HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-06 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, June 12, 2aa6
Council Chambers
MINUTES ~F MEETING
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:51 p.m.
Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Lecklider, Mr. Keenan, Ms. Salay,
Mr. Reiner and Mr. McCash. Mrs. Boring was absent.
Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Earman and Ms. Ott.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that tonight's presentation focuses on the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
Mr. Earman noted that tonight's objective is to briefly review the status of the plan. He
and Mr. Hahn have collaborated on the materials provided to Council which outline the
plan items and timeline. In terms of project initiation, staff recognizes that all of the
Parks and Recreation staff will be involved with the steering committee. Staff has also
been involved with data collection, including GIS mapping, logistics, and facilities. The
public will be very much involved with the Plan, as well as elected officials. They have
met with several stakeholders involved in the existing services or future services
provided, including DSL, Dublin Schools and Hilliard Schools. PRAC has solicited
input from the homeowners associations in Dublin. There are 87 subdivisions, and
these have taken place over the past four months. In addition, a public open house
forum has been held and website postings and newspaper ads were used to encourage
participation.
Mr. Lecklider asked what level of input they have received from the homeowners
associations.
Mr. Hahn responded that the input has been very limited -with only two homeowner
association representatives per 20 invitations sent out.
Mr. Earman added that the majority of the input received from the sessions is that the
City should continue to do what it is now doing. They are very satisfied as residents.
Mr. Lecklider commented that the low turnout may indicate satisfaction with the current
level of services, but Council had hoped for a better turnout for these meetings.
Ms. Salay asked what the Community Plan public input survey consisted of.
Mr. Hahn stated that should read Community Satisfaction survey -that is a typo.
Mr. Earman stated that the Master Plan seeks to identify partnerships in the community
so that duplication of services can be avoided -working collaboratively and not
competing with each other. The areas of study specifically in the plan consist of the
existing structure of parklands and rec facilities. This will involve an inventory of what
exists and the challenges that may constrain the goals. The core recreational
programming will be reviewed to ensure the City is providing a transgression of
programming for the age groups. They will look at the staff structure to ensure the staff
shares a vision and mission. They will look at how staff communicates within the
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2006
Page 2
existing structure. Other existing structures include service providers of various
recreation programming in the community, i.e., DYA, DSL, DFL, Dublin School District,
etc.
The Plan will look at the opportunities available in the future and will strive to be
proactive and not reactive. Potential land mass suitability will focus on neighborhood
needs, pedestrian/wildlife corridors, streamlriver access or protection, arts in public
places program, significant natural amenities, bike path system, structured recreational
programming. Also considered will be future demographics of the City based on land
use maps and the housing stock available. A space needs assessment study will help
to determine if the City has the appropriate space for its desired programming.
Characteristics and amenities of surrounding communities will be reviewed to see if
they will complement Dublin's future desires. Another major area of study is capital and
operational impacts, based on the anticipated parks and recreation/City growth. These
include development, staffing, maintenance, renovations and programming costs.
Mr. Reiner asked if the Parks department has input during the zoning process in terms
of influencing new projects and the needs created for recreation. The desire would be
that the City not have the total liability for meeting the parks and recreation needs for
future residents. Having larger planned masses in areas -- such as Council viewed at
the Westhaven development on the field trip -- provides recreational opportunities for
the development.
Mr. Earman responded that much of that depends on the fee structures and the kind of
sustainability desired for the facilities. The existing facilities could be programmed to
be more of arevenue-generating opportunity. What Mr. Reiner is suggesting is a
partnership or operational arrangement whereby a development would take care of its
own needs far parks and recreation.
Mr. Reiner stated that when a 300-400 acre project is proposed, someone from Parks
and Recreation staff should assess the future needs for services of that development.
The developer should then be required to accommodate those needs within his
development.
Mr. Hahn stated that the recreational needs are not considered for new development -
only the park needs. He noted that the City must ensure that what is built during the
development process will be affordable and sustainable into the future.
