Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-09 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 9, 2009 Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider. Staff members present: Mr. Foegler, Ms. Readier, Mr. Smith, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Combs, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Roush, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Ott, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Rex. • ZONING CODE UPDATE Mr. Langworthy stated that Planning staff believes that an update to the Zoning Code is needed, and their presentation would begin with the rationale far that argument. Secondly, staff will suggest alternative ways or processes in which to conduct that update. Rationale Mr. Combs stated that tonight he will briefly discuss the main concepts that exist in the Community Plan. Staff has invested much time in developing the Community Plan with significant public input over athree-year period. It is important to translate the policies of the Community Plan to a regulatory document to implement the ideas. Main concepts of the Community Plan are: • Economic Vitality The business climate is constantly changing, and codes that are static do not keep up with those changes. The Code needs to be updated to deal with changing situations. For instance, in the area of research and technology areas, there is a need for zoning districts that encourage that type of target growth over time. • Greater Housing Choices The City needs to look at broadening the housing choices within the community. Although Dublin is a predominantly single-family community, there is a need to account for all phases of the life cycles, providing options for college graduates to seniors who want to downsize their homes. Looking at economic vitality, it is important to be able to attract the types of employees to this area that the City wants, and to encourage prospective businesses to look at Dublin. If the City's Code encourages diversified housing types, Dublin will be more desirable in the economic climate. The Community Plan provides for a greater level of mixed-use housing on the Future Land Use Map. Staff has been looking at how to integrate multiple housing types within neighborhoods so that using a particular type of housing product is not limited to certain subareas, rather, types of housing are considered more from a design or streetscape level. • Environmental Sensitivity In Council's packet is a substantial list of policy-related information, a majority of which focus on the environmental aspect. To implement these ideas of the Community Plan, the City must exercise its ability to update the Code to address the related issues, such as protecting stream corridors or wetlands. Updating the Code provides the opportunity to integrate the big ideas. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 2 Travel0ptions In the long term, the City needs a Code that will permit it to not only construct a good transportation network for automobiles but also provide the flexibility for other types of uses, such as buses or future rail options. The City's Code can attract amenities for bicycles and other types of transportation. Perhaps incentives could be used to encourage businesses to provide those, even to include minimum requirements for doing so. • Mixed Use Mixed use has played a very important role in the Community Plan. In particular, areas were targeted throughout the City where it would be desirable to focus retail within the community. They are looking at how to integrate a variety of uses into those areas to create a walkable environment. The CHIC, Dublin Village Center and the Historic District are areas in which that could be facilitated. To do so, regulations are needed in the Code to help provide horizontally and vertically far mixed uses. • Character Character needs of the community should be considered more in depth than exists in the current Code, including landscaping and more efficient maintenance methods. The Code also needs to address roadway character -what is seen while driving along a road. This involves dealing with the design of the road but also the surrounding area between the road and development. Vlthat is the first sense of arrival when someone drives into Dublin? To establish a visual quality for the City, the Code must provide regulations to help developers achieve that consistently along the streets. • Implementation Chapter ten of the Community Plan moves beyond the policy and general vision to how to make the former a reality. The way to do that is to establish it within the City Code requirements. The Code contains key implementation objectives. Staff has worked on defining necessary strategies and resources to achieve those. However, the key to implementation is to establish the policy framework within the Code, so that there is a certain expectation that developers can easily follow. In Council's packets is an exhibit listing all the Code-related policies in the Community Plan. There are approximately 58, which is about 1 ~% of the overall policies. In summary, updating the Zoning Code to ensure all of the Community Plan visionary ideas are incorporated into the regulatory framework is very important. In addition to the Code, there are Council's goals, which staff has been working on as well. Three of those goals relate to Code implementation: 1. Setting a standard as a green community 2. Achieving a higher level of distinction 3. Focus on Historic Dublin The City has undertaken a significant number of green initiatives during recent years; however, there are additional things that Dublin could consider, such as wind and solar powers, different types of environmental construction and different ways to look at stormwater management. Given the age of the City's Code, it is not surprising that it does Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 3 not address the new topics. The City's Code does provide a good base, however, as Dublin has been awell-planned and managed community. This has been accomplished