Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2002 i i ,I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS wW~hh~m,~~m_mh~mwhp,wwm#~~,w~h~hM~!ll;!!~~mwm9Xhmw~~,#~P,WWh_hPhh#wm'hmwwm~~mw~~ww~_m'h,l):uQlin'~~h~14Cilh~mhh,mwmh",hm,~hW~~WhW~,~h~~W"'~hh#hh~'hPh~m#~m'~W"W"h"'h,,W"hmhm~,~,~,!~~g,~m#'#_~_'~~h DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO FORM NO. 10148 " Held May 20, 2002 19 Mayor McCash called the Dublin City Council meeting of May 20,2002 to order at 8:15 p.rn. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call --- Council members present were: Mayor McCash, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner, and Ms. Salay. Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Kindra, Mr. Harding, Mr. Puskarcik, Mr. Stevens, Interim Police Chief Epperson, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Husenitza, Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Crandall. Approval of Minutes Mrs. Boring requested an amendment to the April 18th Council meeting with a correction on page nine, paragraph seven, to remove the word "not" and to read "Council had net requested a projection of. ." Ms. Salay moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. Correspondence The Acting Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was sent regarding a request for a liquor permit for Hsaing Chi Giun, Inc, dba Mark Pi's Express, located at 6546 Riverside Drive. There was no objection to the issuance of this permit. Special Presentation Dennv Lvnch, senior vice president of Communications for Wendv's, Inc., introduced Bob Levitt, Vice President Corporate Marketing; Matt Dee, Director of Advertising; and Steve Johnson, ,-..- Director of Bates Worldwide Advertising Agency - Dublin. He thanked Council for the invitation to share the features of Wendy' s new advertising campaign. He noted that Wendy's moved to Dublin in the mid to late 70's, and has been proud to be a partner with the City and the community since that time. Wendy's has grown to over 900 employees in Dublin, including the corporate headquarters, the five restaurants and two Tim Horton's restaurants. He noted that Wendy's has tried to be a part of the community in various ways, through participation in the Dublin Irish Festival, Wendy's contests at the Dublin Community Recreation Center, the Kiwanis Frog Jump sponsorship, and the Wendy's Championship for Children LPGA event. He thanked the City for partnering in that event, which will be held at Tartan Fields on July 29th through August 4th. He stated that Wendy's has initiated a new ad campaign, which features Dublin, and asked Mr. Levitt to explain. Mr. Levitt noted that on January 8t\ Wendy's lost its founder and good friend when Dave Thomas passed away. He noted that Mr. Thomas was also an essential talent in Wendy's advertising campaign, filming 850 commercials in 12 years. It was the longest-running, most successful advertising campaign in restaurant history. In fact, Wendy's is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for the most commercials ever filJ1led by the founder of a company. Mr. Thomas brought the attributes of warmth, honesty and caring to the advertising message. Through research, they discovered that those attributes could also ,be attributed to fl city, a hometown -- and what better hometown than Dublin! So the commercial depicts Dublin as everyone's hometown, just as Dave Thomas was everyone's grandfather. They began filming the commercials the week Mr. Thomas died. This summer, some actual scenes in Dublin will be filmed to incorporate into the commercials. Mr. Levitt proceeded with showing video samples of the commercials to Council. -- On behalf of City Council, Mayor McCash presented a "Dublin Ohio Home of Wendy's" sign to Wendy's representatives, and thanked them for their ongoing support of the community. Citizen Comments Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road: 1. Inquired about the established greens fees for the Dublin Golf Club. Ms. Grigsby stated that the fees have been established, but she does not have the information at hand. She suggested that he contact the Golf Club of Dublin to inquire. Mr. Maurer stated that he has been concerned about the proposed level of fees for a municipal golf course. As he indicated on another occasion, the anticipated fees exceeded the average scale of municipal golf course fees in the area. He asked if the designer of the golf course remained the same throughout the design process. Initially, the first nine holes were to be less difficult, while the remaining nine holes would be more difficult. That would seem to eliminate the possibility of using it as a tournament course. I 'i i H d '. ;-~"Ii' T"je.i_i ';:i.' 1-'. 1)1.".' .'~nJiJI;HII . ","liJ:!i:~':JI I I ' , < ~ '-:' L.1i. "~t' 'l'-"'~'"'i 'f\')!':-~h14jl1!tll:J;lLcJI.-!.lll1~1.'%;ltt:Ii',1l~tl"l!I,!.,tJf:':'U1!4H~" _ t "J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS W~_Q#_'Q#"_#'Q#_~'~#Q#_Q#~~h~_Min ~!es h~t_Q~~h~~Q~__Q_~_CQ#"_"~_~hQ_h_~hh__~'''N_Q'Q,D:lJhlm_Cit;Y:QcC,()Uncil"NQQ~'_~~"~_~Q__'_~_'_h_Q_Q___h_l~,agecQ2h'''Q_~_#h~~~Q~~~lLQ"'__"W~~Wh_' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO, FORM NO. 10148 Heln May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber asked that staff obtain the information requested. A resident had indicated to him that there will be a fee imposed to qualify for the resident discount card. Ms. Grigsby responded that in order to qualify for the resident discount, a card must be purchased, similar to the DCRC card, to provide the 20-25 percent discount on greens fees. The card itself will ~ cost $25.00. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the DCRC card could not be used at the golf course to verify residency. Ms. Grigsby responded that there are two separate entities involved. Although the City owns the land, the golf course is privately operated under the agreement with the City. As the administrators, Tartan Golf Club determines the level of discount and eligibility criteria. Mr. Kranstuber requested that the Law Director reviews the various contracts and agreements to determine if that practice is consistent with what the City requested they do. He wants to ensure that all of the commitments are met. Specifically, he would like to know by what authority they can charge $25.00 for a resident card. Ms. Grigsby responded that the contract stipulates that Dublin residents will receive a 25 percent discount on non-peak and 20 percent on peak rates, but it does not specify options for administering the system of identifying residency. Staff will follow up on these issues for report back to Council. Mrs. Boring noted that she supports having one system to identify Dublin residents, such as that used at the DCRC. Mr. Kranstuber stated that charging a fee for a card would negate the discount provided to a resident Larry Battista, 8875 Davington Drive noted that he requests that Council move forward on the appointment to the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission. Mayor McCash responded that Council has advertised the available position and will interview the candidates who have indicated their interest. Mr. Battista noted that area residents are hopeful that this appointment will be made very soon. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why this appointment has been vacant for such a long time. - Mayor McCash stated that there is a large time commitment involved, and for a period of time, a staff member was attending. Denise King also served in this position in the past. Mr. Ciarochi offered that the Commission has a membership of approximately 35 members, most of whom are elected officials. The Commission meets monthly at the Delaware Joint Vocation School building. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Administrative Committee will then provide a recommendation about how the City should be represented on the Commission, i.e., by a Council Member, City staff member or resident of Dublin. It would be important to clarify the time commitment for service on the Commission so it can be conveyed to potential candidates. Mayor McCash summarized that the key is to appoint someone who will maintain involvement on the Commission and represent the City's interests at this regiona11evel. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he will obtain additional information on the meetings of the Commission and work with the Clerk to set up interviews as soon as possible. Staff Comments Ms. Grigsby stated that: 1. The annual financial compliance audit was initiated last week by KPMG. The goal is to complete this work by mid-June. 2. Many City departments/divisions have worked hard to prepare for the Tournament. If there are any items which need attention, she asked that Council notify staff. 3. Mr. Husenitza has provided a memo to Council regarding City e-mail addresses for Council Members. Staff will begin to use these addresses for Council, if that is their preference. Mrs. Boring noted that legal staff had previously provided an opinion about public records in regard to e-mail communication. Does using personal e-mai1s for communication among Council Members ,..--, constitute a public record? Mr. Smith responded that any discussion of the public business is deemed to be a public record, whether by City e-mail or personal e-mail. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council Members will then need updated business cards with the new e-mail addresses. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Council members may need some technical assistance to access the City system. Mr. Ciarochi commented: 1. The Coffman Park Expansion Task Force has requested some traffic consultant services which were not budgeted. Information on this request is included in the packet. They specifically would like a traffic consultant retained to analyze traffic patterns and the impact of a draft proposal done by Mr. Yoder. The proposal takes Post Road from 161 up to Emerald Parkway and then extends Post Road in a fashion to line up directly with Perimeter. Ii ii, , : -- :-1 i t'tA '11'>'tJ-,}:_1 ~;t;jiIAn"l,:i:~ft\'!Llt}IJtt.! tV:.JU:ltt'l'~! N"M'!YI'if".'