Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-16 Council Work Session MinutesDublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2016 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, June 20, 2016 Work Session to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall. Council Members present: Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Reiner, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Keenan, and Mr. Lecklider. Ms. Salay was absent (excused). Staff members present: Ms. Goss, Ms. O'Callaghan, Ms. Mumma, Ms. Readler, Mr. Foegler, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Richison, Ms. Burness, Ms. Husak, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Noble, Mr. Plouck, and Mr. Kangawa. Presenters: Jay Smith, principal of O'Brien/Atkins Associates; Shawna Bolin, Ohio University Director of Planning; Kevin Peterson, Ayers Saint Gross. Mandy Bishop, GPD Group; Paul Endres, EndreStudio; Mirek Olmer, P.E., T.Y. Lin International; Darren Meyer, MKSK Studios. Mayor Peterson stated that tonight's discussion will focus on: - West Innovation Districts - Ohio University Dublin Campus Framework Plan - Scioto River Pedestrian/Bike Bridge - John Shields Parkway Bridge Ms. Goss stated that: • The first portion of the meeting will include a presentation and discussion regarding O'Brien/Atkins' assessment of the West Innovation District. That will be followed by a presentation from Ohio University regarding their Master Plan Framework for the Dublin Campus. o The O'Brien/Atkins team will share their initial thoughts regarding the future of the West Innovation District, as well as land use and zoning changes that may be necessary to meet the needs of today's business environment. Additionally, they will share a perspective from the original 2007 study that took into consideration the impact of an institution of higher education and the economic development implications thereof. o Ohio University will present the goals, process, public engagement and general direction of the Campus Framework Plan, as well as its role and function in guiding future development. Together, O'Brien/Atkins and Ohio University will share how both projects mesh together and provide the synergy necessary to fulfill the City's goals for this area. • In the second portion of the meeting, the consultant design team will present the preliminary engineering design for the Scioto River Pedestrian/Bike Bridge. The design, which is now 30% complete, allows the team to facilitate a conversation with Council in order to obtain reaction and feedback regarding the design direction of this critical piece of transportation infrastructure. Consultants and staff also will share the beginning stages of concepts being developed for the John Shields Parkway Bridge. Some early Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 2 level bridge design planning efforts are needed to assess flood plain impacts as well as ensure coordination with the ongoing River Park planning. West Innovation District Jay Smith, principal, O'Brien/Atkins Associates, stated that their master planning assignment with the City began in 2007. They were invited back recently to refresh that planning assignment, which previously was called the Central Ohio Innovation Center. That effort involved helping the City position for business purposes a substantial tract of land off Post Road, Eiterman and Shier Rings. The goal was to attract businesses to that part of Dublin. Central Ohio Innovation Center — 2007 The COIC was an Economic Development initiative. A large amount of land was assembled for which they were given the planning latitude to assess. • Large, anchor tenants were considered. The Ohio State University — James Cancer Center, was interested in placing a Proton Therapy Center in this area. • Acquisition of key tracts of land. Their assignment was to put together a zoning that would begin to protect this land so that it could be set aside and positioned for these businesses. • Connections. In planning, land is not looked at myopically, but from its broadest context, making connections to the surrounding community. • Land Use. A number of uses are in place that will remain — Darree Fields, the Recreation Center, the Sports Complex, the existing industrial footprint. A senior living center was once proposed. This land was underpinned with a script providing understanding of how to attract businesses, what kind of businesses would be attracted, what kind of land they would need, and the level of density that could occur. West Innovation District — 2015 Last fall, the City requested that they refresh the COIC plan. A number of things have changed, primarily with Ohio University, which will be a significant engine for change. There is also a Columbus State campus here, and there have been infrastructure and road improvements. It was important to refresh the plan to coordinate with Ohio University's planning efforts and look at the acreage in its entirety. • Planning Perspective Their firm does a significant amount of district and research park planning around the country. o Old vs. New Perspective Previously, development occurred in a very compact, dense manner. Everything was built near and convenient. Later, with the advent of the car and greater ease in transportation, development began to be spread around, a more suburban approach. A similar approach occurred with research parks or innovation centers. In an earlier day, they were spread out. While there might be a road that led there, there were individuals silos -- perhaps even gated, that were not connected to one another. That perspective has shifted. Today, the intention is to identify areas of shared spaces that are overlapping, collaborative and connected. o Movement/Transportation Upon entering the West Innovation District, how would parking and navigation occur? Are there bicycle paths, electric car systems, shuttle systems or a broader transportation network? All would need to be in sync with the City's overall Transportation Plan. