Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-17 Work session MinutesDublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, June 19, 2017 Work Session of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at Dublin City Hall. Members present were: Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Reiner and Ms. Alutto. Ms. Salay was absent [excused]. Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Goss, Ms. O'Callaghan, Ms. Mumma, Ms. Noble, Ms. Shelly, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Readler, Mr. Plouck, Ms. Richison, Ms. Crandall and Mr. Badman. Mr. McDaniel stated that a very full agenda has been planned for tonight's work session, which will led by the Planning Division. Mr. Papsidero stated that the following two planning studies will be discussed in depth: Mobility Study and Downtown Dublin Parking Management Study. Tonight's goal is to obtain Council's feedback, and hopefully direction to proceed on both projects. An introduction into a detailed work program on each will be provided. MOBILITY STUDY PHASE 1 Ms. Shelly, Planning Division Urban Designer, stated that the City's consultant, Tom Brown of Nelson Nygaard, facilitated this study, assisted by numerous City staff members. Their presentation will cover: 1. The objectives of the study; 2. Study overview of the visioning workshop, focus forum and website survey; 3. Key findings and deliverables: a mobility decision matrix and toolkit; and 4. Implementation priorities identified with the community in regard to immediate actions and the scope of Phase 2. PHASE 1 — OBJECTIVES The objectives were established with staff in a work session. Those include: • Support economic development Keep Dublin competitive as live, work, play preferences evolve. Facilitate access to jobs. • Promote equitable access to mobility Ensure optimal ADA mobility/access. • Expand multimodal options Provide safe and effective walking, cycling and other multi -modal options. • Improve public health Reduce emissions, increase walking and cycling, reduce social isolation and improve ecology. • Preserve our environs by focusing future growth Focus new growth in walkable, mixed-use centers to preserve Dublin's character, existing neighborhoods, protect the natural open space environments and the established quality of life. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 14 Out of this study came the concept of "All Places for All Ages." This concept resonated with all of the participants throughout the workshop and focus forums held later. Mr. Brown will cover the details of those forums. PHASE 1 — OVERVIEW • The Visioning Workshop: Mr. Brown stated that the heart of Phase 1 was the visioning workshop. The idea was to bring together a large group of subject area experts, stakeholders and people who are deeply engaged in at least one aspect of mobility in Dublin to talk about what mobility means and to consider and refine objectives. There were two sessions -- morning and evening. The morning session focused on Current Conditions -- what mobility means today, what is working and what is not. The sessions were comprised of small group discussions focusing on various objectives. The feedback from the group discussions was very informative. • Focus Forums: Ms. Shelly stated that Forums were held for stakeholders who could not attend the visioning workshops. Staff went to their respective locations/office, meeting with them in a one-hour format to essentially discuss the same items as discussed at the workshop — experiences, system gaps, opportunities and demographics. They will be continuing with that outreach. • Website Survey: Mr. Brown noted that the visioning workshops also provided an opportunity to pilot an online survey. After the workshops, the survey was posted to the City's website to provide opportunity for continued input. The survey requested prioritization of the following mode types: multi -modal, parking, pedestrian, bicycles and transit, and provided opportunity for comments. • Decision Matrix: One of the key deliverables they were asked to provide was a Decision Matrix for the City to use. The ideas and options received from stakeholders were scored based on importance and relatability and evaluated for ease of feasibility. Staff pulled together 17 potential strategies that would require capital outlay beyond existing staff resources. Using that decision matrix, the top ten strategies in terms of viability were determined. An implementation toolkit was then developed. PHASE 2 Using the implementation toolkit, the following top priorities were identified: PHASE 2 - SHORT-TERM ACTIONS: • Reformat the Mobility Study website to a Mobility Information Clearinghouse for the community to enable them to discover their mobility options within the community. This will provide an opportunity for citizens to determine how well the City's mobility will serve their needs in the coming years. The site will include: - a fact book and GIS map; - interactive Gap Mapping, identifying gaps, for instance, where the bicycle network breaks down; and Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 14 - a transportation demand management page, which, using a MORPC-guided platform, has the ability to create an infinite number of sub -sites. • Develop and adopt a Dublin -specific Complete Streets Policy. • Review and