HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Minutes 06-27-2011RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011
Meeti
Mayor Lecklider called the Monday, June 27, 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;
Mayor Lecklider, yes.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present were Mayor Lecklider, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr.
Reiner. Vice Mayor Salay arrived later in the meeting, and Mrs. Boring was absent
(excused).
Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr.
McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Willis, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Langworthy,
Mr. Combs, Ms. Ott, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Adkins, Mr. Sweder, Mr.
Richardson, and Ms. Nardecchia.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Regular Meeting of June 13, 2011
Mr. Gerber moved approval of the minutes of June 13, 2011.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes;
Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Clerk reported that no correspondence requiring Council action had been
received.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that at the previous Council meeting, he
commented on the difficulty visitors to Dublin have in locating the Abbey Theater. At
that time, the Mayor indicated Council would take his comments under advisement.
Have any efforts occurred to address this issue? He has been encouraging a group
from OSU to attend his recital at the Abbey Theater in a couple of months, and is
hopeful some of them may be able to do so.
Mayor Lecklider noted that he had personally observed a sandwich board sign placed
at the intersection of Emerald Parkway and Coffman Park Drive directing people to the
Abbey Theater. He asked staff to comment.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the current City signage only provides direction to the
Community Recreation Center, which houses the Abbey Theater. Information
regarding the Abbey Theater will be added to that existing sign. The sandwich board
signage regarding theater performances is typically positioned at the entrance to
Coffman Park Drive; however, permanent signage in this location is being considered.
Ms. Grigsby added that various groups using the theater are encouraged to note in
their advertisements that the theater is located in the Dublin Community Recreation
Center and directions to the theater should be included.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meetin
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011 Page 2
LEGISLATION
POSTPONED ORDINANCE
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 at the previous Council meeting, most of the discussion centered
on the SportsOhio facility. Based on Council's comments at that meeting, staff has
continued to work with the property owner. In the revised version of the Code, which was
provided in tonight's meeting materials, a new ID -5 Research Recreation District is
designated for 70 acres of the developed portion of the site. The ID -5 District will
maintain the current development standards for SportsOhio and allow future growth of
the facility. It is not intended for future application to other properties within the District.
The modifications that were made to the ID -2 District to accommodate the SportsOhio
facility have been removed in exchange for the new ID -5 District. That includes removal
of the provision of the 85 percent metal that would have accommodated the architecture
of the buildings. Additional modifications have also been made in the Code, based on
additional feedback from the property owners. The outdoor storage provisions of the
Code have been modified so that buildings within the ID -1, ID -2 and ID-4 Districts have
their outdoor storage capability increased from five percent to 20 percent. This provides
additional storage for flex type uses. Permitted storage for buildings larger than 225,000
square feet is increased from 2.5 to five percent. Within the Assembly District, the
permitted storage area will be up to 50 percent of the gross floor area. These areas must
be compliant with the Code for landscape screening. Materials were a primary
discussion item by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Commission
reached a compromise to permit up to 65 percent metal on buildings in the Assembly
District. Staff recently received a request from a property owner that the amount be
increased to 85 percent. However, that has not been incorporated due to the
Commission's previous lengthy discussion on the topic. Council may choose to
discuss that issue tonight, if desired.
Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony.
Vic Irelan Chairman Dublin Building Systems 9015 Portofino Place. Dublin
complimented Council, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission on developing
the new zoning codes and following through with the area zonings. This demonstrates
a tremendous amount of cooperation between the City, developers and landowners.
He emphasized that the modification of the amount of outside storage is very
important. Initially, it was only five percent. The amount now proposed of 50 percent
in the ID -3 District along Houchard Road is very important to that area. Another item
he later became aware of was the use of metal panels in the ID -3 District. The
arbitrary amount of 65 percent will be confusing, depending on the dimensions of the
buildings. That percentage will permit the landowner opportunities for the use of metal
panels, which may not be in keeping with the City's aesthetic standards. He believes it
would be preferable to require that the front of the building facing the street not be
metal.
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher asked staff to comment.
Mr. Combs noted that there was lengthy discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting about the architectural metal. It focused on whether it would be required for
the entire building, or if the ribbed metal would be permitted. Because the ID -3 District
is focused primarily on manufacturing, the Commission believed it best to allow that,
but indicated that it should not be a predominant material that would take over the
appearance of the entire area. The 65 percent amount was the compromise agreed
upon by the Commission. The intent was that the buildings be capable of
manufacturing and assembly activities, and not necessarily the level of quality
comparable to Industrial Parkway — that serves a particular segment of the market.
The desire was for a higher quality for the ID -3 District.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011
Meeting
Page 3
Mr. Reiner asked if the intent is to ensure the buildings have three or four -sided
architecture buildings.
Mr. Combs responded that the intent was to minimize very large, expansive blank walls
by having a percentage that would cap the use of the ribbed metal. There is an
extensive palette of other materials that can be used and integrated, whether it is
architectural metal, stone or concrete panels. Staff's intent was to ensure a level of
quality visible from the public rights -of -way that will fit with the manufacturing character
desired, but also blend with the character of the larger Plan objectives.
Mr. Keenan stated that if the entire percentage of permitted metal could be used on the
front of the building and the other materials on the rear of the building, it would not
address the aesthetics of the view from the road. It would seem preferable to have the
alternative materials on that side of the building; everything else could be metal.
Mr. Combs responded that they would be permitted 65 percent metal of the exterior of
the building. Manufacturing elements are typically located at the rear of the building,
so it is likely the metal would be located there as well. Office and other accessory
components are typically placed toward the road frontage, which would provide the
opportunity for other materials on the front of the building.
Mr. Keenan inquired if staff does not believe it is necessary to require that other
materials be used on the road facing side of the building, because the property owner
will do this in any case.
Mr. Combs responded that having a requirement for a different material on the front
fagade could result in a contrived look. Although the Code specifies 65 percent, there
is the ability for an administrative departure process. If an applicant proposes a design
that exceeds the 65 percent, but is attempting to match and use the material in a
desired manner, there is the ability to permit an increase in the percentage. There is
also the ability to request relief through the Planning Commission as well.
Mr. Gerber asked if the initial draft proposed a higher percentage of metal.