~ ,~t:';;'~~!t'-i'-~"h" t I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 'W&W'_&W&UW'W&W&UWW#W&N&W&_&~:!t~!;!;~'mw9iN'_#_mN&UN'W_N_wwmmN#mum#'&'_'W&NWN_'&NNw'MN&Duhlin#,#CitJ,cC~iLwMmumw#mm#,u"mummuwwm&_m,w,wmmN_w,Eage,u3w&'WNNmm~~!!l~#[m#wmwNuwmm,_u, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 Helrl May 20, 2002 19 The balance of Post Road would be severed as a through street connection. The Task Force requests analysis of having the connector made and without it, and from the standpoint of an 8-acre parcel which lies between being developed privately versus being part of a public park. With the scope of the analysis, staff estimates a cost of $25-30,000 for the services. If - Council approves this, staff would bring back a firm estimate prior to entering into a contract. Additional appropriations would be necessary. Mrs. Boring asked for further clarification. Has the task force approved this plan, assuming the traffic numbers are acceptable? Mr. Ciarochi stated that the concern expressed about the Yoder proposal is with the impact on Tara Hill traffic. The Task Force reviewed the proposal, but the consensus was to explore this by having a traffic study done. Mr. Kranstuber added that in order to take this to the next level, a traffic study is necessary. Ms. Salay added that the Task Force looked at various ways to approach the issues, and the traffic study seemed most logical as a first step. Much of the park will be a function of where the roads are located, both within and outside of it. Mr. Reiner asked if the City Engineer has had any input on this proposal for a road closure. Mr. Kindra indicated that he has not had involvement in this process. Mayor McCash noted that closing Post Road may actually force traffic to use Perimeter which is what it was designed for. Mrs. Boring noted that her concern is that if the municipal center is located where it has been planned, it makes sense to do a traffic study. However, if the municipal center is located elsewhere, a traffic study may be premature. She would like to know more of the elements which will generate the traffic. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he had actually supported working on the land use planning first, and determining where the various elements will be placed, such as City Hall. However, the rest of the Task Force convinced him that the traffic study should be done first. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked specifically what the $25-30,000 will provide. ~ Mr. Kranstuber stated that the consultant is to determine the impact of the proposed plan on the traffic patterns. Mayor McCash noted that the traffic engineer could also provide projected traffic numbers for a City Hall location on Perimeter Drive, as well as traffic numbers should it not be located on Perimeter Drive. Mr. Ciarochi clarified that this can be incorporated. Basically, the study is to provide some traffic analysis on the impact of the proposed plan - including traffic counts, traffic projections and computer modeling. The critical point is making the connection of Post Road directly into Perimeter versus not making it, as well as taking into account buildout ofthis area. One option on the 8-acre leftover site created with this plan is leaving it as green space versus allowing private development. Mayor McCash added that some of the buildout information is already included in the Community Plan. There is not a big change in the land use issue - it is either a City Hall or open space. Mr. Kranstuber noted that he and Ms. Salay assume that Council does not have a strong preference for the City Hall location within Coffman Park and that it can be shifted around. If that is not correct, Council should clarify this to avoid wasting everyone's time. Mrs. Boring commented that the Planning staff reviewed the adopted Community Plan with P&Z and BZA last week, including the concept plan for the future City Hall location. She is not certain that Council supports moving it. Mr. Kranstuber noted that discussion took place about whether the City Hall location drives the park plan, or vice versa, and the size of City Hall. Mrs. Boring stated that these topics are outside the charge given to the task force. Mr. Kranstuber added that the size of the City Hall and parking does affect the park planning. Mrs. Boring noted that at the time Council discussed the purchase of the City Hall land at a certain price, it was based upon locating a future City Hall on that land in keeping with the Community ~ Plan. If this valuable land is not to be used for a City Hall, it should be income-producing development. She would not have supported the purchase ofthe land if the intent was to make it parkland - it is too valuable. Mr. Kranstuber disagreed - vacating the road as proposed creates a nice ambiance, with a continuous green area and a municipal facility. All but one member of the task force wanted to take a comprehensive look at this issue which affects Post Road residents, Tara Hill residents, and the location of future City facilities. Mayor McCash noted that he is in agreement with Mrs. Boring in terms of the assumptions on the location of the City Hall. There is a need to balance the size ofa building located in a park-like setting. There have been studies done in the past on feasibility and programming for the City Hall building - perhaps those should be reviewed to ensure they are up to date. Ms. Grigsby stated that when the City acquired land on the south side of Post Road, it was divided up into Parcels A, B, C and D. The determination to purchase certain parcels was based on what was assumed to be the location of a City Hall. It is important to note that the City does not own the :iii~' I ~- ~I' I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "N~nNNN~nHn~HN~~~~N~~nNn~nM!E~~~2!_~_uNn~nn__~~n~N~nHN~Nnn~n~N~NnnnnD:ublitl-CitYNnC,o:unciLN~Nn'H~,nnNnn~~~NNNNnnnNN~,~~n,~.EageH,4nn~NnMe~~l!!1i,~~n~~nn'NnHn~' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 Held May 20, 2002 19 land on which the City Hall is located under Mr. Yoder's proposed plan. That land would have to be purchased to carry out the plan. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the task force is comprised of capable people and he would advocate letting the task force continue with their work. It is at a very preliminary stage at this point. ~ Mrs. Boring stated she is not questioning their effort, but it seems to take away the decision making power of Council. In addition, the City does not own the land on which the City Hall is located on the proposed plan. Mr. Lecklider commented that, while the City does not own this parcel, if the assumption is made that the City Hall will be located somewhere within this general area, there may be some usefulness in having this traffic study done. He will defer to the Council members who are participating in the task force on the matter of engaging a traffic consultant. If everyone is in agreement with undertaking the traffic study, the City Hall siting could be debated at another time. Mrs. Boring asked how many employees will be housed in the future City Hall. Ms. Grigsby stated that they will include those currently in City Hall, the Department of Development, and the Community Relations division - she would estimate approximately 200 employees. Mrs. Boring stated that a traffic study would be impacted by the location of a facility housing 200 employees. Mayor McCash stated that the study would include the assumption that City Hall will be located in this general area. Mrs. Boring stated that Council will then have to spend an additional $200,000 per acre to purchase land for City Hall. Based on the Community Plan, the site for City Hall was identified and the land was purchased. Mayor McCash stated that the City Hall would not necessarily have to be located as shown on Mr. Yoder's proposed plan. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this effort was intended to empower the citizens to identify a solution to the issues about Post Road. - Mrs. Boring commented that her concern is that parameters have not been established for the task force. Not owning the land is a major consideration in this plan. Ms. Salay stated that the plan is not focused on the location of City Hall- it relates to Post Road traffic calming, disconnecting Post Road as a through road to have a unified municipal campus, and moving through traffic over to Perimeter. The other concern would be inadvertently impacting traffic on Tara Hill. Ultimately, there will be multiple decisions to be made by Council- the task force will simply be making recommendations. The study relates to the road network, not the siting of City Hall. Mrs. Boring stated that the proposed plan impacts the land purchased for City Hall, making it too small, and that is a concern. Twelve acres are needed for City Hall, and the proposal leaves only eight acres. Ms. Salay stated that the task force does not know whether the football shaped piece of land needs to be disconnected. Mr. Yoder suggested imposing deed restrictions on the piece, selling it to a developer for office use, blending in with the park. This would help fund some of the park elements. The plan is very preliminary at this point. Mrs. Boring noted that she would be interested in looking at other options to accomplish the goals, prior to engaging a traffic consultant. Mr. Kranstuber summarized that the effort is to protect and enhance the quality of life of the residents who want to remain. The City Hall location affects the residents as well. Discussion focused on road construction, parl<: roads, scenic easements, etc. Mrs. Boring noted that the Community Plan has already examined all of these issues - she is not interested in developing a "national park" on this site. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the focus is on the park, which will house municipal facilities, and how it will co-exist with the residents who choose to remain. r- Discussion continued. Mrs. Boring suggested that Council is given three or more options identified with traffic plans for consideration - not just one design. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it is not fair to ask residents and Council members to serve on a task force and direct them to solve problems, and then to interfere before the work is completed. Mrs. Boring stated that it would be preferable to have referred this matter to staff - they would have identified several alternatives. Discussion continued. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if this is something that staff can do. Mayor McCash stated that traffic analysis is generally done by a consultant and that the traffic study will provide another piece of information to help in decision making. Mr. Lecklider commented that for him, voting to approve the expenditure for a traffic study does not result in a wholesale endorsement of the concept. He is satisfied with leaving the siting of City Hall until a later date. He asked if the scope of the traffic analysis would include Tara Hill? _.