The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/04/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ Minutes ~f _ _ ___ _ ___ _ Dublin City Council __ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 70148 August 4, 2008 Held 2 Meeting Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, August 4, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p. m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Harding, Chief Epperson, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Worstall, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Husak and Ms. Gilger. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of July 1, 2008 Mr. Gerber moved to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2008 Regular Meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. CORRESPONDENCE • Notice to Legislative Authority from Ohio Division of Liquor Control - D3 Permit for Wine Loft Columbus LLC, dba The Wine Loft at 4415 W. Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, OH 43017 The Clerk reported that Council received a Notice to Legislative Authority regarding an application for a D3 liquor permit by The Wine Loft, a new business at the River Ridge Center. Council had no objection to issuance of the permit. SPECIAL PRESENTATION • Update from AEP Regarding Plan for Circuit 3131 (Muirfield) Mr. McDaniel stated that AEP is present to update Council and the public on the ongoing outage situation that has been experienced in the Muirfield Village area. This area is served by the Sawmill Station Circuit 3131. Staff has provided a couple of reports to Council during the past year regarding AEP's plans to revitalize the circuit's underground cable and their progress on that. Staff felt it would be worthwhile to hear from AEP regarding the status and to respond to any questions. He recognized Mary Flint, Community Affairs Representative from AEP. She works with staff regarding communicating about the various outages and issues. Ms. Flint has been very helpful in facilitating their communications with AEP on an ongoing basis. He introduced Carl Boyd, Vice President, AEP, and Director of Distribution Region Operations. Mr. Boyd, AEP representative, noted that he is new to AEP Ohio, but has spent 34 years in the utility business with Indiana and Michigan Power. The reliability of Circuit 3131 has been identified as an issue that needs to be addressed. AEP had a good plan in 2007 to address the liability issues with this circuit, and has spent $4.3 million to date on renovations to the station to improve the coordination. They were beginning to rejuvenate some of the underground cable. However, that plan was not sufficient and timely enough to meet the objectives and needs of the community. In June, the plan was re-evaluated and as a result, AEP will invest an additional $8.8 million over and above the $4.3 million spent to date. They have also adopted a more aggressive schedule, which means the work should be done by this time next year. They have dedicated 7 more crews to make a total of nine crews that will work in the community. They will replace two miles of the station feeder exit, which brings the power to the community, and will replace 10 miles of underground cable, which is the background system around the community. They will rejuvenate an additional 35 miles of underground cable, which when complete at this time next year will only leave five miles of the original 90 miles of cable that has not been rejuvenated or replaced. They will replace another 6 miles of the cable itself; replace approximately 90 transformers; and replace the switch gear that controls the protection of the circuit so that it coordinates better and minimizes outages when they do occur. The next steps are to bring in the contractors performing the cable replacement. They would like to have them work 50 hours/week, which means 10 hours/day, five days/week. If they become behind schedule, they would like to have them work some Saturdays. The cable RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of __ Dublin City Council Meeting Page August 4, 2008 replacement requires digging, trenching and boring. They want to try to keep that to a minimum so that as little property is disrupted as possible, but they will need to do some digging. They have hired AgriScapes to help with the ground restoration. They will need the support of citizens watering the grass to help it grow to maintain the appearance of the area. This job will take us approximately 55,000 work hours to complete. They plan to provide regular updates to the customers, Dublin officials and the Muirfield Village Civic Association. They want to do that through visual representation of maps with street names and associated construction areas. They want to update everyone on the progress of the work schedule on a monthly basis, and they can do that through the Internet so that it can be posted for all to see. Customers will receive a letter or door hanger prior to AEP working on their property. The rejuvenation work, which most of the work will consist of, does not require digging and will be less intrusive. Mr. Keenan inquired if AEP would be replacing some of the actual cable that is underground. Mr. Boyd responded that they would be doing so. Mr. Keenan inquired what kind of material was used previously for the actual cable, and would it be replaced with the same material. Mr. Boyd responded that the cable was not jacketed to protect it in the past; new materials will now be used. Mr. Reiner inquired how many transformer boxes would be replaced. Mr. Boyd responded that 10% of the pad-mounted transformer boxes would be replaced, and five of the switch gears, or larger boxes, will be replaced. They don't plan to add any additional above-ground equipment. Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. Fathman of the Muirfield Association and the Muirfield Political Action Committee for working on this effort. Does AEP plan to hang a door hanger seeking the residents' support with the horticultural restoration program, or will they be working with The Muirfield Association to make sure the grass is watered? Mr. Boyd responded that AEP also appreciates Mr. Fathman's efforts. They will work with the association using whatever they consider the best means of communication. Mr. Reiner stated that the Muirfield residents highly value the aesthetics of their community. Personally, he knows what it is like to be in the horticultural business and have plant material dead in two weeks because it is not watered. Therefore, he is concerned what techniques AEP will utilize to ensure the homeowners water their property to restore it. Mr. Boyd responded that the work would be staged with most of the replacement occurring during the fall and winter months to take advantage of the spring rains. They will take a 3- week vacation around the Memorial Tournament to avoid interference with that event. Mr. Reiner inquired the total time to complete the project. Mr. Boyd responded that it would take approximately one year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would like to follow up on Mr. Refiner's comment about aesthetics. Everyone in the Dublin community considers aesthetics to be very important, as AEP has learned from the community's responses regarding AEP's tree trimming. She lives in the affected area and has experienced electric outages on numerous occasions. The information provided indicates that there may still be outages even after this project is completed related to issues outside of the area of correction. What is the long-term plan to correct the broader geographic area? Her main concern is that, beyond the cost to residents from the loss of food in their refrigerators and freezers during the lengthier periods without electricity, there is the health risk to citizens who may be dependent upon respirators or oxygen. Mr. Boyd responded that this plan is much more comprehensive; it will address all but five miles of the underground facilities, which have been the primary cause of outages. When there is damage to a cable, the coordination of the protective devices should serve to reduce the number of customers experiencing an outage. These two efforts should decrease the frequency and the scope of outages. There may still be outages due to diggings or to transmission problems, but these will be much less frequent than the number experienced in the past. REC®RD ®F hR®CEEDIfvIGS Dublin City Council August 4, 2008 Page 3 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher expressed thanks on behalf of the City for AEP's recognition of the importance of making this investment within a shorter period of time than the original plan provided. Mr. Boyd responded that AEP will have afull-time coordinator on the project to provide proper oversight. Another group will help manage the work so that it is completed on schedule. They anticipate the City seeing a difference in performance when the work is . completed. They want to make sure they address all the systemic outages of the project. Mr. Gerber inquired if this project also included the Camden Lakes and Wedgewood Hills areas. Mr. Boyd responded that it does not. Mr. Gerber noted that those areas are experiencing the same problems. Are they on a different grid? Mr. Boyd responded that they are on a different grid, but they can review that area as well. Mr. Gerber asked that they also review the area south on Dublin Road. Vice Mayor Boring stated that it's not just those two areas. Other areas in Dublin have experienced outages as well. Mr. Boyd responded that there was a coordination problem. Only a few customers should have been affected by the outage, but several thousand homes experienced outages. They want to get to the root of those problems, so that when there is an uncontrollable outage, only a minimum number of customers are impacted. They are doing some other work in the north that will improve the reliability and capability to transfer customers and increase the capacity. In that way, if there is a problem, they can cover more of those with flexibility in the system. Mr. Boyd responded that if the City has concerns as the project moves forward, please contact them. They want to work with City staff to resolve the issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked him for his report. Bob Fathman, 5805 Tarton Circle North thanked City staff, Tammy Brown in particular, and AEP for the way they have continued to work with Muirfield on this continuing problem. It has been three years since they had a series of meetings with AEP. They have developed a very effective plan that should remedy the situation. They appreciate AEP's commitment of time, money and resources to this project. He has been in continuing communication with the Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) staff since filing the letter of complaint in early June. He asked them their opinion of the AEP plan, and they indicated that the plan was effective and aggressive. In a recent meeting with AEP, the Association suggested that instead of door hangers that the notices be placed in the slots under the mailboxes in Muirfield, because few of the residents use their front doors. They issued an email alert to the residents to check there for notices. Tonight, he will also forward an email regarding watering the new landscape materials when they are installed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Fathman for his efforts and Mary Flint for her continued efforts on the City's behalf; they are greatly appreciated. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that he wished to make a correction to the minutes. On page 2, under his comments, on the 7th line, the reference to the motion of last October should be October of 2006. There have been two years to talk about the issue of free speech. He is convinced that he has laid out enough for it to be clear and Council has had plenty of time to think about it. He would like either the Law Director or a Council member to let him know by the end of this meeting of Council's decision. This is an open and shut textbook case regarding free speech. He could begin on one of the other 331 items he has to speak on, but he will not, due to the length of tonight's agenda. LEGISLATION TABLED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance 67-06 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Stonehenge Company Regarding 6055 Avery Road. RECOR® OE PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council August 4, 2008 Ms. Brautigam stated that this legislation was placed on the table in November of 2006. At the July 1 meeting, it was removed from the table as staff is ready to recommend moving forward on this agreement. Page 4 Ms. Grigsby stated that the legislation was tabled due to the fact that the owner of 6055 Avery Road -the Stonehenge Company, wanted to take time to evaluate what the setback requirements would be under their existing conditions and what they would be with the proposed agreement. Since then, they have been involved with several other projects in Central Ohio, and this was not one of their priorities. This issue began in 2004 when the City was uncertain of the exact roadway alignment for the Avery Road widening project. At that time, the City planned to run an access road through the property. However, the owner had plans to lease the property for a daycare facility and was ready to initiate construction. At that time, the City asked the property owner to place the project on hold, as the City was unsure what right-of-way the City would need to acquire. The City did not wish to acquire a daycare facility in the event it was necessary to build the access road. The memo lists the costs that the City has agreed to reimburse the property owner. Vice Mayor Boring inquired what costs would be reimbursed to the owner. She assumes the number of years the project was placed on hold is not being factored into those costs. Ms. Grigsby responded that the property owner did cite his lost income, but the City indicated it would not reimburse those costs. What will be reimbursed are their remarketing costs; their cost to carry the debt on that property; real estate taxes; anc the maintenance on the property for that 2 or 2-1/2 year period. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if it was the owner who did not consider this a priority. Ms. Grigsby responded that the owner did delay the agreement from 2006 until now, but the City initiated discussions with the property owner regarding the roadway in 2004. It was not until January of 2006 that the City decided to build the roundabout and determined the access road would no longer be needed. Discussions on this agreement were initiated in 2006 and the proposed agreement was presented to Council in the fall of 2006. At that time, the property owner delayed the agreement. Mr. Smith added that the City would have been paying interest on the carry had the City filed an appropriation case, paying from the day of the take. Therefore, the City is not paying anything extraordinary. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the City was ready to proceed in 2007, but the property owner was not ready, is the City recovering the costs for that period of time? Ms. Grigsby responded that the City is recovering only the costs up to 2006. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the amount listed in the agreement of $77,969.00 includes the cost of constructing the curb cut listed in the agreement. Ms. Grigsby responded that it does not. That was originally considered as part of the Tuswell roundabout project. Because the project was completed in 2007 prior to this agreement being authorized, the City has agreed to reimburse them for the curb cut when they do it, if they proceed with development. At this time, there are no development plans for the property. If that occurs, there will be a need for a curb cut off of Tuswell. Mr. Lecklider asked if there is an approximate cost figure. Ms. Grigsby responded that on a recent project, there was an estimate of $600 - $1,000 for a curb cut. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. POSTPONED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READINGIPUBLIC HEARING Ordinance 42-08 Rezoning Approximately 5.5 Acres, Located on the South Side of West Bridge Street on the East and West Sides of Monterey Drive from: R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District and CC, Community Commercial District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District . (Waterford Commons -Case No. 07-084CP/Z). RECORD OF I~ROCEEDINGS ___ __ Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meeting August 4, 2008 Page 5 This is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone 5.5 acres from Limited Suburban Residential District and Community Commercial District to a Planned Unit Development District. The site is comprised of 10 parcels and has frontage on Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street. This site is relatively flat with existing two-family homes. The Dublin Cemetery is located immediately to the east. The parcel to the north has frontage on West Bridge Street and is vacant -the former gas station site. The proposed site plan includes 12,000 square feet of commercial space in the parcel to the north and 25 townhomes located along Monterey Drive east and west. On May 15, 2008 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and voted to recommend approval of the proposed plan. The plan included the recommendations made at the February 7 work session where significant revisions were made to the proposed plan. At the first reading, Council had questions and comments regarding the spacing of the proposed traffic signal along Monterey Drive at the intersection of Monterey and West Bridge Street. Council requested staff to provide information regarding the traffic patterns along West Bridge Street. Engineering prepared a response, which was included in Council's packet. The existing space contains four signals between Frantz Road and High Street - approximately 900 -1,000 feet apart. The proposal provides for a signal to be added at the MontereylWest Bridge intersection, which will decrease some of the spacing to 440 or 660 feet east and west of Monterey Drive. The stacking of cars at the additional signal may cause cars to linger a little longer along SR 161. This signal may cause drivers to utilize the signal instead of circumventing the intersection, as they do now. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification -will drivers prefer to use this signal? Ms. Husak responded that traveling north, the distance would be shorter using West Bridge Street. Mr. Hammersmith responded that during the peak hours, there is difficulty exiting and entering Monterey Drive at that intersection. As a result, drivers choose alternate paths to reach controlled intersections and better access to the roadways. A signal at Monterey Drive may attract drivers to utilize this intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if more traffic would be drawn through the Waterford neighborhood. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it could attract more traffic through the neighborhood in general. In addition, traffic on High Street/Dublin Road turning left to travel west on Bridge Street may circumvent that intersection and travel Waterford Drive and Monterey Drive to use the Monterey intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why it was not made a right in/right out only. Mr. Hammersmith responded that this signal met one of eight warrants for a signal at build-out. Mr. Reiner inquired which of the eight warrants. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he did not have the information in-hand, but would forward it to Council. Ms. Salay stated that a study has been made of the northbound High Street movements turning west on Bridge Street. Residents have complained that the time permitted for the turn is too short, and it can be difficult to move through the signal to travel north on Bridge Street. However, there aren't a large number of vehicles making that movement at the intersection. Mr. Gerber stated that there is no left turn timed in that signal, so drivers do cut through Waterford. Ms. Salay stated that it is important to understand the pros and cons. Although the signal will provide drivers better access to Bridge Street, it could also attract traffic to that signal. If westbound traffic on SR 161 is not that great, that number would be small. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it should be minimal. Ms. Salay noted that past experience, Tara Hill and Avery-Muirfield being a prime example, demonstrates that signals attract traffic. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is true. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one of the signal warrants was met at this intersection. What are the tests that are made to determine that? There are four lights RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council August 4, 2008 Held Page 6 within less than 3,000 feet total. It is difficult to understand the need for an additional signal. When an intersection meets a warrant, is the City obligated to approve a signal? Mr. Hammersmith responded that a warrant is not a test; there are State-mandated criteria that are considered when evaluating the need for a signal. In this case, the primary concern is the access and safety of the drivers using the intersection, recognizing that the volume will increase with the proposed land use. Knowing that this intersection meets the safety warrant, the City would be remiss if it chose to ignore the safety warrant and chose not to install a method to control movement at the intersection, possibly placing drivers in jeopardy. For that reason, staff recommends the intersection be signalized. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a right in/right out only could be an alternative. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it could be an alternative only with a raised median in SR 161. Very little compliance is achieved with a right in/right out unless there is the deterrent of a raised median to prevent left turns. Studies show that without that physical deterrent, voluntary compliance of the motorists does not occur. Ms. Salay inquired about the signal at High School Drive, which primarily serves the school. It flashes during the summer. Engineering staff planned to review the need for the flashing signal or if it needed to be cycled. She understands how it works during school hours, but the rest of the time it seems to always be green. Is there a detector that causes it to turn red only when there is traffic waiting? Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is a loop detector on High School Drive. If a vehicle is waiting on High School Drive, the signal is activated to turn red on SR 161. Otherwise, it remains green. Ms. Salay inquired if the signal activates if there is a pedestrian waiting. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it does, except when the signal is set to flash. Ms. Salay inquired if the signal at Monterey would operate similarly to the signal at High School Drive. Will there be a loop detector so that if there is someone waiting on Monterey, the light will cycle? Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. Mrs. Boring stated that could be a problem for drivers on SR 161, if they need to stop at every light. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the signals in the corridor continue to be synchronized. Although the loop is provided, an immediate response may not occur. There may be some delay to keep the synchronization and SR 161 traffic flowing. There is a balance in the timing. What will control this corridor more than anything is the Post Road/Frantz Road intersection. That is where the backup and queuing of westbound traffic occurs. The Monterey signal will not aggravate the corridor traffic. Mr. Keenan stated that without a signal at Monterey, traffic would be sent back through Waterford. Mr. Hammersmith concurred. They would seek alternative routes to find a controlled access point. Mr. Keenan noted that during the development stage, he thought the ideal solution would be to move traffic back to Corbins Mill. The residents did not like that idea, so the developer was asked to re-visit the plan. Mr. Lecklider inquired where the idea for a signal at this intersection originated. Mr. Hammersmith responded that any time a developer wants the City to consider a more intense land use, a traffic impact study is required to look at not only the intersection in question, but also the impact on intersections further up and down the corridor. The intersection has to be evaluated as part of the traffic impact study. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there would be a left turn lane onto Monterey Drive. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there would be left and right turn lanes for traffic exiting Monterey Drive. He is not sure is there is a left turn from SR 161 onto Monterey. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if there is not, that will be a problem. Ms. Salay noted that currently it is a shared turn, and that can be difficult for a driver trying to turn left into Sells Middle School while another driver is making a left turn into the gas station. Could the road be striped differently to solve that situation? Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting _ _ August 4, 2008 Page Mrs. Boring noted that the June 16 Council minutes from the first reading of Ordinance 42- 08 were not in the packet. It is difficult to recall what was discussed at that time and how it was addressed. She has noticed previous incidents where some of the minutes are missing. She is concerned because it is important that the text reflects exactly what was discussed in the past. Therefore, she is not comfortable with taking any action at this point -- not until Council has addressed all items. Ms. Husak apologized for the omission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if staff had any further presentation. Ms. Husak responded that there is additional informal about the bio retention basin and the siding material that were discussed at the first reading. A change was made in the development text to limit the amount of siding that could be used as a building material, requesting percentages of masonry instead, depending on the elevation. More masonry would be required on the front elevation and the elevations facing the street. A letter from the applicant was included that explains more about the plantings and the maintenance. Pictures were provided of the anticipated appearance at maturity. Mr. Reiner stated that this would be a forced and funded condominium association. He has seen similar examples of bio basins. Although they can be very attractive, they can also become "urban blights." Hopefully, the association will have the funds to maintain the bio basin in addition to the regular grass cutting schedule. Ms. Husak agreed. The education component is important, and that is something that staff will look at as this moves forward into a final development plan. Mr. Reiner stated that he wants to make certain that the monies are available to maintain this, since it is a major feature and a lot of drainage will be diverted into this one spot. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if it was made clear that the maintenance of the bio basin would be the association's responsibility. Ms. Husak responded that it was. Mrs. Boring inquired where that is articulated. It merely states that the maintenance shall be done. Ms. Husak responded that they will review the homeowner association's deed restrictions at the final development stage. The applicant is required to submit those for review. Mrs. Boring inquired if that requirement could be placed in the development text. Ms. Husak responded that they could amend the text to state that the homeowners association would be responsible for the maintenance of the bio basin. Mrs. Boring noted that for future clarification, it will be important. Ms. Salay stated that there is a specific requirement for triple shredded mulch. If this basin will not work with any other mulch, this is an educational item that must be pointed out to the contractor hired by the homeowners association to perform the maintenance. An interesting feature of this project is the use of pervious pavers for pavement. That should be helpful with stormwater issues. If this works well, it may be a future model for others. Mr. Reiner stated that he has reviewed the plant materials, some of which are more dry based than wet based. With the variation in Ohio seasons, it would be important in the final development statement to emphasize that this is highly maintained. Depending on the season, it will be experimental to see what will survive depending on the impact of a summer dry period or a rainy spring. He would not like the basin to become a hole with 50 percent of the vegetation dead. When seasons change, 25% of the vegetation can die. If no effort is immediately made to restore it, it will be unsightly. Because this is such an important feature and many of the units are centered around it, special attention should be given to this. Mrs. Boring inquired how that would be done. Mr. Reiner responded that with these types of systems, the first year or two is an experiment. That is why it is important that the association have the funds to restore what is needed. Mrs. Boring inquired if he believes the text should be amended accordingly. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council August 4, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Reiner stated that he would speak with Ms. Husak. It is important for staff to ensure that there are enough funds available for restoration. The basins have so many variables, depending on the weather conditions, that many of them are not successful. The entire plant list may eventually need to be changed to fit the site. It is very important that occurs in the event the first efforts are not successful. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the text in regard to the use of vinyl. In the course of the Ballantrae development, there was considerable discussion regarding a minimum standard for the use of vinyl. Does staff recall the minimum acceptable thickness identified for that development? Ms. Husak responded that it was .44 inches. Ms. Salay noted that it was also limited to areas high up on the structures -- areas of the home that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. Below that height, hardiplank or another product was used that required painting. Mrs. Boring stated that in layman's terms, that would translate to trim work. Mr. Lecklider inquired if there was one phase in the plan that was not limited similarly. Ms. Husak responded that the homes along Bally Court were the ones that were permitted to use that material entirely. Mr. Lecklider inquired if that was white vinyl. Ms. Salay responded that it was for the plantation-style homes. Mr. Lecklider responded that this seems to be consistent with the existing plans. Mr. Lecklider stated that the Planning and Zoning minutes indicate discussion that restaurants and similar uses should be conditional uses. The text was amended to include this. In light of past experience, is there a need to define "restaurant" more specifically as "sit-down" as opposed to "take out" only? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if an ice cream shop would be excluded. Mr. Lecklider responded that he does not necessarily want to exclude an ice cream shop or a coffee shop. He is referring to a pizza take-out shop. He requested Legal staff's opinion. Mr. Smith responded that it is Legal's opinion that fast food is a "place and get" order. Pizza is not considered fast food. There is abundant case law supporting that interpretation. Defining a restaurant as a sit-down establishment means identifying all the exceptions to that -such as an ice cream parlor or coffee shop. Beginning to identify exceptions is problematic -there can be many and it is difficult to do. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this could be limited by excluding a use that involves delivery. Businesses that are open to midnight on weekdays and later on weekends create traffic that can be a conflict with residential use. He is posing the question, but does not necessarily have a strong opinion about this. Ms. Salay stated that perhaps the cost of rent would determine that this might not be the best location for a pizza delivery. Mr. Lecklider responded that it could be worth paying the high rent to achieve the visibility. Ms. Salay stated that she agrees there is the potential for conflict, but it might be best left to the Planning Commission. Otherwise, it could mean that each restaurant would have to go before the Commission and prove that they are able to locate there. Mr. Smith responded that is correct and to attempt to legislate it tonight would be difficult. It is preferable to wait until the use is proposed and allow the Planning Commission to decide. It would be best to leave the text as it is currently drafted. Mr. Reiner inquired what tree spacing exists for the tree plantings along Monterey Drive. The trees seem be placed fairly far apart. Linda Menerey, EMH&T, landscape architect, stated that there are existing trees on Monterey Drive. The spacing should be similar to that which exists. The trees that are removed will be replaced. Mr. Reiner responded that the existing trees are not identified on the plan. That is the reason it appears sparse. Ms. Salay inquired if they would have to meet the Code requirements for street tree spacing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ofi Dublin City Council Meeting August 4, 2008 Nage y Ms. Menerey responded that is correct. They will work with the City Forester regarding tree replacements. Ms. Husak stated is correct. They work with the Forester, as well, for species selection. This is a final development plan detail. The Preliminary Plan provides preliminary sites only. Mr. Keenan inquired how traffic entering the school zone to make left and right turns onto Bridge Street would be aware that they are within a school zone. Mr. Hammersmith responded that both ends of the school zone are marked. Sometimes intermediate signs are placed on side streets to make drivers aware that they are approaching a school zone. Something similar was done on Tara Hill Drive several years ago. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is a major issue in Mayor's Court. A large number of tickets are given to motorists exiting Monterey Drive. The zone actually begins before the Monterey Drive entrance/exit, so motorists are unaware they are within the zone. Therefore, it is essential that a sign be placed on Monterey Drive. Mr. Hammersmith responded that was their intent to do so. Glen Dugger, Smith & Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, stated he represents the applicant, Mr. Grabill. He wanted to note that there is a requirement for a forced and funded homeowners association within the text that relates to maintenance of the alleys. It does not specifically state that the association would maintain the detention area, but it could easily be added. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Dugger for pointing that out. Who was anticipated to maintain the basin area? Mr. Dugger responded that it was expected that the homeowners association would do so, even though that was not stated. He noted that the reference in the text is on page 2, Item C, Paragraph 2C, which states "maintenance of private alleys shall be the responsibility of a forced and funded homeowners association..." They will make the maintenance of the bio basin the responsibility of the homeowners association, as well. That is in the additional attachments to the text. Ms. Menerey noted that it is in the June 23~d letter also included in the packet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the language needs to be included in the proposed development text. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called for citizen comments. Holly Tuite, 280 Old Spring Lane, stated that she and her husband are co-presidents of the Waterford Village Civic Association. This development will add additional traffic in the neighborhood, and they are definitely in support of the proposed traffic signal at the north end of Monterey Drive. They are concerned about the existing signal at Bridge and High Streets. During peak hours, there are delays at that light, and northbound traffic on High has been backing up past Waterford Drive. If the drivers would come up to Waterford Drive, try to make a right and come out at the light onto Monterey Drive, that is definitely a concern. A park is located there with many small children. They have been told that the City does not prefer the use of speed bumps for traffic calming. They do have existing speed bumps that begin at the south end of Monterey and continue up Monterey Drive. The speed bumps on Monterey are not the same width as those required on Tara Hill Drive for the type of traffic calming that was done there. It is their hope that the City would consider installing speed bumps, continuing them from Waterford down to the north end of Monterey, making them significant, similar to the ones on Martin Road. Those speed bumps have been successful, deterring much traffic from Martin Road. They are a residential community versus a business district. In regard to a right in/right out, during the last two years, the City replaced the curbs along Bridge Street. When they did so, they installed a right in, right out sign on Monterey Drive. It was not enforced and there was no compliance. In regard to the school zone, there is no sign on Monterey Drive regarding the school zone, and it would be greatly appreciated if a sign would be installed immediately. She provided copies of several resident emails to Council. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road, stated that he is not a resident of the Waterford Village area. On page 34, page 9, under "Review of Preliminary Development Plan criteria" is this quotation: "The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council __ _ __Meet~na _ _ August 4, 2008 t'age ~ U other facilities provide for the coordination and integration of this development within the PUD and the larger community and maintain the image of Dublin as a quality community." What constitutes a quality community, and what is dictating the criteria? It is elusive to him. He wonders to what extent the community as a whole is hostage to the Building Code, which requires, for example, specific materials, colors and dimensions. To what extent might that be hostage to developers who have figured out a formula for buildings that will be approved. The bitter battles of the past do not seem to occur now, perhaps because they have figured out a formula that the City will approve. [The Clerk provided copies of the June 16 Council meeting minutes to Council.] Vice Mayor Boring stated that Council now has the minutes, which need to be included in the entire record. On page 11 of those minutes, it is stated that: "Mr. Hale responded that they could devise some language to address this by the final hearing," in response to the question of what assurance could be given that the results would not be a predominantly vinyl project. Has this been addressed? Mr. Dugger responded that on page 4 of the revised text of June 23`d, there was extensive additional language concerning the exterior cladding materials. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she sees references to certain percentages of materials, and the thickness of the vinyl, but it does not appear to limit the use of vinyl. Mr. Dugger responded that the issue was addressed by specifying what the masonry component would be in Items #2, #3 and #4. The methodology was to take the building elevations that they had and roughly calculate the quantity of the masonry component and the vinyl cladding component. They also provided detailed building elevations. Vice Mayor stated that she is concerned that it is not part of the text. Mr. Dugger stated that the text indicates that, "The text includes not only the text, but also the building architecture and plans that are being provided as well." His understanding was that during the final development plan review, the Commission will review the preliminary development plan and the final development plan to see that they are consistent. Mr. Gerber noted that whatever warranties or commitments may have been made during the rezoning process should also be reflected. With respect to the vinyl, it appears that a certain percentage is specified for masonry, but there could still be a rather large presence of vinyl siding, according to the text. Mr. Lecklider stated that he raised this question at the last meeting. This text, as he reads it, seems to allow for vinyl on each and every unit. That wasn't his expectation. In raising the point, his hope was to see vinyl limited to a certain percentage of units and certainly not the majority of units. Mr. Gerber added that his expectation was that vinyl would be limited to trim only, not as it relates to siding and other elements. Mr. Lecklider stated that, recalling the earlier reference to Ballantrae development, he wouldn't necessarily be opposed to more than one unit being entirely vinyl, apart from the trim. However, the text seems to allow the use of vinyl on every unit - a percentage greater than would be needed for the trim only. Mr. Gerber added that his perception was the same -that there is more vinyl than was expected. Ms. Salay stated that in Ballantrae there was one theme community where vinyl siding was permitted, but that does not apply to this development. Otherwise, the gables and trim could be vinyl, due to maintenance issues. For the siding look, hardiplank was required. She had asked, and someone confirmed, that the cost of a very high quality vinyl product and hardiplank is about the same. That being the case, she would prefer hardiplank due to its advantages in appearance and longevity. She believes that there was an agreement to that by Mr. Hale or the developer's representative at that time. Mr. Dugger responded that he was not present, so he is not aware of that history. One of the partners on this project is one of this community's largest manufacturers of the vinyl RECORD OF Pt~OCEEDfNGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin`T August 4, 2008 Page 11 siding product. As a matter of propriety, they are not permitted to say they will not use their product on this project. Ms. Menerey indicates that Mr. Hale mentioned that previously. Ms. Salay recalled that Mr. Hale did mention that at the previous hearing. Mr. Dugger responded that is probably the reason the text is written as it is. A significant component of the ownership of this project going forward is the manufacturer's vinyl siding, so rather than limiting the amount of vinyl, the text specifies the amount of masonry that is on the building elevations attached to the text as part of the text. Mr. Reiner stated that in the text it states, "60% of the surface area of the front facade of each building." In the elevations, the buildings facing Monterey Drive are shown as masonry. The other elevations become vinyl. What is Council's intent? Do they want all of the elevations to be masonry, except for the dormers and upper angles of the roof? Mr. Dugger stated that with one of partners being a manufacturer of vinyl siding, the anticipation was that this project would be price competitive. From an architectural standpoint, it needed some level of diversity, rather than masonry all the way across. The idea, as he understands it, was that there would be a mix of the masonry and vinyl siding across those units. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the issue isn't so much with the siding as with the material and longevity of it. Mr. Dugger responded that is the reason they specified the vinyl thickness component. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are some text changes that have been agreed upon tonight. Is it Council's desire to vote on this rezoning tonight or to request those changes be made before Council votes? Ms. Salay stated that the concerns she expressed at the first reading have been addressed. The text regarding vinyl does specify 6-1/2 inches and 8 inches of exposure, which is another high quality appearance aspect of vinyl siding. She would be comfortable voting tonight. Mr. Reiner stated that at the June 16 meeting, he inquired about the use of limestone and applied stone. The response was that this development would include both. He assumes these buildings are done in applied stone. Where is actual limestone applied to the buildings? Mr. Dugger indicated he does not know. Ms. Husak stated that the assumption was that it would be applied stone. Mr. Dugger stated that he believes that is a detail that could be taken care of in the final development plan. That item is clearly not articulated in the text. Mr. Reiner stated that another item that is very important and was discussed at the first reading is the scale of the columns. In the illustration, is the depiction of the columns in correct proportion to the facade of the buildings? He hopes that they are. The other issue is with the shutters. There have been previous debates regarding their thickness and the need to avoid "a flat piece of vinyl screwed to the structure." If that has not been resolved, that needs to be resolved by the final development plan. Ms. Salay inquired if that wouldn't be achieved by requirement of a full width shutter. There is some verbiage to the effect that if it were in fact an operational shutter, it would close to completely cover the window. That could be included in the text. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Reiner has asked Ms. Husak to have it included in the text. Mr. Dugger stated that he believes the building elevations do show an architecturally appropriate shutter. Mr. Reiner stated that the question is what is appropriate. There have been so many inappropriate shutters applied in the City. When visiting Franklin, Tennessee, Council viewed what they believe is an appropriate shutter. Mr. Gerber stated that in the last few years, the Planning and Zoning Commission has steered away from the use of vinyl as a primary siding material. When he first read this, he did not see the language that has been added to the text that clarifies to what extent natural materials will be used versus vinyl. Theoretically, some of the buildings could be up to 80% vinyl at this point, and that is too much. This is a great project, which would be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council August 4, 2008 Page 12 nice for the community. However, there is proof that vinyl does not wear well, and he would have a difficult time supporting this for that reason. If the developer agrees to re- adjust this in the final development plan to limit the vinyl to a smaller percentage, he would agree. As it stands now, he cannot support it. Mr. Dugger stated that he wasn't involved with drafting the language in reference to vinyl, and he does not have the ability to change it. Mr. Lecklider referred to page 12 of the minutes where he asked Mr. Hale for assurance of diversity with respect to exterior materials. His response was that "the building detail would be provided with the final development plan, and buyers would not have choices in exteriors." His concern was that if the vinyl option was a less expensive option, that is where they would scale back, as opposed to using masonry. He asked Ms. Husak about her understanding of Mr. Hale's response. What would Planning expect to see at the final development stage? Ms. Husak responded that as Mr. Gerber pointed out, there is currently nothing that would prevent the applicant from using vinyl in every instance that a siding material is permitted. The percentages that he has worked outdo indicate the potential that the more interior buildings could have a small amount of masonry and the majority of the material could be vinyl. With this text, anything on the elevations that appears to be siding could potentially be vinyl. Whether the Planning and Zoning Commission would support that during the final development review is the question. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what discussions staff had with the applicant about the use of vinyl, as vinyl is not a product that is to be used extensively in Dublin. Ms. Husak responded that with the assurances that the applicant made regarding the specific vinyl material that would be used, and the experience with the Ballantrae project, staff felt comfortable that, at least visually, it would not be distinguishable from the hardiplank. Mr. Lecklider stated that diversity formulas have been used with previous cases. He does not have a problem with one or more units in this development being all vinyl, but he would like to see some limitation. He would be disappointed if he saw up to 40% vinyl on each and every unit. That is not what he wanted or what he believes Council wanted to achieve. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that as Ms. Husak has said, as the text is currently written, a greater amount of vinyl than that could result. Is there language she would propose that could address the issue Mr. Lecklider has brought up? Ms. Husak responded that language could be used to state that if siding is used, only 50% of it could be vinyl, or whatever percentage Council prefers. Mr. Dugger stated that he is not comfortable crafting language from the podium. The attachments to this show that there is diversity between the units. Some have a high percent of masonry and a low percentage of vinyl, and others are the reverse. A minimum requirement has been specified in the text for the exterior surface of the front fagade buildings. He would be more comfortable stating that the buildings will appear as they are depicted, and that is what is trying to be achieved -that type of diversity among the individual buildings. For the record, the Planning Commission would be well within their right to reject any building presented as all masonry or all vinyl, as the building elevation shown in the plan contains both. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council can either vote on this as it is or postpone it and request the staff to work with the developer to change the text. Ms. Husak stated that they would be happy to have the architect involved, as well. Mr. Lecklider stated that for the record and for the developer's benefit, in looking at the same page -- the south elevation of the north Monterey townhomes, that elevation is acceptable to him. There appear to be a couple of stone elevations and a couple of brick elevations, and the others appear to be either vinyl or hardiplank. This is the type of diversity he was hoping for, but the text seems to allow something different than is shown here. RECORD OF PROCEEDIf~IGS Dublin City Council Meeti_n~ -~ August 4, 2008 Page 13 Ms. Salay stated that she had the same concern in regard to percentages. The left building appears to be 60% vinyl and 40% masonry. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she can see that if this is done in hardiplank, it will look great, but if it is done in vinyl, it may not, because several things can occur. The renderings may be nice, but it is the text that matters. She agrees with Mr. Gerber -they have worked hard to achieve a really good look, and this is a developer who does a nice job. However, the housing market is uncertain right now, and the text lacks the guarantee that the product will match the visual depiction. It is essential to make sure that everything is detailed in the text. Then, whether it takes 10 years or two years to develop, the product will match the expectation. Mr. Gerber noted that in the final analysis, the text does control. Mr. Gerber moved to postpone Ordinance 42-08 as necessary to allow staff to work out the details as directed by Council. Mr. Dugger stated that, for the record, he does not consent. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Ms. Salay stated that the motion is somewhat nebulous. Does anyone have some percentages to offer staff? Mr. Reiner stated that could be achieved by staff working with the architect to revise the percentages to match the elevations of all the buildings as drawn out. He does appreciate the more expensive garage doors shown on the drawings, and he does expect those to appear on the project itself. Ms. Salay inquired if he is satisfied with the rendering. Mr. Reiner responded that there may need to be some designations as to what is really brick and what is stone. The drawings give the impression that there are hard surface elevations on the majority of the units, but perhaps the rest of the project is different. Ms. Salay stated that she believes this elevation is pleasing, and if the text matches that elevation per the Planning staff, she would be satisfied. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ms. Salay inquired if the staff and applicant are clear on what Council would like to see. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has been very comprehensive in this discussion. The June 16~h minutes should be reviewed, as well. At that meeting, Mr. Hale made some promises and expectations that need to be seen in print. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 45-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Land Exchange and Development Agreement with Grabill & Company, LLC for the Exchange of 0.534 Acres, More or Less, Currently Owned by Grabill, Located Near the Dublin Bridge Street Cemetery, with 0.623 Acres, More or Less, Which is Currently Owned by the City of Dublin, Located at the Southeast Corner of Bridge Street and Monterey Drive. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that this legislation is related to the preceding rezoning, Ordinance 42-08. Because that was not approved, this ordinance should be postponed. Mr. Dugger stated that to avoid further postponement of this legislation in the future, is there any issue with this document that he is not aware of? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated there are none she is aware of. Mr. Lecklider inquired the amount paid for this property. Ms. Grigsby responded that the original acquisition price was $500,000. There have been additional costs associated with the demolition of the building on the site. Mr. Smith indicated that the properties have been appraised, and the figures provided in this legislation are the appraisal amounts. There is a difference in the appraisal values of the two properties. Vice Mayor Boring requested clarification of the need to postpone the item at this time. Mr. Smith stated that the item should be rescheduled as a first reading at the August 18 meeting, if Ordinance 42-08 is rescheduled for that meeting. RECORD ®F PR®CEEDINGS Dublin City Council August 4, 2008 Page 14 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to schedule Ordinance 42-08 for hearing on the August 18 meeting agenda. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. There will be a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 45-08 at the August 18 meeting. Ordinance 46-08 Adopting the 2009-2013 Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated that during the next two weeks, two CIP workshops are scheduled for discussion of the five-year CIP plan. Council's recommendations at those hearings will be incorporated into the program, and a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 46-08 will be scheduled for September 2. Vice Mayor Boring noted that she believed that the intent was to discuss all items on August 6, with August 13 scheduled only for any overflow discussion. Could that occur, or is staff convinced the discussion requires two meetings? Ms. Brautigam responded that the need for two meetings is due to the vacation schedule of the department heads making the presentations. Ms. Salay stated that she was contacted by some residents in Ballantrae who would like to share with Council their request to have a section of bikepath completed on Shier Rings Road. Per their request, she has provided a copy of that letter to Council members. If the residents want to offer public comments when that item is scheduled for discussion, can they do so? If so, at which meeting will the bikepath discussion occur? Ms. Brautigam responded that it would be at the August 13 meeting, because bikepaths are considered part of the transportation budget. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the advertisement of these meetings includes the information that public testimony would be permitted. The Clerk responded that public testimony is not typically taken at workshop or study sessions, but on occasion, it has been permitted at Council's discretion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she is requesting clarification because Council has received a large number of emails from Amberleigh residents, who indicated that Mr. Hahn has told them to contact Council regarding the prioritization of a park in that neighborhood. If Council is suggesting that they will accept public testimony at work sessions, the decision-making process at the work sessions may be different than it has been historically. By accepting testimony, Council is suggesting that they may be influenced by the testimony given by citizens in the prioritization of the CIP projects. Mr. Keenan noted that this could add time to the CIP workshop discussions. Ms. Salay responded that she would advise the Ballantrae residents that they are welcome to attend the CIP hearings, but at those meetings public testimony is not typically accepted. If they want to provide public testimony, they should do so at the second reading/public hearing of the CIP on September 2. Mr. Lecklider noted that due to the fact that the letter has been shared with Council regarding the request for prioritization of that section of the bikepath, Council will consider that request during the bikepath discussion. Mr. Keenan stated that Council had planned to discuss reprioritization of land acquisition opportunities at a workshop or study session. Hasa meeting date been selected? Ms. Brautigam responded that the topic is scheduled for the September 8th Study Session. Ordinance 47-08 Rezoning Approximately 199.154 Acres, Located on the South Side of Post Road between Houchard Road and US 33, from: R, Rural District, R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, RI, Restricted Industrial District and SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, to: HDP, High Density POD District within the Central Ohio Innovation Center. (COIC Rezoning -Case No. 08-0442) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council _ _ _ Meetn.~ August 4, 2008 Page 15 Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy stated that this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of approximately199.154 acres from: R, Rural District; R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; RI, Restricted Industrial District; and SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to: HDP, High Density POD. The seven parcels are within the COIC (Central Ohio Innovation Center) in the Post and Houchard Road vicinity. Six of the parcels are owned by the City of Dublin; the other parcel is a result of the recent annexation of the Costner property. The new zoning will match the future land use for high density office, research and development, and begins the future land use defined in the Community Plan and the US 33 Corridor area plan and its goal of enhancing employment and establishing a gateway to the City. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 18 Council meeting. Ordinance 48-08 Rezoning Approximately 0.55 acres, Located on the West Side of High Street within the Historic District from: CB, Central Business District to: HB, Historic Business District. (Historic District Rezonings) -Case No. 08-0422) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy stated that this is a request to rezone three properties, 123 South High Street, 95 South High Street, and 45 North High Street from the Central Business (CB) District to the Historic Business (HB) District. The three properties are located within the boundaries of the Historic District and are being utilized for various retail and business uses, including a catering business, a peanut butter and pastry retail establishment, and a hair and nail salon. This is the beginning of some additional rezonings that will occur within the next year or more in the Historic Business District. This rezoning is in compliance with the defined future land use for the mixed-use Village Center in the Historic Business District Area Plan to enhance and revitalized Historic Dublin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the rezoning would impact the three businesses. Mr. Langworthy responded that it will take them out of anon-conforming use category into a conforming use category. There are certain things that the owner cannot do to a business that has anon-conforming use classification. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 18 Council meeting. Ordinance 49-08 Rezoning Approximately 1.4 acres Located on the West Side of Muirfield Drive and on the South Side of Memorial Drive from: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Muirfield Village) to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Muirfield Village Square Lot 1 -Veterinary Hospital -Case No. 08-033Z/FDP) Mr. Gerber introduced the ordinance. Mr. Langworthy stated that this is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone 1.39 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Muirfield Village) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Muirfield Village Square Lot 1) for an existing 3,850 square-foot office building to be used as a veterinary hospital. The site is located at the intersection of Memorial Drive and Muirfield Drive. The purpose of the rezoning is to revise the uses within the development text to include a veterinary hospital as a permitted use and to restrict certain retail and service uses from permitted uses to conditional uses. Certain uses were also excluded from this district, including pet daycare and boarding kennels. There will be a minor building alteration to enclose a front area, altering the two entry doors intended for two tenants to one entry door for the space that will be combined into a single tenant space. This was previously adrive-through bank facility. The applicant proposes to staff the facility as a drop-off center for urgent care. In addition, hazardous wastes, noise and odor issues were addressed by the new development text. A noise study has been required and must be conducted prior to the installation of the use. The Planning and Zoning Commission required that the outdoor area, which will be used for the purpose of walking animals, be expanded to provide additional greenspace. The proposed signage for the facility includes one ground directional sign, a sign that will hang under the canopy to identify the emergency entrance, and two wall signs, one on either side of the building. One of the conditions was that the RECORD OF I~ROCEEDINGS Dublin Citv Council August 4, 2008 Page 16 applicant change the emergency signage identify that it clarify it is an animal emergency care, not human. There are also two landscaping final development conditions. Mr. Gerber inquired if the Muirfield Association review the plan. Mr. Langworthy responded that they did so. He added that the text allows two variations in the signs. he Muirfield Association requested that the alternate with a bronze background be used, rather than the one indicated in the rendering. Ms. Salay inquired about the hours of operation, particularly the emergency hours of the clinic. Mr. Langworthy responded that the facility will be staffed 24 hours a day. Ms. Salay noted that will be a welcome addition to the community. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited the applicant to speak. Jack Turner stated that they are looking forward to joining the community. They appreciate the assistance of the Planning staff during the plan approval process. He added that the emergency sign has been changed to indicate, "Urgent Pet Care." . Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher welcomed them and anticipates hearing more at the second reading/public hearing on August 18. Ordinance 50-08 Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives for Purposes of Retaining and Expanding Caster Ventures LLC and Its Operations and Workforce Within the City of Dublin, and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Gilger stated that they have been working with Caster Ventures since late last year regarding retention and expansion. They currently have 19 employees and anticipate growth to 63 within 5 years. They are currently located at 7003 Post Road, which is the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center. This is an example of a start-up business that is having aggressive growth, and they want to retain them in Dublin. The incentive is performance based with a 10 percent annual withholding, with an equivalent incentive for afive-year term, capped at $28,000 over the term of the incentive. The majority of the jobs will be in sales, programmers and customer support. This is a high-tech company. Company representatives will be available at the second reading. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the company plans to expand at the present location. Ms. Gilger responded confirmed that is the plan. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 18 Council meeting. Ordinance 51-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Option Agreement with American Electric Power Conveying Certain Property Located in the Township of Washington, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, to be used by AEP for the Construction and Operation of an Electrical Substation, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated that critical to the marketability of the COIC (Central Ohio Innovation Center) is the need for high-quality, high-capacity and redundant electrical systems. A couple of years ago, City staff made AEP aware of the City's plans regarding the COIC and discussed the infrastructure improvements planned there as well as the critical need for increased redundant power supply. AEP expressed their willingness to accelerate the construction of the new substation and related circuitry through their own budget processes and timing. AEP contacted them this year regarding possible sites for the new substation, which would need to be along the transmission line that runs north-south through Darree Fields Park. As they considered possible sites, it became apparent that the number of appropriate sites was minimal. It was their collective desire to have a substation built sooner rather than later and to also minimize its visibility. For example, it was not desirable for the substation to be built along SR 161 or on Post Road. The location is noted in Exhibit B of the staff report, which will be within the 100 acres that the City owns at the corner of SR 161 and Houchard Road, about 1,300 feet south of SR 161, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of - Dublin-City Council Meetin_ DAYTON LEGAL BLA!JK. IP.O_PORA^!JO. tUti2 _ _______ August 4, 2008 Page 17 Held 20 - - - -- underneath and immediately adjacent to the transmission line itself. Staff requests passage of the ordinance by emergency at the second reading on August 18. Mr. Gerber asked why the City is giving property to AEP? It would seem that AEP would have the duty to provide electrical service to that area under any scenario. Mr. McDaniel responded that is true. However, the City views this as a way in which to incentivize AEP to construct the station sooner rather than later, which will assist the marketability of the area by having redundant power and circuitry. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the value of the land. Mr. McDaniel responded that it is appraised at $90,000/acre. Mr. Gerber noted that the proposed acreage to be provided is 3.6 acres. Mr. Lecklider inquired if AEP would need to use all 3.6 acres. Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively, noting the need for buffering. It is actually afive- acre footprint, but some of that will be tucked up under the easement and transmission line itself, an easement they already have. The balance of the area is the 3.6 acres, a significant portion of which will provide the required buffering and landscaping. He does not know the exact deduction, but he will provide that information for the second reading. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the design provides for additional growth, if necessary. Mr. McDaniel responded that it does, but only within the existing footprint. Mr. Lecklider inquired if growth is needed in a few years, would the acreage be sufficient? Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes it could be accomplished within the existing footprint. Mr. Keenan indicated that the need for this substation was discussed in conjunction with the approval of the COIC. AEP is under no specific obligation to build what is needed there to drive those improvements. Mr. McDaniel responded that is correct. The market would drive that as build-out occurs, In this case, they would like to see AEP advancing the correction much sooner than normal, which will add redundancy -- not only in the power supply, but in the circuitry itself in that area. Extending the circuitry as part of the infrastructure improvement in that area is perfect timing. This is viewed as a way of partnering with AEP, as has occurred in other situations regarding transmission lines. Vice Mayor Boring inquired why, if this is a partnership effort, is the City incurring any expenses in closing costs? Mr. Smith responded that they were instructed to have this completed, and discussion previously took place with Council about this matter. Drawings were provided of the proposed location on the property. This was done as an incentive to AEP to build this now rather than waiting 5 to 7 years or more. As Council is aware, the various parties the City has been discussing development with have indicated the need for redundant power. Vice Mayor Boring stated that if this is a partnership effort, and the City is providing $300,000 worth of property, it would seem that AEP could pay all the closing costs. Mr. McDaniel responded that AEP is advancing $200,000 in landscape costs. Vice Mayor Boring responded that AEP would need to do that no matter where the substation was sited. Ms. Salay inquired the amount of closing costs. Mr. Smith responded that he does not have that information available tonight, but would provide it for the August 18th meeting. Vice Mayor Boring requested that an aerial view of the properties around the site be provided for the next meeting. Mr. McDaniel indicated that he would do so. It abuts the properties around Fishel Drive immediately to the west. Ms. Salay inquired how close the substation would be to the existing soccer fields. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would be approximately 1,000 feet north of the fields. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f Dublin City Council Meeting DAY70_N LEGAL 6LA_NK INC. FORM NO. 10148_ _ _ August 4, 2008 Page 18 Held 20 - - T~_ Mr. Lecklider stated that with the potential of AEP providing landscaping at a cost of up to $200,000, this proposal is consistent with the City's economic initiatives, particularly with the COIC. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there will be a second reading/public hearing on August 18'" with emergency passage requested at that time. Ordinance 52-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Purchase of a 0.010 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.075 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a 0.022 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Ronald E. and Gloria I. DeWolf, Said Acreage Located on the Southwest Corner of Memorial Drive and Industrial Parkway, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 53-08 Appropriating a 0.003 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a 0.025 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a 0.022 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from the Asman Land Co. Ltd., Located West of Industrial Parkway and North of State Route 161, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ordinance 54-08 Appropriating a Combined 0.712 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a Combined 0.61 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a Combined 0.053 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from the Hawkins Family Partnership, Located North of Post Road and West of Hyland-Croy Road, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to waive the Rules of Order and have the Clerk of Council read the names of the property owners into the record. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. The Clerk read the names of the property owners into the record. Mr. Lecklider introduced the ordinances. Mr. Smith stated that concerning Ordinance 52-08, the DeWolfs have accepted the City's offer. The appraisal was $6,900. The Asman and Hawkins families have not accepted the City's offer, so Legal will be proceeding with the appropriations following tonight's authorization. Mr. Gerber inquired if Legal has an appraisal in hand when they approach the property owner. Mr. Smith responded that the first step is to obtain an appraisal, which is then forwarded to the property owner. Subsequently, a negotiator meets with the property owner with the City's offer. The negotiator will entertain a counter offer, if it is made. For these two properties, a resolution of intent to appropriate was passed at a recent meeting by Council. The appropriation is now being authorized. Dublin's appropriation process is more detailed than those of other cities. In addition to the formal appraisal value, the negotiator takes into account in the offer any damage to the residual property. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized the status: the DeWolf case is resolved, as they have accepted the City's offer; Legal has not received a response from the Asmans; and Council has received copies of the Hawkins' letter rejecting the offer. Mr. Smith noted that discussion continues with the Hawkins family attorney. Ms. Salay inquired the name of the attorney. Mr. Smith indicated it is Mr. Michael Close. Mr. Lecklider inquired the amount of land being taken from the Hawkins property. Mr. Smith responded that 0.712 Acres, fee simple interest is being taken, then another 0.61 acres is being taken for a utility easement, and finally, 0.053 acres is being taken for a temporary construction easement. The parties are far apart on the proposed settlement RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting _ DAYTON LEGAL 9LANK iNC.. FOHht NO ~ne'o August 4, 2008 Page 19 Held 20 - - amount. He would refer the exact amounts at this time remain confidential. With the P Hawkins family, the City would be taking a significantly larger amount of land than is being taken with the other two properties. Mr. Keenan noted that the land involved in the Hawkins appropriation total approximately 1.3 or 1.4 acres. Mr. Smith responded that is correct, but the temporary construction easement involves use of the property only for a time period. The property owner retains ownership. Mr. Gerber moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat Ordinances 52-08, 53-08 and 54-08 as emergency legislation. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms- Salay, yes. Vote on the Ordinances: Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. 5alay, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 55-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement for the Purchase of a 0.042 Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a 0.245 Acre Temporary Construction Easement from Avery Shops LLC, Located at the Southwest Corner of Avery- Muirfield Drive and Post Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that the appraisal for this land was $30,000. The Avery Shops accepted the City's offer. Ms. Salay moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, abstain; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, abstain. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS - Resolution 52-08 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Grounds of Remembrance Project. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hahn noted that the City received four bids for the project. Staff recommends acceptance of the lowest and best bid submitted by McDaniel's Construction. Staff recommends acceptance of the base bid amount and of three of the bid alternate amounts: (1) upgrade to the limestone clad dedication wall; (2) path alignment; (3) a stabilizer for the aggregate path. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the contract with this company could be done in such a way to ensure the contractor does not come back and request an additional $50,000? Mr. Hahn responded that if the company is correct in their request for the additional amount, due to some omissions from the plan, the City would agree to a change order to accommodate that. The City believes the plan is strong and there should be no need to deviate from the contract amount. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired when the project would actually begin. Mr. Hahn responded that some site preparation work is scheduled for August 14 or 15, so equipment will be on site at that time. Resolution 53-08 Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Dublin Methodist Hospital Ingress Lane. Ms. Salay introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City has been working with Dublin Methodist Hospital to construct cone-way ingress lane from Avery-Muirfield Drive at the interchange opposite RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes ~f_ Dublin City Council __ Meetn_Q DAYTON LEGAL BLANK~WC., FOFM NO, 1D~4a August 4, 2008 Page 20 Held 2U the westbound ramp. The lane will head west and intercept with Hospital Drive providing immediate access to the hospital. The City would particularly like to thank Rep. Hughes and Sen. Stivers for helping the City to secure $1 million in Ohio Department of . Development roadway grant funds to provide for the construction of this project. In addition, the City thanks Ohio Health for their donation of the right-of-way for the project. The final alignment of the roadway looks as indicated in the drawing shown tonight. There will be some impact to the pond along the north side of the ingress lane, which can be mitigated as part of the project. Several bids were received for the project. Double Z Construction submitted the lowest/best bid at $671,972.80. The City has not previously worked with this company, but the references were favorable. Therefore, staff recommends the contract be awarded to Double Z. The completion date for this project is November 12 of this year. Mr. Reiner inquired about the use of the remainder of the grant. Ms. Grigsby responded that the grant award is based on reimbursement, so the City will only be reimbursed for what is actually spent. The project does also have design costs approaching $200,000 and wetland mitigation costs. The City should receive 100% reimbursement, unless there are change orders on the project. Mr. Keenan inquired if the project includes landscaping as well. Ms. Grigsby responded that there would probably be some, but most of the landscaping will occur after the project is completed. Mr. Hammersmith stated that street trees would be added as part of the project, but landscaping will be minimal. There will be no landscaping beds. Mr. Lecklider expressed surprise that the project could be completed by November 2008: Mr. Hammersmith responded that one of the reasons that is possible is that the City has received another donation. Several months ago, Cardinal Health donated all of the soil that is needed to construct the lane. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that the engineer's estimate was $1 M, and the City was awarded that amount. However, the City will only receive the actual amount of the cost of the project, not to exceed $1 M? Mr. Keenan responded that is correct. Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Resolution 54-08 Accepting the Lowest/ Best Bid for the Emerald Parkway Cardinal Health Improvements. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Mr. Hammersmith stated this roadway project will provide for a new signalized intersection at Cardinal Health's main entrance to the west campus building currently under construction. It will provide a signalized intersection as a shared access point further to the west with Verizon Wireless. In addition, the project will include right-turn drop lanes. Left turn lanes will be provided on Emerald Parkway. At the furthest east entrance to the Cardinal Health existing building, the median will be closed off, and that entrance will become a right in/right out only. The engineer's estimate was $1.3M. The preliminary estimate provided with the economic development agreement was $740,000, but that amount covered only the cost of the signal improvements. The project costs also include $150,000 for an 8-inch water main connection from Emerald Parkway to the Woods of Indian Run subdivision. This will reinforce the water system providing service to Cardinal Health and Verizon to ensure that they have adequate domestic water flow and in particular fire flow. The completion date of the major components of the roadway is November 24, 2008. The signalization will be completed by January 16, 2009, which will be in sync with the Cardinal Health facility construction. The lowest/best bid was submitted by Shelly & Sands, Inc. for $1,272,310.12, which is 2.1 % under the estimate. The City has had previous favorable experience with this company. Mr. Lecklider inquired if Shelly & Sands will do the water main construction as well. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is included in the project. He noted that Mr. Richardson has been meeting with residents concerning needed easements along Forest Run Drive. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Duhiin City Council. ~!Ieet~na DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 70748 August 4, 2008 Page 21 Held 20 ~~ - -~I~ That work will not begin until after September 19. Mr. Keenan asked about traffic maintenance during the project. Mr. Hammersmith stated that there may be some lane restrictions, but traffic will be maintained throughout the project. No major difficulties are anticipated. Mr. Keenan noted that the information indicates only one lot in the Woods of Indian Run would be impacted with the water main construction. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. Mr. Keenan asked if discussion with the resident has already occurred. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. He added that these signals will be peak hour signals, operating from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if this is included in the TIF district. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that it is. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road asked if the affected property owners are agreeable to the easements provided to Cardinal Health. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the easements would actually be to the City of Dublin for the maintenance and operation of the water main. Mr. Maurer inquired if the water main would be run through a private property. Mr. Hammersmith responded it would run through a property on Forest Run Drive, but not on Cardinal Health or Verizon properties. Mr. Maurer stated that the water connection would then be for Cardinal Health. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would be for the entire distribution system, but Cardinal Health and Verizon would be the most immediate users. Vote on the Resolution: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 55-08 In Support of a Grant Request to the Attorney General for Continuation of the D.A.R.E. Program. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Chief Epperson stated that each year their department submits an application to the Ohio Attorney General's office for this grant to recover some of the costs of the City's D.A.R.E. program. The application requires this resolution of support. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquires how this request compares to that of previous years. Chief Epperson responded that it is a little low. There is a formula that is a partial salary calculation for one officer for part of the year. The request was for $37,000 last year. Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Saaay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 56-08 Intent to Appropriate a Combined 3.928 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a Combined .583 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, a Combined 1.002 Acres, More or Less, Utility Easement, and a .112 Acres More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Two Properties Owned by Jerome I Associates, Ltd., Said Acreage Located on the North Side of S.R. 161, West of Industrial Parkway and the U.S. 33/S.R. 161 Interchange, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio, and Township of Washington, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 57-08 Intent to Appropriate the Following from John L. Wirchainski: a 4.651 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest Located on the South Corner of Memorial Drive, Northwest of the U.S. 33/S.R. 161 Interchange, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio; a 13.115 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest Located at the Northeast Intersection of Industrial Parkway and S.R. 161, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio; a 1.740 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest . Located on the West Side of Hyland-Croy Road, North of the Post Road1U.S. 33 Interchange, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Minutes of DAYTON LEGAL BLANK INC.~FORM NO. 70] 4$ uoi,-~ August 4, 2008 Meeting Page 22 Resolution 58-08 Intent to Appropriate a .023 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, a .090 Acres, More or Less, Standard Highway Easement, and a .037 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Easement from Larry D. and Karen C. Peters, Said Acreage Located on the North Side of S.R. 161, West of Industrial Parkway and U.S. 33, Township of Jerome, County of Union, State of Ohio. Resolution 59-08 Intent to Appropriate a .412 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest from Dennis J. Hoffer, Said Acreage Located on the West Side of Liggett Road, Adjacent to U.S. 33 and Just South of Post Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Resolution 60-08 Intent to Appropriate a 1.761 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a .413 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from the Post-Hylands Co., Said Acreage Located on the West Side of Liggett Road, Adjacent to U.S. 33 and Just South of Post Road, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to waive the Council Rules of Order and have the Clerk read the names of the property owners of Resolutions 56-08 through 60-08 into the record. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. The Clerk read the names of the property owners into the record. Ms. Salay introduced the resolutions. Mr. Smith stated that these five resolutions continue the land acquisition for the US 33/SR 161 interchange improvements. The properties have been appraised and Mr. Howard has been retained to present and negotiate offers after the passage of these resolutions. If negotiations are not successful on any of the properties, ordinances authorizing appropriation will be requested. Vote on the Resolutions: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Resolution 61-08 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement to Purchase a .033 Acres, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest, and a .061 Acres, More or Less, Temporary Construction Easement from Robert G. and Jane M. Eickholt, Said Acreage Located on Sawmill Road, Just South of the Intersection of Sawmill and Hard Roads. Mr. Reiner introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith requested a motion to amend this resolution to an ordinance and advertise it for a second reading. Whenever property is purchased, an ordinance is required with two readings. Mr. Gerber moved to amend the resolution to an ordinance and to schedule it for a reading on August 18.. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if this land is in the City of Columbus. Mr. Smith responded that it is. It is necessary for Dublin to acquire this land for the intersection improvements. Ms. Grigsby added that this is part of the commitment for the Kroger and LifeTime Fitness developments. There will be another reading of the legislation at the August 18 Council meeting. OTHER • Recommendation from Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission regarding Bikepaths, Parkland Acquisition and Deer Population Control Ms. Brautigam indicated that at a recent meeting, PRAC approved five separate motions regarding items to bring to City Council. Mr. Hahn has provided a staff memo in Council RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of .Dublin City Council Meeting DAYTON LEGAL 61 ANK. INC.. FORM NO 101 .9 August 4, 2008 Page 23 Held 20 - ~ =_-~ packets describing those motions, and staff offers the following information regarding each of the motions. (1) To seriously consider adding bikepaths or bike lanes along Riverside Drive within the City limits from the north to the south. Council has had an aggressive schedule for completing bikepaths, but this is an area in which it is very difficult to obtain property to construct a bikepath along the Scioto River. It is not currently contained in the City's 5-year CIP, but the City will be studying the possible use of bike lanes as opposed to bikepaths in this area. Staff has begun to consider along-term policy for the development of bike lanes. Additional information will be provided later this year. (2) To initiate a feasibility study to extend the connection of a bikepath from Jerome High School to Corazon. In the 5-year CIP, this would be completed as part of the intersection improvements for Hyland-Croy Road and scheduled for 2009 through a TIF mechanism. This item is already addressed in the City's 5-year CIP. (3) For the City to consider the acquisition of a certain property along Cosgray Road. It is on the west side of Cosgray, across from and a bit south of Sports Ohio. The City was considering this area for purchase in conjunction with Darree Fields a number of years ago. However, the City has never proceeded with that acquisition. PRAC suggested that the area would be appropriate for soccer fields, however the City's draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, notes that the City already has sufficient soccer fields to promote recreational soccer within the City. The acquisition of this property as soccer fields would probably be used for other than recreational level soccer players. Staff recommends that this not be placed as a priority item. In the future, staff will be bringing to Council in executive session some discussions of property acquisitions, but this would not be one of the priorities. (4) To consider the temporary Houchard Road access from Darree Fields as a priority for the 2009 CIP budget. This project has been identified in the CIP by staff as a project for Council consideration. (5) That Council provide further direction on the deer management issues. PRAC requests that Council provide them direction on how to proceed. The City has been studying the deer management issue for quite some time. In fact, the City has a natural resource management program in the proposed Parks & Recreation Master Plan. CSAC researched the issue and reported their findings to Council. Per Council's direction, staff has been providing public education regarding the deer population and continues to maintain statistical information. Staff does not believe further direction is needed, although PRAC would like to further study the issue. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City receives copies of the actual crash records involving deer and cars. Mr. Hahn responded that the City has been working with the Police division as well as Streets & Utilities. Staff now has good mapping of the areas that have a higher record of incidents. Staff has shared that map with PRAC and will share it with Council as well. Mr. Reiner inquired if similar crash records are kept by other municipalities. If so, is Dublin within the curve of normal occurrences? It seems that Dublin has a very large deer population. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that crash occurrences is only one form of possible damage. Some residents have spoken to her regarding problems with deer eating all of their landscaping, which is costly to replace. Mr. Hahn responded that there are certain areas of the City that are more prone to damage than other areas. The same is true of the parks. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that those incidents are seldom reported. Mr. Hahn indicated that this was a new question in the 2008 resident satisfaction survey - whetherthe resident had experienced damage caused by wildlife. The positive responses were minimal; 82% responded that they have had no wildlife damage. Ms. Salay noted that there is a counterpoint in that the community has grown into the wildlife's back yard, not the other way around. A balanced perspective is needed. The community desires much open greenspace and parkland. The City has 1,000 acres of F~EC~R® ®F PR®C~E®If~1GS Dublin Citv Council parkland, and there are 1,000 acres of adjoining Metro Parks. Therefore, there will be a large deer population. In addition, there is a river and many creeks, which draw the deer. Personally, she has had lots of wildlife in her backyard. They sometimes eat things or cause mild damage, but they are here due to the characteristics of Dublin that everyone loves. She believes that this is something the residents need to learn to live with. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not disagree, but it is necessary to enforce the laws in place. For instance, residents are not permitted to have salt blocks, but there are some who do feed the deer, drawing more deer. Mr. Hahn noted that the ordinance prohibiting the feeding of wildlife relates only to public property. There are no such regulations regarding private property. Vice Mayor Boring stated that this problem comes up every year. There are many communities who are addressing it. She has witnessed deer walking down the road in the middle of the day. Does this pose any risk to children? It is not a good situation if the deer are reproducing a thin, unhealthy population. However, Council continues to receive the same request to monitor this issue. There seems to be a desire that Council address it. Mr. Lecklider responded that he agrees that the City should monitor the issue, but he is concerned with the tone of the motion. The deer certainly present a roadway hazard. Acknowledging that fact, Council previously referred this issue to CSAC. The PRAC minutes reflect that a couple of members are aware of that. The question is why is the issue now being taken up by PRAC? He was struck by the minutes that reflect at least one member of PRAC indicates that he was asked by three Council members about his position on the deer issue, because those three Council members were in support of doing something. Those three Council members should raise that question with Council. He does not understand why the subject is being raised by PRAC. If Council believes it is desirable to refer the issue to PRAC instead of CSAC, that would be appropriate. He does not understand what occurred here; it seems a little atypical. In respect to the other motions, he would certainly support additional access to Darree Fields, and it seems that will occur soon. With respect to a bikepath from Jerome High School along Hyland-Croy northward, a simpler solution might be to extend a couple hundred feet of bikepath west on Mitchell-DeWitt Road, because there is an existing bikepath to access Glacier Ridge. Although he understands the desire to have a bikepath along Hyland-Croy, there is a need to establish funding priorities. Mr. Hahn responded that there is a relatively short gap of bikepath on Hyland-Croy Road between the existing Jerome High School bikepath and the existing Tartan West bikepath. However, it is also possible to access north and south through the Glacier Ridge Park bikepath system, although it does not parallel the road. Mr. Lecklider stated that it is possible to travel up from Tullymore, through the Honda wetlands, travel north and cross Mitchell-DeWitt -that is roughly parallel to Hyland-Croy. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes Mr. Lecklider is referring to Mr. Geese's comment. His comment was actually made during his interview for the Commission in response to a Council member's question regarding his position on the deer issue. Mr. Lecklider responded that although he was present, he does not recall that exchange. Ms. Salay stated that she is also confused about the tone of some of the recommendations. It would seem that all of them have been responded to by staff. Regarding the deer issue, she appreciates PRAC's interest, but Council has already covered that issue. She is satisfied with what the City is currently doing and she is not interested in further discussion at this point, unless an issue regarding road safety arises. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff provided these responses to PRAC, and were they accepted by PRAC? Did they believe they would receive different responses from Council? Mr. Hahn responded that in response to their request for a bikepath on Hyland-Croy, staff shared with PRAC that the City's 5-year CIP contains programming for the construction of that bikepath section. Regarding the deer issue, he was not clear what the Commission RECORD OF PROCEED[NGS Dublin City Council Meeting August 4, 1UU~3 Page 15 was requesting, but the PRAC meeting minutes reflect staff's responses to them. In regard to the land purchase in front of Cosgray or Darree Fields, the history of that parcel was relayed to the Commission. Concerning a Riverside Drive bikepath, staff informed them that it was a future project, but it was not yet programmed in the 5-year CIP. He believes that the staff report reflects the information provided to the Commission members at their meeting. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she believes that Commission members were showing an interest in some community issues. She finds that refreshing. They know that Council has addressed the deer issue, but are interested in having it discussed again and would like to be actively involved in doing so. Personally, she does not believe the City is doing enough; the deer issue is a significant problem for the community. Of course there are other priorities to consider, and it is fine if that is Council's response. It is interesting that these members viewed these as community needs and brought them up at the time they were appointed to this Commission. Mr. Reiner concurred. It would be irresponsible of Council not keep up-to-date on the deer management issue in view of the trend for deer population increase within suburban areas. He is interested in knowing where Dublin is with this issue and what other municipalities are doing. The accidents and damage to landscape are a significant . concern. Mr. Hahn stated that staff is preparing information for the next packet, which contains some Dublin-specific information and information collected from other municipalities regarding control measures that have been implemented. They do not have data on the one item Mr. Reiner requested and that is data on deer-vehicle crash reports from other communities. They will obtain that information for the packet, also. Mr. Lecklider clarified that he supports continuing staff monitoring of the deer issue within the community. Regarding the motion concerning land acquisition, he believes PRAC participated extensively in the development of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Mr. Hahn confirmed that is correct. All chapters of the draft plan were reviewed with the opportunity to edit by the Commission before the final draft was prepared. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council members appear to be in agreement with the recommendations of motions #1 through #4 and would support forwarding a communication from Council to that effect with a note of what is being done on those issues. Regarding motion #5, the deer issue, Mr. Hahn has indicated that he would provide information in the next Council packet, which she assumes will also be provided to PRAC. After they have reviewed the current information about Dublin's policies and the practices of other municipalities, if PRAC desires further dialogue with Council, she would not object. She inquired if a Council member was interested in bringing forward a motiori regarding the deer issue. Mr. Reiner stated that he would like Mr. Hahn to investigate any statistics on vehicle/deer related accidents and compile a community comparison report for Council before proceeding further. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that perhaps Council should wait until the additional information and data are provided by staff for either the August 18 or September 2 packet. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there have been any discussions about seeking grants or special funds to address community bikepath needs. Perhaps the Parks staff or PRAC could research opportunities. Mr. Hahn stated that there have discussions about potential future opportunities for transportation-related grant dollars to be allocated differently. If future opportunities become available related to bicycle transportation, those will be pursued. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he resides on four acres of unspoiled land, populated by deer and other wildlife. Regarding the proposed bikepath along Riverside Drive, he cannot visualize a complete bikepath all through Dublin, north and south of SR 161. His assumption is that the bikepath would vary in its distance from the road, but as past experience with the Dublin Road has shown, at times the path may come within a RECORD ®~ PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council ~!Ieet~nz Page 26 foot or two of the road. Careful consideration should be given of the risks to a bikepath along a roadway with traffic traveling both directions at 50 plus miles per hour. • Request for Fee Waiver -Heather Glen Village Condominium Association. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff received a fee waiver request from the Heather Glen Village condo association for an amended final development plan. The application was submitted by the Association to facilitate approval of the addition of individual patio/three- season, screened-in porches to the backs of the Heather Glen condominiums. The condo project was approved in 1996 and the original approval contained no specificities regarding proposed improvements to the areas specified as patios. Many of the condominium owners have been applying for permits to install various alternatives, including screened porches, which were not part of the original construction nor addressed in the development text. In order to avoid the need for individual applications for changes or amendments, the City decided to cover them with one application to amend the development text for the entire development. The Association has requested a waiver of the application fee for the amended final development plan. He noted that staff recommends disapproval of their request. At the same time, staff would like to carefully distinguish this from previous applications for fee waivers. This is a part of the zoning approval for individual properties related to a previously approved final development plan. Other fee waiver applications have related to amendments for entry features and more public features. He noted a correction to the staff memo, "Fee Waivers Requested from HOAs," which should state "from individual property owners, as opposed to a request ...." Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the text has already been changed to permit this. Mr. Langworthy responded it has not, as the application fee has to be paid before their application for the text change can be heard by the Planning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if others in Dublin are required to pay an application fee to make such changes. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that they are. Mr. Reiner asked where the applicants came up with the idea of requesting a waiver of their application fee. Mr. Langworthy stated that everyone has the opportunity to request fee waivers. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the developer of a condominium development along Sawmill Road requested an amendment to their development text, but they paid their fee for the text change. Ms. Salay inquired the amount of the fee waiver requested with this application. Mr. Langworthy indicated it was $900. Ms. Salay stated that she concurs with Planning staff's recommendation. When this condominium development was built, the buyers had the option of purchasing a unit with an open patio or with athree-season, screened-in room. Some of the units already have such added three-season rooms, so it would seem the homeowner already has the option to do so. Mr. Langworthy noted that permits to add them were obtained by some of the homeowners, but not by all. A combination of circumstances allowed them to be built. Ms. Salay stated that a few years ago, another condo association desired for their association to have the ability to install decks or patios. Because of the setback requirements related to the stormwater system, they had to apply to the Planning Commission for approval of an amended final development plan. She does not recall if the City required them to pay a fee. It was primarily an Engineering issue due to the stormwater utility. After that was resolved, the residents had to go before the Planning . Commission or BZA for their case to be heard. It would seem that sets a precedent for or against. She believes the applicant paid the fee, but she is not certain. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff did some research for Council when the issue of fee waivers was discussed recently. Because this was not included on the list of previous waivers, he assumes they paid the fee and did not receive a waiver. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meetin4 August 4, 2008 Mr. Lecklider inquired if the omission was the fault of the developer or was something they should have foreseen. Mr. Langworthy responded that it probably should have been identified when the development text was originally done, instead of merely outlining a patio space. However, in 1996, they might not have realized that screened-in porches would be an option for the patio space. The developer probably envisioned ground-level patios only. Current options for patio spaces have expanded beyond what was originally anticipated. Ms. Salay pointed out that the original buyers had the option to purchase the units with or without ascreened-in porch, so the developer did foresee them. Mr. Langworthy stated that as part of the approval process, the screened-in porches were not included. Ms. Salay asked if he is indicating that the developer constructed many of the units with screened-in porches without obtaining a permit for these. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the development text from the outset did not permit such porches to be built with the homes. Mr. Langworthy responded that the text only described an area for a patio to be built with the home. Subsequent to that, individual homebuyers were offered the opportunity for screened-in porches. He does not anticipate the Planning Commission having an issue with this, but Review Services has not known what to approve in the interim. Ms. Salay summarized that rather than charging a fee to each of the homeowners, staff is recommending an amendment to their final development plan. Mr. Langworthy indicated that is correct. This will also make the existing porches legal. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is not supporting waiver of the. On the other hand, he would not object to the text amendment. It was obviously left out due to an oversight on the part of the developer. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if, with the amended text, it would be possible to add a room revision. Mr. Langworthy responded that according to the Code, the three-season room is not considered a part of the main dwelling unless it is enclosed with glass. Vice Mayor Boring moved to support Planning staff's recommendation not to approve the waiver of the application fee. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. • Official Designation of the City Parkland Now Known as Ballantrae Park. Ms. Brautigam reported that the Edwards Company would like to install a sign in this location identifying the parkland as "Ballantrae Park." Because the Council has not yet officially designated it as such, staff determined it should be brought before Council for official naming. The Edwards Company would like to erect the signage for the park, but there is concern that the sign could be used as a marketing tool. Therefore, staff . recommends that Council officially designate it as "Ballantrae Park" and that the City install the standard park signage. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to designate the parkland as "Ballantrae Park," and to direct staff to install the standard City park signage. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. • Post Road Re-Direction Ms. Brautigam noted that tonight's verbal update will be followed up with a staff memo. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in May, a mailing was forwarded to all the affected property owners along Post Road regarding two upcoming projects -the Post Road re-direction and the Avery-Muirfield-Post Round roundabout. The mailing alerted them to the anticipated changes on Post Road. In regard to the re-direction, staff has been working on the property acquisition, in particular for the Thomas property, where the City desires to buy the entire piece. The City also needs right-of-way and utility easements from them to be able to move this project forward. Staff would like to take more time and do the acquisitions in a complete fashion. The project will not occur until next spring. The re- RECORD OF PR®CEE,DINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council August direction was being done in conjunction with the Cardinal Health improvements. The projects cannot be separated and done at different times. They were all included in the same design contract. The Emerald and Post intersection is not a simple striping change. It will also involve a significant amount of signal work on the existing mast arms. Some roadwork at that intersection will be done to modify the median, and some storm drainage improvements will be done. Ms. Salay inquired if Post Road would continue to be re-directed. Ms. Brautigam responded that Post Road will stay open for the present time. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the original intent was to close Post Road after the Irish Festival. The plans for the re-direction next year are 95% complete. It is the land acquisition piece which is causing some delays. Ms. Salay noted that staff had some concerns about allowing the left-hand turn movements at Post and Avery-Muirfield when the roundabout is completed. It would establish new traffic patterns through Post Road, which would then be terminated with the re-direction. She understood that the decision was made to leave Post Road closed after the Irish Festival so that the new traffic patterns would establish themselves in advance of and in anticipation of the Cardinal Health project completion. Drivers will have to be re- trained to use Perimeter Drive. It would seem desirable to leave Post Road closed, maintaining access to the Rec Center. That was the information shared with the Post Road residents. Mr. Keenan commented that there are only a small number of residents along Post Road. The road should remain as an east-west connector in the future. Ms. Salay responded that is quite a dead issue. Re-directing Post Road is now required by the agreement for the Cardinal Health project. Mr. Keenan noted that he believes the City will regret this decision in the future. His position remains unchanged. Mr. Reiner noted that he is in complete agreement with Mr. Keenan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Hammersmith for the update. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam noted that the closing on the Bridge and High project occurred today. Activity on the project should begin immediately. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. Reiner stated that the Irish Festival this year was a great success. This is a tribute to staff, particularly the great work of Ms. Puskarcik and Ms. DiSalvo. Such an event could never happen in a city of this size without the volunteers engaged in the effort. It was a wonderful event, not only for the community itself but for many others who travel a distance to attend. City staff should be proud of this accomplishment. Kudos to everyone who participated! Mr. Gerber echoed Mr. Refiner's positive comments! Mr. Keenan: (1) Reported that the US 33 Corridor committee met on July 8 and July 29. Another meeting is scheduled for next week. The committee's work continues and the meetings are well attended. (2) Expressed similar sentiments regarding the Irish Festival. He is amazed at the amount of logistics required to stage the event. He expressed thanks to Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. DiSalvo and the Community Relations staff for a job well done. (3) Attended the Arthritis Foundation Classic Auto Show, along with the Mayor in July. The event was very successful. (4) Reported that he attended a MORPC meeting on July 9 with a number of other . elected officials from central Ohio. The meeting focused on transportation issues. Vice Mayor Boring: (1) Asked if attendance and revenue numbers are available for the Irish Festival. RECOR® OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting - ---~. August 4, 1UUt3 Ms. Puskarcik stated that they have only a few preliminary numbers at this point, as not all of the ticket sales have been counted. They should have some better numbers later this week. (2) Noted that the Administrative Committee needs to schedule another meeting regarding campaign financing. She will have the Clerk identify some proposed dates. Mr. Harding has also asked the Committee to set a date to review the . proposed 2009 Employee Health Plan modifications. She asked Mr. Harding for the timeframe for this review. Mr. Harding responded that he had hoped that the Committee could meet early to mid September for their review. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher: (1) Stated that she received a postcard from a resident regarding the City's July 4cn event and the Rick Springfield concert. The resident was offended by the language used by Mr. Springfield in many of his songs. She has received complaints from other residents about the incredibly loud volume of the concert and the fact that there was no break between songs which would have allowed for conversation at the tables. This should be taken into consideration when staff selects a group for the event. She asked Mr. Ball about staff's conversation with the entertainer about the venue, and Mr. Ball shared that their contract specifically states that this is a family event and the performers are not to use foul language. She is not certain how that could be enforced during an actual performance, other than not to pay them for violation of the contract. In her opinion, entertainers have a set program, which they do not change, no matter what the venue is. It is not sufficient to tell the performer that this is a family event. The public has made similar complaints in the past about the performers' language and dress. She would like to request that in the future, staff take the above factors into consideration when selecting a group. Ms. Puskarcik stated that in the future, staff would do so. (2) Noted that the Irish Festival is the City's signature event and this year, the event was blessed with excellent weather! The Saturday crowd was enormous. She has received a couple of calls today from residents who expressed that the size of the crowds impacted their enjoyment of the event. She is not sure how to remedy the situation. In view of the advertising, it seems to be staff's goal to attract 100,000 people to the event. However, it is important to be conscious of the type of experience people will have. The enormous crowd on Saturday night has an impact on all the other things taking place at the Festival. However, the Festival seemed to be a very positive event overall. She will be interested in the final financial report on the Festival. (3) Reported that during the July Council break, Ms. Brautigam, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Grigsby, Ty Marsh, the Ohio Lieutenant Governor, and she met with Roland Smith and a group from Wendy's-Arby's to discuss their coming to Dublin and the on-site operations. She shared with Council the packet prepared for that meeting, which contained excellent information about the area. Mr. Smith seemed to be impressed, and it was a positive meeting. (4) Stated that she did attend the Arthritis Foundation Classic Auto Show in July and presented them with a trophy on behalf of City Council. It was a very successful event. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 10:40 p.m. for discussion of collective bargaining matters (to prepare for, conduct, or review negotiations or bargaining sessions with public employees concerning their compensation or other terms and conditions of their employment); legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action); land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes); and personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of public employee or official). Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. RECORD OF PR®CEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting August 4, 2008 Page Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the meeting will be reconvened only to formally adjourn. There will be no further action taken. meeting was reconvened at 11:45 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor -Presiding Officer ~~~~~~ Clerk of Council