Mr. Reiner stated that with new higher density housing with surrounding common
space, including a pool or recreational facility the residents can walk to will save money
on the infrastructure needs generated by development for the City. These communities
are viable if there is something to walk to. In Westhaven, the residents have the ability
to walk to shop or to a rec center via bike trails and walking paths. The developer
focuses on density and land costs, but the City should be more involved in these issues
and looking ahead.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2446
Page 3
Ms. Salay stated that she believes that is the focus of this master plan process. She
understands what he is saying about Muirfield, but Muirfield is completely private; na
one outside of Muirfield can use those amenities. The focus tonight is not on what
private development brings, but on what the City can provide for all citizens. Tartan
West has a private element, but it also includes a large public portion. She would
prefer that rec centers be public versus exclusive to those who live in a development.
In the future, it would be preferable to encourage land dedication for parkland or
schools, libraries, etc. rather than private amenities for private development. There
should be a focus on the future needs of residents for amenities.
Mr. Reiner responded that he views the situation differently. If a large, private
development comes to Dublin, why should the taxpayers finance a recreation center or
pool within that community to primarily serve that development? The community should
be deliberately designed with a facility its residents can walk ta. The City's objective
should be to avoid drawing traffic from different parts of the City to use a recreation
facility built with the Tartan West community. Is the City Parks division involved in the
community planning process?
Mr. Hahn stated that one objective of this plan is to understand what private
development is offering in order to determine any lack the City may need to fill. That is
the reason LifeTime Fitness recently was added - to provide a diversity in fitness,
pools, and other components.
Ms. Salay inquired if LifeTime Fitness could be considered a competitor of the
Community Recreation Center. Will the Rec Center membership decrease due to the
other option?
Mr. Hahn responded that LifeTime Fitness and Muirfield Pool are complementary -
they fill niches of need. In turn, the City should strive to find the right niche for its
services, to meet additional demand and to provide services not provided by other
public or private facilities.
Mr. Reiner stated that LifeTime Fitness, the Tartan West facility, and Muirfield Pool
reduce stress on the City's recreation facilities. As the City grows, it would be
beneficial to continue to provide additional fitness facilities to address mounting
pressure on the City's recreation center fitness equipment. They work as "relief
valves," enabling the City's facilities not to suffer from over-use and high stress, and
allowing them to remain user friendly.
Mr. Hahn stated that in those areas where the private facilities do not meet the
threshold of need, the City can be responsive to the additional needs.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2446
Page 4
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would be concerned about the model of
funding, the model of development for C-3 - "Recreation Facilities -additional,
expansion, renovation." There is more than one model. Even though there may be a
current void, various recreation centers have been developed throughout the states of
Ohio and Indiana. Many local governments have chosen to recruit a YMCA to their
communities, thereby providing the amenity but not operating the facility. The land is
provided to facilitate construction of the facility, but the memberships are not
subsidized by the government. She stated that staff needs to be cognizant of the need
to present the different models all of which accomplish the provision of recreation for
the community. In Dublin, the City is initiating the plan, and conducting the
assessment, development and ultimate plan. When citizens see the City develop a
master plan, they also assume the City will also execute the plan. It would be good to
ensure that during the public meetings that will occur in this process the public is
educated regarding the alternative financing opportunities that exist. It is important to
determine the threshold at which citizens are willing to pay. Although Y memberships
are not inexpensive, the memberships are always full. The advantage to those
memberships is that they are valid at any Y facility. Membership at the City's recreation
center is limited to a single City facility.
Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that Council has discussed this issue previously.
Although the survey may identify the potential recreational needs of the community, it is
another issue of what level of services the local government will provide. There is a
limit to what the City can provide. While he appreciates Mr. Refiner's view, it may not
be practical to ask the developer to agree to provide future physical facilities. A
development of 244-340 acres will be the exception, not the rule, and it would require a
development on the scale of Ballantrae or Tartan West to accommodate that type of
requirement. Actually, the Tartan West facility was not built for that community alone.