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 3 Innovation Center Trends o The current trend is for smaller, more compact spaces. Thousands of acres are not necessary to accomplish what is desired. o Mixed use and shared spaces provide convenience. o Easy access to amenities o Connected, miscellaneous forms of transit. o Walkable and bicycle -friendly. o High speed/ wired — Dublin has accomplished this with its Dublink. o Public/private partnerships with other entities -- a university, town, hospital system -- these drive how the districts are developed. o Old parks are being re -imagined from suburban parks to compact, walkable developments. o Can be developed with a lifestyle or theme focus. Certain ingredients can be incorporated into the West Innovation District to give it a sense of place. Types of Talent/People It is important to know this element because, in large part, they shape these places. Traits of these young workers: o Connected all the time, multitaskers, plugged in, have expectations of being heard o Desire short commutes, convenient housing, walkable, bicycle -friendly environments, nearby amenities o Want opportunities to be engaged o Single — only 21% are married o Desire live/work/play experience. experiences can converge Planning Approach in their community — volunteers and activists Creation of a third place, a place where Currently, they are conceptually planning with Ohio University, as their plan is understood. Looking at the overall District, they have included subsets of areas of various focus or concentration. There is also another space of convergence, immediately juxtaposed to Ohio University. They can consider approaches where that might break down with nodes or key crossroads. There could be a place of emphasis or concentration next to the highway, perhaps a connection drawn across to the hospital. Will that happen along the Main Street of the Ohio University campus? This is a work in progress, which will continue through the summer. Their loose timeframe suggests October as the point at which their conclusions would be shared with Council. They will refine their diagram, reacting to the recreation pieces and greenway system. Perhaps a healthcare and wellness veil could occur, given those strengths exist in Dublin. They will also be sensitive to the nearby residential neighborhood and acknowledge the advanced manufacturing and light industrial happening within the university, as well. They will continue to work with the City Planning Department, provide updates to Council, and hold some public meetings. Perhaps in August, in conjunction with Ohio University, both plans could be shared with the community. Ms. Goss invited Council questions related to the West Innovation District planning process, preceding the Ohio University presentation. The objective tonight was to look at the West Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 4 Innovation District as a whole. The initial planning approach for this area was for an Economic Advancement Zone. The area is intended to be used for economic development. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she assumes that staff will be meeting with stakeholders in the area. She observed new uses proposed for some existing uses in the plan. It is always important to be sensitive about overlaying other uses on a property that is currently being used for something else. Mr. Smith responded that they have been given that planning license or latitude, and he will look to Mr. Papsidero and Ms. Goss to advise them when they need to engage. They certainly will be sensitive to stakeholders, and will be talking with them. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would not want any residents, including business or commercial, to learn of different plans for their property in the news. It is important to communicate with them prior to any plans being made public. Mr. Keenan inquired what their planning horizon is. Mr. Smith responded that the long-range thinking is probably 25 years. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important that planning take place, but many of these plans are very long-term. Across the river, some of those plans extend out 30-40 years. Mr. Smith agreed that it is important, especially when the City considers infrastructure systems that would one day be needed to support the potential growth — broadband or roadway. There is no second chance to plan for those, and Dublin is to be commended for planning for that now. Although the plan will change, there will be good underpinning for the needed infrastructure. Mayor Peterson stated that it seems much of the long-range planning will be market-driven. How does the City balance planning for 25 years down the road -- building the infrastructure but also being flexible in order to accommodate changes? Mr. Smith responded that it would begin with the accommodation of space, beginning with the rights-of-way so that the area doesn't get hemmed in. There must be sufficiently wide right-of- way to accommodate the utilities, broadband, duct banks, etc. — be generous in what that space is. We would then consider the density and carrying capacity of the land. How many story buildings will be needed? What is the prescription for parking? Will there be some parking decks, or will the majority of it be surface parking? Those types of factors would throttle the type of development that we have. The foremost need is to understand and anticipate the long-range traffic flow, ensuring that there is sufficient right-of-way to widen lanes as needed. It is important to consider what the traffic engineers are saying. In summary, providing ample right-of-way is one of the foremost steps to take. Mayor Peterson stated that in the past, the automobile changed grid development. Won't there be similar evolution in transportation over the next 25 years? The City tries to stay ahead of the curve, but how does it stay ahead of what is not yet known? Mr. Smith responded that planning is made for space accommodation that could be converted. What might be a landscape zone for some period of time could be later become a space for an electric car to park and charge. In time, there will be other modes for moving about than exist today. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 5 Vice Mayor Reiner thanked O'Brien/Atkins for staying the course. Council recognizes the economics and importance of this kind of zone. As the City becomes more surrounded and space shrinks, the economic viability of our community rests in these kinds of areas. It is where the majority of our tax base is derived. The City is rapidly losing availability of this type of land. Ohio University Dublin Campus Framework Plan Shawna Bolin, University Planner and Director of University Planning & Space Management Ohio UPSM , stated that previously she introduced the Framework Plan to Council. Tonight, that discussion will be more in-depth. With her tonight is Kevin Peterson, Ayers Saint Gross, consultant for the Framework Plan. Tonight's discussion will cover: 1. The Reason OU is in Dublin 2. Sense of Place — the elements that make a campus environment important 3. Framework Plan Elements This is a work in progress. We encourage Council's feedback, as it will help us fine tune the plan. We will be taking this plan to our Board of Trustees on Friday to gather their feedback. From these two engagements, we will be ready to have public engagements with the City and University stakeholders, as well. OHIO is a maior engine of innovation in its community, the region and the state. • On the Dublin campus, it will have the opportunity to leverage its statewide presence to build bridges between industry, government and academia. They do not view it only as a learning environment. It is also an opportunity to bring revenue into the City of Dublin and complement the two partners for a more well-rounded, knowledge community of experience for the University. • In 2012, OU acquired property in City of Dublin to establish a new location for the Heritage College of Medicine • OU entered into an economic development agreement with City of Dublin to acquire land around the site. - Currently have acquired Subarea 1: Purchase of 15 acres, balance given to OHIO by City of Dublin - Subarea 2 will be transitioned to the University when the Master Plan is complete. - Subarea 3 will be jointly developed with the City of Dublin. • OHIO for Ohio Strategy seeks to insure OHIO's competitive advantage by leveraging its statewide presence. Dublin is a key entity in that plan. • A Framework Plan will guide phased transformation of the Dublin campus into a vibrant, sustainable and integrated campus community, both future development and near term projects. • OU has been in a process of engagement with City staff, as well as University stakeholders, since the beginning of January, looking at many different entities. We are transitioning into understanding more stakeholder feedback from the public realm, as well as with our colleges at the campus level. • District Vision Before OU came to Dublin, the City had a vision. The Economic Advancement Zone had different elements related to bringing in research and the character of this environment, including: o A focus on quick -to -build research with unique development character Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 6 o A range of tech -related businesses from R&D startups to clean manufacturing o An emphasis on sustainable building and design methods o Maximized visibility from U.S. 33 What OU is planning to do in Dublin with innovation and research will help complement the City's original District vision. Mr. Smith spoke earlier about the old paradigm of research parks and innovation districts. There is a new paradigm, which they have titled "knowledge community," which integrates ideas and practice. When the OU team toured the Centennial Campus in North Carolina, they learned that they were trying to introduce similar elements that OU is planning on its Dublin site to help make a vibrant community, such as mixed-use and great streets that help allow public spaces and engagement with the community that is within. The Ohio University campus located within the City of Dublin will have the opportunity to collaborate with businesses and the community itself. 2. This will be a campus setting that supports learning, research, partnerships and innovation. Kevin Peterson, Avers Saint Gross, stated that they have been partnering with Ohio University and working closely with City Planning and Development staff. He will discuss the components necessary in a campus setting, the planning principles involved, and the Framework Plan. A campus in a community setting should have: • A vibrant sense of community — an identity, sharing of resources, a central place linked by roads and bike lanes to the surrounding community. Critical to their plan is creating a center for the campus. • Proximity and walkability - a compact, pedestrian -oriented, smart growth area. Proximity between the research, the teaching, and industry partners is critical to the success of the District. • Connections — Ohio University, Athens, Ohio campus is located around an open space green. That is desired for the Dublin campus, as well. A college green is critical to building a sense of campus. Buildings will front and open onto that open space. • A Mixed-use Environment — live/work/learn/play. This is critical to supporting the University's mission, as well as attracting some of the