~~-,.- <#..1 , ' .. --~- " ,L'H iii RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~m'_~~_m"m~'_m_"_""m_m'm_m~lVI!E~o~~#~m~~____~_"'_m_m~~~'~#m'm~_~~~#-,-Duhlin"Cit~~,ColJ,n.cil-m~'~"'__~_~#_m__2age'm5-~m_"_m~~~~!!E:~m_"m~~m~__ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Helcl May 20, 2002 19 Mayor McCash indicated that it will include Tara Hill. Tonight's vote is to approve expenditures for a traffic study, but does not indicate approval of the proposed plan. Mr. Reiner stated that he could support funding a traffic stud,y if it were considered in a more open way - not just closing Post Road, but a more open-ended study to reduce future traffic problems. He -- doesn't want the study driven by a small group of citizens - it needs to be much more comprehensive. He will support the study on the basis that it is not directed toward closing Post Road - that this is only one consideration of a comprehensive plan. Closing a road in one area affects other areas. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the analysis should include three options: leaving Post Road open, closing Post Road, and creating a loop road as suggested in the proposal. Ms. Salay moved to approve funding to retain a traffic consultant to study the proposed plan from the Coffman Park Expansion Task Force. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Council discussed a study which would focus on the three scenarios of leaving Post Road open, closing Post Road, and creating a loop road. Ms. Salay amended her motion to include the three scenarios. Mr. Ciarochi noted that staff is pursuing a scope of services for such a contract, and an appropriations ordinance will be brought back for Council's approval. Mayor McCash suggested that Council authorize staff to proceed with a scope of services for the traffic study and to return a very specific scope of services to Council for review. Ms. Salay amended her motion as stated by Mayor McCash. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motIon. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mr. Ciarochi continued: 2. Staff provided a memo to Council tonight regarding the Unified Development Code. He - had previously committed to Council that they would have a draft version in May. At this point, the major pieces of the revision are in place, but there are some remaining items to be addressed. Staff plans to .have this document ready for June 3. They also plan to have the document available on the City's web site to allow input from residents. Mr. Smith reported that Staff has been working on the noise issue with CSAC, but in the meantime, the state legislature tacked onto another bill an ordinance eliminating the City's ability to contract with other municipalities on enforcement of ordinances in a neighboring jurisdiction. This will seriously impact any solution to issues such as Gibby's. If the bill_passes, it will take away rights of municipalities. It is being fast-tracked in the system. Ms. Salay noted that this is House Bill 187 and was tacked onto legislation dealing with school board members' compensation. LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 122-01 - An Ordinance Providing for a Cha.nge in Zoning for 30.5 Acres Located on the East Side of Hyland-Croy Road, Approximately 800 Feet South of Brand Road, From: U-1, Rural District (Jerome Township Zoning District), To: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District (Bishop's Run - Valentin Parcel/Case No. 01-096Z). (Applicant: Richard and Elaine Valentin, 6707 Paul Road, Westerville, OH 43082; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith & Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215) Ms. Clarke stated that this is a rezoning application for 30.5 acres. The proposal is to rezone from a Jerome township classification, U-l, to a Dublin classification ofPLR. Proposed use of the property .~ is 56 lots with 7.5 acres of park. Overall density is 1.4 units per acre. She then showed slides of the site and surrounding area, including Westbury, Park Place, and Bishop's Crossing. The subject site will be called "Bishop's Run." It will share an entrance road off of Hyland-Croy with the Bishop's Crossing subdivision. The land set aside for parkland is along the frontage. There is also a back comer adjacent to the Metro Park, an area affected by flood hazard regulation which will be deeded to the Metro Parks. This site provides for a stub to the north, should this property become annexed and developed in a similar fashion. The proposed subdivision layout must go through the preliminary and final platting processes as well. Planning & Zoning Commission approved the rezoning on March 7, 2002 by unanimous vote with 7 conditions. Those conditions are contained in the Record of Action of that date. Mr. Lecklider stated that he didn't see mention in the text of a forced homeowners association. Ms. Clarke stated that she assumes that there will be one, but she doesn't recall this in the text. , 'I I' II ::r:r.,:rlF !!.'illiillliiil "IIFFi~dl I I i'i , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .m~"m,~_mm~"mH~Hmm'~_'mH~'_"hm~i12~!meS, O!Hm~m_m~~'~~~Hm~___'~m_m'm'~~__'m~".m,~DublinmCit~.CQUnciL.,mh'm'~H~m~mh~m~m~H~H~2.age'H6m~~H~~_~e!~m!:l_~~m~.._Hmm~_. DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 1014~ HeM May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Hale stated that the applicant has agreed to have a forced homeowners association, and if Council wants to add this condition, that is acceptable. Mr. Lecklider indicated' that his concern is that this issue is not addressed in the text, nor in the conditions ofP&Z. What would be legally sufficient to effect this? -. Mr. Hale suggested that Council append a condition in this regard. Mr. Lecklider asked how the 200-foot setback will be handled in terms of maintenance of the public park areas? He recalls that Bishop's Run and Bishop's Crossing Homeowners Associations were to be combined for purposes of maintenance. Ms. Clarke does not recall this. Mr. Hale stated that while the subdivision.s are adjacent, they will be developed at different times. When the homeowners association is created, the intent is to establish one that can be added onto - creating one association in the end. This is often done for condominium associations. Mr. Lecklider stated that however this can be accomplished is fme. His concern is with the recent case of Meadows of Wyndham Village and the burden on a small number of homeowners to maintain a large frontage. There is also an issue of consistent treatment of the 200-foot setback along this prominent frontage along Hyland-Croy. Mr. Reiner noted that he is in agreement with having one association maintain the green space along the frontage. Mr. Hale clarified that there will be a total of 169 homes to maintain 16 acres of parkland frontage. Mr. Reiner noted that it is important for the developer to make potential buyers aware of their financial responsibilities for maintenance. Mr. Hale offered that they are working on a statement to this effect with the Law Department, which will then be attached to purchase contracts for the development. Ms. Salay stated that on the north side of the neighborhood, there will be four lots impacted by walkways into the Metro Parks It would be appropriate to note that this is an entry to the Metro Park, not to a City park. ,.-- Mr. Hale stated that the walkways will be installed prior to the house construction. Mr. Reiner asked how the density was derived. Ms. Clarke responded that the "Wow" computation was used where certain values were assigned to improvements along the frontage. In this case, the "Wow" density was established at over 2 units per acre - this subdivision density came in at 1.84. Mr. Reiner asked how many lots are 100 foot in width. Mr. Hale stated that 44 percent of the lots (25) are 100 foot in width. Mr. Reiner asked if the comer lots have architectural embellishments. Ms. Clarke responded that the lots most visible from Hyland-Croy Road are committed to having such embellishments. She added that this subdivision has a very high ratio of open space to number of units. Typically, each zoning stands on its own, but in this case, it makes sense to combine with Bishop's Crossing so that one homeowners association will maintain the frontage parkland. It will reduce the costs for individual homeowners and will ensure consistent maintenance. This condition will have to be added by motion of Council. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked when the Bishop's Crossing development will be built. Mr. Hale noted that it will be built in phases within the next five to six years. They will agree to having one homeowners association for the two subdivisions. Mr. Lecklider asked if there is any reason that the two subdivisions cannot be called the same name, given the one homeowners association for both. r--- Mr. Hale responded that they are separate and distinct, in that the one to the south has a predominance of 80-foot lots, while Bishop's Run has a predominance of 90 to 100 foot lots which will allow for more side-loaded garages and command a higher price overall. Mr. Lecklider asked about the maintenance ratio for Meadows of Wyndham Village. Mr. McDaniel responded that the ratio was 1.67. With the Meadows of Wyndham Village, however, there was a lot of mowing involved. His recollection is that Bishop's Crossing was to have natural areas and tree stands. Ms. Salay asked about replacement of landscaping as it ages for those areas which are not naturalized. Will the homeowners association be required to pay for this? Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in her subdivision, the association replaces damaged or aging landscaping. This is very typical. Mr. Reiner noted that most homeowners support this, as it improves their property values. Discussion continued. 'j.( I 'I'i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "d""~""~"~~dW~$~"W"'&"'m~"wM!n~~~s _2!"