They are already recruiting the greater community for memberships to support that
facility, as it cannot be supported by Tartan West residents alone. He does agree that
the positive aspect of the Tartan West and LifeTime Fitness facilities is that they do
reduce the stress on the municipal recreation center. Depending on where a proposed
development might be located, it could be possible to identify another pool site.
Generally speaking, however, it would be not be practical to require that every future
development be planned accordingly.
Mr. Reiner responded that he agrees with the Mayor's comment that the City should
look at as many outside funding options as possible. Currently, the City is subsidizing
the pools with the taxpayers' money.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that while the City has one recreation center, the
current City policy regarding the subsidy of costs is affordable. If there should be a
need for a second recreational facility in the future, that policy would have to be
revisited. Presumably, the numbers of membership would double, and the second
facility would need to be the same size as the first to be able to provide the same level
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2006
Page 5
of services. Another consideration that should be built into this plan is the extent of the
potential constituency. The City should not make large investments in areas that do
not serve a broad audience.
Mr. Earman stated that one area of study is the recreation center. Is building an
additional facility the answer? If not, should the existing center be renovated to better
accommodate the evolving needs of the community?
Ms. Salay suggested that it could be helpful to look at the busiest program areas -
pool, fitness floor, etc. When the recreation center opened, an expansion was needed
almost immediately due to the demand. If a particular program or area in the recreation
center is overused, a second, smaller facility focusing on that particular program could
be built.
Mr. Earman concurred that a satellite facility would be an option.
Ms. Salay noted that, for examples, a dance studio providing spinning, yoga, and
aerobic classes with a fitness floor with various equipment would relieve the full-service
recreation center.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that is exactly what the Sawmill Athletic Center has
done with their soon to open new center. After 27 years, it is now changing their focus
in recognition that its members want something different.
Mr. Earman stated that concludes the specific areas of study. He invited general
discussion.
Mr. Hahn stated that Area C was an area for which staff wanted feedback from Council,
as those items may not be essential to the plan. Also, feedback is needed from Council
regarding 64 - "Needs of Surrounding Communities," as the lack of amenities provided
in the surrounding community would have an impact on Dublin's facilities.
Ms. Salay stated that as the City goes through the Community Plan update, certain
areas of the two plans should dovetail. The City should identify the areas within its
boundaries to be preserved, such as woodlands, stream corridors, historical farm
buildings -probably in the outlying, undeveloped, future annexation areas. In the
southwest, there is the connection with the Washington Township section that reaches
to Rings Road. Below that, there is a wooded area and a stream. Is this where the
City would want an open space corridor? Not only would it connect with this area, but it
would connect with Darree, the COIC corridor, and ultimately, the Metrapark. One
thing that will make Dublin unique 30 years from now is its open space and the
connectivity of that. The ability to access the bikepath at any point in the community
and enjoy a continuous ride, connecting to all the neighborhoods in Dublin will set this
community apart.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2446
Page 6
Mr. Reiner stated that there is some discussion regarding Columbus constructing an
outer perimeter bikepath along Riverside Drive and the Scioto River. Is it conceivable
this could happen same time within the next several years?
Mr. Hahn responded that he is not certain what Columbus will be able to do in that
area. It is more conceivable that the bikepath system to the west will be constructed -
there, the townships will be working with Metro Parks to accomplish that. Communities
throughout the state are building bikepaths. Residents use the bikepaths. It is not an
amenity in which interest wanes after a time. Cooperation among Central Ohio entities
to provide connecting bikepath systems is improving.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Dublin needs to complete its bikepath system,
connecting any unserved pockets, in the very near future. Dublin has a good park
system, but currently there are small areas throughout the city that are missing the
sidewalk and bikepath links. That presents a safety issue for residents attempting to
access the parks in those areas -defeating what Council is trying to promote. She
requested that a concentrated effort be made in the CIP to complete that project.
Ms. Salay stated that the City is designing shopping plazas with pedestrian plazas, yet
there is no safe access for pedestrianslbikers. It would be much easier to resolve
these issues during construction rather than trying to retrofit them at a later date.