re -align Planning and Zoning with the Complete Streets Policy • Mobility Mode Options for detailed study: bike -share opportunities; circulator options; Mobility Hub concepts; transit partnership • Define a Mobility Coordinator position to focus on: bike share; parking management; circulator coordination; transportation demand manager; website, mobile apps; event coordination; and identification of funding partners. • Prioritize an Active Transportation Policy. - Map the gaps to prioritize ped/bike infrastructure investment - Complete the networks (fill the gaps) for all ridership levels - Implement a bikeshare, explore accessible bike options. - Incorporate wayfinding & signage (local destinations and commuter routes) - Promote a safe/comfort cycling education campaign (cyclists and drivers) - Prioritize pedestrian/cycle traffic -signal cycles at activity centers - Develop a five-year parking management plan - Coordinate with GOhio & incentivize "bike friendly' employers/developers - Coordinate with Dublin Schools on alternative transportation options Ms. Shelly noted that two Dublin City Schools groups attended the workshops, as well as two students who recently won a mobile app competition. Their app was interesting and easy to use. The next generation is interested in mobility options. Mr. Brown noted that many people are interested in the options that data can provide and in the associated partnership opportunities. This is a potential opportunity for the Mobility Coordinator to monitor. PHASE 2 - IMMEDIATE ACTIONS: • Explore the Mobility App options -- partnering with GOhio (ODOT and MORK app), and developing a Dublin -specific mobile app with transit, community and visitor info. • Coordinate with regional opportunities - US33 Smart Corridor, Smart Columbus and Center for Excellence. PHASE 2 - SCOPE • Update, expand, refine Phase I Fact Book & Toolkit, working with City staff and TAC • Prioritized Short-term Action Plan, with a priority setting and Action Plan Development • Develop implementation materials, identifying strategies and supporting materials • Refine strategies and finalize materials, engaging decision makers and updating strategies and implementation materials • Prep for Phase III - developing a Public Engagement Plan for 2018, and finalizing cost estimates. Ms. Shelly stated that staff is interested in feedback on the following questions: (1) Do the prioritization of transportation modes and infrastructure, describe in the Decision Matrix align with the options Council would like studied in Phase 2? (2) Are there transportation modes or infrastructure, not mentioned, for which you would like additional study? Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 14 (3) Does Council support the concept of a series of Mobility Hubs, for future study and consideration as a long term strategy? (4) Do the Policy recommendations seem appropriate and feasible? (5) What level of support would Council like to give for public / private partnership opportunities? Council Discussion: Ms. Amorose Groomes stated this was excellent information. However, she is concerned that we are looking at Mobility in isolation and not in conjunction with development. For example, when the relocation of Riverside Drive was done, decisions were made that omitted some bicycle opportunities, and when the street grid network was being looked at for the Bridge Street development, bike lanes were omitted. The thinking was that the buildings would be too far apart and lose the desired feel for more density. Some intentional decisions were also made recently to omit some multi -modal transportation within our most urban and walkable districts. They were deemed not friendly to the District, as in some cases shopkeepers did not want bike traffic in front of their storefronts. However, that caused a need to put bike lanes in the street; then the street got wider, the street was too wide and we were losing the "feel" we were trying to create. If we fix the mobility problem, but it doesn't blend with the development issues, then all we have done is not solve two problems. Mr. Brown responded that the mobility toolkit, multi -modal component does have a worksheet for land use, and for streets and street designs — two of the important issues she has mentioned. Perhaps Form Based Codes should be discussed in Phase 2, which would get to the programming and overall form of an area. That could be done in conjunction with the Street Design Guide that is specific to Dublin, which would guide discussions about the trade-offs or needs for compromise. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that we did that before. We designed streets with bike lanes, and then we deviated from that because of development pressure. She wants to ensure that we aren't persuaded to compromise in a situation we aren't totally convinced is correct. Ms. Shelly stated that was a top concern expressed by respondents in this study. A top priority was a Complete Streets Policy that would prioritize the slow-moving traffic -- pedestrians and bicycles, within the community. Mr. Brown stated that one component of the toolkit is the concept of defining a preferred bicycle network — bicycle networks for robust cyclists versus a low -stress network for all ages. There are tradeoffs. Ms. Alutto inquired what would a Complete Street Policy look like? Most of the road networks are existing. Would the policy be for new development or an overlay of the existing networks? We have areas of the City that differ from one another; how could a citywide policy fit the various areas? Mr. Brown stated that a Complete Street Policy is very general and generic — a blanket statement that provides guidance on the issues to be considered in making any future decisions about significant changes on a street. If it is just a corner, there is probably not a re -design opportunity, but a corridor rehabilitation project would present an opportunity for re -design to meet future Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 5 of 14 priorities. An important complement to that generic policy would be a Street Design Guide, which defines the street type and the design options, i.e. Option A if the street is part of the transit network or Option B if it's part of the bicycle network. Getting into the specifics considers all users. You can either adopt a Street Design Guideline or adopt something specific to Dublin. In that way, all the tools have already been vetted, eliminating the need for endless discussions later regarding what a street should look like. Ms. Shelly stated that it is an additional component that overlays the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan depicts the types of roads throughout the City. Each of those roads has specific details, some of which are regulated by the State, others are regulated locally. The Street Design Guide would provide the City's policy and details for those streets. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if Mr. Brown had an opportunity to view the City's Bridge Street Corridor; and if so, if he had any impressions or thoughts about its ability to handle pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The bridge is supposed to accommodate both uses. Mr. Brown responded that he had not done so formally; that was not part of the scope of this study. He has been there, however, so he has observed the shortcomings that were discussed in the workshops. But he also is familiar with the trade-offs — the reasons why those shortcomings exist. The pedestrian/bicycle crossings near Jenni's ice cream are not ideal, for instance. However, he has worked in many main street districts where the main street is a State or County highway; it is not easy to accomplish a city's preferences there. Their partner, NBBJ, has been directly involved with that issue. Mr. Papsidero stated that the three plans that currently are being updated — Metro Blazer, West Innovation and West Bridge Street are all integrating land use and transportation. That will help accomplish a clear view of what the final built environment ought to be. Specific to West Bridge Street, potentially the next phase of growth in the Bridge Street District, they have discussed having a separate Mobility Study for that geography. Once the Plan is done, they can "drill down" on the sidewalks, biking, street standards and streetscape components, integrating those to the extent possible so that when new public improvements are scheduled, they can be specific to those with a more satisfying result. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if that would occur before the design is complete for the Bridge Park extension to Sawmill Road. Mr. Papsidero responded that, at this point, discussion concerns only West Bridge Street west of Historic Dublin. That design is intended to meet all of the specs for Bridge Street, generally, and have a multi -use path and sidewalk on both sides, but perhaps not within the street lanes. That is a good question, because one of the outcomes of this effort is to have more integrated bicycle facilities within the road network, not separate. We could add that discussion. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that they were largely eliminated in the first block east of Riverside Drive. Mr. Papsidero responded that the Bridge Park Avenue extension won't have as dense a pattern, so there may be more flexibility. The adjacent property may not develop for some time. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that because we don't know what will develop there, the City should build for the highest density. As has been discovered in Historic Dublin, once the development occurs, it becomes nearly impossible to "fix" it. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Ms. O'Callaghan stated that in addition to the Thoroughfare Plan, the City has a Bikeway Plan, which focuses on the off-road paths. Part of this effort would be to take a broader, holistic approach for the entire City, and potentially look also at on -street facilities and have maps that can show entire bicycle routes. That would help Dublin reach the Bicycle Friendly Cities' silver status. Mayor Peterson stated that Bridge Street is currently a walkable environment, and in Muirfield, there are bikepaths to the parks. He would be interested in connecting the two -- Bridge Street and Muirfield. Individually, those areas are mobile, but they are not connected. To go to Kroger, he has three options — walk, bike or take his vehicle. Would Mobility Hubs provide other options -- a trolley, shuttle, or other? What do Mobility Hubs look like, and how do they help people get around their community? Mr. Brown