~m~'_~'~"'~"_'~W"W~"'~$~$~'_W,~w_'WW"w,,",,Du,bljn,.city-Councilw_,~~w__,~'~'~~"m~,~~~w_Eage,2~,,~,_~~~_~_!!E-g"~"~~b~~~~' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 HeIrI May 20, 2002 19 . Mr. Lecklider noted that there are to be two raised crosswalks in the subdivision, and he would prefer from an aesthetic viewpoint to have a tabletop profile in brick stamping, as opposed to speed humps. - Mr. Hale commented that they are agreeable to this, although he believes that a marked crosswalk would be sufficient for this number of lots. The Commission, however, wanted a raised crosswalk to slow the traffic traveling to the park. He would prefer a condition that this be subject to the approval of the City Engineer, and he could work with staff on the most effective way to do this. Mr. Kindra stated that, while everyone is sensitive to traffic calming in residential areas and this condition was imposed by P&Z, it is being assumed in this situation that the layout of streets and the park is problematic. Therefore, the layout is flawed and calls for traffic calming up front. The layout can be revised easily by not having two continuous streets on both the north and south ends. It would eliminate the need for traffic calming. As City Engineer, he has major concerns in approving a new subdivision which contains raised crosswalks. This is a significant issue which needs to be raised so that the layout can be revised, eliminating any need for a raised crosswalk. Mayor McCash stated that if P&Z feels it is important to have raised crosswalks in this subdivision layout and the City Engineer feels there is a problem with the layout, then perhaps it should be revised. Mr. Kindra responded that he believes it will be very easy to revise the layout at this stage. Doing otherwise, approving the current. layout with raised crosswalks, creates a safety hazard in a new subdivision. Mayor McCash stated that, given the fact this has been reviewed by P&Z prior to Council's review tonight, has this matter been discussed with Planning staff, the applicant, or the Commission during the process? Mr. Kindra responded that whenever he had the opportunity to convey this through staff input, he - did so throughout the process. Prior to tonight's meeting, he informed Ms. Clarke that he will not sign this plat. It may result in being fired, but he will not sign it. Mayor McCash stated that he is puzzled about why this discussion about raised crosswalks is now being held at the Council hearing. Mr. Kindra responded that Mr. Hammersmith informed P&Z of this recommendation, and he personally talked with the applicant's engineers. He was told that it was approved by P&Z and that P&Z has no intention of changing this condition. Engineering has advised at every step of the way that this is problematic. There is an easy way of revising the layout, and he has advised them of this. Mr. Reiner asked if the redesign includes the same number of lots, 200-foot setback, and other components currently in the plan. Mr. Kindra responded that, visually, it appears to do so. But he has not done detailed drawings. The design work was done by R.D. Za.nde. ' Mayor McCash stated that if the Engineer had those concerns about the layout and they were expressed to P&Z at the public meeting, the record from the meeting should accurately reflect those concerns. Does the issue relate to one division overriding another in regard to the layout issues? Where did the process break down? Mr. Kindra responded that perhaps Ms. Clarke can respond - he has personally not attended P&Z meetings. Mr. Hammersmith indicated that he was not invited to all meetings on this topic. The Engineering division provides input to the Planning division for staff reports, but in some cases, those comments are edited out. In this case, he had instructed Mr. Hammersmith to raise the issue at the P&Z meeting, as it is a serious issue. Mr. Kranstuber suggested that an appropriate action would be to table this item for two weeks so ~ that Mr. Ciarochi could work out these issues at the staff level. Council would not want to approve something which is deficient from an Engineering standpoint. At the same time, the applicant may have timing issues associated with such a delay. Mr. Hale responded that he would not object to an additional two weeks to work out this issue. He added that when this rezoning was reviewed by P&Z, they were generally supportive of the plan but asked for several items which the applicant then complied with. P&Z was very satisfied with the layout. Personally, he doesn't believe that anything more than a crosswalk marking is needed. Mr. Hammersmith made it very clear in the meeting that the Engineering division wanted the layout redesigned or the raised crosswalks removed. P&Z overruled staff, stating that they liked the design and wanted the raised crosswalks. Mr. Kranstuber commented that Mr. Kindra makes a good point - that with the proper roadway layout, traffic calming is not necessary. Perhaps more time would allow this issue to be resolved. ../,,: "". p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "~_ffQ#~_~ffQ""~__"~~_"~"ffQ~#~Mi!!~i~~~21~~~_~ffQ#_'_#~"~_"#~#~-ffQ'#~Q_#~~H_-"-'~~'ffQD;ublitt"Cit)LCoullcilffQ~H~"~H~Q__~~~~____~~J?.age..8"#_'Q'ffQ"m!!~~i~~m"m"m_"'~~#_, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 1014H Helci May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Ciarochi stated that Mr. Hale's description is accurate. P&Z was concerned with having a safe pedestrian access to the Metro Parks site, and that is when the raised crosswalks were proposed. At the next meeting, Mr. Hammersmith raised the engineering concern over the raised crosswalks and --- suggested revising the road configuration. However, P&Z wanted raised crosswalks and recommended that it go forward as proposed. Based on staffs recommendation, P&Z then reduced the crosswalks from four to two. P&Z's recommendation was then brought forward to Council. Mr. Kranstuber asked if tabling this for two weeks would be of value to staff in working out the Issues. Mr. Ciarochi stated that his concern is with redesigning the layout, which would then seem to require another review by P&Z. This would preclude Council considering this in two weeks. Mayor McCash stated that perhaps the issue is not including raised crosswalks at this stage, but adding them later if needed. Mrs. Boring stated that the basis for P&Z's recommendation was why add traffic calming at a later date if it can be incorporated at the development stage? It will provide a sense of security to those who reside in the neighborhood. Mr. Lecklider stated that, whether or not raised crosswalks are warranted in this situation, they should be programmed at the outset. He disagrees that traffic circles or raised crosswalks translate to a poor layout - these designs are seen throughout the country. Mayor McCash stated that it may actually be a proactive approach versus indicative of a problem. Based upon the fact that P&Z has reviewed this issue and recommended incorporation of these items as part of the plan, and the fact that the Engineering division is not willing to sign this plat - if Council approves this, what happens next? He is concerned with the legal issue resulting from the ~ engineer not signing the plat. If the developer cannot obtain a permit to build roads, it cannot go forward. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Kranstuber - under the circumstances, the matter should be tabled for two weeks. Mr. Smith added that building permits cannot be issued without an engineering approval of the plat. If the subdivision layout is redesigned, it must be reviewed by P&Z. Ms. Clarke noted that raised crosswalks were not included on the plan sent to P&Z; raised crosswalks were added at P&Z and included in Condition #6. Condition #6 references the preliminary plat, which is the next phase. If City Council believes traffic calming that does not include raised crosswalks or that a redesign of the subdivision is in order, then Condition #6 should be reviewed. This plan does not necessarily set the layout "in stone." This is the rezoning stage for a PLR and there remains a preliminary and fmal plat stage. P&Z added the raised crosswalks to Condition #6. Mayor McCash stated that if the applicant is not actually tied to this layout at this stage, then the overall rezoning process should be adjusted. The applicant has invested a lot of money in the plans presented tonight which include the subdivision layout, density, setbacks, and green space prOVISIOns. Either the City is asking for too much information at the rezoning process, or the process should be adjusted. This is a bigger issue which should be dealt with in the Unified Development Code. Mr. Reiner moved to table the matter for two weeks to resolve the issues. II""'""'" Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Mr. Hale stated that they would like an opportunity to meet with the Engineering and_Planning staff to find a solution. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. The ordinance was tabled until the June 3 Council meeting. Mayor McCash announced that he and Council Member Reiner will abstain on Ordinance 26-02. He will also abstain on Ordinance 68-02, as will Vice Mayor Boring. There are related party conflict issues involved. Vice Mayor Boring will Chair the meeting for Ordinance 26-02, and Council Member Kranstuber will chair the meeting for Ordinance 68-02. i : j; II ! .. , I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS W~~ff~ff~~Qh_ff~Qh~~~W_"M~t~l!!~~L~~~~ff~ff~WffQh'~'Qh_Qh~~ff_~~Qh-Qh~~ff~_ff~ff~Qhff;ollbtl1.+,Git)L~1l~ilff~ffw-~ff~~M~w_~~M~wm,~1?~~ff5,Lff~~~~!:!:!iE~w~~~w_w, DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 ReIn May 20, 2002 19 Ordinance 26-02(Amended) - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 2.245 Acres Located on the Southwest Corner of Sawmill and Martin Roads, From PUD, Planned Unit Development District, To: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Case No. Ol-132Z - Meijer Store Outlot). (Applicant: Meijer Realty Co., 2929 Walker Avenue, Grand Rapids, MI 49544; c/o - Thomas N. Brigdon, 88 West Main Street, Columbus, OH 43215) Ms. Clarke stated that this is a rezoning application for 2.2 acres on the extreme northeast comer of Meijer's parking lot. The proposal is to convert this unused parking area to a more productive use. She noted that Meijer's is actually located within the City of Columbus, and the northernmost 260 feet of the parking lot is located within the City of Dublin. She then showed slides of the site and surrounding area. The applicant has agreed to put a gateway at the comer. The site itself will have no curbcuts - it will use the Meijer's curb cut for access. It is generally speaking a four-tenant, 11,000 square foot retail center. The application was reviewed by P&Z on April 11, and they recommend approval by a vote of5-0 with 16 conditions as noted in the record of Action of April 11,2002. Meijer's is selling this property to another developer. Mrs. Boring invited the applicant to make a presentation. Chris Cline. representing the applicant indicated that he is available to respond to any questions. There were no public comments. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for clarification about the access. Ms. Clarke responded that access is from within Meijer's parking lot, and parking will be on both sides of the structure. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in view of all of the unoccupied retail along Sawmill Road, it seems that additional retail space IS not needed. While this is not a basis for approval or disapproval, it is unfortunate that existing space cannot be utilized. Mrs. Boring noted there had been discussion about the windows of the building, and asked for - clarification on how this was resolved. Ms. Clarke stated that the issue related to the elevation previously submitted with one type of treatment for the end unit that is expected to be a restaurant, and a different storefront window treatment on the remainder of the building. Staff wanted the center to have a consistent appearance along the road, and the applicant agreed to do a symmetrical window treatment as a compromise. Mrs. Boring asked if the stucco area as shown could instead be brick so that it would look recessed. John Hart. Andrews Architects. stated that filling the gables in with brick is possible. Personally, from an aesthetic standpoint, he would prefer not to do so. The intent is to add interest to the back of the building, and brick/stone would not do so. The early rendering does not show that there will be rear exit doors from tenant spaces within those gables. Mrs. Boring clarified that the renderings shown then are not the actual ones being approved with the rezomng. Mr. Cline stated that they have filed a final development plan which remains very true to what is presented tonight. Discussion followed about how the building is situated on the site, the difficulty in deriving an attractive view from Martin Road as well as Sawmill, and buffering/screening of garbage, mechanicals, etc. Mr. Lecklider asked staff to comment about similar development projects with views from four sides and how these issues were handled. Ms. Clarke responded that not many are done, as the site development is difficult. Along Perimeter Drive, there is a view of the backside of Avery Square shopping center. Likewise, this site has a substantially enhanged rear elevation. If this were an enclosed service port, there would not be this level of detail. Where there are vehicular access areas, an attempt has been made to enhance the facades. The dumpsters are screened, and the development I"!""""'. plan will likely address such items as prohibition of outside storage, that the utilities must match the background color, etc. But any building requires service and it will be from the back. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there is any landscaping to be added in the parking lot. Mr. Lecklider noted that there is significant landscaping along the western boundary of the parking lot. Mr. Cline stated that a commitment that staff requested, and which has not been incorporated, is for a demarcation between the sides of this site and the adjoining parts of the parking lot. The applicant has included landscaped perimeters along both the southern and western borders of the site. The text provides for similar quality on all four sides, but the function of the rear where loading takes place is different from the front. The back of this building is fairly nice compared to most commercial buildings. ----- , 1:1 , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "_~h~~'~h_~~~_~_~_~h~~Lnu_!~~~YL~~_~=~__h_~~~h~'~~=_h~==h~h'~h"hDub,lm.Ci~-Co:wlCil_m'~h_=h~'~'~hhh_h~'~hh"='hhEage~"l(l~h_h'~~~!~~~~hh~'~~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 HeM May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber stated that another factor is that this site is surrounded by Columbus zoning, with chain link fences, outside storage and display, etc. The development will be much nicer than what surrounds it. -. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. At this point, Vice Mayor Boring left the Chambers and Mr. Reiner returned. Mr. Kranstuber, Acting Chair, asked the clerk to read the title of the next ordinance. Ordinance 68-02 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for Approximately 13.24 Acres Located between Perimeter Loop Drive and Mercedes Drive (private), Approximately 200 Feet North of U.S. 33/S.R. 161, from peD, Planned Commerce District, to: PCD, Planned Commerce District. (Case No. 02-032Z - text revision- Perimeter Center, Subarea 1- Crown Dealerships - 6350,6400 and 6520 Perimeter Loop Road) (Applicant: Dwayne Hawkins, 600.1 34th Street North, St. Petersburg, FL 33714; represented by Victoria Newell, Meacham & Apel Architects, Inc., 6161 Riverside Drive, Suite A, Dublin, OH 43017) Ms. Clarke stated that this is a rezoning of Subarea I to allow construction of a third auto dealership. The development plan for the third dealership was approved last November, and when it came through for a building permit, the review found it did not comply with the PCD text. Staff has made every effort to expedite this through the system. It was reviewed by P&Z on May 2 and approved. The issues were complicated, and the discussion at P&Z was very confusing. The applicant had tried to resolve a number of issues in the Subarea I text that the Commission felt needed more time for review. In order to continue the building process for Building 3, P&Z indicated a reduction in the required sideyard from 25 feet to 10 feet was necessary. P&Z moved disapproval of the rezoning application as submitted, - and approved a second motion to amend the existing Subarea I text to reflect a 10 foot minimum pavement setback along the western boundary of parcel 273-01-0210 which is the site of the third building or 6350 Perimeter Loop Road. This would allow the development to proceed uninterrupted, recognizes the existing conditions, and is consistent with the November 15,2001 approved conditions. Ms. Newell, the architect for the project agreed to that text amendment on behalf of the applicant. If the applicant were able to combine the parcels, the sideyard issue disappears. But because they are different automakers, it has been difficult for the applicant to secure the corporations' agreement to share sites. This issue became of critical importance when the error was discovered, and to move this forward, it is the workable option. She emphasized that the issue arises because the parcels cannot be combined. What comes before Council is the text submitted by the applicant which was disapproved by P&Z, and the existing text amendment for the sideyard requirement as approved by P&Z. Mr. Kranstuber asked if staff is satisfied with the solution recommended. Mike Close, representing the applicant, noted that the only caveat is the stipulation made by staff that when the lots are merged at some future date, that all sideyard and landscape easements disappear because the lot lines no longer exist. They do not want Council to consider the rezoning application which came before P&Z; the only issue to be addressed tonight is the setback and easement, and they will be satisfied with its approval. Mr. Reiner asked for confirmation that the parcels will be merged at some point in the future. Mr. Close responded that they will be merged; it is simply a matter of securing agreement among the corporate entities. At that time, if there is ever a lot split after they are merged, they will have to return to P&Z to re-establish setbacks and easements. ~ Mr. Lecklider asked if it would be reasonable to make this a condition to be completed within 12-18 months. Mr. Close responded that it is not necessary - with the setback and easements approved tonight, the problem is resolved. The applicant desires that the parcels be merged due to some text issues; however, the time constraints for construction make this a viable solution at this time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to approve the ordinance with the recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission: 1) to disapprove the rezoning application as submitted; and 2) to approve an amendment of the existing Subarea I text to reflect a ten-foot minimum sideyard pavement setback along the west boundary of parcel #273-01-0210 (6350 Perimeter Loop Road) because it allows development to proceed uninterrupted, recognizes an existing condition, and is consistent with the November 15,2001 approved conditions. I . ',' 'iI il:l1: ';'1 I ''''I' :'H~'H.'~"t' #'\d'1tntt(!!f~WJI'1ilt'.! t 1~ltNJIH~:1l Hi~l! "l\1i~f",:.i') 'ffWJ!"j'~t<'~, I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~~NhN~"'N'~NN'~~'~NU~Q_~_~inN~ tes ~,.21~hNhNh'N~NN"~UNNh~Nh'NhNQ_h~N"~~~N~~'N",~D:ubJjnNCi~)LCOllllCilNNhN~~h'N"'~Q"h~UNN~~N~NhN'N~~~~N:eage'NlQl~~N~~~~~!!'~~NQ_NhQ~Q~hUQ' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 Held May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. --- Ms. Salay left the meeting at this point. Mayor McCash and Mrs. Boring returned to the meeting at this point. Ordinance 71-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Annexation of 220.522+/- Acres from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. Ms. Grigsby stated that a memo was prepared by Legal staff regarding the issues related to the new annexation law and a determination that this annexation would fall under the old law. Staffis recommending adoption at this time. Dennis Schultz, 110 S. Main Street, Marysville, Ohio noted that he an attorney representing the petitioners. There are 10 parcels involved in this annexation in Jerome Township, Union County. The boundaries are described in the information forwarded to Council. The entire district is within the Dublin exclusive water and sewer service area. This annexation was filed prior to the law change and was presented to the Union County Commissioners prior to the dismissal of the referendum. They are in compliance procedurally with the old law. At the county level, the vote was unanimous in favor of the annexation - there was no opposition expressed to the annexation. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road withdrew his request to speak on this matter. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chipnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. Ordinance 72-02 - An Ordinance Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the Dublin Arts ~ Center Parking Lot Project, Amending the Annual Appropriations Therefor, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is requesting emergency passage. Mrs. Boring moved to treat this as emergency legislation. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. Ordinance 73-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Economic Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Pacer International, Inc. to Induce a Consolidation of Its Nationwide Operations to the City in Order to Increase Employment Within the City. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he does not understand the language, "to induce a consolidation of its nationwide operations to the City" - does this mean "in" the City or "for" the City? Mayor McCash responded that the intent is for them to consolidate their operations in the City in order to increase employment. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 74-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement ,....... with VoiceStream Columbus, Inc. for the Location of a Wireless Telecommunications Structure. . Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption. Vote on the Ordinance Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Ordinance 75-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right-of- Way Permit to MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, LLC. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending adoption. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. INTRODUCTION & FIRST READING.- ORDINANCES . I i II .: ,ii,;}!:ii'; iHIIH! ,,,,m., , I. I I. i ,- ""j:'U ~;I' :J,.:t 11."\k.N~~ltiltll 'JH.' U-\'111~'T<'!IH!WII!'*~~Ul'1;ll!i,nH"I-!i-!iil';,\ I; '1'-" I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .m~~Qmm~'~Qm~QQ__Qm~Q_~inu te~,~9ML~_~m~~Qm~~~~~~~~mQ~mddm~Qmdm'M'Qm~1iJ1,~it"m~DGilQmQmm'~m~m~dmQ'd_~Md~M~~~_RageJ2dQmQmmM~~#~d~B:_~#~'dmQmmdm~mM DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 1Q14tl Helcl May 20, 2002 19 Ordinance 78-02 - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a General Right-of- Way Permit to Fiber Technologies Networks, LLC. (Second reading/public hearing June 3 Council meeting) Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. ~ Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is requesting this be held over until June 3. There will be a public hearing/second reading on June 3. OTHER Concept Plan - St. Brigid of Kildare Church - 7179, 7210, and 7240 Avery Road (Applicant: James A. Griffin, Bishop of the Diocese of Columbus , c/o Monsignor Joseph Hendricks, 7179 Avery Road, Dublin, OH 43017; represented by Michael L. Close, 115 W. Main Street, Columbus, OH 43015.) Ms. Clarke stated that the proposal is to rezone both the east and west sides of A very Road, incorporating 23 plus acres, for a church campus to include an 87-space parking lot and athletic field on the east side. She showed plans of the proposed layout and the existing church and school. Currently, there is a parking shortage on the church lot on Sundays, so they propose adding an 87- space parking lot. If the land had been contiguous to the church, no rezoning action would have been necessary. At the P&Z meeting, the neighborhood input was that the parking lot as proposed was too close and they asked that it be shifted to the north. P& Z recommended approval of the concept plan on April 11, 2002 by a vote of 5-0 with 6 conditions. Along the south end of the site is the Bear Run stream that travels to Brand Road, so there were issues raised regarding pedestrian safety across Brand Road and the Bear Run. The most controversial issue was buffering for the parking lot and its appropriate distance from the property line. P&Z assured the residents that there would be future opportunities for input, and the applicant was strongly encouraged to provide appropriate buffering and to shift the parking lot as much as was reasonable. This is a non-binding review and is the first stage in a PUD. The next stage is a rezoning application, which must be filed within 6 months of concept approval. r Mayor McCash asked about the distance from the rear property line of the houses to the paving as presently shown. Ms. Clarke believes it is 35 feet. Michael Close indicated that he represents the applicant. The application will be consistent with what has already been built on the site. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the purpose of a concept plan is to provide informal feedback to the applicant. This is a fairly active church and the neighborhood's concerns must be addressed in the process. Mr. Close responded that the parking lot will be used in the daytime on Sundays for services. The concern was about headlights in the neighbors' windows, and they anticipate this occurring only on major church feasts - Christmas, ~aster. He will meet with the neighbors prior to submitting further plans. Mr. Lecklider stated that by the term "evening use," he assumes this translates to "after dark." At times, athletic fields are used into the evening. Mr. Close confirmed that he refers to use after dark. Mr. Lecklider stated that accommodations Can be made to satisfy the residents in terms of the issues relating to the parking lot. His greater concern with approval of the concept plan is that it would indicate approval of what is planned for the west side of the road. He has an equal or greater concern with the intensity ofthis site. The staff report indicates that there are symptoms that the use has been maximized on the site. """'" Mr. Close noted that there are two issues which will be brought forward: 1) the parking lot lighting on the east side - the residents don't want lights and the applicant doesn't believe they are necessary; and 2) the propriety of a turn lane for traffic that is generally random versus predictable. Mr. Reiner stated that the lot is underutilized as proposed and impacts only two properties directly. He doesn't see a major issue with the parking lot for the remainder of the adjacent residents. Mr. Close noted that they attempted to address the issue by submitting a variance for a parking lot, but this met with resistance. They instead were required to submit a comprehensive plan. Mayor McCash noted that he views the plan as a means to remove the cars from the neighborhood streets and put them in a parking lot during overflow periods. . I I' J " "iililiji.,iIH',Il::lII.1i I ,'" i Ii RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ",~h~'=h_",",",hhhh=h~=hh##~~",~,MiIll;!h!~h~_~L",=h'##",~",h",h~h~~",~~hhh~~hh~h~hhh",hNh=Dublin""Cit~L~QuuciLNhh=##~m~'''~'_##,"h''''~h##,_##P4ge'h13h''''~Q~!!h~E:'~~h='~~~'~~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. lQ141:i Held May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Close stated that they will likely phase the development, with the east side as the first phase. Mayor McCash emphasized that appropriate buffering along the rear of the property should be added to address the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding the actual lighting of the parking lot, he doesn't - believe there is a need for this for limited evening use. Perhaps some limited security lighting could be implemented. Mr. Close responded that the lighting issue has been discussed with staff. Mr. Reiner noted that he is supportive of this plan, as it removes cars from the neighborhood streets. Mr. Lecklider stated that the parking site on the east side ofthe road does have a minimal impact in terms of number of residents. However, the concept plan as a whole includes expansion on the west side which impacts many residents. Mr. Close indicated that he is willing to submit this as two separate PUD's, if that is Council's desire. It could be done more quickly this way because of the architectural considerations. Mayor McCash stated that Mr. Close has indicated that staff was not supportive of this. Ms. Clarke stated that it has always been City policy to include all of the affected property in a PUD. The campus includes the church and school, and logically, both sides would be included. Clearly, the issues for architecture and building expansion, how to support those, parking location, etc., will be more complicated. Staff has no objection to reviewing the plan for the east side ofthe road separately. Mayor McCash asked if the concept plan application should then be amended to include the east side. Currently, the application includes both sides. - Mr. Close stated that Council can approve the concept, with direction that an application be submitted separately for each side. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to approve the concept plan, with direction that the east side parking lot plan be submitted separately from the west side, per the discussion. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion . Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Update from Staff Regarding Second Outdoor Pool Planning Process Mr. Hahn stated that based on discussion at the last meeting, staff submitted additional options in the packet. A spreadsheet has been distributed tonight, comparing the three options with the existing outdoor pool. Also in the packet is an executive summary with various information. The consultants are present tonight to respond to any questions. Mr. Kranstuber asked what staff is seeking from Council tonight. Mr. Hahn responded that the design process is still within the concept stage, and much is budget driven. The goal is to provide Council with as much information as possible in order to select an option and to understand the costs associated with the preferred option. Mr. Kranstuber stated that in view of the late hour, he does not want to have a lengthy discussion in order to vote on an option tonight. However, if other Council Members want to do so, he will not object. Mr. Reiner noted that Option 2 most closely duplicates the existing outdoor pool. :0- Mr. Hahn agreed. Mr. Reiner asked if this will provide adequate capacity for the residents who will be served by the facility over a long period of time. Mr. Hahn stated that page 2 provides information on bather capacities. It is within the range of build out of Dublin. The facility should meet the capacity needs for years into the future. Mr. Kranstuber noted that the deck area for Option 2 is much larger than the existing pool. He believes that patrons enjoy the green space more than the pool deck. He suggests reducing the deck space which would result in a cost savings. Mayor McCash stated that if Option 2 resembles the current outdoor pool, then Option 3 should be considered as more desirable in terms of meeting the needs. , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS w~_~'~~"~M~W~N"~__MN~M~W'W_w~:En~~~~L~h~~'''MNh~'~@~~~'~'~~_h"'~M~'~m~"~'h~hDtlb-ll:G'hCit,,~ol1n~LM,~m~".