issues with this district to his knowledge.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if the City wants this designated as a sports area, why not
have a district specifically for that use, versus all of these district names?
Mr. Keenan agreed, noting it can be carved out to accommodate this desire.
Mr. Combs responded that, based on their understanding of the long -term intent for the
area, they have attempted to provide a zoning that would be appropriate for future uses
forthe area.
Mr. Keenan stated that in discussing the COIC or Tech Flex district in general, a sports
facility use would seems to fit long -term with the young professionals who would be
working in this location.
Mr. McDaniel responded that the intent is to support the current use. However, if in the
future, SportsOhio were no longer interested in maintaining a sports facility on this site,
the proposed zoning would permit other uses for the facilities.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that for her, the issue would be whether the City wants
that area to be designated for a sports use, regardless of who the property owner may
be. She also requested clarification regarding the entrance area to Darree Fields. Will
that no longer be designated as public park area?
Mr. Combs responded that the reference was to the ID-4 District, which is generally the
undeveloped property in front of Darree Fields. According to the adopted plan, it would
be a mix of Office and Residential with the intent of locating more people around the
park area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetin
June 13, 2011 Page 13
Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates the concept of carving out a specific use, but if
Mr. Shepherd should ever want to sell the property for a higher use, would it not be
preferable if it were not limited to the current use?
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it is Council's decision about whether they desire to
have a sports complex in that location. It could be zoned exclusively for a sports
complex, if that is Council's desire.
Mr. Keenan stated that staff has indicated they will continue to work with the applicant
in the next two weeks, and discussion can occur about all of the points brought up
tonight.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher pointed out that the question may be how it can be zoned as a
sports complex now, with the language to allow another use in the future.
Mr. Smith stated that a future buyer could propose a new use and file for a rezoning,
with the land contract contingent upon obtaining the rezoning. This is standard
practice.
Mr. Keenan stated that he is supportive of carving out this area for the sports use as
suggested.
Mr. Reiner stated that this allows the owner to have a long -term option for the property,
while allowing the owner to continue to exist as a sports park.
Mayor Lecklider stated that what staff is proposing is not an elimination of an existing
use or that use in the future, but provides for an eventuality far into the future. That is
the focus of this entire effort. He appreciates Council's interest in maintaining this land
as a sports use and how it complements the overall community, but that is not
necessarily at odds with what is being proposed.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has heard from property owners that the
challenge is that for someone with undeveloped land, or for someone who wants to
add to an existing development, change it, sell it, or obtain financing, when the City
zones the land something other than the current zoning, it is difficult to sell or obtain
financing. Mr. Shepherd was concerned about a future expansion of the sports facility,
should that be desired. Council's interest in looking forward should not be detrimental
to property owners.
Mr. McDaniel noted that all of these Code changes will establish different zonings that
are anticipated to help property owners develop their land -- bridging solutions between
the current use and future development. The property owner should not lose the
viability of the present use, nor be prevented from developing their land.
Mrs. Boring stated that the other concern is diluting the zoning to such a degree to
accommodate the current use that it limits future potential for anything new and
different in this location. In that case, it would be preferable to carve out a separate
area for the specific use.
Mr. McDaniel responded that the intent is to focus on the end result and ensure that
the zoning will facilitate that.
Mayor Lecklider invited the property owner to speak.