responded that discussion at the workshop pointed out that often there are significant distances between the residential community and Bridge Park or Historic Dublin. Concepts like e - bikes -- bicycles with batteries, could address longer distances for some people. Perhaps a Bike Share program should also consider an a -bike option, which is an electric bike, a new version of a moped or a hybrid bike. Portland, Oregon developed such a policy with their effort to promote bicycling. There are other ways to address somewhat longer distances than using a car, and the City is looking at ways to optimize those options. They heard from some high school students that they would like to walk or bike to school, but it is not practical. Although their firm deals with Mobility Hubs, this desire was expressed by participants during the City's visioning workshop. Ms. Shelly stated that participants indicated interest in a Mobility Hub at, for example, Kroger. They could bike to the store but then take their groceries home in a car. Another option would be using a "Car to Go" to go to the airport — which would eliminate the expense of airport parking. Seniors expressed an interest in nearby Bike Shares, and in a -bikes — they could bike to a movie, then take an Uber or shuttle home. Scott Dring shared that many visitors to the community would be interested in shuttles from the hotel to downtown Dublin. Students stated that they often drive to school to be able to get home from after-school programs. They would be interested in the option to take a shuttle home. Users of the Library would also benefit from different mobility modes. A Mobility Hub provides those options. Mayor Peterson stated that is what this policy should achieve - giving people mobility options. Dublin is very committed to aging in place and helping people who do not yet need to live in a senior living facility. At one time, we thought that the more we did for people as they age, it was nurturing. However, often, it eliminates their ability to continue to engage in the community. Mobility options would enable the aging population to remain in their homes longer but have the ability to get to the grocery store or pharmacy without driving. It would be helpful to get some feedback from that age group. If this community could provide mobility options to that segment of our society, it could be an economic driver. Uber is a perfect example of "necessity being the mother of invention." Opportunities will exist that were not there five years ago, and Dublin wants to be on the cutting edge. When might Council be given examples of different options? Mr. Brown responded that the Bike Share option has been thoroughly explored by staff, and it is now at the point of funding approval. The circulator option requires more study, and there are specific models available to explore. There are also partnership funding opportunities. Both the Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 7 of 14 mode and funding options need exploration. COTA was exploring a partnership with LIFT or Uber, and MORK may be, as well. Exploring these options with partners is of value. Ms. Shelly stated that this would take place in Phase 2 — studying the options for which Council gives direction. In Phase 3, cost estimates would be developed for those options. Costs could be available for next year's CIP budget process. Mr. Papsidero stated that a CIP request has been submitted this year for bike -sharing stations. Mayor Peterson inquired about private partnership opportunities. Ms. Shelly responded that outreach is occurring now. Staff has been reaching out to a variety of entities to determine available options. Staff will provide those options with costs to Council for consideration. Mayor Peterson stated Cardinal Health might be a Mobility Hub partnership opportunity. The high school is immediately across the street. Dublin appears to be the right community for this type of innovative thinking. Mr. Papsidero stated that HOA representative at the workshop expressed the desire to have many neighborhood -based Mobility Hubs. It could be their point of connection to a comprehensive system that could certainly serve from Bridge Park to OU. It would serve the business community but also connect the neighborhoods. That would provide the level of ridership necessary to help support this capital investment. Vice Mayor Reiner that he is very interested in the Mobility Options for senior citizens. A number of years ago, the City created a Bicycle Advisory Task Force to explore and recommend bicycle linkages throughout the community. Over the years, the City has spent millions of dollars building the Brand Road, Muirfield Drive, Glick Road and Dublin Road South bicycle trails. Have all those linkages been built to achieve a uniform bicycle system throughout the City? Ms. O'Callaghan responded that she is not certain if all the BATF recommendations have been completed, but many connections are planned and are shown on the Citywide Bikeway Plan. Each year, some of those connections are scheduled in the CIP budget. For example, the Bikeway Plan shows a future connection along the east side of Riverside Drive. Significant construction remains. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that he would like to know which of the BATF recommended links have been concluded or are remaining. Ms. O'Callaghan responded that the information would be pulled together and forwarded to Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she was unfamiliar with the Uber Share program. Many of our residents may be unfamiliar with it, as well. Perhaps we could begin to publicize those opportunities — maybe through the News in 90s. Uber Share could be a desirable alternative to carpooling. Ms. Shelly stated that some families use Uber for student transportation. At the workshop, there was discussion with the students about the potential opportunity of coordinating with the MORK CoGo website/ mobile app and the COTA mobile app to create a mobile app that is Dublin specific. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Brown stated that is the objective of having a Mobility Clearing House at the City's website. That information is valuable but many people are unaware of it. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is interested in the Streets Policy Guide and the community feedback on this topic. Ms. Shelly stated that there are 200 stakeholders. An update including Council's feedback would be taken back to the stakeholders for their opinions and thought. Those will be collated into the Phase 2 actions. After the Phase 2 actions are completed, public input will be sought again. In the meantime, the public input opportunity will be maintained at the website, which will include interactive maps. The next step will be developing the Gap map, asking people about gaps within their system. Focus forums for people who were unable to attend the workshops will also continue. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is interested in what present-day Dublin will accept or tolerate versus Council's preferences. He wonders to what degree we could be informed by the Columbus experience. We also need to solve how to get through the roundabouts. Some roundabouts, such as the Post Road/Avery-Muirfield roundabout, are dangerous for cyclists. Mr. Papsidero stated that from this study, individual projects will be developed and brought to Council for information or approval, particularly if funding is needed. The Mobility effort will be a living thing that will take different paths as support indicates. Mr. Lecklider stated that he curious to what degree the Dublin community will find this acceptable and if it will acceptable in the Bridge High area. What is Council's commitment, respecting the existing community and taking into account what we anticipate future generations will want. Ms. Shelly noted that at the workshops, a broad range of communities and resident ages were represented. The youngest participant was 16 and the oldest was 89. There was no one who had a negative view of the Mobility options; even if they did not believe they personally would use them, they believed their neighbor would. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that a staff committee has discussed opportunities for achieving Silver status. Having a Complete Streets Policy would earn some points towards that. Staff has benchmarked other suburbs in the area, as well as Columbus, and has examples of their Complete Streets Policy, which are typically in the form of a resolution. MORK has a template that they provide communities. There is also a national group that focuses on Complete Street Policies, and they have templates, as well. Staff can draft a policy, if there is desire to see that. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this would be applicable to the West Innovation District and the Ohio University Master Plan? Mr. Papsidero responded that it would. In the West Innovation District transportation component, they have added the idea of mobility hubs. All of this matches with Ohio University's ideas for the campus, as well. The ability of students to reach the campus without a necessity to drive is one of their priorities. Ms. Alutto inquired about the Next Steps. Phase 2 begins now and ends when? Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Shelly responded that it would go through December. Ms. Alutto inquired if Council would be receiving updates from staff during that time. She is interested in staying updated without a need for presentations and work sessions. Her neighbors and friends are interested, and she wants to be able to speak knowledgeably about the process. Mr. Papsidero responded that periodic updates, monthly or bi-monthly, would be provided, depending on the pace. Updates on individual projects can be provided in packets or meetings, particularly if direction is needed. Any big projects would be covered in the CIP process. The idea of a circulator is further out, perhaps two years, and, even with partners, it could cost $2 million. The CBUS project in the Short North cost $3-4 million in capital outlay for the equipment and staffing, but that is larger than what Dublin is considering. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it might be an efficient use of resources to divide them up by types of mobility, rather than trying to codify where Mobility Hubs should go. In working with Code, she has learned that less words are better in the design phase. It is difficult to drop a pre - designed street into a development. It is better to say that if developing in the Bridge Street corridor, the street must contain these components. In regard to Mobility Hubs, it is better to say that they will exist every three blocks, for example, or according to density, rather than where they must go. She would like to move in a more theoretical aspect than prescriptive, as those are difficult to work with. If the theories and expectations are stated, they can be designed to work. This could work for at least three to four of the seven mobility components. Mr. Papsidero concurred. Many would need to be neighborhood -based and have a neighborhood design process. They could not be prescriptive. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if COTA has ever been approached about the potential of having a regional bus that loops in our community? Instead of Dublin taxpayers making the outlay, because they already pay taxes for COTA, could COTA provide minibuses as a service? Mr. Papsidero responded that COTA provides this type of service in New Albany. Linking to the Park and Ride lot, they provide a shuttle service among the major employers in that community. Mr. McDaniel stated that they also established a remote parking facility for the New Albany Beauty Campus and hired COTA to provide the shuttle. COTA could be asked to what extent they would be interested in participating in an expansion of service. We could also look at potentially contracting with COTA to create that type of service within this community. The Cbus is an example, and Rickenbacker airport has a circulator. There are ways in which to work with COTA. We have been trying to get a fundamental understanding of those possibilities and the level of demand for this as we move into Phase 2. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that he would like to have an understanding of the possibilities for developing an internal program using COTA's resources and facilities. Mr. McDaniel stated that there are other methods, as well, such as a programmatic approach. RFPs could identify the best provider. There are some more rural counties within the State that offer transportation services for the aging and other community needs. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that he would prefer to see the costs shifted to COTA instead of Dublin, if possible. Mr. McDaniel stated it would be good to understand what they might offer. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 10 of 14 DOWNTOWN DUBLIN PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY Ms. Puranik stated that this presentation is more technical. The City is partnering with Nelson Nygaard on this project, as well. We will cover some of the short-term action items being considered for implementation. One element of the mobility study is parking. Parking will be needed indefinitely, and it needs to be managed smartly. Last year, staff presented parking recommendations for the east part of the District, which focused primarily on street parking. Options for street parking improvements were discussed with vendors and technology and parking experts. We are now looking at the options more comprehensively, not just for downtown Dublin. Mr. Brown stated that the primary focus of his job at Nelson Nygaard is parking; it is his specialty. Dublin is combining a typical downtown area with all of the usual constraints and opportunities of a small main street district with a new, transformative downtown area. The effort is to mesh those through mobility. STUDY PROCESS • Review of previous studies. The City's most recent parking study was in 2011. We looked at those findings and conducted further outreach. • Outreach. The feedback was one of interest, not significantly negative, but it is important for the City to invest in a management plan for the District before those negative conditions emerge. • Best practices survey. Using the previous study and stakeholder input, a best practice survey was put together, which covered walkable urbanism, parking management for the District and the greater community, and the most relevant ideas for this area. • Supply and demand conditions. They looked at conditions and made some observations about Historic Dublin, as there is no activity in Bridge Park yet. They counted parking spaces and looked at peak periods. There are time periods in which all the best parking is taken, but there are places with availability that people either are choosing not to use or are unaware of. • Expected changes. They discussed with the City any expected changes in land uses coming to Bridge Park and Historic Dublin. • Toolkit. A toolkit was put together and refined with City staff input. It is a comprehensive resource for downtown and beyond, today and greater than five years forward. • Short term deployment. We have also developed ideas for beginning to implement the toolkit. CURRENT AND NEAR-TERM PARKING SUPPLY Historic District: • Current. There are 520 on -street parking spaces; 208 spaces in public parking lots, and 389 after -hour spaces in parking lots. The majority of the parking supply in the Historic District is privately controlled. The City has worked out arrangements with the owners of the existing facilities. • New Facilities. Increased capacity is being provided. An additional 274 parking spaces will be added in after -hour parking lots and the new, structured parking garages -- Bridge Park West and the Library Garage -- will provide 