Mr. Combs responded that it did not. After the Council meeting discussion concerning
SportsOhio, staff attempted to place that facility as a recreational use in the ID -2
District. The language was modified to 85 percent metal for that type of use, to
accommodate their text within that District. When SportsOhio was placed within a
separate District, the 85 percent amount was removed, so the current amount of 65
percent remains consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mayor Lecklider stated that, theoretically, it would be possible to use the non -metal
materials on two sides. Non -metal materials are not required whatsoever on the front
elevation.
Mr. Carson confirmed that is correct. The non -metal materials could be used on two
sides.
Mr. Reiner stated that the intent is to achieve a building with three or four -sided
architecture.
Mr. Combs responded that the architectural standards, in addition to the materials, call
for integrating elements that would complement a contemporary design. That allows
for alternatives for other materials and architectural features.
Mr. Keenan stated that 35 percent of the other materials used on a four -sided building
provides only about eight percent per side, which would not be aesthetically appealing.
Mr. Reiner responded that the intent would be for the architect to achieve a desirable
design, which will probably result in an interesting front elevation.
Mr. Keenan asked what uses are permitted in the ID -3 District— primarily
manufacturing?
Mr. Combs responded that the ID -3 District is designed primarily for Manufacturing,
Assembly and Research, although it will allow other uses that are compatible with the
ID -1 and ID -2 Districts.
Mr. Keenan asked if the goal is to enhance economic development and viability from a
revenue perspective.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetin
June 27, 2011
Page 4
Mr. Combs confirmed that is the goal. Compared to the Tech Flex District, the ID -3 will
provide an upgrade in architectural quality.
Mr. Keenan asked if this will place Dublin at a disadvantage in terms of economic
development.
Mr. Combs responded that it should make Dublin comparable, because there will be a
variety of sites that can accommodate any type of user.
Mr. Gerber stated that, in view of the nature of these buildings, he questions the 65
percent metal restriction. The Planning Commission discussed this issue extensively.
It is important to balance the aesthetics with the cost. Perhaps that can be achieved
with a higher percentage of metal.
Mayor Lecklider pointed out that the administrative review process will permit approval
of a higher percentage if warranted.
Mr. Combs responded that in all the Districts, the Architectural Review Team will utilize
administrative procedures with outlined criteria for evaluations. If administrative relief is
not given, the applicant can also request Planning Commission review.
Mr. Gerber asked what criteria would be considered in making that determination.
Mr. Combs responded that the site plan requirements would be considered.
Mr. Gerber asked if the review would be subjective, as with planned districts, where the
aesthetics of the surrounding area is considered.
Mr. Combs responded that flexibility is build into the process.
Mr. Keenan asked if a 75 percent amount would be acceptable.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she did not believe that the percentage is of concern
to Mr. Irelan. He is more concerned with the location of the metal on the building.
Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Irelan to clarify his comments.
Mr. Irelan stated that he is also concerned with what would occur with a future building
expansion. The proposed percentage may be satisfactory if the Code states that the
front elevation should be of non -metal material and of an architectural design that
would meet the requirements.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if there is the potential for multiple materials on the front
of a building; if so, perhaps the front should be required to be non - metal.
Mr. Combs responded that the building could be constructed with one -story office, and
high -bay construction after that. A requirement for a different material on the front
elevation could present design - related issues.
Mayor Lecklider referred to the existing Nestle facility on Eiterman Road -- an
interesting design, which includes an expansion. The front elevation is a mixture of
materials.
Mr. Irelan confirmed that is correct.
Mayor Lecklider asked if he would estimate the percentage of metal as greater than 65
percent.
Mr. Irelan responded that it definitely exceeds 65 percent.
Mr. Reiner stated that he supports Mr. Irelan's suggestion that a non -metal front be
required; the percentage of metal would not be important.
Mr. Irelan stated that would achieve the aesthetics intent. The City has many existing,
attractive metal buildings, such as Hidaka, which is all metal with glass.
Mr. Keenan asked how the glass material would be categorized.
Mr. Combs responded that primary materials include brick, glass, stone and pre -cast
concrete, etc.
Mr. Combs responded that staff's concern with that proposal is that other materials
would be simply applied. Simply applying a material to a front elevation and not
wrapping or integrating it into the rest of the building can have a very contrived
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011
Meetin
Page 5
appearance. When this issue was discussed with the Planning Commission, their
concern was whether or not to require architectural metal, a different type of metal
material with a fastening system. The Commissioners wanted to ensure that the City
would avoid entirely pre- engineered buildings. Those can be found on Industrial
Parkway or in the Tech Flex District, but a higher level of quality is desired in this
District. Limiting the use of metal to 65 percent would require some level of design,
versus simply constructing a suitable building without any architectural consideration or
design of how it would be applied.
Mr. Irelan noted that the ID -3 District is located on Houchard Road, abutting other
industrial buildings and an oil refinery distribution area.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not have a strong opinion on the percentage
amount. He achieves some comfort with the knowledge that there is an administrative
review process for seeking an exception. He is not certain that he would agree that
only the front elevation be non - metal, for the reasons Mr. Combs has suggested. He
assumes that each project would stand on its own merits.
Ms. Grigsby asked how the cost would be impacted if non -metal materials were used
on the front versus the sides of the building.
Mr. Irelan responded that if the entire perimeter of the building were all metal, the
building would definitely be less expensive to construct.
Ms. Chinn ici - Zuercher stated that because there is an administrative review process,
perhaps Council could approve the ordinance as submitted tonight, and be mindful of
any future administrative review decisions that become necessary. If it becomes
apparent that the administrative process indicates that another percentage is more
appropriate, then the Code can be revised accordingly.
Mr. Keenan asked what percentage the administrative review process could find
acceptable. Could staff be comfortable with 75 or 80 percent, assuming the design is
appropriate? What number would require Planning Commission or Council review?
Mr. Combs responded that if the applicant submitted a design that meets all of the
contemporary style requirements that are desired for that District, they would be
provided flexibility at the administrative level. If they do not meet the overall design
objectives, that would trigger a Planning Commission or Council review.
Mr. Keenan stated that the decision seems to be very subjective.
Mr. Combs responded that it is, and decisions would be made on a case -by -case basis
by the City's architects.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that if staff is uncomfortable with a design, she cannot
imagine the Planning Commission would think differently. This process may place
them in an undesirable position. She is comfortable voting on the ordinance tonight,
because the administrative review process is in place. There are other districts
available, so if other types of buildings are proposed for development, another district
can be recommended. It seems that is the intent — to permit various kinds of buildings
in different districts.