primarily through the planned district process. Vllhether it is high quality office development, attractive residential neighborhoods, or even open space design, there has been much accomplished through the City's Code. As the map of the City in Council's packet indicates, all the dark green areas are planned districts. That is a significant portion, and it has resulted in a high quality community. The lighter green areas are not planned districts, but standard zones. Over the years, much has been done through planned districts, and there are now things that are consistently looked for in all planned district texts. They comprise a base standard that is looked for in every development. There is no reason those key elements, whether landscaping or architectural requirements, cannot be considered general development standards City-wide. They could be translated into the minimum requirement for the entire City. Mr. Langworthy stated that the Zoning Code really is the basis for how a community is formed. It is more than a set of technical details and individual regulations. They do form a picture. Using, the Planned District language is an example of what could be done and how that could be translated into other areas. However, there are some deficiencies in areas of the Zoning Code that need to be addressed. A list has been provided to Council of some of the major items staff has noted. These items do not change specifics in the Code (color, height, specific measurements). They address the day-to-day issues staff must deal with. He requested Council feedback before pursuing other issues. Mr. Reiner stated that he does not see a problem with staff updating the Zoning Code as long as the standards are kept intact. The Planned District has worked well for Dublin. It has provided a way in which to modify people's behavior to produce a higher standard of development. He believes all of Council would like to see those standards preserved, perhaps through the Code. Mr. Gerber stated that he has been in favor of this update for a long time. He agrees with Mr. Reiner on the value of the planned districts. He wants to keep the Planned District format because things do change, and they change rapidly. The Planned District provides the opportunity to address those changes when they do come up. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees with the previous comments, but is concerned about losing flexibility. She understands the value of putting in writing that which has been practiced. On the other hand, one of the City's successes has been that in having that broadness, the City has then been able to require development to be along whatever lines were desired, flexible over time. She is concerned that in becoming too regulated, the City would no longer have the flexibility that presently allows some dialogue to happen. She is also very concerned over the amount of money and time that would be involved in undertaking an update. She is not sure of the return on the investment. She would need to understand the amount of time and economic commitment being requested to do this. The six or seven primary components of the Community Plan that were mentioned have always been in the Community Plan. Is staff requesting a complete overhaul of the Zoning Code? She believes that the City has done very well with what is in Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 4 place, and an update does not require an overhaul but some level of tweaking, ensuring that the flexibility remains. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she has the same concerns. The update of the Community Plan was to be a tweaking, but it was not. As she read the packet information, the points that concerned her were the consultant assistance, and the professional and other resources needed. She was surprised to see those suggestions. She also concurs with fellow Council members regarding a strong desire to maintain the flexibility of the planned districts. Mr. Lecklider stated that he sees this as an inevitable consequence of the Community Plan update. Council participated in that process. As staff pointed out, there are approximately 58 items extracted from the Community Plan to be incorporated into the Code, or approximately 15% of the Code. He doesn't see how that level of update can be made without a comprehensive analysis and consideration of the present Cade. No one looks fonnrard to the time commitment or the cost involved. He, along with Mr. Reiner and Mr. Gerber, served on the last Development Code Revision Task Force. Much has changed and he believes a Zoning Code update is inevitable. Ms. Salay stated that she anticipated the need for a Zoning Code update as a consequence of the Community Plan update. She agrees with the comments about maintaining the flexibility of the planned districts -that is why Dublin has the quality of community it does; it is not a result of the Zoning Code. How would the planned districts be preserved in an update of the Zoning Code? Mr. Langworthy responded that it is important to look at the history of the planned districts -- the earliest planned districts and the most recent ones. There has been an evolution in the process, and the existing standards have been adopted over time. In some cases, they have become more specific; in some, they have become less. The suggestion for the planned district process would be to take the best of what has been learned during that evolution and translate it into consistent standards, requiring them far every development -- without investing in a year or two of negotiations to eventually get to the same point. This reflects learning from the past and translating it into the future to make a more efficient process for the City. Mr. Gunderman stated that as the City has progressed and made certain things consistent that the City wants in all planned districts, those become things that can be included in the regular Code. Some standards can be codified because it is now known that the City desires them for all developments. Consistent standards would make writing and implementing a planned district easier. Mr. Gerber stated that a perfect example of the inadequacy of the straight zoning is the recent development on Bridge Street. The type of signage and other products of that zoning wouldn't have been permitted with a PUD. If the Code were adjusted to integrate many of these concepts that have been adopted aver the years into the straight zoning category, the Kroger Center on Bridge Street would look much different today. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Langworthy stated that in response to the Mayor's inquiry about the cost of the Zoning Code update, staff has changed their approach for the project. The update would be written primarily by staff with assistance from the Law Director's office. They do not intend to have a heavy use of outside consultants for this project, so the costs should not be significant. Vice Mayor Boring responded that history has shown that the work of staff has been more satisfactory than the work of the consultants. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired for what purpose would staff need consultants. Mr. Langworthy responded that he isn't sure that they will be needed. It depends upon the process that is chosen. If Council selects a task force approach, and the task force requests some specialty information on which staff is not well versed, some outside assistance could be needed. However, staff is not proposing that a consultant write the update or be part of the update process. A consultant would be used only as an outside resource. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested an estimate of the amount of time that a Zoning Code update would take. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff would be better able to provide an estimate after Council has provided direction regarding the process. Mr. Keenan stated that he prefers an incremental update over a comprehensive re-write. He is concerned about using a task force. He believes staff could put together the recommended changes in a much more efficient manner versus a large task force. That is not to say that community input couldn't be taken later. In looking over the list of areas of updates needed, he noticed the reference to green initiatives. Vllould those be optional or mandatory? Will those be mandated expenses to businesses building here? In his view, they shouldn't be. Council has talked about incentivizing businesses to undertake those initiatives, but he wouldn't want to mandate them through regulations, thereby significantly increasing the costs for businesses to locate in Dublin. He really likes the text that was used for the COIC R&D piece. He realizes that there are some areas of the Cade that need to be tweaked: flag costs, outdoor furniture permits, permitting fees, parking, and view shed protection standards. For this latter category, he recommends caution, as what constitutes a positive viewshed can vary widely between individuals. In summary, he prefers an incremental approach to updating the City Code. He also prefers either astaff-driven process or perhaps use of a Council committee. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the next issue is the process. A couple of options have been suggested by staff. Mr. Langworthy stated that they have suggested two approaches, but regardless of the approach approved by Council, there are some key objectives: usability of the Code; consistency and predictability of the Code; maintaining a competitive edge; recognizing innovation; and ensuring defensibility of the Code. The suggested approaches are: • Incremental Updates to the Cade The Code would be updated through a series of ordinances by individual topics. There would be a public adoption process for each of the ordinances. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 6 • Comprehensive Re-write of the Code The complete Zoning Code would be reviewed to address policies and correct technical deficiencies. This would also provide the opportunity to consider alternative formats, a better use of graphics, tables and other items that would improve the usability of the Code. Ms. Salay stated that when Council visited Franklin, Tennessee and Greenville, South Carolina, there were references to developers having pattern books. Although those pattern books may have been for individual planned districts, would it be possible for a Zoning Code to be written more like a pattern book to make it user friendly? Mr. Langworthy responded that would be similar to the document created far the CHIC district, to which Mr. Keenan referred. It was written somewhat like a pattern book. It does not have as many graphics as desired, due to the current method of codifying the City's ordinances, which makes it difficult to incorporate graphics. That is the reason that they would like to extract the Zoning Code from the Codified Code - so it is possible to have the desired format and look. They can pursue the goal for pattern books. The Community Plan and area plans will provide a "head start" on the pattern books. Developing those into regulations won't be too difficult. He noted that the concerns with an incremental update relate to the ability to make the Code consistent throughout. It is difficult to maintain consistency when small sections of the Code are reviewed separately. VIlhen one part of a Code is changed, it is often necessary to return to a previous update and change it again to make both consistent. Vl/hen he refers to incremental changes in the Cade, he is referring to the process -- not the product. The product will be comprehensive. It is important to look at both the approach and the process. Mr. Keenan stated that the timing is the issue. A six-month project could take 3-4 years. Mr. Langworthy agreed that zoning code updates could do that. Vice Mayor Boring stated that was one reason she preferred the incremental approach. It would be passible to at least have one item completed at a time. Ms. Salay stated that she also prefers not to spend 3-4 years on the update, and she would like to hear how staff believes that could be accomplished. She is pleased with the Community Plan update, and the City is better off with the new plan. But if the long process could have been avoided, it would have been preferable. Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees with Mr. Keenan's suggestion that staff undertake the Zoning Code update. The staff is comprised of a professional team of planners and landscape architects who have a good understanding of the needs and Council's goals, and they are capable of deciding what will meet those. There is no need for a large task force of people who don't know much about those things, but all want to have some input. He would rather staff provide their best effort, which Council could then analyze. Mr. Lecklider stated that Council would have the ability to define the size of the task force, so it would not need to be overly large. It would be Council's discretion who would serve on the task force. Of course, it would consist of more than six people. He served on the last Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 7 zoning code update task force, and the size of the task force did not make it unproductive. He believes their work was comprehensive, yet was completed in less than a year. Mr. Reiner suggested that if a task force is desired, perhaps staff could develop their best effort and the task force could begin their work with that. Mr. Lecklider inquired the length of time that task force met. Mr. Gunderman responded that he believes the group met aver a year with approximately 20 meetings. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the difficulty with the previous zoning code review task force was that developers served on that body. Their interests were different from Council's. Due to the composition of the group, there was a need to compromise. In the end, Council did not achieve the desired product. If a task force is formed far this review, it should consist of staff, a representative from P&Z, BZA and ARB, and a Council member. It would be an internal group. It would also include a couple of citizens who have used and are familiar with the City's document and would be able to share advice based on their experience. Appointing individuals without the pre-existing knowledge and experience is inefficient, as it would then require six months to bring them up to speed on the subject. Mr. Lecklider agreed that is a concern. However, it should be possible for Council to design a more efficient task force. The task force would have the advantage of the recent Community Plan update. Vl/hat concerns him with the incremental approach is that legislation and regulations would be revised within three to four years. At the same time, the Community Plan would become more dated with each of those years. Staff's review has indicated 58 items that need to be updated. How could those be accomplished mare quickly'? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not see any reason for an incremental process to take any longer to complete than an overall comprehensive review. Mr. Langworthy summarized that: (1) The Zoning Code update would be written by staff, based upon the comments and direction of Council expressed tonight and in previous meetings -- such as the Community Plan update meetings. (2) There would be a larger public input process, but it would not be a decision maker. There is no need for this process to be lengthy. (3) The public input would be provided to the review group appointed by Council. Individuals who are interested in a zoning code usually have a limited area of interest - stakeholders and interest groups; those interested in the Community Plan usually have a wider community interest. The review body could be comprised of a member from the Planning Commission, BZA, some Council members and perhaps a couple of citizen group members. (4) Council would then hold a series of review sessions to evaluate the product. Vice Mayor Boring stated that in the past, a huge document has been presented to Council, and Council then becomes "bogged down" in reviewing each issue. With an incremental Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 8 review process, Council would review and pass each increment. Thereby, some sections could be passed and immediately put in use. Mr. Langworthy responded that it should be possible to put some logical sections together for adoption. The potential issue with that process, however, is that Council would pass one section, which would later be impacted by another item Council passes. He has been through this process approximately 40 times, and that has always been the issue with an incremental review process. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that staff provide a draft procedure and schedule for Council's review in April. • BOARD AND COMMISSION TRAINING Vice Mayor Boring, Administrative Committee Chair, requested that Council members review the draft March 30th Board and Commission orientation agenda. She would like to first address commentslsuggestions regarding agenda items 1- 4 and 6-8, and then item 5. If there is any point in the training agenda at which a Council member wishes to specifically participate, please indicate that. Mr. Keenan suggested that there also be some mechanism or training provided for Board and Commission members in media relations. Vice Mayor Boring stated that would be covered under #6. Mr. Keenan stated that "Tips for Effective Speaking" and media relations are two different things. Mr. Gerber noted that media training was previously provided once a year by Community Relations. Vice Mayor Boring requested that "Media Training" be added to the agenda. Vice Mayor Boring requested Council Members' input on the "Issue Referral" flow chart provided in packet materials. Mr. Keenan responded that it appears to accurately depict the process. He referred to the "Board and Commission Source of Authority" table. It appears that in most cases, the board or commission could be more proactive. The source of authority indicates that the various board or commission may have issues that they wish to bring forward. He does not believe that is the typical practice. Some of the commissions have indicated that they are not given much work to do, but their source of authority indicates they could take the leadership and initiate an item. Vice Mayor Boring noted that PRAC has done this, to the extent that Council has discussed how best to handle some of the issues. Mr. Keenan responded that, according to the source of authority, PRAC has the right to do so. Ms. Salay inquired if that is accurately depicted in the flow chart. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the source of authority does not seem to indicate that the board or commission must receive "permission" from City Council to look into an area of interest. The concern has been raised that there is a need to: (1) ensure a proposed topic is of group interest, and (2) if staff time would be needed for research, then it would be necessary to confirm that the issue is of interest to Council and the City Manager. She does Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 9 not believe the source of authority prohibits that requirement. It is important to ensure that the topic is of high interest to Council and that all the City resources are being directed properly. Mr. Reiner stated that there is a need to ensure there is an appropriate level of aversight far the topics the boards and commissions are engaged in. Vice Mayor Boring stated that there is also a need to ensure that resident initiated requests are not pursued by the board or commission without Council's concurrence or formal referral. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the resident would have two avenues of opportunity: {1) make a request directly to Council for consideration, or (2) make a request to the board or commission, and that body would forward the request to Council to seek further direction. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the flow chart should also be provided to the staff liaisons to ensure they are aware of the correct process. Mr. Keenan stated that it may be necessary to clarify that intent in the source of authority, because the need for initial Cauncil approval of their consideration is not clearly stated. Mr. Gerber suggested that there should also be a mechanism in place that makes Council aware of resident requests to a board or commission that were not recommended for study. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is concerned about timing. Most of the board or commissions meet once a month. If a resident makes a request to a commission to review a matter, the commission must make a request to Council to do so. By the time the commission receives a response from Council, it could be two months from the time the resident request was made. Vice Mayor Boring responded that, typically, immediately after the Commission makes a request, that matter is scheduled on Council's next agenda. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes that Council's oversight takes away some of the board or commission's authority. He doesn't believe Council has ever objected to hearing any matters a Commission has submitted for review. Mr. Lecklider responded that he believes the reason for that aversight is the demand that would be placed on staff's time. Ms. Salay agreed. Council should have oversight of what staff is expected to work on. Mr. Lecklider stated that the oversight in no way implies a criticism of the boards or commissions. He believes that Council should exert control over the demands made for staff time. Mr. Keenan inquired if there is an estimate of the amount of staff time that was diverted for board or commission review/investigations related to resident requests. Mr. Hahn responded that the request for expanded DCRC Sunday hours involved a significant number of staff hours for the research. Mr. Keenan stated that the additional staff work was due to the resident petition submitted, so staff was serving the public. Mr. Hahn responded that is true. However, staff's request is that before staff is directed to pursue an idea that will involve a significant amount of staff time, they would prefer to have Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 10 Council's approval to do so. If staff would be pursuing something that does not have any Council support, they would prefer not to spend that amount of time on it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is desirable to encourage ideas from the citizens and from the commission, so the process should be designed in a way to do so. There may be a balance between required staff resources and research that the board or commission could perform on their own. Mr. Hahn responded that was the case with the DCRC hours request. Much of the research for that did not really need to be performed by staff. Mr. Keenan noted that there is a downside to having others, not the professional staff, provide the information. If the individual has an opinion on the topic in question, the evidence that they provide might not be comprehensive. To make sure the information provided to Council is accurate, he would prefer to have it provided by staff. Vice Mayor Boring referred to agenda questions #1 and #2: #1 What is the issue referral process to boards and commissions? #2 How should topics that are resident driven or member driven without a formal referral by City Council be managed? and inquired if Council members have suggestions on how topic referrals should be handled or differentiated. Mr. Lecklider responded that the question is if Council prefers there be no restrictions on residents' ability to approach the commissions to request their study of a particular idea, which would often consume considerable staff time. There are some issues, such as whether trees can constitute landscape fencing, which can be very time-consuming. If Council decides that there should be no filter on these requests, staff could spend a very large amount of time on them. Mr. Keenan stated