924 additional spaces. Bridge Park: There is significant planned parking: Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 11 of 14 • On -street parking on Riverside Drive — 97 spaces • On -street parking on other streets — 235 spaces • Structured parking in Blocks A, B and C — 2,231 spaces • Proposed structure parking for Block D — 641 spaces. In Bridge Park, most of the parking facilities are privately controlled, but the developer wants to manage all of the parking in the District on both sides of the river to provide a cohesive system. The City would have a strong, strategic partner to manage the parking in a manner that benefits the entire District. Mr. Brown reviewed the anticipated changes and demand for parking in the near future (24-36 months) within the District. KEY FINDINGS: • It appears there will be sufficient parking on both sides of the river to meet the growth demands. • The user experience and perception is often one of scarcity, but this is not uncommon where most parking is privately controlled. • Management is the biggest missing piece. • The Mobility Study provides a good opportunity to go beyond comprehensive parking management to work on significant mobility improvements. TOOLBOX OVERVIEW The Toolbox recommendations are to: shift demand; reduce demand; expand capacities; expand supplies; manage event demand; deploy technology; coordinate management; and provide an implementation guide. It is a precarious time to invest in technology, as a year from now it could be very different. The tendency is to think that increasing supply is the solution, but often management of the parking is the needed solution. Part of the implementation would be moving towards a pricing paradigm, using pricing tiers. Currently, parking is free. The first tier would be pricing the most in -demand spaces, but making sure people know where the free parking is located, which will be plentiful. Provide parking for employees in the District and restrict them from the best parking spaces. Coordinate transit to locations within the District. Use shared -parking, including with pay -by phone. KEY IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES 2017: • Summer 2017 - Stabilize the curbside availability in Bridge Park East, putting in place certain restrictions — time limits, loading zones and enforcement. • Fall 2017 — Pricing: Meter all primary streets, initially via pay -by -phone only; continue two- hour parking limits; have public valet in Bridge Park similar to what is provided in the Historic District. Short Term Strategy 2017-2018: • Draft a performance-based management policy • Design a performance -monitoring program • Coordinate with mobility study to provide commuter benefits, using MORK & Gohio strategies; COTA and bus pass program. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 12 of 14 • Design a parking map • Design a parking and mobility page • Explore coordinated communications • Study technology solutions • Study zoning strategy for Park One Districts. • Study Phase II (Implementation support) - develop ordinances for curbside regulations and/or policies; - develop signage standards; - assess operational strategies and approaches; - assess organizational structure options and staffing/cost implications — a staff coordinator to implement the toolkit; - evaluate resources and organizational capacity for parking and mobility coordination • Fall 2017 — Establish a parking benefit district funding structure, creating an enterprise fund before funding gets diverted Mr. Brown concluded the presentation. Staff requests Council input on the following 1. Does the recommended approach seem well suited to Dublin, including but not limited to Historic Dublin and Bridge Park? 2. Are tools and/or priority recommendations appropriate? 3. Are there any other issues, concerns or strategies not addressed in the recommendations, particularly as presented in the background documents? 4. Does Council have any other concerns? Council discussion: Vice Mayor Reiner requested clarification of what steps the City took to resolve the parking issue near La Chatelaine. Previously, some business employees in the District were taking up the public parking. He believes they were asked to park across the street in order to keep the public parking open for patrons of those businesses. Mr. McDaniel responded that the City entered into a contract with Dublin Community Church to provide some additional parking. The contract will expire year-end, so staff is currently in the process of re -negotiating that contract. Part of the solution was education, and in addition, the company whose employees were using the public parking relocated to the other side of South High Street. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that there was another past issue. The City extended a stormwater sewer down Blacksmith Alley to resolve the draining issues of the properties, and the City proposed formation of a parking authority with a few of the property owners. The intent was to coordinate signage, asphalt the parking lots and gain public parking for certain hours of the day. Ultimately, the two-year effort with the property owners was not a success -- they were interested in a source of revenue. Perhaps at this point in time, with the renewed interest in creating a parking authority, those businesses would be willing to work with the City. Mr. Papsidero stated that if this parking effort reaches the point of having a pay -by -phone mobile app, the private property owners could also participate in that. They would have an economic incentive to make their parking lots available in the evening. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Brown noted that Asheville, North Carolina has done this. They used the Passport Parking app, one of the pay -by -phone vendors. In time, churches and offices began to post signage indicating "tenants only 9:00 am-5:00pm; after 5:00 pm, $3.00 pay by phone," using the same system that the City used for on -street parking. In Asheville, the City wasn't involved at all. The app vendor provided the signage, and the property owners received the revenue. The pay -by phone system does lower the barrier by providing an opportunity for revenue sharing. It is something worth pursuing. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the recommendation is to have on -street parking on West Bridge Street. Mr. Brown responded that the recommendation was for the main part of Bridge Park East. Ms. Puranik clarified that the recommendation is for Riverside Drive, Mooney and Bridge Park Avenue. Mr. Papsidero stated that at this point in time, there is no discussion about adding on -street parking to West Bridge Street — not in the Historic District, in particular, because the City does not own the right-of-way. That cross section in the road network will not change. Mr. Lecklider noted that he observed recently that even late in the evening, the Bridge and High crossing does not appear safe — there is a real need to slow down traffic there. He does not use the mid -block crossing for the same reason. He has also been in Worthington recently. Their crosswalk light now changes to red to indicate a need to stop to the traffic, which seems much more effective than what Dublin has. Perhaps on -street parking after 7 p.m. and on the weekends on West Bridge Street would be helpful. Mr. McDaniel stated that he recently noticed the issue and had a similar thought — could street parking be made available after a certain time of day, and eliminated in the morning. Mr. Lecklider stated that in addition to the Darby Street and Indian Run parking lots, there will soon be the Library parking garage. People would be more inclined to use those parking facilities if there were a safer mid -block crossing to the other side and to destinations south of Bridge Street. He realizes there are future plans for West Bridge, including a median, which will be effective in slowing traffic. Mr. Papsidero stated that he assumes there is Council support to move forward with this Plan. Staff will be providing regular updates to Council. Mayor Peterson inquired if a version of this plan would be provided at the City's website. Ms. Puranik responded affirmatively. Mr. McDaniel encouraged Council to forward any additional input or questions after this meeting, as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she liked the possibilities presented by the pay -by -phone mobile app. Perhaps information about the opportunity to generate revenue from their parking after hours could be shared at a Historic Dublin Business Association (HDBA) meeting, along with the information that to participate, their parking would have to meet certain standards. Those standards could be developed. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 19, 2017 Page 14 of 14 Mr. Brown stated that when they learned that in Asheville, N.C., the City was not involved, they asked the vendor if there is a city that is involved, acting as a conduit for businesses. In Omaha, they are using the mobile app, ParkOmaha. They will be developing a case study on their experience. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that she is not suggesting that the City necessarily do this, only that we inform the business owners of the possibility and determine their level of interest. If they are interested, the City could gather the tools to help them navigate that process. Mayor Peterson stated that it also comes down to enforcement. Although most people will pay, as the signage indicates, but there are some who will just park. On private property, the property owner would call to have a vehicle towed. It would require self -enforcement. Mr. Brown stated that in many cases, the businesses already have contracts for enforcement with a towing service. Ms. Alutto inquired whether larger businesses usually have a 24-hour pay to park section during the work day, as well, and after hours, the entire lot is pay to park. Mr. Brown responded affirmatively, and his understanding is that some of the facilities in Bridge Park East would be like that. A good portion of those facilities are meant to be public parking, but some portions are set aside for private parking. It is typically the larger facilities that provide that. Ms. Alutto inquired if there is technology available to map where parking is available in real time. Mr. Brown responded affirmatively. Ms. Puranik stated that is easy to have structured parking, but the technology for on -street parking is evolving. Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. Brown and staff for their presentations. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council