Mr. Gerber stated that, with the understanding that staff will provide an update to
Council in the future and that the opportunity exists to revise the Code if a higher
percent is being approved administratively on a regular basis, he would also be
comfortable voting on the ordinance tonight.
Mr. Reiner stated that this appears to be a good balance. It achieves an architect -
designed building and not a pre- engineered metal box with a nice fagade. The
percentage of metal is not important if the building is designed well.
Mayor Lecklider stated that with the administrative review process in place, referral to
the Planning Commission if needed, and with a review of the administrative review
process experience after a period of time, he is also prepared to vote this evening.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meet
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011
Page 6
Mr. Smith stated that he has reviewed the new district created for SportsOhio, and
discussed it with Mr. Hale. This new district will allow Mr. Shepherd, SportsOhio, to do
everything in the new district that he is doing today. He asked Mr. Combs to confirm
that.
Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct.
Jeff Brown, 37 W. Broad Street stated that Mr. Hale asked him to attend tonight and
thank the staff and Council for a unique solution that addresses everyone's concerns.
Vote on the Ordinance Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - 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. McDaniel stated that a revised exhibit has been provided, correcting the street
name and depicting the entire purchase and its relationship to the right -of -way and
construction easements.
Vote on the Ordinance Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
Ordinance 34 -11
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. Combs stated that there have been no changes made since the first reading.
There were no issues raised at the last Council discussion of this matter.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes.
Ordinance 35- 11(Amended)
Rezoning Approximately 21 Parcels Located along Emerald Parkway from 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. Combs stated that at Council's first reading, the discussion focused on property
along Post Road. The rezoning proposes to convert some of the Restricted
Industrial /Limited Industrial properties along Emerald Parkway, from Post Road down
to Innovation Drive, to Suburban Office and Institutional District, with the municipal
properties integrating with the Coffman Park PUD. The revised text prepared for this
meeting includes modifications to the Coffman Park text to include the new properties.
At the previous reading, a Post Road property owner raised issues regarding the
placement of that property within the Suburban Office and Institutional District versus
the Tech Flex District. Also provided in Council packets is a lengthy timeline, tracing
the history of that site up to the current development proposal, which is under permit
review. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning as
submitted.
Mr. Smith stated that Council directed staff to continue to work with Mr. Polls. A
meeting was scheduled for last week, which Mr. Polis has rescheduled.
Mr. Keenan asked if there is a risk of timing for Mr. Polis in terms of securing building
permit approval.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meeting
June 27, 2011 Page 7
Mr. Smith stated that, provided Mr. Polls is making progress, he is permitted to
continue the permit approval process.
Mr. Keenan asked if Mr. Polis will be permitted to continue in the process if this
ordinance is approved tonight and becomes effective in 30 days.
Mr. Smith responded affirmatively.
Mr. Keenan asked at what point his vesting rights would terminate.
Mr. Smith responded that he has forwarded to Council a memo concerning property
owners' vesting rights. If the application were inactive for a year, and if staff had sent
him numerous letters requesting that he complete the process, at that point his rights
would terminate.
Mr. Keenan asked if the application provides a termination date.
Mr. Combs responded that, after staff has reviewed the permit application and
forwarded a response letter to the applicant, the applicant has up to six months to
respond. Provided that Mr. Polis is actively pursuing permit approval and making
necessary modifications to secure approval, the process would continue.
Vote on the Ordinance Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Lecklider,
yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 36- 11(Amended)
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
POD District to ID -1, Research Office District; ID -2, Research Flex District; ID -3,
Research Assembly District; ID-4, Research Mixed Use District; and ID -5,
Research Recreation District. (COIC /FAZ Innovation District Area Rezoning) (Case
11 -012Z)
Mr. Combs stated that this area is located west of Avery Road, between Shier -Rings
Road and SR 161. Based on the request of the property owner, the Planning
Commission recommended the facility be included in the ID -3 District. Based on
Council's subsequent discussion on June 13, the ordinance has been amended to
include the new ID -5 District for the 70 western acres of the SportsOhio facility.
Mayor Lecklider noted that a distinction is made for the 30 -acre parcel of soccer fields.
He requested clarification of the exact location.
Mr. Combs noted the location on the map as depicted on the slides. The property
owner is satisfied with that particular portion of the facility being placed within the ID -1
and ID -2 Districts. The existing use standards in that text permits their continued use
as soccer fields, and the area is zoned for future development, which may occur
as the main road is extended through the area.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if the current use as soccer fields is discontinued, would
the area then convert to this zoning?
Mr. Combs clarified that it will already have that zoning in place, but the existing use
language in the legislation permits the continued use as soccer fields as long as
desired.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the text then permits the current property owner and
any future property owners the continued use of that property as soccer fields.
Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct. They can also apply at any time for any of the
other uses, and comply with the standards of the ID -1 and ID -2 Districts.
Mr. Keenan noted that the principle of highest and best use will apply in this case.
Mr. Combs responded that is correct. Over time, as the property obtains access from
major roads, development will likely occur.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr.
Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011
Ordinance 37 -11
Meeting
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 was introduced at the June 13, 2011 City
Council meeting. Council Members requested clarifications to the proposed Plan
amendment to better illustrate jurisdictional control of Hyland -Croy Road. To address
this concern, each of the map key graphics accompanying the conceptual illustrations
(pages 7 -13) have been modified to highlight the portions of the Hyland -Croy Road
right -of -way, which are within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin or Union County.
Vote on the Ordinance Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes;
Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 28 -11
Authorizing an Agreement Between the City of Dublin and the Board of County
Commissioners, Franklin County, Ohio on Behalf of the City of Dublin in Order to
Participate in the Franklin County Community Development Block Grant Program
and Home Program and Allowing the City Manager to Extend the Cooperation
Agreement until March 31, 2015.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Ms. Grigsby stated that this is a housekeeping item. This resolution allows inclusion of
Dublin's population with Franklin County's population count.
Vote on the Resolution Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes;
Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes.
Resolution 29 -11
Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right -of -Way Permit to SCG
Fiber, LLC.
Mr. Gerber introduced the resolution.
