Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2005 Adopted CC Min Spc Mtg SPECIAL MEETING - APIUL 12. 2005 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Parks & Community Services Commission was held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, in the Regional Meeting Room of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. . ROIJ. CAIJ. PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart Commissioners Cain, nores, Guarienti, Jones, and Muetterties ABSENT: Commissioner Smith . STUDY SESSION - FACIU11ES FEASIBU1Y STUDY 7:03 pm (File # 210-30/215-30) Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and advised that the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program included funding for the design and construction of a Recreation and Aquatic Complex in Emerald Glen Park. The City retained the services of The Sports Management Group to conduct a feasibility study, financial analysis and conceptual space plan for the new Recreation and Aquatic Complex. The Sports Management Group is concurrently conducting a programming study of the new Community Centers planned for Shannon and Emerald Glen Parks. After the presentation and discussion facilitated by The Sports Management Group, in which the Council and Parks & Community Services Commission will consider various development options for both parks, the City Council will provide direction to Staff regarding preferred sizes and space components for both proposed community centers, design and construction components and priorities, and remaining steps in the public input process. Lauren Livingston, The Sports Management Group, made a PowerPoint presentation and outlined the community needs assessment, which was done in order to determine community interest in and demand for various potential community, recreation and aquatics facilities. Focus Group sessions and web surveys indicated that most residents felt that Dublin was an excellent community; there was a high need for increased social, recreational and aquatic opportunities; the need for east-west connectors which could be CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE 163 bridged by facility distribution; resident's in the east feel underserved by public facilities; new facilities would have a high demand for use; residents had a willingness to pay fees for use of new facilities; and facilities should be multi-generational, family-friendly and welcoming to all. Ms. Livingston discussed space programming objectives and operational cost recovery considerations of programming for recreation center space, including multi-purpose classrooms, gymnasium, fitness room, multi-purpose gym (MAC), dance studio, group exercise studio, child watch/activity room and special events room; and aquatic center space, including various pool sizes and configurations with recreational options such as a lazy river, slides and play features. The Council, Commission, Consultant and Staff discussed the pros and cons of various pool size and configuration options at Emerald Glen Park, and what would best suit Dublin residents. Indoor pools, although very desirable, would be much more expensive than outdoor. Dublin's climate and the need for a year-round swimming for adults and children was discussed. A year-round pool would require professional staffing other than teen lifeguards currently used during the summer, which affect the cost recovery plan. Ms. Livingston reviewed the three development options for Shannon Community Center, Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex and Emerald Glen Community Center: Option #1, Modified Master Plan; Option #2, Expanded Aquatics; and Option #3 Indoor Pool & MAC Gym. The various options provided and idea of what could be built with the available budget, as well as what it may cost if other unique, state-of-the-art components were added to the facilities. The Council, Commission, Consultant and Staff discussed various programming and funding options regarding Shannon Community Center and the physical constraints of the site, such as space, hills, creek, trees and parking support. A minimum of 150 parking spaces would be required. The creek had a minimum setback and the hill could not be cut in to. All agreed that no trees should be removed. The general consensus was that the majority of the need for childcare was on the east side of Dublin, so the Shannon Center should be used more for special events, such as weddings and banquets without any type of gym accoutrements. Tim Sbranti, Dublin resident, advised that he was speaking on behalf of St. Raymond's Church and referred to a letter previously submitted to the Council and Commission ill which St. Raymond's Church requested that some type of multi-use space, such as basketball or volleyball, be included in the Shannon Center programming for use during CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE 164 typical non-use hours. Independent of the St. Raymond's church letter, Mr. Sbranti expressed concern about the lack of gym space for spórt program activities, and advised that he supported community centers which included multi-use space for athletics. The Council and Commission discussed the various options and, by consensus, agreed that Option 2 with the modification of removing the 6-lane pool and including an indoor pool, would best suit the community. Option 2, as it pertained to Emerald Glen Park, should include the lazy river, outdoor play pool, 2Sx25 competitive pool and indoor pool (natatorium). By having this combination of pools, including the Dublin Swim Center pool, there would be enough for the forecasted population build-out of 60,000. The Council and Commission discussed the pros and cons and different parameters surrounding a MAC gym, and several expressed an interest in keeping the option of a MAC gym in the future. Mr. McCreary asked the City Council to provide Staff with detailed direction regarding its preference of Option 2. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to proceed with Option 2 including Shannon Center with a larger community room, support space, and two preschool classrooms; and at Emerald Glen Park a smaller community room, support space, two-court gym, and a licensed childcare or second preschool facility. Mr. McCreary requested direction as to the construction priority of Shannon Community Center and public involvement in the design process. Cm. Hildenbrand made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Oravetz, to include the public in Shannon Center's design process only, not in the space components and building size. This motion failed after discussion due to NO votes cast unanimously. The Council and Staff discussed the various options and agreed that the reopening of Shannon Center needed top priority and expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The building has been pre-programmed, the basic footprint of the building would remain the same and the rest of the park would remain undisturbed, so not as much public involvement would be necessary. The neighbors would primarily be interested in the exterior of the new building. The surrounding residents would be well-notified of the Commission and Council meetings, and they would be able to comment on the exterior architecture during those meetings. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE 165 On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, the Council gave Shannon Community Center the highest priority and directed Staff to commence with the design process, allowing public comment during the Commission and Council public hearings. Mr. McCreary asked for Council direction as it related to determining the preferred space components for the Emerald Glen Park Recreation Center and Aquatic Center, and if any of those components should be built as indoor facilities. The Council discussed the preferred components at Emerald Glen Park, such as the larger recreation pool and the natatorium, but not a MAC gym. 011 motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a cost analysis of operational costs, financing and construction for Option 2, including the larger recreation pool and natatorium, but excluding the MAC gym and prepare a Staff Report for final Council approval. . AIDOURNMENf 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. ATTEST: ~ CITY COlJNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE IGG