Allen Shepherd, 6295 Cosgray Road provided history about his property, which
previously had Industrial Park zoning. In the early 1990s, the City purchased eight
acres of his land for an ice rink. Following that, five acres was sold to a private party
who developed a soccer complex and later, a gymnastics complex was added. The
sports park was not his original vision for this area. They have carefully developed this
land under a unique set of building standards provided to them at the outset. The
sports park has not been profitable, but has been a "labor of love." Based on statistics,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Mi nutes cif Meeting
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011 Page 14
they believe about 200,000 people visit the park approximately 20 times a year,
resulting in about 4 million visits per year. Their building costs today would be
approximately $50 per square foot. Under the proposed ID -3 District, the building
costs would increase an additional $20 per square foot. Under the ID -2 District, the
costs would increase an additional $40 -$50 per square foot. Currently, there is a metal
building of 50,000 square feet, with 20 percent of the front in split -face block, and
landscaping of 6,000 pine trees. If the City proceeds with its proposed zoning, no one
will purchase land and build next to an all -metal building with the upgraded
specifications of the proposed rezoning. Therefore, he would not be able to sell each
parcel in the park. He is currently in discussions with an NBA player interested in
constructing a basketball facility in this location. There is another popular option across
the country — an upscale bowling all family facility. It meets a
community need. Realtors visit his park weekly to show off this community amenity to
clients. They are attempting to improve the profitability of the sports park. It does
serve the community. If the City subjects this land to the proposed standards, and a
tornado destroys one side of the building, he will not be able to rebuild it. He cannot
rebuild it to meet either the ID -2 or ID -3 specifications and remain competitive. They
have submitted some suggestions to staff. They have requested to be opted out of the
area rezoning. Mr. Hale has offered a solution that he had previously offered, which
has proven successful in another city. He disagrees with Mr. McDaniel -- in his
opinion, he and staff are a long distance apart.
Mayor Lecklider stated that staff will continue to work with the applicant on a solution
for the second reading /public hearing on June 27.
Ordinance 37 -11
Amending the 2007 Dublin Community Plan to Incorporate the Hyland -Croy Road
Corridor Character Study as a Refinement of the Northwest/Glacier Ridge Area
Plan and Expanding the Planning Area to Include the Neighborhoods along
Hyland -Croy Road. (Case 10- 053ADM)
Mr. Goodwin stated that this ordinance requests incorporation of the Hyland -Croy
character study as a revision to the Northwest/Glacier Ridge Area Plan, and an
expansion of that planning area. The goal of the effort was to provide more specificity
to the Community Plan's rural roadway character guidelines, specifically in the
northwest area of the City. The desire was to provide specific applications for
preserving and enhancing rural roadway character in the context of rapidly changing
land use areas, additional residential development and some potential commercial
development. The process included extensive public involvement. He shared a
PowerPoint with slides comparing the existing area plan boundary and the proposed
amendment to the Northwest Area Plan boundary. This revision broadens the planning
boundary to include properties and neighborhoods on both sides of Hyland -Croy Road.
They believe the roadway should not be considered a barrier to the neighborhoods, but
a means to cross between the Metro Park and the neighborhoods on the east side of
the road. He reviewed the changes in the plan. On May 5, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend that Council approve the revised plan. The
Commission made suggestions for improving the document in terms of usability, and to
communicate the relationship between the long -range vision of the Plan and the City's
capital improvements programming process and overall development public review
process. Staff has incorporated those items into the document presented to Council.
Mayor Lecklider asked him to elaborate on the Commission's suggestions for the
document.
Mr. Goodwin responded that they wanted to ensure that a citizen reading the document
understands the difference between some of the graphics shown illustrating a long-
term vision of what the roadway may look like and open space treatments may look like
and how access may be impacted such as with a median treatment, and how that may
change access to adjacent neighborhoods or properties. Some members of the public
expressed concern at the Commission meeting about long -term implications for access
to their properties. Therefore, the Commission recommended adding some clarity to
the document to explain that throughout the capital improvements programming
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetine
June 13, 2011 Page 15
process, there will be extensive opportunity for public feedback to the Commission or to
Council regarding specific improvements.
Mr. Reiner stated that staff has done an excellent job on the three potential proposals.
Regardless of what occurs at the City's borders in the future, this document provides a
vision that could improve the situation for individual property owners. It is a
progressive approach, and the options are well thought out. The adjacent property
owners will have some good alternatives, if they choose to pursue them.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher concurred, but added that it is important that the document
makes it very clear what land Dublin controls and what it does not. In many planning
documents, people assume that all of the land is in Dublin — so it is clear to specify
what is in Dublin currently and is controlled by this document.
Mr. Keenan agreed, noting that there have been issues with long -term planning
documents in the past that impact areas outside of Dublin.
Mr. Goodwin indicated that staff will review the documents to improve the clarity of this.