Mr. McDaniel stated that this is similar tc
approved at the previous Council meeting.
within the City's rights -of -way.
the resolution for BlueMile, which Council
This will permit SCG Fiber, LLC to operate
Vote on the Resolution Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr.
Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
OTHER
Brand Road Bike /Pedestrian Facility Study— Public Involvement Report
Ms. Willis stated that staff will provide their recommendation tonight regarding the type
of facility that should be installed along Brand Road. The discussion area consists of
Brand Road from Muirfield Drive to Dublin Road. Staff recommends the installation of
a multi -use path in a location separated from the roadway, which would allow future
installation of bike lanes if desired. The estimated cost is $1.15 million, which includes
engineering fees. Between Muirfield Drive and Bristol Parkway, a multi -use path would
be constructed on the south side of Brand Road. Between Bristol Parkway, Earlington
Parkway and Brandonway Drive, no multi -use path would be constructed -- this would
result in approximately 2,200 feet along Brand Road where a multi -use path would not
exist. Staff recommends construction of the multi -use path from Brandonway Drive to
Dublin Road, connecting into the existing multi -use path. There is an alternate path
available for the area in which no multi -use path would be constructed — using a
separate multi -use path from Earlington Parkway, to Dublinshire, to Muirfield Drive.
The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative 1, including installation of a multi -use path
separated from Brand Road, was $1.14 million; it is now $1.15 million, which includes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin City Council
Page 9
June 27, 2011
some engineering fees. The path will now be placed in a location to allow the future
installation of bike lanes along Brand Road, if the City should ever choose to do so.
Mr. Keenan requested clarification of the route from Bristol Parkway. There is a tunnel
in place, so the Bristol Commons neighborhood would have access to the multi -use
path via the tunnel. Is there access from the municipal pool to the western section?
Ms. Willis responded affirmatively.
Mr. Keenan stated that the closer access for that neighborhood to the western end
would be via the pool. There is access to the eastern end, as well.
Ms. Willis confirmed there would be access in both directions.
Mr. Keenan noted that the 2,200 foot gap along Brand between Bristol Parkway and
Earlington is the most difficult area in which to install a path due to the crossing of the
north fork of Indian Run.
Ms. Willis confirmed that there are significant concerns with the north fork of Indian Run
that would have to be addressed with this installation.
Mayor Lecklider suggested Council Members ask any technical questions at this point,
and defer summary comments to follow public testimony.
Mr. Reiner stated that the intent was to have an east -west bikepath connector, not a
circuitous route. The interruption to the pathway in the middle of Brand Road is
counterproductive to the intent of a connected bikeway system. He understands that
some citizens were opposed to that bikepath, but this does not accomplish the mission
of connecting the two points.
Ms. Willis acknowledged that there is a segment missing in that area, however, an
alternate path is available.
Mr. Reiner stated the alternate path is not functional as a direct connection.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher requested clarification about the route of the path just to the east
of Muirfield Drive along Brand.
Ms. Willis responded that there would be a multi -use path from Muirfield Drive to Bristol
Parkway on the south side of Brand Road and from there a path to Brandonway. The
path would resume from Brandonway east toward Dublin Road.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher requested clarification of the red line on the map.
Ms. Willis responded that is the path extension along the south side of Brand Road
from Muirfield to Bristol Parkway.
Mr. Keenan noted that is where the path would connect to the Dublin Municipal Pool
North. It is a closer connection than the alternate pathway; it makes the east -west
connection much less circuitous. It is a small deviation through public ground via the
school and the swimming pool. This might provide the City with some users of the
$750,000 tunnel.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the "red line" of the multi -use path begins at the fire
station. How many houses would be impacted with that extension?
Ms. Willis responded that there are four houses impacted.
Mr. Gerber asked if there would be bikepath connectivity from the Muirfield /Brand Road
intersection into the Muirfield development.
Ms. Willis responded that the connection north into Muirfield is their private pathway
system. There is no public path.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked if the public pathway would connect to Muirfield's private
pathway system.
Ms. Willis responded it would not.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes that in recent years, the Muirfield
Association had requested this connection.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011 Page 10
Ms. Grigsby stated that discussion has occurred, and it was noted at the previous
presentation that the connection would be made. However, it is not yet shown on this
plan.
Mr. Gerber asked if the intent is to include that Muirfield connection in conjunction with
this project, or would it require a separate project.
Ms. Grigsby responded that she believes the intent was to include it with this phase. If
it is not already included, it can be added.
Mr. Keenan asked for the cost estimate of the 2,200 foot multi -use pathway extension
from Bristol Parkway to Brandonway.
Ms. Willis responded she does not have that information at this time, but can forward it
to Council.
Mr. Keenan noted that the cost of the project as presented is estimated at $1.15
million. He believes a previous estimate was $2 million for the entire bikepath
connection on Brand.
Ms. Grigsby responded that the previous estimate included the bike lanes in addition to
the multi -use path.
Mr. Keenan requested that Council be provided with information about the additional
cost related to the gap along Brand Road.
Mayor Lecklider asked about the average adjustment to the multi -use path in order to
allow for the future potential bike lanes.
Ms. Willis responded that the current Alternative #1 indicates a 10 -foot offset from the
edge of roadway to the multi -use path. Alternative #3 shows the multi -use path and
the bike lane. A modification could be made to provide a seven to 10 -foot offset from
the edge of Brand Road to the multi -use pathway.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the multi -use pathway would be moved further away from the
existing road to allow for a potential future installation of bike lanes.
Ms. Willis responded that is correct.
Mr. Keenan requested that information regarding the additional cost of accommodating
potential bike lanes in the future also be provided to Council.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is pleased that was taken into consideration,
because it is unknown what might be desired 20 years out. It is more responsible to
consider how that could be achieved without impacting the multi -use pathway.
Mr. Keenan stated that the City has long designated Brand Road as a scenic roadway
and four feet on each side of the road to accommodate those bike lanes profoundly
impacts it.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher acknowledged that is true.
Ms. Grigsby stated that the additional cost of right -of -way to accommodate potential
future bike lanes is estimated at $140,000.
Mayor Lecklider invited public testimony.
Jeff McClelland, 1013 Dublin Road attorney, stated that he represents Washington
Township property owners along Brand Road. They appreciate the staff
recommendation not to install bike lanes on Brand Road. They are also aware that
Council has received many a -mails in opposition to this project. To the extent there will
be any construction for this project in Washington Township on Brand Road, under
what authority can Dublin do so in Washington Township?