Mr. Keenan responded that he has a similar access problem at this office. To reach the
Burgundy Room on the other side of the road is difficult. A primary, scenic roadway in
Dublin is Brand Road, which is completely unsafe for bikers and pedestrians. It is
problematic because of ownership issues and the stream location, but it would be a
desirable area to connect for the residents.
Ms. Salay applauded staff on the plan, which hopefully will accomplish much for the
residents.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she was not an advocate for having three high
schools in the City. Campus-style schools would have been as efficient and less costly
for the community, and would have achieved a more unified sense of community. She
mentions that only because of the parallel here. A sense of community would be better
promoted through a central athletic complex than multiple satellite sites, even if it would
require an additional building on that site. It would also be less costly administratively
to oversee. The only exception would be additional swimming pools, which probably
would need to be located elsewhere. The schools now have a situation in which the
residents expect the same amenities at each high school, rather than allowing each
school to be different, thereby influencing a family's choice of which school their
children attend. The Dublin community is sensitive to divisions, so developing
additional athletic opportunities should be pursued with that in mind.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2006
Page 7
Ms. Salay responded that this issue was recently handled very well with the
construction of the South Pool. The North and South pools are very different but are
equally utilized by the residents.
Arts in Public Places
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Plan Item #7, "Arts in Public Places," is a vital
issue to address. One question would be the criteria for the "public art". She believes
it is not necessary that future public art be of the same size as the existing public art.
Mr. Earman agreed. There should be a 10-year plan, which also provides the criteria
needed for placement.
Mr. Keenan suggested that the Veterans project could conceivably have been handled
within this process. It will probably be completed before this plan is finalized, however.
Mr. Hahn responded that the site-specific decisions should be completed by next
month.
Mr. Keenan noted that at the last committee meeting, the potential project sites were
narrowed to four.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired whether staff needs specific direction.
Mr. Hahn responded that staff would like feedback -- confirmation that the plan focus is
"an target" with Council. Feedback from the community has also been solicited by
means of the City website.
Ms. Salay noted that she would be interested in receiving reports on that feedback.
Mr. Hahn responded that staff is compiling the input, which to date, indicates
community support.
Ms. Salay stated that there are few negative comments about the City's park system.
Mr. Earman noted that he is interested in educating the community about the fact that
recreation is a significant part of this plan.
Mr. McCash suggested that C2- "Need for Competitive Indoor Aquatic Facility" be
eliminated. It can be addressed in C3 - "Recreation Facilities."
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that whenever a plan is developed for any purpose
which then identifies the "needs," the community believes that all identified needs must
be met. Therefore, it must be clarified that neither timelines nor the responsible party
for implementation are identified. It may not be the City who should meet a need. The
community's needs are independent, separate from the City's recreational program
needs.
Dublin City Council Study Session
Monday, June 12, 2006
Page 8
Ms. Salay responded that it could be tied back to the schools. Although the recreation
center natatorium serves the City's needs, the needs of the three competitive high
school programs are another matter, which is the School District's responsibility to
address. Of course, each high school has a desire for its own natatorium.
Mr. McCash responded that the difficulty is there seems to be a trend to shift the
responsibility to the City.
Ms. Salay responded that it is necessary to be better partners with the other
stakeholders in the community and clearly communicate that the City has done its best
to provide for the community's needs, and that the School District needs to investigate
possible alternatives to accommodate its competitive swim programs. LifeTime Fitness
could be a part of their solution.
Mr. Reiner noted that they are a private facility.
Ms. Salay stated that the Schools could partner with the private facility.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why the City would conduct a study to identify the
recreation facility needs for the school district. If it's the school district's responsibility,
they should commission the study.
Mr. Earman noted that is why C2 has been listed as a "potential" need, in order to bring
up the discussion of whether it is or is not a community need.
Mr. Hahn stated that if Council prefers, the item could be eliminated.
Council consensus was to remove C2 from the Plan.
Mr. Earman noted that the corresponding sections would also be removed.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that C6 - "Historical Museum" should remain, but
"where" will be the question.
As there was no further discussion, Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher adjourned the meeting at
9:03 p. m.
Submitted by:
Clerk of Council