Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-11 CDC MinutesCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Minutes of Meeting Mr. Reiner, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in Council Chambers. Committee members present were Mr. Reiner, Vice Mayor Salay, and Mrs. Boring. Staff members present were: Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Earman, Ms. Colley and Ms. Rauch. Mr. Reiner stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review the 2011 Proposed Action Items submitted by the various boards and commissions, which Council has referred to the Community Development Committee for review. To expedite the review, as he reads each item on the list, Committee members will determine whether they wish to: (1) recommend approval by Council; (2) modify the proposed action and recommend approval by Council; or (3) reject the proposed action. Mrs. Boring noted that with the first three bodies — ARB, BZA and PZC, there are three items of an educational /training nature that have been identified as overlapping between these boards. She would like to consider those training items first. Ms. Colley stated that PZC, BZA and ARB overlap with the proposed item of developing criteria for an "effective site visit." Planning has suggested this could be a three -group exercise, which Ms. Roush can address in more detail. Vice Mayor Salay responded that suggestion has merit, as the three bodies might be able to learn from one another. Between the three, many years of experience exist. One exercise could be giving them a development plan, and then letting them see how that plan translates to the completed construction on a site. One exercise for all three would be better than three different exercises. Ms. Rauch stated that was the vision — to conduct something together. If it is something that overlaps two boards, that would also work. Committee consensus was to combine the following points: ARB — points #7 and #8, BZA — point #1, and PZC — point #3 and staff to plan the group exercise; and recommend Council approval of the those items as so modified. Ms. Colley noted that in addition to the Committee's recommendations to approve or reject these items to Council, the Committee may also request additional information from staff, if needed, for clarification. Some of the Boards do not have regular work assignments for each meeting. They are waiting to receive assignments and begin work on them. Anything the Committee might request tonight, including additional information if needed, is welcomed. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Prioritized 2011 Items of Interest 1. APPENDIX FOR HISTORICAL PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 2 of 20 Compile and update the City's historic inventory for properties outside the Historic District's boundaries and include information on the year the structure was built, the style of architecture, and the historical significance. Ms. Salay stated that she recalls seeing such a list, so it should be easy to build upon that. Ms. Rauch responded that the Zoning Code contains that list. The intent was to update it. Mr. Reiner inquired if ARB could do this work, or would it fall to staff. Ms. Rauch responded that most of the items would involve staff time at some level. The goal is to work with ARB, using their ideas and expertise where possible. There is a research component that ARB may be able to work on, although staff would work with them. Mrs. Boring noted that for all these items, the Committee will want to know the amount of staff time involved and if expenditure of that time would be prudent. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of ARB Item #1. 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Determine means to incorporate sustainable practices into development and redevelopment of structures and sites within the District with an emphasis on preserving historic character. Ms. Salay stated that this seems to be a common interest among the various boards and commissions — CSAC, PRAC, ARB and BZA. Is there a way to address this in a collaborative manner? The City has a Sustainability Coordinator. Mr. Reiner stated that this is an issue that applies to all bodies of review, covering new construction, old construction, permeability of streets, rain gardens, etc. Was this item proposed by a board member? Ms. Rauch responded that it was. As the Board reviews projects, sometimes proposals are made for projects that are more sustainable. The question that arises is how they can evaluate these projects, without criteria or guidelines to guide them in evaluating sustainable components, while retaining the historic character of the structures. There is a need to achieve a balance between the two. Ms. Salay inquired if there is ARB specificity to this item that may not apply for the other Boards' review. Ms. Rauch responded that there is a common interest between the three Boards, but ARB is requesting specificity for how ARB can address it. Perhaps the educational component of this issue could be addressed in a collaborative fashion. In the future, specificity could be provided for each of the Boards. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 3 of 20 Mr. Reiner inquired if the sustainability education could be accomplished in a 45 -60 minute seminar. Mrs. Boring stated that PZC has also listed an interest in the "Historic Dublin Urban Tree Care Survival Plan." She does not believe they are looking for the "big picture" given in a seminar, but for Dublin to provide clear direction of its goal. ARB could then use that in their consideration and rulings on future projects. Ms. Rauch responded that she believes that is their end goal; P &Z was recommending a Code provision. They have had some recent developments in the Historic District, and there was a need for appropriate requirements for urban tree survival in urban areas. They were looking for specific guidelines, but that can be incorporated into whatever the Committee recommends. If the preference is first for some baseline education, that can then be followed up with more specific guidelines for the individual bodies. Mr. Reiner inquired if a comprehensive education seminar providing the latest LEED techniques and more would be satisfactory. Mrs. Boring responded that she would not be interested in that direction. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes they are asking for direction regarding how all the new sustainability practices fit with ARB's function. The Historic District has a specific character. How can ARB consider "green" roofs or solar panels at the same time as maintaining the historic characteristics of the structure? As property owners in that district undertake remodelings of those structures, they may want to incorporate some energy- efficient components and achieve a greener, more sustainable building. ARB wants to balance that with preserving historic character. Mr. Reiner stated that some of those items would be covered by the new sustainability practices. Some issues, such as rain barrels and rain gardens would be applicable to both PZC and ARB. Mrs. Boring stated that those new practices would need to be blended into what the City is currently doing. The current LEED building recommendations are not really something ARB can use until Council implements some of those standards. Vice Mayor Salay stated that there are likely people working on this very issue. Dublin is not the only community with a historic district and an ARB that must consider sustainable issues. She understands ARB's request for this item and does not object to it. The matrix notes that this item overlaps with PZC #2 and CSAC #6. However, she does not see an overlap with PZC's item -- a Historic Dublin Urban Tree Care Survival Plan is different. Could staff propose some items that would specifically relate to ARB? Ms. Rauch responded that this is an item that ARB could definitely take the lead on. There are two architects and a Natural Resources person on the Board. Staff can Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 4 of 20 work with them to determine the items they would be interested in incorporating, and then determine if those would require a Code modification or inclusion in the guidelines. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of ARB Item #2. 3. HISTORIC DUBLIN DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE Update the Guidelines in order to provide more direction and information on appropriate elements for the District. The proposed Zoning Code update will likely incorporate elements of the current Historic Dublin Design Guidelines that are appropriate for regulatory language. Review of recent cases has identified the need for clearer criteria on what is appropriate for use in the District and to the different types of architectural style. Vice Mayor Salay noted that this item must have been identified after the extended review involved with the cottage on Riverview. Were they able to develop a compromise with what the property owner wanted to do and the City's Code requirements? Ms. Rauch responded that they were able to identify a nice compromise between the City Code and guidelines and the intent of the property owner for a usable space. The ARB is very interested in this update, but it may involve more labor from a staff perspective and it will involve extensive re- writing. However, this would ultimately make the guidelines more useful to the average person. Mr. Reiner inquired if the process would involve staff discussion with ARB to identify the areas that need to be updated. Ms. Rauch responded that the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are separated into several sections, from Commercial Buildings, Infill Projects, Details of Architecture, Landscaping, Signs, etc. Given the magnitude of detail included, this would be a long -term project, requiring a minimum of one year to complete. Mr. Reiner inquired if staff has the necessary time to devote to the project. Ms. Rauch responded that she believes they do. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if the timing is appropriate for this update, in consideration of the ongoing Bridge Street Corridor development. Ms. Rauch responded that it would be the appropriate time. Staff can ensure this update is coordinated appropriately with the recommendations for the Bridge Street Corridor. This is not a codified document. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of ARB Item #3. 4. INVENTORY OF HISTORICAL PROPERTIES IN DISTRICT Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 5 of 20 Update the City's historic inventory for properties within the Historic District and include information on the year the structure was built, the style of architecture and the historical significance. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes the City already has this inventory. Ms. Rauch responded that the City does have an inventory. This would be an update. Some structures no longer exist, so an update is needed. Mr. Reiner inquired who utilizes this information. Ms. Rauch responded that this information is used to understand the historic background on a structure, to determine if proposed major modifications are in keeping with the original structure. Mrs. Boring inquired if the City has a policy regarding updates to the inventory. Ms. Rauch responded that there is no formal policy. She believes the last time it was updated was 6 -7 years ago. There have been few changes, however. Perhaps part of this update could be to establish a policy regarding ongoing updates. Mr. Reiner inquired if this would be totally a staff project. Ms. Rauch responded that it would. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Board could provide input regarding their expectations of the end product. Ms. Rauch responded that staff could definitely incorporate their feedback. Mrs. Boring inquired if a past example of how this information has been used would be the review of the pizza shop application to add on to the rear of their building. Ms. Rauch confirmed that would be an example of the use. In ARB's planning reports, information is included on the historic background of the site. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of ARB Item #4. 5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXCELLENCE AWARD Recognize noteworthy individuals and projects that highlight outstanding rehabilitations, renovations, appropriate in -fill design, and other preservation- focused projects with the City of Dublin. Mr. Reiner stated that he would not support this becoming an annual award, because in some years there are no really great projects. At those times, the award would be given for something less outstanding than in other years. On the other hand, if the desire is to give recognition to an architectural masterpiece, the suggestion has merit. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she does not believe staff should spend time on this. If ARB wants to do this, she does not object, but really believes it would be better to consider at a future time. ARB now has five items recommended for action. This item does not rise to a level of high priority for her. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 6 of 20 Mrs. Boring concurred. Does the City continue to present an annual landscaping award? Mr. Hahn responded that the recognition program had been suspended, as primarily lawn businesses were applying for the recognition. Mr. Reiner stated that perhaps ARB could develop the criteria and make the recognition on an "as deemed appropriate" basis. Vice Mayor Salay stated that, in that case, the item should be deferred to the last six months of the year or the beginning of next year. There is already sufficient work on their list. Committee consensus was to recommend Council disapproval of ARB Item #5. 6. SIGNS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT Identify potential regulations for signs in the Historic Business District that would also apply to Planned Unit Development Districts located within the Historic District that will provide consistency while recognizing the unique character of the District. Mrs. Boring stated that this effort should be coordinated with the Bridge Street Corridor Project to ensure blending in an area. Ms. Rauch responded this was discussed at their last Board meeting. They have an application for a property directly across the street from BriHi, which is a PUD and able to have more signage or different signage than someone not in a planned district. ARB was interested in evaluating the signage regulations for PUDs in the Historic District versus signage regulations for standard districts. Because the signage Code is being reviewed with the Bridge Street Corridor project, ARB believed this would be a good time to look at this. Mrs. Boring inquired if staff looks favorably on this type of review by ARB. Ms. Rauch responded that they do. ARB has the background and criteria by which to conduct this review. Mr. Reiner noted that there are temporary, folding signs that some of the business owners in the District object to. Could staff look into more interesting temporary signage? Some of the businesses in the Historic District have suffered recent losses, and Council's goal is to sustain those businesses. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of ARB Item #6. [Committee action taken above on following ARB Items # 7 and #8.1 7. SITE PLAN REVIEW EXERCISE Cover the basics of the site plan review process, including what is required on site plans, procedures for reviewing plans, and using appropriate standards. Examine a detailed site plan and learn about translating Code requirements to detailshissues Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 7 of 20 and gain a better understanding of how each reviewer views site issues and understand the variety of means available to address them. Committee consensus was to combine the following points: ARB — points #7 and #8, BZA — point #1, and PZC — point #3 and staff to plan the group exercise; and recommend Council approval of the those items as so modified. 8. CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE SITE VISIT Part of the application review process involves physically visiting the site in question to evaluate the proposal based on site - related issues or constraints. Learn how to conduct an effective site visit, including what to look for, what to bring with you, and proper protocol when dealing with property owners. Examine pre- construction and post- construction sites to compare "on the ground" to perceptions gained through the development review and approval process. Committee consensus was to combine the following points: ARB — points #7 and #8, BZA — point #1, and PZC — point #3 and staff to plan the group exercise; and recommend Council approval of the those items as so modified. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) 2011 Prioritized Items of Interest 1. CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE SITE VISIT Part of the application review process involves physically visiting the site in question to evaluate the proposal based on site - related issues or constraints. Board members will learn how to conduct effective site visits, and would examine pre- and post - construction sites to compare what is "on the ground" with perceptions gained through the development review process. [Committee action taken above.1 Committee consensus was to combine the following points: ARB — points #7 and #8, BZA — point #1, and PZC — point #3 and staff to plan the group exercise; and recommend Council approval of the those items as so modified. 2. ZONING CODE UPDATE OVERVIEW Since the job of the Board of Zoning Appeals member includes extensive use and analysis of the Dublin Zoning Code, Board members were interested in learning more about the intended goals and objectives of the upcoming Code update process. Because the 2009 list was approved, Land Use and Long Range Planning has shifted the approach to updating the Zoning Code. Instead of updating the entire Code, specific sections of the Zoning Code are being targeted for updating in line with specific objectives of City Council. Because the approach has changed, Planning recommends modifying this item to LEARNING AND APPLYING BASIC ZONING TERMS. Planning would assist Board members with identifying some Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 8 of 20 specific regulations, such as setback variances or nonconformities, that the Board members deal with regularly and conduct in depth training about the purpose and intent of the regulations and different ways that they are regulated in other communities. Ms. Rauch stated that the Zoning Code Update has been modified to having the Board look at things it specifically reviews, such as setback encroachments and other types of variance requests. This reflects primarily training for them regarding how they review applications. Mrs. Boring inquired if this would be another training item. Ms. Rauch responded that it would. Mr. Reiner inquired how the training would be conducted. Ms. Rauch responded that there have not been many BZA cases lately; therefore, the training can be conducted in their regular meetings. Mrs. Boring expressed support for this training, as this is often needed by a new appointee. Perhaps the information could evolve into a training booklet that could be provided to new members. It could be updated on an ongoing basis. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of BZA Item #2. 3. GREEN DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES AND INITIATIVES Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals are interested in learning more about how the City of Dublin intends to implement more "green" development techniques and sustainable initiatives both in the development process and in other City operations. Vice Mayor Salay stated that this item would be similar to ARB's Item #2. Ms. Rauch stated that BZA was less specific in what they wished to achieve. Planning staff could work with the Sustainability Coordinator and have information on sustainability techniques presented to the Board. Vice Mayor Salay stated that presentation may also be beneficial for PZC and for Council. Mrs. Boring stated that the understanding is that staff will develop a presentation for BZA. One suggestion is that this could be a series separated into more than one session. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of BZA Item #3. 4. MOCK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING The Board of Zoning Appeals hears many challenging cases that revolve around complex zoning issues. The objective of holding a mock Board of Zoning Appeals Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 9 of 20 meeting would be to practice applying effective case analysis, meeting protocol, and other logistical issues that the Board deals with on a regular basis. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would be good to involve the Law Department with this item. They could give guidance to BZA on how to make a good record — what to say /not say, include /not include. The BZA has less discretion in the matters it hears, because it is a quasi judicial body. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of BZA Item #4. Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) 2011 Prioritized Items of Interest A DATABASE OF CITY STUDIES, CIP PROJECTS, & PLANNING DISTRICTS Objective: Propose a way for the City to share with other departments and the public, the different studies and CIP projects that are taking place at any one time and a way to continuously provide status updates. The goal would be to be able to see the overlay studies, CIP projects, and /or planning districts that are occurring for a particular area. So, as a development application comes forward, it would be evident which different initiatives impact that parcel. Adding this study data to GIS would allow Dublin residents to see all studies/districts/plans for particular areas of the City. Ms. Rauch stated that this item would be very labor intensive. This is a lot of information to pull together. It is possible, but very comprehensive. When the Commission reviews a project, they want to understand all the things going on around the site or affecting the site — roadway improvements, new City park, etc. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if staff does not already provide all this information in the staff planning report for the project. Are they looking for a separate item? What form would this take? Ms. Rauch responded that she believes they were interested in having something the public could access — perhaps a GIS layer that showed information on activity around a parcel. Vice Mayor Salay stated that this is labor intensive, and something that would need constant updating. Mrs. Boring inquired if this would also include the Community Plan's intent for that area. Ms. Rauch responded that it would. That information is always given in staffs planning report, and typically, graphics similar to the zoning map and a list of contiguous property owners. However, they want something more comprehensive. This would definitely be a staff - driven effort. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Reiner stated that it appears that there is already sufficient information provided in their packets. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that perhaps that needs to be clarified by giving direction to staff to provide this type of information within the planning reports, so that PZC will have as much information as possible. Mrs. Boring noted that these planning reports are available online to the public. Vice Mayor Salay stated that, in addition, the Planning staff is always willing to compile as much information as possible on any site of interest to a member of the public. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes that at some point in the future, this type of database will be possible, but unfortunately, it is not feasible at this time. Committee consensus was that PZC Item #1 be amended to have the Planning & Zoning Commission inform staff if they would like another topic addressed as a standard in their planning reports for the cases, the same case information to also be provided to any member of the public upon request; recommend Council approval of PZC Item #1. as amended. Mr. Reiner noted that each Commission member should also be visiting each site and conducting their own site analysis before the case is heard. 2. HISTORIC DUBLIN URBAN TREE CARE SURVIVAL PLAN Objective: Creating and implementing a plan that specifically addresses the plant, planting media selection and short/long term care and maintenance of trees within urban areas in the City. Vice Mayor Salay stated that this would be under the purview of the City Forester, not PZC. It would be more appropriate for ARB than PZC. What is the concern that precipitated this item? Ms. Rauch responded that it was related to a particular project in the Historic District On Bridge Street and High Street there is a narrow sidewalk, plus trees and grates. It is important to ensure the best care, soil, etc. to ensure the survivability of the trees. PZC is suggesting a more comprehensive look at the Zoning Code's requirements for more urban areas. Mr. Reiner stated that what they are requesting are landscape specifications for a compressed area, such as a street environment, which is different. Vice Mayor Salay stated that when a development comes forward, and it will be the responsibility of someone other than the City to plant these trees, then the Forester should provide guidelines /best practices to be used by the developer to ensure the long -term survival of the trees. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 11 of 20 Mr. Reiner stated that is correct, but it would not happen when a job is bid. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if the City would need to have specific regulations. Mr. Reiner stated that what staff needs to do is write a specification and a detail for urban street trees, and name the streets within that designated area. Mrs. Boring inquired if this item would be more appropriate for CSAC. They have reviewed tree and landscaping issues before. While she has respect for staff's expertise, there have been certain tree issues in which citizens were very involved and suggested different plans that worked. She believes it would be appropriate for a commission to provide a review. Mr. Reiner stated that Bill Sherman serves on CSAC. He is a landscape architect; he knows how to draw this specification and include the appropriate verbiage. Vice Mayor Salay noted that Mr. Sherman provided the ideas for saving the honey locusts. Mr. Hahn stated that this issue would not be limited to the Historic District only. If the entire Bridge Street Corridor is developed with the anticipated densities and streetscapes, these regulations will be very applicable to that primarily urban environment. With the BriHi Square, store - bought soils were used underneath the street grates. This type of design was taken into consideration. Mrs. Boring stated that such regulations would not be limited to the Historic District. They would be applicable to other areas of higher density. Ms. Rauch responded that the reference to the Historic District would be removed. Mr. Reiner stated that any urban environment would have a different specification. Those involve much more expensive installations. Mr. Hahn responded that it is significantly more expensive, and that is why this must involve an evaluation of diminishing returns. Mr. Reiner stated that it is much easier to require the installation be done appropriately and have a tree survive than replace it repeatedly. Committee consensus was to expand the scope to pertain to all urban areas; recommend Council approval of PRAC Item #2 and Council referral to CSAC. Mrs. Boring requested that the related environmental items be combined. 3. DEVELOPMENT SITE VISITS Objective Examine pre- construction and post- construction sites to compare "on the ground" to perceptions gained through the development review and approval process to strengthen each Commissioner's perspective of a project as drawn on paper and how it actually looks once constructed. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 12 of 20 Committee consensus was to combine the following points: ARB — points #7 and #8, BZA — point #1, and PZC — point #3 and staff to plan the group exercise; and recommend Council approval of the those items as so modified. Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) Prioritized 2011 Items of Interest 1. REVIEW COMPONENTS OF THE CITY'S SUSTAINABILITY PLAN(S) AS THEY ARE BEING DEVELOPED. Mr. Reiner inquired if staff considered this an appropriate item for CSAC. Ms. Crandall responded that it would be. It is on an "as things come along basis," and a little more focused on the City's internal operational sustainability plan than the City -wide Planning /Development component. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of CSAC Item #1. 2. FOLLOW -UP REGARDING RETENTION /DETENTION BASINS (PREVIOUS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CSAC). Ms. Crandall stated that in 2009 CSAC looked at the topic of retention /detention basins, both those owned and maintained by the City and those owned and maintained by HOAs. One of the recommendations that resulted was to provide education to HOAs who own and maintain basins and to conduct inspections. CSAC is inquiring the status of the resulting program and if any further recommendations might be needed from CSAC. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if anything further is required. Council acted upon their recommendations and staff proceeded accordingly. What is the current status? Ms. Crandall responded that she did not know. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that staff look into this. Mr. Reiner inquired if CSAC is interested in questions such as proper management of weed growth. Depending on how that occurs, the results can be either weeds or something that is aesthetically pleasing. That depends upon both the design and the subsequent management. It's a landscape architecture /engineering project. Ms. Crandall responded that CSAC is interested in whether or not an inspection program is in place to evaluate if the basins are working properly, and if education is being provided to the HOAs. Mrs. Boring stated that CSAC made recommendations. They are requesting follow - up, which is reasonable. Mr. Reiner stated that he would need to refer to recommendations made at that time. Ms. Crandall responded that staff would forward copies to the Committee. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 13 of 20 Mrs. Boring inquired why those recommendations would be needed if Council has already approved them. Ms. Crandall responded that she believes some of CSAC's recommendations were approved, others were not. Mrs. Boring stated that the update should review those recommendations that were adopted versus those that were not, and the status in regard to those adopted. Mr. Reiner inquired what direction Council gave in regard to the inspections. Mr. Hahn stated Council decided that in regard to those owned and maintained by the HOA association, if the actual infrastructure of those basins started to deteriorate, conducting the needed assessment might be too great a financial burden to the HOA. He believes that Council's decision was that if it really was a stormwater function, the City would assume responsibility for those components of the basin and, periodically, those basins would be inspected by the Division of Engineering. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she recalls that it was a decision based upon whether they were part of the stormwater utility. Mr. Hahn responded that was the decision, and now, CSAC is inquiring about the status of the City's programs that resulted. Is the City adhering to Council's previous direction? Mr. Reiner stated that both the Commission and the Committee need to know the status on the education and inspections. Ms. Crandall noted that staff would follow up with an update for the Committee. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of CSAC Item #2. 3. AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND AS ASSIGNED BY COUNCIL, WORK ON RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE BICYCLE ADVISORY TASK FORCE (BATF). Mr. Reiner inquired if any recommendations had been forwarded to CSAC. Ms. Crandall responded that they have not. CSAC was identified in the resolution establishing the BATF as a potential group to whom assignments could be forwarded. However, one of BATF's recommendations to Council will likely be to retain a smaller BATF group on an ongoing basis. Therefore, it may be that CSAC review of bicycle - related issues would not be needed. Mr. Reiner stated that would depend upon the workload of BATF. BATF has considered adding people to perform certain tasks, but CSAC could be used for that Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 14 of 20 purpose instead. BATF has not progressed to that point. BATF is anticipating applying for the "Bicycle Friendly" designation in June -July 2011. Mrs. Boring inquired Council's previous intent for including possible CSAC review in the BATF resolution. Ms. Crandall responded that she believes it was for either BATF or Council to refer potential items to CSAC, if additional help were needed by BATF — dependent upon the scope of the BATF recommendations. Vice Mayor Salay stated that if BATF specifically requests CSAC to review an item, that would be acceptable, but she would not want CSAC to become another layer for the BATF. It would be frustrating for BATF to develop recommendations — all to go through another Board review. Ms. Crandall responded that she believes the intent was that if in the future BATF were to be dissolved, then CSAC could review items from time to time. Vice Mayor Salay responded that would be evaluated when the future of the BATF is known. A level of expertise is needed for these bicycle issues. It would either be necessary to appoint people with that expertise to CSAC or retain a smaller BATF group. Mr. Reiner stated that the training that Engineering provided to the BATF group was extensive — dozens of hours. He would recommend having some of those members continue to be available for community education /tours, etc. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of CSAC Item #3, applicable only should a BATF referral to CSAC be needed. Presentations - CSAC is interested in informational presentations regarding the following items. (Note that these would be for information only and would not result in recommendations back to Council, but could include suggestions /feedback for the staff to consider.) 4. SNOW /ICE OPERATIONS, WITH FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Boring noted that CSAC items #4 - #8 appear to be simple requests for education. Could the Committee recommend approval of all simultaneously? Vice Mayor Salay stated that would be acceptable, if staff time is available for this. Perhaps CSAC could prioritize the items. Mr. Reiner stated that he would add a caveat to that recommendation for environmental issues to be researched appropriately. For instance, with this item, Item #4, there are some opinions that sand should be used in place of salt. [Brief discussion regarding use of sand in snow /ice operations.] Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 15 of 20 Vice Mayor Salay stated that CSAC would be a good group to discuss the community's expectations on these issues. Mrs. Boring stated that it is necessary to be extremely cautious when discussing "green" options that do not have the benefit of long -term testing. 5. RAIN GARDENS AND RAIN BARRELS -NEW REQUIREMENTS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Mr. Reiner stated that Council has adopted riparian corridor legislation. Mr. Hahn responded that has occurred, and there is more protection today for riparian zones than existed in the past. Mr. Reiner inquired if setbacks now exist on all the stream corridors. Mr. Hahn responded that there are development restrictions on all the stream corridors and tributaries. They have all been inventoried with associated rules. Dublin's floodway regulations are stricter than State regulations. Mr. Reiner noted that Fairfax, Virginia has one of the best riparian corridor laws he is aware of. Perhaps CSAC could review Dublin's law and see if any update might be needed. 6. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN AS IT RELATES TO EMERALD ASH BORER 7. DUBLIN COMMUNITY WATCH PROGRAM OVERVIEW 8. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, FOCUSING ON WATER QUALITY IN DUBLIN AND UNDERSTANDING CENTRAL OHIO'S LARGER WATERSHED. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of CSAC Items #4 through #8 as prioritized by CSAC, as staff time permits. For CSAC Item #4, staff to look further into the environmental considerations and possible alternatives; for CSAC Item #8, staff to evaluate the need for a potential update to Dublin's riparian corridor regulations. Parks and Recreation Commission (PRAC) 2011 Prioritized Items of Interest PARKS NEEDS AND ISSUES REVIEW: Invite groups such as Dublin Youth Association (DYA), Dublin Soccer League (DSL), etc. to meet with PRAC to discuss parks issues and needs, both short term and long term. This would be different from the operations report PRAC currently get from DSL. Space needs analysis to determine if adequate facilities exist for activities such as programmed basketball, swimming, etc. Identify and prioritize parkland acquisition. Discuss parkland already purchased by the City, but has been leased back to individuals for non park use. How much City parkland has been leased to farmers? What is the most significant in size holding of this nature? What is the ultimate plan for these City holdings? Mr. Hahn stated that the intent was that if DYA and DSL were not able to demonstrate a need for additional facilities, that would negate the need for the next Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 16 of 20 portion of Item #1. The Parks Master Plan states that there is no need anticipated to acquire another park for recreational youth type of activities. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it is important to emphasize that the City's focus must be on recreational sports, not club or elite teams. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Parks Master Plan contains the criteria by which need is measured. Mr. Hahn responded that it does not quantify criteria for a need. It simply states that the City's policy is to support youth recreational sports, and given the projected demographics, it does not appear there will be a need to add an additional athletic field. Vice Mayor Salay noted that the club sports have become something different than they were traditionally, becoming more inclusive in regard to co -ed participation, younger age groups, and including other clubs from other communities. Mrs. Boring inquired staff's perspective if DYA or DSL expressed a need for more fields for recreational sports on the basis that club sports are taking all the available fields. Mr. Hahn stated that CSAC recognizes that there could be legitimate needs that are not being addressed; therefore, there should be an appropriate process for demonstration of those needs. Mrs. Boring stated that the City cannot meet the needs of everyone. She is concerned this would be heading down a path better to avoid. Staff is already managing this issue satisfactorily. Mr. Earman stated that the process in place to conduct need evaluation has been placed with DSL, and their Board is weighted toward the recreational program. DSL enters into one -year agreements with each of the club organizations in order to address issues on an annual basis. He is confident in DSL's handling of this issue. He does not see a significant increase in the number of youth playing soccer. There is a decline in the number of Dublin youth playing club soccer. This pushes more of the Dublin community toward the middle tier organizations and toward the recreational program. Committee consensus was to eliminate the first sentence in Item #1. Ms. Salay noted that any needs of the swim clubs are the school district's responsibility. Mr. Earman noted that the indoor sports needs are handled by DYA, and they primarily use school facilities to accommodate their programs. While the City will accommodate their needs infrequently, City facilities are not committed to that use as it takes away from the community's available facilities. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 17 of 20 Mr. Reiner inquired if staff's opinion was that the City has adequately covered the needs of other sports — swimming, basketball, etc. Mr. Earman responded that is a question for DYA. He meets with Jim Link frequently. He believes Mr. Link is finding a growing need for gymnasium space for his basketball program. He is not familiar with his arrangements with the schools, however. There could be a certain level of facility needs for recreational sports. The Committee consensus was that identifying and prioritizing parkland acquisition is a function of Council and not in the purview of PRAC. PRAC's effort in this area is counterproductive. Appropriate staff members bring to Council on a regular basis parkland acquisition recommendations. Mrs. Boring stated that parkland already purchased by the City and leased back to individuals for non park use and any current plans for that land is public information, and staff can provide that information to PRAC. Mr. Reiner inquired what parcels the land is comprised of. Mr. Hahn noted that approximately 150 acres of City -owned land is leased to farmers; most of it is not designated parkland. One hundred acres located contiguous to Darree Fields is land originally purchased for the attempted soccer stadium project. Another 25 acres at the southern end of Darree Fields is designated parkland and is leased for agriculture purposes. There are also a couple of other plots along Post Road -- Thomas parcels, on which lease agreements exist. Vice Mayor Salay noted that future plans for this land are an economic development issue. Mrs. Boring noted that it should be made clear that Council will determine when and if the use of that land will be changed at any time. That is not a matter for discussion with PRAC. Committee consensus was to recommend Council disapproval of PRAC Item #1. 2. CITY HIKING TRAILS: Create additional hiking trails, better publicize the trails and create programs that utilize the trails. More river access including paths and kayaking/canoe put ins and take outs. Mr. Reiner stated that he would like PRAC to identify (not create) areas of public land that would support additional hiking trails and river access points. Vice Mayor Salay stated that caution is needed regarding publicity. Anyone in the community can easily find out where the hiking trails are. Boldly marking the trails would increase the usage from outside the community and overburden the system. Mrs. Boring inquired the difference between hiking trails and bike paths. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 18 of 20 Mr. Hahn responded that this discussion was focused on more naturalized, hidden areas that are not well advertised. The intent was to make them more inviting and known — formalizing a game trail, but leaving it in a natural state. An example would be Amberleigh Community Park. Although it is not budgeted for this phase due to financial issues, a natural unpaved hiking trail will be included through the wooded section of Amberleigh Park. There may be some areas of town that are under served with natural hiking paths. Committee consensus was to replace word "create" with "identify" and to recommend Council approval of PRAC #2. 3. DOG PARK EXPANSION: Expand on the idea of the dog park at Darree Fields. There are a lot of neighborhood parks in Dublin, so maybe there could be some smaller versions of the dog park within neighborhoods. If the concept of a smaller version could be developed and then piloted at a neighborhood park, we could see how successful it would be. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the dog park at Darree Fields has been very successful, and identifying another similar site for an additional dog park would be fine. However, she would not support a pilot program in a neighborhood park. Committee consensus was to remove reference to a "neighborhood park" and replace with "suggestions for potential sites for additional dog parks;" and recommend Council approval of PRAC Item #3 as revised. 4. PUBLIC WI -FI EXPANSION: Expand public Wi -Fi. We have it at the recreation center, but we do not have it at the parks. Explore the idea of having public Wi -Fi available in some of the parks. Mr. Reiner stated that one goes to the park for recreation, to escape the technological world. Why bring this into Dublin's parks? Mr. Hahn responded that when this was proposed, there was a reference to Darree Fields and Avery Park. Patrons of those parks are sports spectators, typically not seeking relaxation. WiFi would permit them to conduct business while at the parks. Lunch time patrons could also benefit from WiFi availability. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the soccer clubs with mega tournaments in the City parks would love to have WiFi access for running their tournaments. Council has identified WiFi access as an economic development tool and the purpose for providing access. People have smart phones they can use at the parks. Committee consensus was to recommend Council disapproval of PRAC #4. 5. ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PARKS: Environmentally Friendly opportunities in the parks, such as more recycling bins in the parks and solar panels for electric in neighborhood shelters. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 19 of 20 Vice Mayor Salay inquired if most neighborhood shelters have lights. Mr. Hahn responded that most do not have lights; some have security lights which are installed if issues arise. However, those can be expensive. Regardless of the environmental issues, solar panels to provide electricity may be a good idea economically. Committee consensus was recommend Council approval of PRAC Item #5 6. ADULT ACTIVITY CENTER: Adult activity center within a park (not specified) which could include parking, restroom facilities, shelter area, storage building and activities such as shuffle board, low maintenance bocce ball courts with indoor /outdoor carpeting, horse shoe pits and pickle ball courts. Explore the possibility of Senior Group volunteers to help coordinate activities. Mrs. Boring inquired if the City already has some of these facilities. Mr. Hahn responded that the City does not have lower impact activities for seniors. Mr. Reiner inquired where, exclusive of the Rec Center, this could occur. Mr. Hahn responded that when this was suggested, his response was that this could be a good time because the City is in the process of updating the Coffman Park Master Plan. The field adjacent to the expanded Rec Center parking lot could be a potential site. The vision was an outdoor pod of low impact activities for older adults. Mr. Reiner inquired if there is evidence of this need. Mr. Earman responded that City surveys indicate a growing desire of the "boomer" age group for more opportunities for activities. Therefore, the idea has merit. Mr. Reiner asked where the City's aging population is primarily located. Mr. Earman responded that the survey was general. Specific communities related to this age group have not been identified at this point. Committee consensus was to recommend Council approval of PRAC Item #6 pending the completion and outcome of City discussion forums regarding the recreational needs of senior members of community (lower priority item). 7. 1- 270/US33 EAST BEAUTIFICATION: Look into possible beautification opportunities at 1 -270 and US33 East. Discuss SR 161 and 1 -270 corridor master plan regarding parkland and expansion of parks in that area. Mr. Hahn noted that the eastern part of this area is located within the Bridge Street Corridor study area. In the western portion, ODOT is also conducting studies with the US 33/1 -270 interchange. These studies could impact the layout of these roads and thus any beautification efforts today may be removed tomorrow. Mrs. Boring inquired if that was explained to PRAC. Mr. Hahn responded that it was. Community Development Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Page 20 of 20 Committee consensus was to recommend Council disapproval of PRAC #7. Mrs. Boring stated that PRAC was asked to prioritize preferred items from an earlier list, but half of the items on this priority list have been removed. Will they want to bring forward the items that were not included in the prioritized list? Mr. Hahn responded that likely they would, as the remaining items would constitute perhaps a half year of work. 8. ANNUAL SPRING CLEANUP: Pursue annual spring cleanup along the streams. Explore ideas such as "Adopt a Stream" for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, rotary clubs homeowners associations, etc., to include more community involvement Mrs. Boring stated that she found PRAC's previous item "M" interesting. What is staffs perspective? Mr. Hahn responded that he also had considered it a good idea. The "Adopt a Stream" spring cleanup would be a good rallying point, as that is when the City's streams look their worst with an accumulation of trash from the winter months. Mrs. Boring suggested that this item be added to PRAC's list to replace some of the items that were eliminated tonight. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if Scout troops would do the cleanup. Mr. Hahn responded that the PRAC member who suggested this item did not specify the groups who might do the work, just the idea of utilizing volunteers to do the stream cleaning. Committee consensus was to recommend Council inclusion and approval of PRAC #8. Mr. Reiner inquired the status of another item proposed by Council — an annual planting in the older section of the Historic District, similar to that of the City of Charlevoix, Michigan. Was that item referred to CSAC? Mr. Hahn responded that the item was proposed at the December Council meeting. It has been assigned internally by the City Manager. Information is being prepared for Council. Mrs. Boring noted that Council's recommendation was to use bed tax funds. Mr. Reiner requested staff to compile the Committee's recommendations for Council action at their February 14 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council