Mr. Smith responded that the City has the right under state Code to take property
outside of its boundaries for recreational purposes. The City has done this previously
for the soccer fields in Darree Fields. There is a provision under Ohio law that allows
this, and he will share this information with Mr. McClelland.
Mr. Keenan added that, unlike the City, the township does not have authority for
property takings for recreational purposes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
June 27, 2011
Dublin City Council
Meeting
Page 11
Dave Jenkins, 5071 Brand Road noted he has lived at this address for 35 years and in
Dublin for 58 years. Dublin has done many things right and many things not so well.
He is totally opposed to this entire project for many reasons. First, the bike lanes are
too dangerous. He currently has difficulty exiting his driveway, due to a curve in the
road and speeding cars. Staff has indicated they are not recommending bike lanes at
this point, but why would there be potential to add these in later years by reserving the
option? There will be more traffic and it will be more dangerous in the future, and there
will be safety issues for drivers and those using the bike lanes. Bike lanes should be
completely off the table. In terms of bikepaths, there is a path that runs behind his
property. He was never notified of the construction of the bikepath, and workers came
onto his property and caused destruction. The public trespasses onto his estate -sized
lot. He has kept people off and has not called Police. This bikepath decision will
impact him personally. He cannot believe there is a need for another bikepath. Why
would the City want to have more bicycles in the traffic circles? The traffic circles have
brought a lot of traffic to Brand Road. These areas are very dangerous for bicycles.
Tunnels are needed for bicycles to ensure safety.
Steve Rand, 5790 Brand Road noted that staff has recommended that the bike lanes
not be built for various reasons, one of which is the scenic nature of Brand Road. If
bike lanes are totally off the table, there is no need for he and his wife to testify tonight.
Mayor Lecklider indicated that the staff recommendation is to eliminate bike lanes, but
Council has not made any decision at this time.
Mr. Rand stated that he would then offer his testimony. In speaking of the scenic and
historic nature of Brand Road, homes like theirs were built around the time of the Civil
War and sit close to the roadway. A bike lane or bikepath will come through the small
yards that are the only barrier between their homes and the road. Brand Road was
designated decades ago as a scenic road, and he is not certain that this Council wants
to remove this designation. How it will affect Brand Road on a long -term basis is
unknown. When the bike lanes and /or bikepaths are approved, they are a permanent
feature and will change the historic and scenic nature of Brand Road forever. He
shared an illustration of the impact of the bike lanes and bikepath on their property.
Carolyn Rand, 5790 Brand added that the rendering is based on the Planning
Commission drawing of a cross section of Brand Road, showing a typical construction.
For the older homes such as theirs, the road slopes down and their house sits below
the grade of the road. From the bikepath to their front door is 48 feet under Alternative
#3. If bike lanes are added, the distance between the bike lane and their front door is
20 feet. They already have a huge drainage problem that the City is planning to
address, but because their house sits low, some type of landscaping will be needed.
They will also need some mounding to address sound and drainage issues. She
showed a photo of their front yard as it exists, and what land will be needed if the bike
lanes and bikepaths are added. Many residents of Brand Road believe these bike
lanes and bikepaths will change the entire character of Brand Road. They are
extremely disappointed.
Mr. Rand stated that they are hopeful that Council does not approve either the bike
lanes or the bikepaths for Brand Road and will take all of their comments into
consideration.
Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification from staff. His understanding is that the
proposed bikepath would be on the south side of the Road. Is this correct? He is
confused with what the Rands are depicting with respect to the bikepath.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher responded that the staff recommendation is for a path on the
south side of Brand, but the Rands wanted to make it clear that a path on the north
side would have significant impacts on their property. They wanted Council to be
aware of their concerns with both bike lanes and a bikepath, should the City ever
decide to construct a path on the north side of Brand.
Mayor Lecklider summarized that there has been no proposal to build a multi -use path
on the north side of Brand in a segment that would impact the Rand home.
Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meet
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011 Page 12
Mr. Keenan stated that in terms of the bike lanes, staff is simply being prudent about
allowing for this in the design in case there is a desire to add lanes in the future.
Although there is no support for bike lanes with the present Council, a future Council
could support the bike lanes.
Mr. Rand stated that he is aware of this factor. When the discussions began about the
bikepath, it was not clear which side of Brand would be recommended for the path.
They are speaking as owners of not only their property, but on behalf of other property
owners on the south side. They are focusing more on the nature of the historic homes
on Brand Road that sit close to the road.
(At this point, Vice Mayor Salay arrived at the meeting.)
Rich Weirich. 7466 Katesbridae Court stated that he lives in Wellington Place
subdivision. Residents in his subdivision and surrounding community have been
anxiously awaiting the continuation of what is now a sidewalk that terminates west of
Wellington subdivision. They are encouraged with the fact that this path has been
funded in both the 2010 -2014 and the 2011 -2015 CIP. They are also encouraged by
the fact that six subdivisions, including 1,400 plus homeowners, sent letters to Council
last August in support of this connection. The plan as described will provide
opportunity for pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists of all ages to use this multi -use path to
travel to schools, to shopping, downtown restaurants and businesses, as well as the
library. This serves a valuable public purpose. There remains a question of whether
the ditches could be enclosed along Brand Road as part of this project. This project
brings benefits in terms of transportation safety, community recreation, economic
development, citizen health and wellness, green transportation, and safe routes to
schools. They look forward to construction of this bikepath in 2011 or as soon as
possible thereafter.
Mitch Grant, 5075 Galway Drive stated he is a former board member of the Chamber of
Commerce. He recalls discussion at the time he served on the Board about the Dublin
soccer stadium that was defeated by the voters. This is a similar case. The Brand
Road bikepath is the most ridiculous proposal he has heard during the 21 years he has
lived in Dublin and been involved in City issues. When he served on the Willow Grove
Board, he worked with Mrs. Boring and City staff on the widening of Coffman Road.
City Council and staff were outstanding in terms of their reasonableness in working
with the residents of Willow Grove. He does not have the sense that this is the case
with this project. They have had to fight to eliminate the damaging part of this bicycle
lane and entire bike project so that people can live in peace or sell their homes if they
want to downsize or have health issues. With the current recession, it is very difficult
for those who have to sell their homes. He does not have the sense that the City cares
about that. The Bicycle Advisory Task Force has proposals with a $10 million price
tag, but he believes the cost will be much higher to complete the entire bike network.