that the board and commissions should be empowered to make decisions about these topics. The board and commissions are where future Council leadership will be coming from. Is it Council's position that the chairman of a commission can't make such a decision? Vice Mayor Boring stated that if the City already has a capital budget in place or other items budgeted, then additional considerations that could require expenditure of City funds should be pursued with the knowledge and approval of Council. Ms. Salay inquired if the issue is that the verbiage of the source of authority and the flow chart are not consistent. Mr. Smith responded that there are a couple of options that could address that. A footnote of clarification could be added to that particular source of authority or to the flow chart. In addition, the intent is to provide more training in the future to board and commission members, so the commissions could be specifically trained on this subject. The chairman of the commission would monitor the process and inform the City Manager of any requests that would take staff time to investigate, and would therefore need Council approval. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 11 Mr. Lecklider stated that is important to keep in mind that there is not unlimited staff time available. If the impression is given to the boards and commissions that they have an unrestricted ability to direct staff, then they cannot be criticized for doing so. Mr. Gerber stated that such a situation may have developed over time, but he has experience in serving on the City boards and commissions. Vllhen he served on a task force, then CSAC, and finally, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff liaisons made it clear that while the board or commission had a good deal of leeway, that if an issue would require a significant investment of staff time, that research would need to be approved by City Council. The staff representative has responsibility to communicate that process to the board or commission. A formal board and commission member orientation session for new members has not occurred the past three years, but, typically, that is clarified at that time. Mr. Smith noted that information is also provided that staff works for the City Manager, and they are assigned to assist the boards and commissions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is her understanding that the orientation on April 30 will be followed by additional individual board training. Ms. Ott confirmed that there will be individual follow-up training for boards with information more specific to their roles. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that at that time, information about how to run effective meetings will be covered with the chairs and vice chairs. Ms. Salay stated that the responsibility for filtering issues should be clarified to the chairs during orientation. Mr. Lecklider stated that his experience was the same as Mr. Gerber's. He agrees that it would be useful for staff to hear what Council's expectation is on this matter. Ms. Ott stated that there appear to be three options: Provide Council a quick summary of meeting actions versus waiting for meeting minutes to be adopted; V11hen the staff liaison identifies a request for research that will require a significant time commitment, they must notify the City manager. The board and commissions could create work plans that identify items they are interested in pursuing during the year; that may work better for some advisory bodies than others. This would give Council an idea of what the advisory bodies may be studying, rather than receiving a report after the fact. Mr. Gerber responded that those are good ideas. However, he would like to know what items CSAC or PRAC are working on. He has no idea of their workload. He might have an idea that he would like them to pursue and would suggest Council assign it to them. There is also the possibility that it is one they are already working on, but he is unaware of it. Vice Mayor Boring stated that those comments relate to agenda questions #3 and #4: #3 How often does Council prefer to receive updates from various boards and commissions? Does the update process differ based upon the board or commission's authority, responsibility and role? #4 Does Council have preferences about how the staff liaison manages communication between City Council and boards and commissions? Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 12 To address #3, she suggested that a brief update -- a summary of meeting actions, be provided for each of the board and commissions in the following City Council packet. Regarding #4, the direction would be to have the staff liaison inform the City Manager of any issues that will require City resources, both staff time and financial. Also, the suggestion has been made that the advisory boards create a work plan for the year to provide to Council. It seems that might be difficult to do for a year at a time. Ms. Salay inquired how that would function. For instance, the DCRC Sunday hours expansion originated with a citizen petition to the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC). Ms. Crandall responded this process would work for CSAC. They have actually done this previously. Once or twice a year, CSAC members suggest ideas they wish to study. The Chair will bring the topic up and the issue will be forwarded to Council to determine their interest in CSAC pursuing it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if the Chair of the advisory group and the staff liaison are able to effectively brainstorm with the group, they should be able to develop a work plan from that discussion. She would like to avoid having the groups working only on staff's work plans for the year. Some of the ideas should be citizen-driven. The group's brainstorming should provide enhancements to staffs work plan. Ms. Crandall responded that whatever work plan ideas staff takes to the advisory board is for the purpose of using them as a "sounding board." Vice Mayor Baring stated