Mayor Lecklider complimented staff on their hard work on this initiative. He attended
some of the meetings and was impressed with the participation and extensive
engagement of the property owners.
There will be a second reading /public hearing June 27 Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 25 -11
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Annual Street Maintenance Program —
Phase One.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Mr. Hammersmith reported that there are two phases of the program this year. The
first is street centric, with the focus on replacement of curb, catch basins and street
resurfacing. The Phase 2 portion will be presented on July 6 and will include bike path
and bike path connection work. Five bids were opened for Phase 1 on June 2. The
Engineer's estimate was $3 million, and various funds within the CIP are utilized for this
project. Five bids were received, and the lowest/best bid was submitted by the Shelley
Company in the amount of $2,909,569.98. Prior experience with this company has
been favorable. He provided information about streets included in this year's program:
Emerald Parkway will be resurfaced, with sharrows installed from Dublin Road to
Perimeter Drive; Rings Road between Avery and Wilcox Road replacement of surface;
and Monterey Drive resurfacing. The Monterey Drive homeowners are being surveyed
regarding their preference about removal of the speed humps, which were installed
many years ago. Staff will report to Council regarding the neighborhood preference.
The speed humps are done at the end of the resurfacing project, so there is time to
have input before a decision is made.
Mr. Keenan noted that the medics have indicated the speed humps have been
problematic for emergency medical transports.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff collected some baseline traffic information, both
volume and speed data last fall in anticipation of this project. If the speed humps are
removed, data can then be obtained to gauge the effectiveness of having the speed
humps in place. He added that the Chamber of Commerce parking lot and the 5800
Building parking lot will be resurfaced this year.
Communication efforts will be extensive, as has been done in past years. For
residents where the driveways will be impacted, notices are provided to them with
contact information. Signage is placed to alert the neighborhood that the street
resurfacing program is coming to the neighborhood, with dates provided.
Staff recommends acceptance of the bid from Shelley Company for Phase 1 of the
2011 Street Maintenance Program.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring,
yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes o
D ublin City Council
Meeting
June 13, 2011 Page 16
Resolution 26 -11
Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right -of -Way Permit to
Bluemile, Inc.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Mr. McDaniel stated this is a request for a general right -of -way permit, under Chapter
98 of the Codified Ordinances. Bluemile provides lit fiber service for the purpose of
people accessing data center cloud computing within the community. They are
deploying fiber optics through Dublin and are taking advantage of the Columbus Fiber
Net system and deploying throughout the region. This is another service provider that
will add to the number of telecommunication /data services available to the community,
and increases competition and broadband capacity.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
Mayor Lecklider noted that the documents indicate a New Albany address, although he
is aware they have a large facility in downtown Columbus.
Mr. McDaniel responded that they have relocated some of their operations to New
Albany.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinn ici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Lecklider,
yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Resolution 27 -11
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Dublin City Schools
for the School Resource Officer Program.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Chief von Eckartsburg stated this is a renewal of an annual contract with the Schools to
help fund the School Resource Officer Program. This contract authorizes payment for
half the cost of three school resource officers in the high schools and two in the middle
schools. There is a slight reduction in the cost of the contract, based on the reduced
family medical benefit costs for the officers.
The contract maintains the status quo in terms of staffing.
Vote on the Resolution: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms.
Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
OTHER
• Update of Coffman Park Master Plan
Mr. Hahn stated that late in 2010, staff initiated a review of the most current Coffman
Park Master Plan, which was accepted in 2003, with the goal of updating the Plan and
programming it in the proposed capital improvements program. He shared an image of
Coffman Park, reflecting the updates to the Master Plan. Many elements are the same
as those in 2003, with a couple of changes.
• Some of the land studied in 2003 is no longer City property, but now houses the
Delta Energy office development.
• The feature ponds have been eliminated — one was to be located on the Delta
Energy site and another on the large open field on the south of the screen
image.
• An addition to the Plan is an amphitheater. The existing Coffman Park
amphitheater would be retained, but a larger facility would be added to house
larger events. The existing amphitheater limits the potential bookings due to its
capacity.