The network ties everything into the Bridge Street Corridor, which also encourages
high density in Historic Dublin. He is also concerned with this issue. The concerns
about the scenic nature of Brand Road, concerns for the residents of Brand Road, and
using the taxpayer dollars wisely are the important points to consider. He appreciates
Council's consideration of the residents of Brand Road and hopes that in the future,
cycling lanes are not added to ruin the nature of Brand Road and add unnecessary
taxpayer expense. Staff and Council need to think very clearly about the bicycle lanes
and paths, as more and more citizens will be concerned about the cost, the extent and
the hassles involved with these projects.
(Vice Mayor Salay arrived at this point.)
Mayor Lecklider thanked the community for all of their input through the open houses,
via a -mails and by attending tonight. He also thanked the Bicycle Advisory Task Force,
which has been abiding by their mission and purpose for which they were appointed.
He invited Council Members to make comments.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Meetine
June 27, 2011 Page 13
Mr. Reiner stated that he is a firm believer in connectivity and doing something for the
benefit of everyone. The decisions are difficult when there are impacts to property
owners. However, as a government, the City has an obligation to do what is good for
everyone and the majority of the citizens in the community. It is not popular and may
not be fun to make the decisions, but it is Council's obligation. There is a lot of benefit
to this project. Dublin has a wonderful network of bicycle trails, but it is lacking what
many modern cities have — a way to get to work or to the urban center on a bike. This
is what the young, urban dwellers desire, based on the surveys. Dublin has always
been a city that values physical development, the health of its citizens, and ways for
people to recreate. He lives in Muirfield, where bicycle trails were built throughout the
subdivision. Muirfield residents objected to these at the outset, but within a year or
more, there were no complaints and everyone agreed it was the right thing to do,
adding value to their property. Access to the bikepath was an amenity that helped to
sell properties. He does not agree with the interruption in the bikepath as proposed,
and believes that the entire project should be executed for the common good. This will
help to elevate Dublin to a premier city level, keeping pace with other cities that
compete for economic development and have these amenities. Dublin is typically a
leader in these areas, and he believes this is the right thing to do.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification — is Mr. Reiner advocating the staff
recommendation made tonight, or the Task Force recommendations?
Mr. Reiner responded that he supports the additional connections, but does not
support the staff recommendation, because it has a large gap in the path along Brand.
The plan is ill- conceived.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that Mrs. Boring is out of town, but submitted her
comments to Council in writing. Mrs. Boring indicates she is supportive of tonight's
recommendation and has met with Mr. Stovsky, Vice Chair of the BATF on several
occasions. She believes that Brand Road is a scenic road and therefore should not
have bike lanes, but should have a multi -use path instead. She noted that in the CIP,
the multi -use path has been programmed, but was delayed in order to allow for public
input. She supports proceeding with implementation of the staff recommendation.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher expressed concurrence with many of Mr. Reiner's comments.
Dublin has made a great effort throughout its development to provide connections
through multi -use paths. Because of development occurring, for years it was possible
to have the developers pay for most of those connections. Because significant
development is no longer occurring, the City will have the responsibility of providing
many of the remaining connections. The recommendation under consideration does
just that. She remains concerned about the placement along the south side of Brand
and does not have a clear picture depicting where that multi -use path would be located
on the properties. Although some of the residences are somewhat set back, others are
not. She will need to review the exact location of the multi -use path and its impact on
those four properties. She believes this recommendation provides the kind of
connections the City wants to provide to all its citizens, utilizes the tunnel that has
already been constructed, and connects with existing bikepaths in other City
neighborhoods.
Mr. Keenan also requested additional detail on the potential impact on those four
properties. He had traveled this area approximately 20 times during the last few
months with Engineering Director Paul Hammersmith. He pointed out that there are
some houses that will be very close to the multi -use path, but it is possible to move the
path closer to the roadway. There are similar situations on Dublin Road where the City
has accommodated the property owners' concerns and adjusted the path alignment to
preserve trees. He will be interested in reviewing the Engineering detail. He believes
the connectivity is important to the City, especially for the young people who will locate
in Dublin. He is not in favor of the bike lanes, however, as they will profoundly affect
the roadway. He is supportive of the multi -use path recommended by staff. It provides
alternatives, and will result in use of the expensive pedestrian tunnel that currently has
limited use. A number of residents are present tonight who object to the multi -use
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Meetine
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011 Page 14
path. However, a large number of residents from surrounding subdivisions have
contacted Council Members to express support of the multi -use path. He understands
the impact on property owners' real estate. There is a bikepath in his backyard, and it
has improved his and the neighborhood's quality of life. In time, he believes that the
residents of Brand Road will also consider the multi -use path a positive amenity.
Mr. Gerber stated that he relies upon the Community Plan, which has designated
Brand Road as a rural roadway with rural characteristics to be preserved. The recent
update of the 1997 Community Plan affirmed that intent for Brand Road, as well.
Therefore, he cannot support the construction of bike lanes along Brand Road. It is not
safe and would expand the width of the road. There is already much congestion on the
road and high speed traffic. He understands that there are young residents who want
to travel by modes other than automobiles, and having bike lanes in the proper
locations are a good idea for Dublin, keeping stride with the needs of the community.
The Community Plan also addresses the connectivity of neighborhoods. Both the 1997
and the 2007 update of the Community Plan provided for multi -use paths in this area.
He supports the recommended multi -use path, but needs to view more depictions of
how close the pathway will be to these homes. It is necessary to achieve a balance
between the connectivity, as outlined in the Community Plan, and the rights of each
property owner. That is the only fair solution. In respect to some residents, it may be
desirable to move the pathway closer to the roadway, and he would like to see those
alternatives explored, as well.
Vice Mayor Salay stated that she does not support bike lanes on Brand Road, because
she does not favor widening the roadway. The benefit of the bike lane is not offset by
the drawbacks. She expressed concurrence with Mr. Keenan's comments. She, too,
is interested in reviewing the proximity of the proposed pathway to the homes. The
City often adjusts bikepath alignments, and she is certain that can occur in this case to
the satisfaction of most, if not all the homeowners.