partnerships. Although they are not a driver of the campus development, they are the amenities that support the students and partners on the campus. Columbus State has shared that they are going back and adding amenities to their campuses, because it is really what the students want. OU medical students have expressed a desire to live closer to campus, to be able to walk to classes rather than commute by car. These uses really complement the campus community. Outdoor recreation spaces also have a role on the campus. • Foster Innovation — There are many different ways in which to do this -- inter- disciplinary interactions, partnerships, economic development. Having the spaces to encourage community within an innovation district is critical. • Accommodate Varying Initiatives — Flexible spaces are necessary to support the University's Strategic Plan. Currently, teaching and simulation spaces are happening on the campus, but research, wellness and partnerships with community organizations are anticipated. They envision building upon some of the partnerships that OU has with industry on this campus. It is necessary to ensure that this Framework and physical place can support that. Looking at entrepreneurships and industry partnerships, as they relate to the campus — small companies often develop from ideas. They want this environment to incubate and accelerate those ideas. As companies grow and mature, Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 7 they can provide partnerships. Companies want to locate by universities to gain those partnership/research/workforce opportunities. They are looking at the spectrum of how this campus can support partnerships across industry. Mr. Peterson inquired if, at this point, Council has any questions or sees anything that does not align with their vision. Mayor Peterson inquired if there is any plan for development of student housing. Mr. Peterson responded that they believe it is important to have some housing component for graduate students on the campus or within the walkable area to the District. It could also serve young professionals who work and teach at the University. It would not be dormitories, but housing targeted for graduate students. Mayor Peterson inquired if it is anticipated the University would provide that housing or that private enterprise would provide it. Mr. Peterson responded that it is not certain, at this point, but it would be a good opportunity for partnership. That opportunity exists for providing the amenities on campus, as well. Ms. Bolin added that they do not see a specific section of isolated housing or grouping of apartments, but an integration of housing within the mixed use. On buildings bordering streets, the top level could be studio apartments with other academic research, businesses or retail amenities on the lower floors. It would be a campus with buildings with multiple functions, rather than isolated districts. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if the vision is that amenities would be located beneath and housing above them. Mr. Peterson responded affirmatively, but it would not be a long strip of retail. The retail would be to service the campus community. It would be small, a couple blocks of retail and some housing that would support the broader campus framework. Mr. Keenan stated it was mentioned that this could be an incubator for small businesses. Have they worked with staff in regard to coordinating with DEC, the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center, which currently provides an incubation opportunity for small businesses? Mr. Peterson responded that they have heard that there are constraints on space at this time and that there might be an opportunity in the future for the campus to play a role in supporting that through partnerships. Some of the most successful outcomes occur when there are partnerships between the City and the University. There is an opportunity for partnership to help grow some of these programs. Ms. Goss stated that one of the ideas that has been discussed for the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center is the need for "graduation" space. As those companies get off the ground, but still need some support and connectivity, they would thrive in an environment in which they are not entirely on their own — an environment that provides the opportunity to remain within a campus -type environment that is supportive of the research and technology that they need. Mr. Keenan stated that they had mentioned programming, weekly meetings and speakers — all are things the DEC provides. It was expanded recently. The Data Center is now located there, which provides access to internet. Would there be similar facilities on the campus? Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Bolin responded that OU campuses are already connected to fiber, and that could be spread throughout the remainder of the Innovation District. That could be used as an economic development incentive, as well. Mr. Peterson stated that another idea to explore is the possibility of creating a complement to what the City already has, perhaps a wet lab space for startups, which is difficult to find. OU is considering wet lab space for this campus. Mr. Keenan responded that the City has a large amount of technology but little bioscience opportunities. Creation of a Flexible Framework Plan to guide future development of the campus. • Major Street Network They have started to discuss a road network for the campus, including discussions with City staff, which would: o Move traffic around the district with University Boulevard and an Eiterman Road realignment. This will allow a flow and connection to other points within the District. o Have a Main Street, or spine street, that runs through the campus, welcoming everyone to the campus and supporting a mixed-use, vibrant