• Similarities in the 2003 and this update include the stream crossings to connect
the two halves of the park and the update reflects the reuse of the Nyrop house.
• This update includes the burial of existing overhead utility lines along the old
Post Road roadbed, which is costly. He shared a rendering with the utility lines
removed. In the budget process, the burial of lines would be proposed for the
length of Coffman Park.
• The old Post Road roadbed would be regraded in a manner to make it more
park -like.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meetine
June 13, 2011 Page 17
He summarized that tonight's focus is to share this update of the Plan, and seek any
direction or input Council wants to provide. This sets the stage for further
consideration at the CIP budget workshop in the summer.
Mr. Reiner noted that a spray park is incorporated in this plan, and these are extremely
problematic to operate and maintain. What is missing from the plan is an extensive
play recreation area, which he has seen in other communities. He would prefer to
swap a play complex and eliminate the spray park.
Mr. Hahn responded that the Ballantrae spray park was under designed for capacity,
which resulted in problems. However, pumping water does require lots of maintenance
and therefore, water features are expensive to operate. They are under the jurisdiction
of the State, which adds requirements as well.
Mr. Reiner reiterated that he would prefer to invest in play parks versus a spray park.
He asked if the Irish Festival staff have been involved in reviewing this plan.
Mr. Hahn responded that there has been a citywide review of the update, including
Events staff. He added that the Sundays at Scioto concerts are very popular, and
therefore it is conceivable that these concerts could be housed in the proposed
amphitheater in the future.
Mr. Reiner asked if there is adequate parking to serve a 2,000 - person amphitheater.
Mr. Hahn responded that there would be overflow - parking areas, so that paving is
minimized and serves the average size crowd.
Mrs. Boring commented that there is a focus group underway for baby boomers and
recreational programming. She encouraged staff to work with Recreation staff and
PRAC to review the findings. Personally, she does not encourage the use of the term
"older adult activity center" versus "adult activity center."
Mr. Hahn agreed, noting that the sessions begin this week. They will consider the
input from these sessions.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Maurer alluded to an important issue of location
signage for the Abbey Theater at the Rec Center. It is important to have improved
directional signage for the theater. She is concerned with the proposed amphitheater
close to the neighborhoods and the potential for regular concerts throughout the year
and the impact on neighborhoods. It is important to think through the true
programming concepts for such an amphitheater.
Mr. Keenan added that the orientation of such an amphitheater would be important in
terms of noise impacts to surround neighborhoods.
Mrs. Boring clarified that the DAC may be interested in having the concerts in the new
amphitheater, based on concerns about parking for patrons who attend the Sundays at
Scioto concerts.
Mr. Reiner stated that a smaller, hard surface amphitheater could be set in a mound,
and could be contoured. It would create an earth amphitheater.
Mr. Hahn responded that the seating capacity would include 1,000 terrace seats, and
the balance would be overflow seating on earthen berms.
Mayor Lecklider added that he echoes Mr. Reiner's remarks with respect to the spray
park, based on experience. He asked how the updates to the Plan can be reconciled
with the Task Force work from 2003.
Mr. Hahn responded that this plan is respectful of the 2003 plan, and the issue is
whether or not to have an amphitheater. The elimination of the pond relates to a value
judgment and whether the loss of the land is warranted to have the pond.
Mayor Lecklider indicated that if former Task Force Members asked for the essence of
the changes, these would be the elimination of the pond and the addition of the
amphitheater.
Mr. Hahn affirmed that is correct. With or without the Irish Festival, there still needs to
be connectivity between the two landmasses or the park will not be viewed as one
park.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011 Page 18
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher noted she appreciates the reference to the Task Force work, but
this is a good example of how something evolves and changes over time. A very large
percentage of that Plan was honored and adhered to by the City, but the needs of the
community change as well as land ownership. She hopes that Council is not reluctant
to move forward with the plan as revised, based on the needs of the community at this
point in time.
Mr. Hahn stated that staff's intention is to have further discussion at the CIP budget
workshop in August.