Mayor Lecklider stated that his primary considerations have been maintaining the
scenic character of the roadway and the purpose of the bike lane and multi -use path,
respectively, and cost. He does not support a bike lane on this particular road for
many reasons, one of which is safety. He also believes it would detract to a major
degree from the scenic character of the roadway. With respect to the multi -use path,
he appreciates what has been proposed. He shares fellow Council Members'
concerns regarding the westernmost section. He would also like to review a depiction
of the pathway's proximity to homes. He is a regular user of the bikepaths, particularly
in this northwest area. He is familiar with the paths around Wyandot, the pool,
Earlington Parkway and Dublinshire, and there is an east to west connection in place.
He recalls an earlier survey of residents that indicated the majority do not believe a
multi -use bikepath necessarily has to parallel a roadway. There are many portions of
the City's bikepath system that are not along a roadway. The fact that a cyclist
traveling east to west would utilize the existing system -- down Earlington Drive, across
Dublinshire and to the bikepath tunnel under Muirfield Drive -- is not a negative,
particularly if the destination is Glacier Ridge Metro Park. He appreciates the access of
Bristol Commons to the proposed system, as well. The reason he requested
clarification regarding the comment about making an adjustment of the multi -use
pathway now to allow for future bike lanes is that, personally, he would not support
making that adjustment. Brand Road either is or is not a designated scenic roadway.
He hopes that 20 -30 years from now, the City has preserved the character of this
roadway as closely as possible to its existing state. Therefore, he would not support
such an adjustment. In addition, not making this adjustment would have a positive
effect on where the multi -use pathway is now situated, and the extent to which it may
affect homes, particularly those in the westernmost section. He is also concerned
about the statement that, 'We won't build this segment at this point in time." He would
like to be more conclusive with respect to this 2,200 -foot segment and declare that the
City will not build this. Otherwise, it will add to the uncertainty for existing and future
property owners. He appreciates that some Council Members may believe that this
could bind future Councils, but there are certainly respects in which this existing
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
June 27, 2011 Page 15
Council has been bound by its predecessors. Regarding the next step, Council should
be clear to the public about when a vote will occur on this issue.
Ms. Grigsby stated that, based upon Council's feedback tonight, staff will provide to
Council the following: (1) a map depicting the current proposal and its relation to the
homes and the roadway; and (2) a map depicting the multi -use path only, without
allowance for a future bike lane; and (3) the proximity to the homes of Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2. Information was also requested regarding the different cost elements
associated with those scenarios. It is not possible to provide the information for the
next Council meeting on July 6. However, the information will be provided to Council
sometime in July for discussion at the August 1 meeting and the CIP meetings in mid
August.
Mayor Lecklider stated that, unless something unforeseen arises, he would suggest
that Council make a decision about this issue at the August 1 meeting. The CIP
meetings do not offer the opportunity for public comment, and they are not televised.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the revised maps that are provided to Council should
not include bike lanes, based on tonight's discussion. She noted that Mr. Jenkins
mentioned that he experiences trespassing problems from the users of the bikepath
that runs behind his house. She would like staff to investigate this. Perhaps there are
steps that could be taken to discourage people from coming onto his property.
Ms. Grigsby responded that staff would follow up. She requested clarification
regarding the information Council desires be included on the map. Is the request for
depiction of the land acquisition that would be needed for a multi -use path only?
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that the map should show the location of the multi-
use pathway for both scenarios — provision for a future bike lane and without provision
for a future bike lane.
Mayor Lecklider stated that there would be two iterations of the multi -use pathway.
Mr. Keenan clarified that a bike lane would not be shown, but the location of the multi-
use path in both scenarios would be depicted, as there would be a difference in the
required setback.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when the information is provided to Council, it should
also be made available at the City's web site.
Gene Bostic, 7143 Coffman Road stated he has concerns about the multi -use path on
Brand Road. What will occur at the intersection of Coffman Road and Brand Road?
Will there be any consideration for cyclists traveling east and west who would like a
southern shortcut to the Rec Center?
Ms. Grigsby stated that staff has looked at that connection. There are topography
issues in this location. Additional information will be provided on that as well.
Mr. Keenan noted that there has been discussion about a Coffman /Brand Road
intersection connection. Perhaps this piece could be included in Engineering's
consideration.
Mr. Bostic stated that it would be very difficult for a cyclist crossing Brand Road at the
intersection of Coffman Road to access that multi -use path. The east -west traffic on
Brand Road is too heavy.
Mr. Keenan stated that if a roundabout were to be installed in that location, it would
make that access an easier, safer transition.
Mayor Lecklider thanked everyone for their comments.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
Mcetine
June 27, 2011 Page 16
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms Grigsby stated:
1. Information concerning proposed valet parking regulations was provided in the
packet. The intent is to schedule the legislation for first reading on July 6.
2. Information was also provided regarding Bridge Street Corridor joint work
sessions. Based upon the need to coordinate consultants' availability, to
provide staff time to address some Code clean -up items, and to make further
contact with property owners to address concerns they have identified
throughout the process, August 11 is recommended for the next Bridge Street
Corridor discussion.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that date would be satisfactory for her. However, she
believes there needs to be a broader discussion either tonight or at the meeting next
week about some concerns that have been raised by Council Members and others, so
that staff can have that feedback as they continue working through the month of July.
Mr. Gerber stated that it important that everyone is "on the same page." Therefore, it
would be wise to revisit the Vision Report. That discussion should be included during
the work session.
Ms. Grigsby stated that when Mr. Dixon is present for the meeting, it would be helpful
to address the connection between the Vision Plan and the Code. In the next packet,
staff will provide a list of potential agenda items for August 11.
Mr. Gerber stated that he would prefer it be a more interactive meeting. To date, the
Bridge Street Corridor workshops have been similar to lecture presentations. A
dialogue is needed.
Ms. Grigsby agreed. This is Council's process. With the earlier workshops, the goal
was to provide the information and feedback from the consultants on the work they
have done, specifically to look at what was needed in regard to public infrastructure
improvements, and whether that would restrict the City's ability to carry out the
proposed Vision plan.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that at the July 6 meeting, Council needs to have a
dialogue with staff regarding Council's thoughts about the Plan process to date, so that
staff does not continue the same work only to discover in August that is not what
Council desired.
Vice Mayor Salay asked if staff plans to have Mr. Dixon present at the next Council
meeting.