~'mh~m~h,~_~,~w_h.'~m,._.,,~~l?~e-lAmhh~~m~~~,!~~JL~w_M~hh'hW'~mh DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 HeIr) May 20, 2002 19 Mrs. Boring stated that she would support maintaining some similarity between the existing pool and the new pool. She would advocate a pool similar in size to the existing pool. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed with Mr. Kranstuber that the hour is too late to engage in a ,.--. productive discussion. She has concerns with mirroring an existing facility in the community. The goal should be to meet existing needs versus building facilities all to be identical. Mr. Kranstuber noted that Ms. Salay, as the ward rep, should be present for this discussion. Mayor McCash suggested that the discussion be deferred until the June 3rd Council meeting. Mr. Hahn asked that if additional information is needed prior to June 3rd, he would like that input in the next few days so that staff can be prepared. Mr. Kranstuber noted that he would like additional information prior to June 3rd regarding the budget implications of building a pool at double the previously projected cost. He would also like to address the pool deck issue, as he doesn't believe the patrons desire more deck space. Mrs. Boring stated that in the comparison of the existing pool with the various options, she would like clarification of the "rough-in" and "potential" items and associated cost figures for these items. Mr. Hahn stated that at the bottom of each design scheme, the potential options are listed with costs. The term "rough-in" indicates that work is done so that the item can later be added without retrofitting. ~. The discussion was postponed until the June 3rd Council meeting. Wasatch Estates - Request for Waiver re Driveway/Private Road Mayor McCash asked that the applicant make a brief presentation regarding the request made by letter to City Council dated May 10, 2002. Michael Close, representing applicant Margaret Walter c/o Duffy Communities stated that Wasatch Estates has been approved with a guard house and 5 lots on 30 acres; adjacent Deer Run subdivision has 11 lots on 30 acres. At the time of the P&Z hearing on December 6, 2001, there was discussion that the drive would be 12 feet in width versus the City staff recommendation of 18 feet. He and Mr. Banchefsky have listened to the tape from December 6, because at the last P&Z hearing on this matter, there was agreement that the width would be 18 feet unless the tape proved otherwise. However, they found that the tape did not include any mention of the driveway. At the conclusion of the December 6th meeting, the applicant agreed to construct the driveway consistent with the City Engineer's specifications, meaning in terms of base, etc., not as to width. It was the applicant's understanding that this was to be a driveway, not a private road. On May 2nd, they returned to P&Z with the final development plan and were given a staff recommendation that the width be 18 feet. P&Z ratified this. The applicant is now requesting that the internal roads be considered as driveways and allowed to be 14 feet in width. As the drive splits off to the east, it serves a maximum of5 houses; as it splits off to the north, it serves 11 lots, although only five lots are buildable. They would be willing to commit in the Deer Run Estates not to build more than five lots without coming back for further guidance about the driveway width. This is a common sense issue for a low density development serving a very small ..........-:- number oflots. They request that Council direct that the driveways on this site be 14 feet in width. Mr. Ciarochi stated that staff has provided additional background information on this matter. Staff agreed to reduce the required width from 24 feet to 18 feet. The rationale for 18 feet is that a parking stall average width is 9 feet and there is no loop street connection provided to make this a one-way loop system. There was some confusion in terms of the discussion at the December meeting. Mr. Close has indicated that he believes there was agreement on the 12-foot width; the text indicated t~at there would be a minimum of 12 foot in width, and there was a staff condition approved by the Commission that the plan would be subject to Engineering approval. Mr. Close apparently believed the Engineering approval related to only base depth and surface treatment, not to the pavement width. Staff believed that the 18 feet in width was reasonable, but from a minimum standard perspective, staff did not agree to a 12-foot width because of the two-way traffic situation. I I' ,I .j....l.:!,:I; ..ii ! ! . "1' I ,. '.;1' ".f_I":'.1 k~:'I/'I;-"~_'~'WH1!"-1':"Il<'Jifq:H~,m .TI X' .. "1!t:I'lIWP)'lI "'WII'-'''J'''''l'''''''','tt'' '~~IfH"~ m\!l<"" t: : I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ",",~~P'",",",",~",~~#",~#",~d",",~~",w,~~~",i!}wl!~e~~ of~~,~w",~~,w_w",w'~~",WWd~_W~~P~",~~~~",~dDubLin,~City~,COW1CiL'd~,~w,~~",~",~~~",",~",",~~,~",~#",,_~",Eagew15,~w,",",~~e~~~~w,",_w",~",",w_w"" DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO 10148 ReIn May 20, 2002 19 Mayor McCash asked for clarification that the concern about the width is in regard to the 11 lots in the current Deer Run subdivision plus the additional lots in Wasatch Estates. Mr. Ciarochi agreed, noting that staff views this as a private road. The Code requires ~ private roads to meet public road standards. Given the lower density for the subdivision, staff agreed to reduce the required pavement width from 24 feet to 18 feet. Mayor McCash asked if there is a requirement for a minimum driveway width. Ms. Clarke stated that a driveway serving a single family residence is required to be 10 feet in width. Mayor McCash asked if these could be considered as driveways to single family residences. Ms. Clarke stated that anything that services three properties is defined as a street under the Dublin Code. The lowest classification of streets is "minor" and is 24 feet in width. The only street reviewed by P&Z is the portion from the relocated entrance and connecting past the gatehouse up to Deer Run Estates. The remainder is to be done in the future and was not reviewed by P&Z in May. Mayor McCash noted that the text indicated a minimum of 12 feet in width for streets, and this was approved in the PUD. Whether or not there was discussion at P&Z about this can be debated. Ms. Clarke responded that the staff report referenced this, and noted that the minimum width for the street per Code is 24 feet. Mayor McCash stated that there was not, however, a condition appended to amend the text. Ms. Clarke stated that there was a condition that they must meet the engineering standards and the pavement width is an engineering standard. Mayor McCash asked the Law Director whether the approved text or the Commission report prevails in such a case. - Ms. Clarke responded that they are both part of the record. The Commission, at the outset of each meeting, adopts all of the documents into the record to be forwarded to Council- the application, the staff report, etc. Mayor McCash stated that these items form the basis of the approval. The issue remains what governs and regulates the zoning on the property - the approved text or the approved text and all subsequent meeting minutes, discussions, etc. from the P&Z Commission? Ms. Clarke responded that the Law Director has indicated previously that if a condition is not added, the text is not changed. The essence is the application submitted, the text, and the conditions appended by P&Z - with what specific recommendation it is forwarded to City Council. Mr. Close noted that the approval was for 12 feet, subject to engineering approval. Mr. Kranstuber stated that his understanding is that it was for a minimum of 12 feet. Mr. Close agreed that it will actually be 14 feet in width. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the legal issues regarding this request cannot be settled tonight. Instead, Council should do what they believe is appropriate. If the pavement should be wider, Council should make that ruling and deny the request. If Council supports this request, they should direct the legal staff to do what is necessary to allow this narrower pavement. Mr. Smith agreed. Mayor McCash stated that he is seeking clarification of whether the applicant needs any approval to build the drive at 12 to14 feet, as it is already contained in the approved text. Mr. Close stated that he is present tonight to avoid litigation on this issue. He asks that ,..--.. Council proceed as Mr. Kranstuber has suggested. i Mr. Kranstuber asked about the width of the private street in the Woods of Dublin shire, where he resides. Mr. Kindra responded that the width of Caplestone Lane is 24 feet. Mr. Kranstuber stated that 18 feet would be a minimum to allow two cars passage. Ms. Clarke stated that 18 feet is typically a width of most township roads, i.e., Hyland-Croy, Brand, and Post. Mayor McCash suggested that if this waiver is permitted, a condition be appended that the current property owner executes an agreement that if more lots are to be added or if they request that it be made a public road in the future, that they be required to bring the road up to City standards. , I I' 1'1 "'" ." ".."""",:11 ,,," "'mil 1 I I i , d'. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~nff~'~nffnff'nff_~"~_'~"~'~~~nff~Mig~!~2__~~~L~b~b~b~b~b~~~"b'nff~~_b~b~bb~"'~b_'~~#~nff~'nffnff.,_Dublin,~Cit;L,CounciL~'~bbbb~bb~_~~~_~'nff_b~b~nffEzgfd.6nff~'nffb~~~!!!!1i'~'~'~b'_~'~b~b' DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. lU148 ReIn May 20, 2002 19 Mr. Lecklider stated that the issue involves four feet of width for the roadway - staff is willing to allow an 18-foot width, the approved text specifies 12 feet, and the applicant has agreed to a 14-foot width. This should be resolvable. Mr. Close stated that this is an aesthetic issue which impacts mature trees. A similar !""""""" driveway exists at Les Wexner's estate where the access roads are 12 feet in width. The important issue is that this application for a downzoning from 74 units to 6 may be withdrawn over the issue of four feet of road width. This is an isolated property, and if the property owner is willing to live with 14 feet, Council should be agreeable. There will be an environmental impact with a wider drive, as trees will have to be eliminated. Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Code requires that an access to three or more houses be a public road, and the required width would be 24 feet. Therefore, the applicant has already received approval for an l8-foot width. The City is not insisting upon a 24-foot width per Code. Mr. Close then demonstrated on the plan the impact of a wider roadway. Mr. Lecklider noted that the party house on the site will also generate some traffic and will create additional traffic/parking issues. Mr. Close summarized that there are five houses off of each side of the road, and it makes no sense to require an 18- foot driveway for reasons of setting a precedent. Mayor McCash pointed out that a majority of the road network as shown, except for very small areas, does not actually serve three lots - it only touches them. The only piece with three lots is a small portion in the front - the rest would be driveway. - Mr. Close stated that the families who live on Deer Run do not desire neighbors - most likely, there will be little future development connecting to the roadway. Mayor McCash suggested a deed restriction be imposed that indicates these are private drives, and if in the future there is a desire to convert them to public roads, they must meet the City standards at that time. This would provide notice to the current and future landowners. Mr. Smith stated that this can be done, if Council desires. The issue tonight is approving an 18 or l4-foot width. Mrs. Boring noted that if Council approves 18 feet, does that conflict with P&Z's condition to conform with engineering standards? Mayor McCash responded that it would constitute some type of variance. The approved text contains a variance from the engineering standards. Mr. Smith stated that the record is clear. At this time, Council should give direction and staff can take the necessary steps to implement any change desired. Mr. Reiner stated that he could support the concept of this as a driveway ifhe were familiar with all of the curb cuts. But this information is not provided. He believes 18 feet is a minimum width for passage of cars. Mr. Close stated that blacktop can be added to allow passage of cars in certain areas. Mayor McCash stated that the issue Council must decide tonight is whether to approve the ~ width as 14 feet, 18 feet or 24 feet and staff can proceed with implementing this change. Mr. Kranstuber asked what the width will be if Council takes no action tonight - will it remain as 18 feet? Mayor McCash responded that he assumes it would be 12 feet. Mr. Smith stated that if Council takes no action, the legal issues will then have to be resolved in another way. Mayor McCash moved to permit the driveways as 14 feet in width in accordance with the approved PUD text with the condition that the portion from the guard house to the first "Y" and the connection over to Deer Run is at least 18 feet. The bridge would stay at the 14-16 foot width. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. . : I I ! I ' !", ,:, """""H::Idti! I I i i ',":''';:n.'r;''C".rJ,,:r~lC '~".'~I<':'Y"'."'."l'?~~'''','''''nml ""of ,. :' IW":J1I",'.r" ''1i' <1':::-' 'u,-,p,;"n~>~~'1' T.; '\'lW...-,. 11 .1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS w_~__~'~~_P~~_"_P_~___~_~_~___M~~!?-~ut~li_~g_L~~~p~~~~---~'~-~~-_P~~~-~~~'-~--4DllbliR-City~(;)tul-cil#-~,-,<P~,~_#~~~~-~~P_~~~4ge,."12~_~~~.!~!~B~~~~_p____,,_p~ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO 10148 Helil May 20, 2002 19 Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, no; Mr. Lecklider, no; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (Motion failed) Mayor McCash moved approval of a roadway width of 18 feet. ..r-- Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. (Motion carried) Fee Waiver - Request from Dublin Scioto High School for DCRC Room Rental for Challenge Leadership Program on October 17,2002 Mr. Lecklider noted that fee waivers have been granted to Dublin Coffman High School activities, so he believes it is appropriate to grant this request. Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the request for fee waiver. Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. (Motion carried) Council Round Table/Committee Reports Mr. Lecklider asked if action is needed in regard to selection of options for the Parade of Homes events. Ms. Puskarcik noted that Option ~I would consist of inviting guests to see the course, and serving light hors d'oeuvres. It would not include golf. Mrs. Boring noted that she would advocate having an open house for the community versus a private party. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that an open house should be held for the community. It - would be unusual for a City to build a golf course and not have some type of open house for the community. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he agrees with the community open house versus the invitation only event. But in consideration of the fact that Tartan Fields is operating the course, perhaps they should fund the event. At a minimum, it should be open to the public and not a private event. Ms. Grigsby pointed out that the City is a partner with Tartan Fields and Edwards in the overall project. While there are separations in the operations area, this is somewhat different in view of the partnership arrangement. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer to delay any decision on this matter until the resident card fee issue is decided. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a community open house would provide an opportunity to distribute resident passes as well as introduce the course to the residents. Mayor McCash noted that a procedure to determine residency would then have to be established. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the City already has procedures in place to handle this at the DCRC. Ms. ]>uskarcik noted that the Golf Club will also hold a grand opening at some point. The issue before Council tonight related to the previously budgeted Parade of Homes event to be held at the clubhouse. The concept was to provide an opportunity for the public to see the golf course from carts - but this may not be feasible with a large public event. Mr. Reiner commented that he supports a community open house, but the approach should be to promote the benefits of living in Dublin, such as reduced fees for a beautiful municipal golf course. - Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff has ta~en steps to ensure that the City is identified as a partner in this municipal golf course within the advertising and promotional brochures. Ms. Puskarcik responded that in the media kits for the Muirfield Tournament, information is included regarding the Golf Club of Dublin, emphasizing the partnership arrangement. The Columbus Dispatch article mentioned the City's involvement, and the article in Mid-Ohio Golfer did as well. It was the consensus of Council to support an all-day community open house to be hosted by the City for the budgeted $2,500. Ms. Puskarcik responded that she will pursue this option with the Golf Club. Mrs. Boring suggested that any decision be postponed until after staff resolves the fee for the residency card with the golf course operators. Mr. Reiner suggested that the open house be held prior to the golf course opening so that the residents would have an advance opportunity to visit the course. Ads in the paper could I .1 :1 ""':! :..i, Ii.H"li:i-:Ij-",~'I'il~41:HdJn. I I i/ . I I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '~~'~_~k'_k>k~_~~~'k,_~_~!\'1!~~ut~~~~~!Q~~~_Q~Q~~~~~"-'-~~Q~~~'Q~~'QQ~~~~Q~"Q'Q~~Q~D:uhlin~Cii)l,~Council~,,~~~,~"~Q~~~~_~~_Q~,~~~~1~,a~,,18"~~Q~~~e,:!~n~~~~~~~,,~,~~Q DAYTON LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. lC,)14t:S Helrl May 20, 2002 19 promote Dublin's Municipal Golf course to be open for inspection by the citizens. Hopefully, the fee card situation could be resolved by then. Discussion continued. Ms. Puskarcik noted that she will obtain the grand opening plans from the Dublin Golf Club ..--. so that it can be shared with Council. If it is acceptable to Council, perhaps there is no need to have another City-sponsored event. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is a separate issue - the Golf Club of Dublin will market their club to the broad Central Ohio community in their grand opening events. The City's focus would be for a community introduction to the facility. Discussion continued. Mayor McCash summarized that what he has heard from Council is that Council would like to use the $2,500 budgeted to introduce the public to the course - whether that is ads in the newspapers, balloons, walks on the course, or whatever. Some type of public open house for Dublin residents is what Council desires. He asked that staff bring back a plan to meet this goal, including a method for proving residency. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she disagrees with requiring identification for someone to be admitted - the publicity focus should be targeted to Dublin residents. Ms. Puskarcik stated that she will proceed with a plan, based on tonight's input. Mrs. Boring: 1. Thanked staff for the postcards copied to Council regarding the Waterford Drive sidewalk project. 2. Noted that Planning staff coordinated training sessions for P&Z!BZA and did a great job. The only disappointment was that not all board and commission members attended all of the sessions. Thanks to staff for their efforts. 3. A letter was sent to Council regarding noise on Riverside Drive. She talked with Interim Chief Epperson about this issue and is hopeful that this can be addressed ~ prior to the summer months. Mayor McCash noted that Council needs to identify an available date for interviews for City Manager candidates. It appears that July 5 and 6 are the earliest dates available, unless some adjustments can be made to individual members' schedules. Mr. Harding noted that he spoke with Dr. Kuhn today, and he urged Council to identify an earlier date as the candidates may withdraw from the process if it is delayed. Mayor McCash noted that Mr. Lecklider and Mr. McCash are on vacation beginning June 20 for a week. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher will be out of town for a large part of June. He urged Council members to check their schedules so that an earlier date can be identified. He asked that Council Members follow-up with Mr. Harding so that this can be coordinated with the consultant. ed the meeting at 12:30 a.ill. ~a.~ Clerk of Council ~