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Grigsby stated:
1. The packet included a memo regarding the Bridge Street Corridor project.
There has been ongoing work with the consultants and stakeholders. Based
upon the three rezonings heard earlier tonight and the time and effort involved
in these processes, staff wants to allow sufficient time for review of both the
Bridge Street Corridor Code and the area rezoning in order to address the
issues thoroughly. In working through the Code modifications at staff level, the
discussion has been that it would be helpful to have until the Monday workshop
to distribute the Code information, with the understanding that there would be
discussion and identification of those items that have been modified as well as
those that have been suggested yet not modified on Monday evening. After the
Monday joint workshop, the traditional review process would proceed, with a
separate review by Planning Commission and Council of both the Code and the
rezoning. She noted that the original timeline presented to Council in late
2010 /early 2011 anticipated having the consultant work completed through the
infrastructure review with Engineering by July 1, and that will be completed.
Originally, the fiscal portion was scheduled to be completed by September 1,
and it will be completed far in advance of that, based upon the other studies. In
reviewing the options provided to Council, staff is suggesting that the Code and
rezoning be heard by the Commission in July, and submit the Code and
rezoning to Council in August, after the Commission review. Based on the
feedback to date from stakeholders, staff believes that much progress has been
made and that it would make sense to continue to work with the stakeholders
for the next week, providing the information to Council as an update on Monday,
June 20.
Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification of the distinction between options 2 and 3A,
other than the completion dates.
Mr. McDaniel responded that staff is proposing that the options be set aside and
Council consider giving the Planning & Zoning Commission until August 1 to complete
a review of the Code and rezoning. Council would then review the Code and rezoning
and complete their review by September 1. He believes that deadlines help to make
everyone responsive. He believes that the work on the Bridge Street Corridor is 80 -90
percent complete at this time. He did speak with PZC Chair Groomes today and she
felt this was a reasonable review timeframe.
Mr. Keenan noted it is important to consider the issue he has raised with respect to
property destroyed by fire or casualty and what happens for that business owner under
this rezoning action. Absent this being addressed, he cannot support the rezoning.
Mr. Gerber commented that he prefers the more traditional review process, which staff
is now suggesting. He wants to ensure there is sufficient time in the process for all
interested parties to have a full opportunity to vet their issues and that Council has the
opportunity to review those comments. He also wants to make sure that Legal staff
has sufficient time to review the issues of property rights, ongoing zoning and financing
issues for business owners. If all of this work can be completed by August 1, that is
fine, but realistically it may require more time. He does not want a deadline imposed to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Du blin City Council
M eeting
June 13, 2011 Page 19
have unintended consequences for property owners. Council has a long history of
allowing everyone to be heard in the process of rezoning.
Ms. Grigsby responded that a similar discussion occurred at staff level. This is an
important initiative and project. With the three rezonings on tonight's agenda, there
were 190 parcels involved, yet only two property owners had unresolved issues. Staff
believes their issues can be worked out. This percentage indicates that there was a
good dialogue throughout the process of rezoning.
Mr. Gerber agreed. He asked if the property owners in the Bridge Street Corridor will
again be notified of the review dates and their opportunity to testify.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can send out notices again. These notices have
already prompted many property owners to come forward and be engaged in this
process.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the joint work sessions and open houses have also helped to
get the information out and elicit comments. Staff will provide a summary report of the
interaction with the various stakeholders.
Mr. Gerber asked about the specific purpose of the Monday workshop, given the
traditional review process will take place for the Code and rezoning.
Mr. McDaniel responded that the consultants will be presenting additional findings,
primarily on the transportation and modeling. This will be an informational update — not
decision - making.
Mr. Gerber stated that perhaps the property and business owners should be made
aware that the workshops are more information gathering versus decision making.
Mr. McDaniel responded that they will work with Community Relations to convey this
message as well as the review dates by P &Z.
Ms. Grigsby continued:
2. Council requested updates regarding Historic Dublin at each Council meeting.
A memo in the packet indicates recent progress, including a Letter of
Understanding with the Library that will allow use of 16 spaces for long -term
parking.