Ms. Grigsby responded that he would be attending the August 11 workshop.
Mr. Gerber stated that it is important for staff to hear Council's feedback at the next
Council meeting before moving forward.
Ms. Grigsby asked if Council would prefer to have a draft agenda to respond to?
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that she does not. She would prefer to have an open
dialogue at the July 6 Council meeting.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Community Development Committee Recommendation re. Revisions to
the "Beautify Your Neighborhood" Grant Application
Ms. Adkins stated that staff has provided a draft of the changes recommended by
Council and changes recommended by the Community Development Committee at
their June 13 meeting. The changes include the following: the language was cleaned
up to remove repetitious information; the incorporation of volunteer hours was
emphasized; and the "Homeowners Association" or "HOA" language was removed and
replaced by "Association" to cover both homeowner and civic associations. Also
removed was the ability to credit volunteer hours as a financial component. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
M eeting
June 27, 2011 Page 17
volunteer hours are now credited with additional points in the grant process versus
cash reimbursement at the end.
Mr. Reiner, CDC Chair, stated that after experiencing the first year of the grant
process, staff has recommended these improvements. The CDC recommends Council
approval of the proposed grant application revisions.
Mayor Lecklider asked if any homeowner association that is not forced and funded
received a grant this year.
Ms. Adkins responded that there was not.
Mayor Lecklider asked if any had applied.
Ms. Adkins responded that they did not. With one exception, all associations that
applied received grants. The applicant that did not receive a grant was due to an
incomplete grant application and not meeting the requirements of the grant. The
applicants were all from forced and funded homeowner associations.
Mr. Reiner moved to approve the revisions to the grant application.
Vice Mayor Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes.
Council Roundtable
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher:
1. Congratulated Mr. McDaniel and staff for the International Entrepreneurial open
house at the Dublin Entrepreneur Center (DEC) last week. The speaker was
excellent, and the event was attended by over 200 people. There seemed to be
a high level of enthusiasm and support for encouraging new businesses.
2. Reported that on Thursday, she had planned to attend the "Life -long
Communities" and "Complete Streets" workshop /lecture hosted by MORPC. At
the last minute, however, they unexpectedly asked her to participate in a panel
discussion. They shared an interesting video, which featured Terry Foegler,
Jack Lucks, Yaromir Steiner, who is the developer of Easton, Ken Danter, Keith
Myers and Carol Coletta. They talked about life -long communities, why it is
important to develop them in that way, what to consider in retrofitting a built -out
community, and how to incorporate those concepts in new areas that are being
created, such as Dublin's BriHi Square area. She has a copy of the 10- minute
video, which might be interesting to show atone of the joint work sessions. At
that meeting, they also passed out copies of MORPC's "State of the Region."
She has placed a copy in Council's conference room, along with their compact
guide to development. Mr. McDaniel and Ms. Puskarcik attended that meeting
as well.
Mr. Gerber
1. Thanked Mr. Tyler for his continued efforts with the Historic Dublin parking
situation and for providing the draft valet parking legislation for the July 6
Council meeting.
2. Noted that a petition has been received from Hard Road area residents
concerning truck noise on that road. This complaint has been shared by
residents previously. It appears that, although residents believe it to be a
problem, the City may not. What is the status of this issue?
Ms. Willis responded that noise studies are being conducted, as suggested in the
petition. There will be a final noise data collection in July. From the residents'
perspective, the truck traffic noise seems very loud. During peak instances, the noise
is loud, but when averaged over a minute, the noise level is not high when compared to
that of other cities. That is what the noise studies are indicating.
Mr. Gerber requested that Council continue to be updated on the issue. Have the
residents been made aware of the noise studies being conducted?
Ms. Willis responded affirmatively.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Dublin City Council
June 27, 2011 Page 18
Meefina
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated she recalls previous similar situations in the past. Traffic
consultants conducting transportation studies for the City insisted that there was no
problem with traffic in an area, yet traffic was gridlocked on the street for hours. This
situation seems the same. Although she does not travel the road a great deal, she has
noticed the truck traffic noise when she has done so. She believe it is necessary to
temper formal research with the reality of what the residents are subjected to and
identify ways to mitigate it.
Vice Mayor Salay asked what other routes are available for the truck traffic. Dublin is
an area where many people want to live. There is ongoing construction, and the
construction trucks must have access to roads. There is no better alternate access. I'
is important to listen to the residents' concerns, but it may be difficult to resolve.
Mr. Gerber requested staff provide a follow -up report. He recalls the first parking study
at BriHi, where the traffic count was not taken during the peak time. There needs to be
a balance. Is this truck traffic related to temporary construction, or is it a regular truck
route and will the noise continue indefinitely? These are the questions to address.
Mayor Lecklider noted that when the final phase of Emerald Parkway is completed, it
may be possible to direct the truck traffic to another route.
Ms. Grigsby responded that where the City limits trucks, it must be able to provide
alternatives. The residents are aware of the planned completion of Emerald Parkway.
Their concern is that until Emerald Parkway is completed, this will continue to be a
problem. Traffic studies were conducted on this road in December and April, and
another will be conducted in July to evaluate the proportion of construction - related
traffic. The problem maybe cyclical.
3. Thanked Engineering for the Dublin Road South multi -use path update.
Mr. Keenan:
1. Stated that the BriHi Square dedication will be on Thursday, July 7. In
conjunction with the dedication, the Dublin Counseling Center will hold a
fundraiser at Mezzo. It will be a very nice event in the beautiful new facility.
2. Noted that he reviewed the proposed valet parking legislation in Council packet,
but did not find a description of the fines.
Mr. Smith responded that the penalty section is addressed on the last page. A minor
misdemeanor brings a $100 fine and the fines are progressive for repeat offenses.
3. Asked who commissioned the report being done by Battelle.
Ms. Grigsby responded that it was commissioned by the City in conjunction with an
economic development study session last fall.
4. Expressed appreciation on behalf of Dublin Arts Council (DAC) to Mr. Hahn for
working on clean up and restoration of the DAC grounds.
Mayor Lecklider
1. Noted that he recently attended a dedication of a memorial at the Dublin Arts
Council and observed the improvement in the patio's appearance.
2. Stated that he looks forward to seeing everyone at the City's July 4
celebration!
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
i
• Officer
Clerk of Council