that would be consistent with their purpose. One advantage of the advisory body preparing a work plan on a regular basis is it would help the Chair maintain a focus. Mr. Gerber noted that he would see this more as a "to do" list. Is that essentially what is being discussed? Ms. Ott responded that some of the work items are more developed than others. A couple of years ago, ARB wanted to obtain input from Historic Dublin businesses regarding the sign code. If the Board had developed their idea more fully before they asked staff to begin that survey, it would have made that a good instrument for their recommendations. Ms. Salay inquired if, in the spirit of this workflow chart, Council would approve the advisory bodies' work plans. Vllhat if the groups are encouraged to develop ideas and they forward five ideas to Council that Council has no interest in having City resources spent on? Mr. Lecklider agreed. It could result in a potential expenditure of funds that Council would not have been inclined to approve. Vice Mayor Boring stated that would be the intent of having the ideas early, so Council could give direction before any resources are spent on them. Ms. Salay inquired what the process would be for the citizen-driven initiatives that are presented to the advisory bodies throughout the year. Vice Mayor Boring responded that the meeting action reports would immediately make Council aware of the new issues, and the staff liaison would notify the City Manager of any requests that would require the expenditure of City resources, specifically staff time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that would need to be on every agenda. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 13 Ms. Salay noted that in addition to those, there would alsa be items that are Council driven/referred to the Commission. Ms. Ott suggested that the Board and Commission updates could be a bullet point on Council's agenda after Council Committee Reports. This would enable Council to maintain an awareness of the work being done by those bodies. Vice Mayor Boring inquired Council's direction regarding the board and commission work plans. Council consensus was to direct the board or commissions to prepare annual work plans to be forwarded to Council on a trial basis. Ms. Crandall stated that the purpose statement for each of the commissions states that "this Commission is established and makes recommendations at the request of Council." That clarification is made for the public. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the flow chart would be part of the communication process. Council consensus was that it would be provided as well. Mr. Lecklider stated that it is important to keep in mind the over-arching premise for the existence of each of these commissions. Ms. Ott responded that purpose would be included with the documents. Mr. Lecklider stated that would an important reminder. He recalls the recent occurrence of a commission that provided something stronger than a recommendation to Council that a road be constructed at Darree Fields by April 1. That is not the type of recommendation Council is seeking from its advisory bodies. Mr. Gerber stated that the new reporting process should make Council immediately aware of any requests that are made. Mr. Lecklider responded that was not the problem with the previous situation. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRAC) minutes reflected that when the issue was raised, staff immediately responded that the project was in the budget for that year. It was insisted that staff, at the direction of PRAC, construct the road by PRAC's specified date. It is his belief that neither PRAC nor CSAC are empowered to give that kind of direction to staff. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is the consensus of all of Council. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the new process would adequately address that type of situation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, ultimately, Council is the authority on all direction given. Mr. Hahn responded that the new process would not prevent an advisory body from making any recommendation to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that staff could respond that they would take the matter under advisement and take it to Council. Vice Mayor Boring noted that Items #1 - #4 have received direction. She referred to agenda item #5: #5 When is it appropriate for a board or commission member to contact a member of City Council or vise-versa? Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 14 This discussion involves Council member contact of a board or commission member to discuss a board or commission agenda item, or vice versa. She asked Mr. Smith for input. Mr. Smith responded that the legal position would be that whatever Council decides is their best practice is appropriate. As elected officials, anyone can call Council members at any time. He would suggest that Council members never contact board members and advise them how to vote on a matter. However, Council members may call and provide their input. The only restrictions that Council has formally placed on anyone is that a Planning and Zoning Commission member cannot speak to an applicant regarding a pending case. Ms. Salay responded that P&Z requested that restriction. Mr. Smith responded that the recommendation was forwarded to Council and Council adopted that policy. At that time, there was additional discussion. The direction from Council was that if Council Members discussed an issue with a party with a vested interest, they would disclose that to Council as a whole. In the past, there was an issue that came up with a P&Z chair or vice chair who believed they were not receiving the right input from staff. However, the P&Z officer went first to the Planning Director, then to the City Manager, and it was addressed at staff level. Technically, however, P&Z members work for Council, not the City Manager. It seems logical that if it is a staff issue, that the issue should be resolved at staff level. If that is not possible, then the City Manager would bring the issue to Council for resolution. In summary, as elected officials, Council can talk to anyone they choose. Council may put a restriction on itself, but it would be difficult to enforce. If a board or commission member calls a Council member to discuss a matter, he cannot foresee a Council member refusing to talk with them. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there is further Council discussion. Mr. Reiner responded that he believed the information was sufficiently clear. Vice Mayor Boring stated that Council members are satisfied with Mr. Smith's response to agenda issue #5. Mr. Lecklider stated that perhaps it would be important to share the information during the board and commission training -- that no Council member should advise them how to vote. Mr. Smith responded that could be conveyed during their training, but Council members may want to talk to a board member about an issue that is a concern in their ward. Over the years, there have been many calls between Council members and board or commission members. He is not aware of an occasion when a request was made that the member vote in a particular way. Mr. Keenan suggested that the difference between a public official and an appointed board or commission member be clarified. Mr. Smith responded that all of that would be addressed in the board and commission member training. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the last item for review is #6: #6 Are there any reporting expectations for appointees to non-City boards such as the Dublin Arts Council, Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau, and COTA? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes that the reporting from non-City boards has been good in recent years. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 15 Vice Mayor Boring stated that Council has been receiving regular reports from the DAC, the DCVB and COTA. Ms. Salay stated that Mr. Guion provides the Dublin Arts Council (DAC) reports to Council. The Council representative, Naomi Hoyt, attends the DAC Board meetings, but does not provide reports to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is likely because Council has not informed her that Council prefers to receive the reports from the representative, not the Director. Mr. Keenan stated that it would be good to hear from both the director and the Council representative. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed; it is just a matter of communication. Personally, she would prefer to have reports twice a year from the outside groups, and at least three times a year from DAC and DCVB due to the City's significant financial investment with the two organizations. Ms. Salay inquired if the expectation would be that the appointee would attend along with the Director. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the organization could determine this. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would like to hear a report from the COTA representative on a regular basis. Mr. Gerber suggested a quarterly report. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it might depend upon how often the COTA Board meets. Mr. Lecklider stated that the COTA Board meets monthly. Ms. Salay stated that the DAC Board meets six times a year. Ms. Ott inquired the preference of the form of the report --verbal or written. Mr. Lecklider stated that with a verbal report, Council has the opportunity to ask questions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be easier for them to provide verbal reports. Council wants to hear only major policy items that would be impacting or have the potential to impact Dublin, not administrative issues. Vice Mayor Boring inquired who would have the responsibility of scheduling the reports on the agenda. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the Clerk of Council has that responsibility. Mr. Keenan added that they should continue to be scheduled at the beginning of the agenda. Consensus of Council was that COTA would also provide three reports annually. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the representatives are also welcome to report at other times, if there is an issue they wish to share or obtain Council's feedback on. Mr. Keenan commented about the opportunity for Council members to participate in the board and commission training session. It is important to clarify that if any Council member wishes to do so, they would be speaking for all of Council, not just themselves. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the anticipation was that if any Council member wished to participate in the orientation, it would be during the City overview. Perhaps they could speak regarding the City's mission and the City Charter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that if individual Council members will be participating participate, she would prefer to address Item D -Council Goals. Dublin City Council Study Session March 9, 2009 Page 16 Vice Mayor Boring encouraged Council members to participate. This is an opportunity far Council to emphasize that the appointment is not only an honor, but a responsibility and that that Council has expectations of the appointees and views the training as important. Ms. Ott inquired if Council would like to have a document summarizing tonight's direction. Vice Mayor Boring responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there were other issues Council members wished to bring up regarding this topic. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification of who would be handling each agenda item. Ms. Ott clarified that she and Legal staff would handle the items. Vice Mayor Boring asked when the summary would be provided to Council. Sufficient time should be available after receiving the summary to resolve any remaining questions before the training on March 30. Ms. Ott responded that the summary would be included in this week's Council packet. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Clerk of Council