3. Regarding the projects related to multi -use or bike paths and bike lanes, a
memo in the packet indicated that reports will be submitted to Council in the
next two meeting packets.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
• Community Development Committee recommendation re. request for waiver to
serve alcohol at the Coffman Park Amphitheater for the closing dinner of the
2011 RAAM Ohio Cycling Challenge - Saturday, October 8, 2011
Mr. Reiner, Chair stated that the Committee approved a recommendation to Council to
allow serving of alcohol for the closing dinner of the RAAM Ohio Cycling Challenge on
October 8 in Coffman Park. The event will be held in the small amphitheater area and
will be fenced.
He moved approval of the Committee recommendation.
Mr. Keenan seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
• Community Development Committee recommendation re. the Revised Beautify
Your Neighborhood grant application
Mr. Reiner reported that the Committee recommended some further modifications to
the grant application. Staff will submit a revised grant application for Council's review
at the June 27 meeting.
Mr. Reiner noted that:
1. The planters in Historic Dublin look great.
2. He believes that sometime in the future, the parking structure will be an
important asset to the community. In the meantime, he urged the City to work
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes o
Dublin City Council
Meeting
June 13, 2011 Page 20
with the property owners along Blacksmith Alley and other areas where there is
parking space availability. A business owner testified tonight that parking is the
key issue as well as pedestrian cross traffic. What is being done regarding
available parking and having that organized? It was not addressed in the
report.
Ms. Grigsby responded that Mr. Tyler has had numerous discussions with property
owners on the east side of Dublin Road, south of SR161. He has made some progress
with regard to some of those properties.
Mr. Tyler responded that the first objective is to concentrate on the parking agreements
with the Library and with the Church. The Library agreement has been executed, and
they are close to having resolution with the Church.
There was an in -house meeting between staff and Legal staff about how to proceed
with securing parking from other properties across the street. Legal staff has provided
a draft of a parking agreement, which gives the basis for approaching the property
owners about use of the paved lots, moving then to the unpaved lots.
Mr. Reiner asked when these meetings will be concluded.
Mr. Tyler responded that they will proceed as quickly as possible, but there is not a
date certain.
Mr. Reiner stated that he believes that there will be a fair amount of give and take in
these negotiations, and some expectation of work by the City on private property. That
may be a fair trade for use of their property for parking.
3. In regard to the bike path and bike lanes on Avery- Muirfield, the Muirfield
Association has endorsed the project wholeheartedly and is looking forward to
execution of the project. They are willing to donate right -of -way in the interest of
expediting the project.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher:
1. Noted that a memo in the packet indicates that at the June 27 Council meeting,
Council will be given information regarding the Brand Road alternatives. Will
Council be asked to make a decision at that time?
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff will have information and updates about feedback
from residents, as well as an additional option to consider. It will be Council's decision
to make a decision about the alignment or to have further discussion at the CIP or at a
July meeting of Council.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it is unlikely she will be ready to vote on the options,
in view of the fact that citizens will not have had an opportunity to review these. She
wants to ensure the City makes an extra effort in notifying the public of the June 27
discussion as well a future meetings, such as CIP workshops, where such discussion
could occur. The Brand Road path and /or lanes impact more personal residences than
the Muirfield Drive project.
2. Indicated she is interested in having the City quickly explore some type of
parking structure for Historic Dublin. Most of the responses to Mr. Reiner's
inquiry relate to parking in the south end of the District. People will not park in
the south end to go to a restaurant in the north end of the District. Even though
Mr. Barnum spoke of the issues, he has a restaurant without private parking and
now the Mezzo restaurant will open — also without private parking. The City
seems to be avoiding something that will take a long time to build and is instead
looking at other parking available in the southern portion of the District — which
will not be used by the restaurant patrons in the north end.
Ms. Grigsby responded that in terms of the north side, the Indian Run parking lot will be
used for employees and valets. The parking at the library will be used for employees
who park all day. There are 16 at the library and 88 at Indian Run, which are seldom
used.
Mr. Keenan responded that they are full, even during off hours.
Ms. Grigsby stated that staff visits the District on a regular basis to do counts, and
there are considerable spaces available at the Indian Run lot. The City is discussing
with the Schools about some potential uses of the old Administrative building parking
and the 1919 Building. Staff is aware of the parking issues, and that long term, a
parking structure will be needed. The amount of cost and the number of spaces that
can be constructed does not make financial sense at this time.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes o Meetin
Dublin City Council
June 13, 2011 Page 21
Mr. Keenan responded that this involves a major infrastructure piece, and all the plans
for the road network from OCLC will require that this infrastructure be in place. The
City has always installed infrastructure and then developed around it — not the reverse.
He is a firm believer that a parking structure is needed. When Mezzo opens, the
employees and patrons will overwhelm the available parking in the District.
Mr. Reiner responded that for this reason, it is important to pave spots in the District
that could be used for parking.
Mr. Keenan stated this is a "band -aid" approach. He requested that staff begin to look
at this and provide some preliminary costs. It is inevitable that it will be needed if the
District is to grow.
Mrs. Boring acknowledged that a parking structure will be needed in the long run, but
building it now in the wrong place, prior to the finalization of the Bridge Street plan
would be an expensive investment in the wrong place.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher responded that the City is obviously not going to build a parking
structure in the wrong location. She agrees with Mr. Keenan that the City has always
built the infrastructure ahead of the development. The City is working on a major plan,
but this is not a reason to move forward. What is needed are cost estimates and more
detail. Although the City has been promoting the Indian Run for employee and valet
use, will they ever use the lot? Currently, the valets are parking cars immediately
adjacent to Tucci's in the Darby Lot. Unless owners require the employees and valets
to park in the Indian Run lot, it will not occur.
Mr. Keenan stated that the City can create a law that prohibits them from parking in the
close lot.
Mr. Smith responded that the City can pass legislation but it must be enforced.
Mr. Gerber stated that the City needs to consider such a law as a solution. The
volunteer effort is not working.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff has indicated that they will work with the businesses
and property owners in the District, recognizing that the next step, if needed, is
legislating the solution. Mr. Tyler has been working with Stonehenge about the valet
service for BriHi and with Mr. Barnum to persuade the District to work together on the
valet parking.
Mr. Keenan stated it is an issue of prioritization. The Coffman Park Plan update
includes burying utilities at a cost of $800,000 41 million. Maybe there is a need to
reprioritize.
Ms. Grigsby responded that is always an option and the CIP budget workshop provides
an opportunity to review priorities each year. The funding for Coffman Park can be
directed to another priority, if Council so desires.
Mayor Lecklider commented that there are other adjustments that can be made, and
that is part of Council's review at CIP.
Mrs. Boring stated that:
1. She does not believe there is a well- defined plan of what the downtown will look
like in the future. There is consideration needed of the library location and the
orientation of the buildings, and a plan is needed before millions are invested.
2. Mr. Guion, Dublin Arts Council told her of a project underway of installing a
sculpture of an Indian in the BriHi Square through an on -loan art agreement.
She asked about the status of this project, whether Council has the final
determination about an art project installed on public land, and where it will be
installed. She recalls that there was previous discussion about the need to
have discussion with the nearby property owners prior to installing public art.
Ms. Grigsby stated that as part of the development agreement for BriHi, there was
provision of a contribution to art in a plaza area. In the past, staff had discussed with
Council that staff would consider a loan project for artwork. The goal was to have
information in Council's packet for the June 27 meeting about this particular loaned art.
There has not been a recent discussion with the DAC, but the concept of loaned art
was previously discussed with Mr. Guion. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan also
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetin¢
June 13, 2011 Page 22
included this type of option to be pursued by staff. This could also be included in the
DAC agreement, which staff is hoping to bring to Council in August. Based on the
direction in the P &R Master Plan and previous discussions with Council about a loaned
art program versus a permanent placement, this option was pursued.
Mr. Keenan added that there have been several examples in the past of the City
having loaned artwork in the collection, such as the R.C. Olmsted installation and the
Dancing Hares at Ballantrae.
Mrs. Boring responded that this square in Historic Dublin is a sensitive area. Some of
the examples given were later donated to the City and now are in the permanent
collection. She is surprised at how this has been handled.
Mr. Gerber recalled that a few years ago, there was discussion at Council about public
art and the role of the City and the Dublin Arts Council. It was his understanding that
the DAC would be consulted regarding any public art. This was a surprise to him as
well, especially in view of the Bicentennial art process and need for more citizen
involvement.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is in agreement with Mrs. Boring about this new
on -loan art piece. She does not understand why Council was not aware this was
occurring, and why the City does not engage in a close partnership with the DAC,
which is funded in part by the City. There should be a dynamic process of engagement
for such art.
Discussion continued.
Ms. Grigsby indicated that staff will have follow -up discussions with Mr. Guion and the
DAC with regard to the loaned art program.
Mrs. Boring asked if the City has paid for expenses related to this loaned art.
Ms. Ott responded that the artist is Allen Houser, a Native American who is deceased.
The art is from a private collector who is making this piece available to the Stonehenge
Company under a private arrangement. Stonehenge selected the artwork and
approached staff about whether it would be accepted for placement in the BriHi
Square, recognizing that the public art was an important part of the development
agreement. The curation and siting process was managed by Stonehenge and the
collector.
Mrs. Boring acknowledged that Council was supportive of the on -loan art program as a
great means to secure public art. Her concern is with the timing of any communication
about this and the sensitivity of the Historic Dublin area.
Mr. Keenan noted that even if the desired public art for this location is agreed upon, it
will take two years to complete the process and during this time, the on -loan art will be
in place.
Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the expectations of the citizens who
came to Council and requested the water pump sculpture.
Mr. Keenan responded that there are other venues in the Historic District for public art.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the key is that this is a loaned piece, and not a permanent
placement. Staff will commit to improve the communication with the DAC about such
matters in the future.
Mrs. Boring continued:
3. Noted that staff had requested that staff provide information about cities where
form -based codes have been amended since adoption. What did these cities
find that needed to be changed and why?
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff will follow -up on this.
4. She attended the Intelligent Community Forum in New York City, which was a
wonderful conference and being in the Top 7 cities is a great honor.
Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Tyler for his work with the Historic District businesses on the
parking issues. He agreed with Mr. Reiner that having parking along Blacksmith Alley
South would help free up retail parking spots for the businesses in the southern portion
of the District. For valet parking, he believes the City needs to take the lead on this in
pursuing regulation. Long term, if the City is planning to invest in the Bridge Street
Corridor, it is important to look at the solution of a parking garage. It may not be done
for two to four years, but it is important to begin this given the track record on parking.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetine
June 13, 2011 Page 23
The earlier this begins, the earlier a solution will be identified. The City has always
been proactive and needs to be so in this endeavor.
Mrs. Boring asked if he is willing to bring forward a motion for the Law Director to
propose an ordinance regulating valet parking.
Mr. Keenan stated he will support this.
Mayor Lecklider summarized that Council is clearly supportive of direction to staff to
prepare draft legislation for review at an upcoming meeting.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is no location in which to terminate the
additional lanes.
5. Asked about the roundabout being installed at Commerce Parkway /Perimeter.
He does not understand why this was of higher priority than areas such as
Coffman /Brand.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that a traffic analysis was done even before Delta Energy
was proposed for development; Delta Energy did a traffic impact study to review the
volume of traffic created with their development; and with the redirection of Post Road,
particularly during peak hours, it was determined to be a congested area that
warranted the roundabout.
Mr. Keenan:
1. Asked about the plans regarding implementation of a consent agenda.
Staff responded that a consent agenda will be initiated in August for Council's further
input.
2. Thanked Mr. Earman for his work with COSI. This appears to be an exciting
project.
3. Noted that the traffic light at Perimeter is functioning much better during off
hours. He thanked staff for their attention to this.
4. Commented that in reading the minutes from the US 33 corridor breakfast, he
continues to believe that an additional lane on each side of US 33 between 1-
270 and Avery- Muirfield would greatly improve traffic flow.
Mayor Lecklider:
1. Congratulated the Community Relations staff for the IABC awards.
2. Complimented staff for all of their efforts with the Memorial Tournament,
including beautification and staffing of the villa for the City- hosted events.
Council is very appreciative of all of their work!
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Clerk of Council