place. Open Space Network o Open spaces are an important tool for defining "place." o There would be a combination of formal open spaces and informal open recreation spaces. o An informal area to the northern end would handle stormwater runoff. • Development Parcels o When the road network and open space network are subtracted, development parcels remain o Each development parcel has access, and address, and a sense of identity. The vision is for a very active spine road through the heart of the campus and a primary greenspace. Future development will be encouraged along that. • Building Frontages o Building frontages clearly define the "public realm" whether it be open space or streetscape o There will be design guidelines for those building, including transparency, views, and connectivity of those buildings to the open space or the street network of the campus setting. • Visibility/Views o There will be prominent views of the campus greenspace from the highways. There are three major gateways into the campus from Post Road and University Boulevard All of the secondary roads terminate onto the greenspace of the campus, emphasizing the pedestrian quality of the campus environment. 9 Parking and Service/Loading Areas Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 9 Parking will be placed in the center of the blocks as much as possible. There will be easy parking access but visibility of it from the public areas is shielded or minimized. • Density This density fits the Economic Advancement Zone (EAZ) Code. The density will not be greater, but there would be a different streetscape environment. • Flexible Phasing o The initial phase is focused on creating a center of activity that could have a hotel and wellness focus, as well as expanded academic uses and amenities. These will queue up the spine street or Main Street. o This phase will be 600,000 square feet and will take a long time to develop. o If the focus is spread throughout the district, the opportunity to create a sense of place in the near term is lost. There is a need to identify the near-term opportunities to reinforce the greenspace. o Future, long-term phase — will expand the campus to the south. How does OU's Framework Plan fit within Dublin's Vision of the West Innovation District? Ms. Bolin invited comments/questions regarding the Framework Plan. Mr. Keenan stated that the initial focus was on an osteopathic teaching facility. Will the campus focus be all medical, or will it encompass other disciplines? Ms. Bolin responded that it will encompass other colleges and disciplines, as well. Currently, there is the College of Health Sciences and Professions with a Physician Assistant program. Their College of Business, Voinovich School, have courses that are taught within that existing building. Steve Goulding, Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, has been engaging all of their colleges across the campus to understand their opportunities, and there is much interest. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the residential component. She did not see uses mentioned. Is that included in Phase 1, 2 or 3? Ms. Bolin responded that the phasing will be flexible, dependent upon the partners and opportunities. In this plan, there would be some concentration of uses on Main Street. In Subarea 3, there is an opportunity with a partnership with the City for a hotel conference center, but the buildings that line the street could have mixed use on the ground floor and perhaps on the upper floor have a residential component. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if the thinking is that the residential would be in the front rather than the back. Mr. Peterson stated that anywhere along that Main Street could be viable. They do not want the residential component located along the highway or in the campus core. It should be on the main spine street. If it is a near-term priority, it would probably be adjacent to the hotel; if a longer term priority, it would be located further away. Ms. Bolin stated that it is difficult to answer because they are continuing to conduct market feasibility and analysis and attempting to understand the timing of different programs on the campus. That is why this is called a Framework Plan -- it will allow for different uses. There could be residential housing if the right partnerships are in place, and a study has been done. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 10 Mr. Keenan stated that, interestingly, there is a local Dublin developer who entered into a partnership with Miami University to build out mixed use and provide student housing in conjunction with Miami University. They just finished that project last year. Mayor Peterson stated inquired about the timeframe. Ms. Bolin stated that a time schedule was shared with Council at the previous discussion on this topic, but she will provide more detail. They will be meeting with their Board of Trustees this Friday. It will be their first view of the Plan, which Council is seeing tonight. They will take the feedback received from Council and their Board of Trustees and fine tune the Plan. The goal is take the final draft of the Plan to their Board of Trustees in August and request their approval to proceed through the City of Dublin's development approval process. If Council has comments, they can be incorporated into that final Plan. An open house engagement is planned for August, as well. This will be a joint presentation. O'Brien/Atkins can share an update on the West Innovation District. Visual views of the Plan can be displayed. They will invite the residents of the City and county within that area to that meeting to obtain their feedback. That feedback will be incorporated into the Plan, which will be submitted through the City development review process. They are anticipating a joint final approval in conjunction with the West Innovation District in January 2017. She invited Council comments. Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumes that they are working with O'Brien/Atkins. [Break occurred due to technical difficulties with recording.] Mr. Peterson that as this Framework Plan is finalized and throughout implementation, discussion will continue regarding growing some of the university programs including what is needed to make that happen. A question was asked about the timeframe was for Centennial Campus. Mr. Peterson stated that these districts go through building spurts, usually a couple of buildings at a time through partnerships, involving flexible phasing of the overall development. The intent is to ensure that whatever occurs on this campus supports the City's existing business incubation effort. Mayor Peterson stated that projects often need a flash point to start. Perhaps focusing on getting a transportation piece in place from DEC at Metro Place to the campus would be a good place to start those dynamics. Scioto River Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Ms. O'Callaghan stated that staff would like to present an update on the status of the design and environmental permitting of the future Scioto River pedestrian bridge. She stated that the process of detailed design and environmental permitting for this bridge began in late 2015. Staff recently received 30% design documents from the consultant design team, an important milestone, and therefore staff believes this is a good check-in point with Council. Based on the 30 percent level of design, Ms. O'Callaghan reported that the pedestrian bridge design concept remains consistent with the concept originally envisioned and shared with the public as well the budget and schedule reflected in the CIP. In terms of background, the pedestrian bridge was identified as part of the Bridge Street District River Corridor Framework Plan as an important transportation connection between Historic Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 11 Dublin, the future riverfront parks, and the retail and residential development along the river as well. The feature of all of this is the scenic Scioto River corridor. [She shared an overview map of the area.] North is to the right, the 161 Riverside Drive roundabout at the lower left, the realigned Riverside Drive along the bottom of the screen, and the Bridge Street bridge crossing the river to the left, to the north is the future pedestrian bridge. The eastern landing for the bridge is at Bridge Park Avenue and the western landing is at the future Rock Cress Parkway, which is near the library and Grounds of Remembrance. She shared an image from the City's web site that highlights the pedestrian bridge as well as the future cycle track. It also shows the future John Shields Parkway Bridge. Both of these future connections across the river will serve as important pedestrian and bicycle links and will close the loop for the future cycle track throughout the Bridge Street District. She shared an earlier rendering of the pedestrian bridge that depicts an iconic concept for the pedestrian bridge that the community has embraced. The concept was developed by Paul Endres of EndreStudio in San Francisco. He is both an architect and an engineer. EndreStudio served as a sub -consultant to MKSK Studios which served as the lead planning firm on the Scioto River Corridor Framework Plan. Mr. Andres and Darren Meyer of MKSK are both present tonight. The concept shown consists of an "S" curve, two span, suspension bridge with a single teardrop shaped pylon or tower in the center. She noted that as outlined in the memo, the topics for discussion tonight are: introduction of the consultant design team selected; presentations from the design team; update on status of the design; demonstrate how detailed design efforts continue to be guided by the previously established vision concept and the budget; lighting options and their cost implications. Finally, an overview of the schedule of the remainder of the detailed design process, moving into construction will be provided and staff will share some of the variables that may impact the project and the budget as well. Ms. O'Callaghan introduced the team that has been working on the design and permitting. The team is led by T.Y. Lin International Group, which is recognized worldwide for excellence and innovation in the specialized field of bridge engineering and has won awards for every bridge type. Paul Endres of EndreStudio is the project architect; Lighting Design Alliance is leading the lighting design; RWDI Consulting Engineers is doing wind analysis and other testing. T.Y. Lin also partnered with local firms, such as MKSK; EMH&T; S&ME; and Resource International. Americost Infrastructure Estimators is providing independent cost estimates and design and construction scheduling services. Genesis Structures will serve as the independent design checker and will perform a structural review of the plans, calculations, notes and specifications on the City's behalf. They have particular expertise in complex bridge erection engineering, specialty structures, bridge design and demolition. Ms. O'Callaghan provided examples of the signature bridges that T.Y. Lin International has been responsible for designing. These include Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge, San Diego, a landmark signature bridge at the southern gateway to downtown San Diego at a cost in 2010 of $23 million; Lusail Pedestrian Bridge, Qatar; Oakland Bay Bridge, San Francisco suspension bridge at $1.45 billion; and Centennial Bridge in Panama City at $104 million. She then invited Mirek Olmer, P.E., Vice President, T.Y. Lin International, the project manager for T.Y. Lin to present. He will address how the design of the bridge has evolved from the Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 12 original concept several years ago through a value engineering effort conducted in 2014, and to the 30 percent design point today. Mr. Olmer noted he is joined by team architect Mr. Endres. Mr. Olmer shared that before being selected to design a bridge for Dublin, he spent time in talking with City staff in order to clarify the real expectations. His understanding of the mandates given to them to deliver were: a bridge under budget; a bridge consistent with the form presented to the public; finish the bridge under schedule, which means initiating construction in 2017, requiring that the design be completed and permits obtained. Mr. Olmer stated that before they started, a lot of work was done. A concept was introduced and presented in primary design, which was followed by value engineering study, resulting in substantial changes. The shaded portion on the slide depicts the original primary concept, symmetrical suspension bridge with a span of 315 feet on each side. There were no piers, and there was a major aesthetic element of the pylon. Value engineering process shortened the total span, which is suspended on cables to 250 feet and introduced some short piers into the structural concept. As with many bridge projects, it develops and during development some conditions change. He shared the location of the bridge connecting with development on each side of the river. The bridge also goes over certain arteries, which must be bridged. He shared the layout from the bridge from 2014 and the bridge layout at this point. The structure has changed, but the concept remains of a suspended bridge. A few spans must be added on the western side of the river, which are crossing North Riverview Street and connect with the landing at the west development. On the east side, the bridge was shortened and connected to the east landing development. The table presented shows the value engineering recommendations and the results today after processing all of the recommendations through rigorous engineering review. There are now four piers — two tall, two short. Instead of proposed drilled shafts for the foundation of the pylon, they are using spread footing, which is more economical. The bridge length increased to 760 feet over the preliminary design of 632 feet. There is no longer symmetrical construction, and many elements of the design are different. Mr. Olmer provided the team tools that have been used in following the City mandates. The collaboration of the team using each team member's expertise has been critical to this process. Suspension bridges are very rare, therefore the rigorous testing and detail that has taken place furthers the goal to ensure the comfort and safety of pedestrians on the bridge. Mr. Olmer used the piers as an example of this collaboration as he described that the piers were not in the original proposal. They are a required result of the extension of the structure on the west riverbed. The team worked to maintain the aesthetics of the bridge, ensure the safety factor and the cost. The piers can restrict the movement of the bridge. He then explained the horizontal deflection studies used in determining the design and materials of the piers. He explained that suspension bridges behave differently than other bridges. Testing to measure the vibration under the pedestrian and wind load ensure that the engineers can then satisfy the codes, address any issues and ensure the bridge is in compliance. He will now address the costs. He noted that the bridge is not the same as in the preliminary design but is still within the ballpark of the budget. It is longer, it is not symmetrical. Some elements are negotiable that will affect the costs, for example concrete piers versus steel piers. Mass dampers that can minimize Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 13 or slow down the motion on the bridge are still in the proposal; however, it is likely they will not be needed. He focused on the costs of four items, which are negotiable and are still under engineering and architectural review. 1. Piers. The numbers shown in blue are the minimum cost, and those in green are the cost for options. The cost is $1.05 million for piers in steel and $600,000 for piers in concrete. This represents significant savings. 2. Period of construction. If it involves two seasons — and the team believes this is realistic — the construction management will be $3.9 million. 3. Dynamic behavior device. Mass dampers can modify the shake of the bridge or limit the motion. They cost $150,000, and are still in the proposal. Until all wind tunnel studies are completed, they will keep this in the proposal. There is a high probability they will not be needed. 4. Lighting. This topic will be more comprehensively addressed by Mr. Endres. The minimum costs are shown in blue at $.2 million, and the most upscale lighting is shown in green at $1.3 million. Council can decide their preference. Finally, he does have the distribution costs on the project as shown on the slide. In total, they expect the construction costs to range from $18.95 million at the lowest through $21.1 million, depending upon some of the items still under refinement. They are at 30 percent design completion, which means that all details are not addressed and only estimates included. Lighting costs represent 6 percent of total costs, mass dampers 1 percent, construction schedule about 15 percent, and steel piers at 5 percent. Steel piers are included in the current design. With concrete piers, the distribution of the cost for the piers goes to 2.5 percent. By the 60 percent design stage, some of the numbers will change. They will provide updates as the project design continues. Mayor Peterson stated that he indicates that 73 percent of the cost distribution is basically non negotiable. In response to Mayor Peterson, Mr. Olmer stated that numbers could change, however approximately 73% of the costs are determined. He has outlined the items for discussion that are variable, depending upon options. Mayor Peterson stated that 73 percent of the budget is therefore the basic bridge, and the other four items have various options with cost levels. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that the smaller pieces on the cost distribution chart were identified as part of the value engineering effort as areas where discussion is warranted. Mr. Keenan stated that it seemed to him the steel versus the concrete piers is an important element. Is this an element where the cost savings should occur? Mr. Reiner stated that there may be some aesthetic considerations involved for this as well. Mr. Olmer suggested that the remaining portion of the presentation by the architect may help clarify this. Mr. Reiner asked Mr. Olmer how well construction costs are controlled during these projects, based on his past experience. Mr. Olmer stated that this is a highly customized bridge. The number of bidders that are attracted to this project is the most important element in the cost aspect. The more competitive the better in terms of controlling costs. The amount of construction activity is also a factor in Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 14 the pricing, as the competition is less. There are many factors involved, including the cost of the steel. There are buy -American requirements for steel, which impacts the costs. Mr. Reiner stated that he is very interested in the maintenance aspect for the materials used for this bridge. Mr. Olmer stated that they opted for concrete for the pylon due to its irregular shape. He referenced another bridge where the piers were made of concrete. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how many companies in this region could build this bridge, given the complexity and rarity of a bridge like this. Mr. Olmer stated that this project could generate interest in contractors who want to gain experience and to have the opportunity to be a part of this project. He estimated that four to five bids could be received. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that an outreach effort would be initiated to make contractors aware of the opportunity. There has been discussion of an open house in the fall where contractors would be invited to discuss the project. Mr. Olmer turned the presentation over to Mr. Endres. Mr. Endres presented the original concept of the bridge from 2013, noting there has been little change in concept. He pointed out the iconic S-shaped form, based on connecting two locations and two streets on opposite sides of the Scioto River. The bridge has an iconic pylon, and that pylon in elevation reflects the S-shaped curve of the bridge deck in the plan. This is a suspension cable that also forms into a complex shape. That complex shape creates this iconic pattern of the flaring of the Hanger Cables. The tower was envisioned to be a pigmented concrete to reflect the historic limestone buildings nearby. The modern form was chosen so it would easily integrate both between the historic neighborhood and the future development. The bridge appears very similar to that in the original concept. The design now holds some distinct differences. There is a 315 -foot span on either side; the anchorage of the cables is in the abutments on either side. This bridge has a maximum 250 -foot span on either side, and the anchorage on the west end is anchored directly into the ground at the end of that suspension. The design is very similar to what was seen before. Another distinction is that the pylon/tower height is smaller than before. Looking at the height from the base, from the ground to the bridge deck it is slightly tower; in the base level and slightly smaller in height above the bridge. The proportions of the tower are slightly different than before. He continued to show the various views of the bridge, including cast in place concrete piers and they are similar and reminiscent of the main pylon. He pointed out the lighting options. The pylon has lighting that falls in three main levels. The first is for safety, and includes handrail cable LED lights placed directly underneath the handrails and shine across basic lighting package, which is seen in three places: the handrails, the tower itself and the accentuation lighting. An additional option could be cable strand lighting, which would allow each cable strand to vary in color as each is being programmed independently. The third lighting package is a digital package that offers LED lighting, which could be programmed independently and perform dynamic movement similar to the Bay Bridge. Mr. Endres called attention to underneath the bridge looking at the form of the pylon and piers. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 15 Mr. Keenan asked about maintenance of the lighting with any of the packages shown. Mr. Endes stated that LEDs require less maintenance than traditional lighting. Mr. Keenan asked about maintenance in the wintertime in clearing the bridge. It appears that a small plow could easily clear the bridge. Mr. Olmer stated that maintenance will be required, but should be affordable. In response to Ms. Alutto's question regarding how wide the bridge is, Mr. Olmer stated it is 14 feet wide. Mr. Lecklider requested images of the piers made of steel instead of the concrete. Mr. Endres produced a picture of the steel pier versus the concrete pier and stated that the level of the flood plain dictates materials. Anything below the flood plain must be concrete. In response to Mr. Lecklidei's question regarding the cost difference, Mr. Olmer stated that the difference in cost between steel and concrete is approximately $450,000. Ms. Bishop stated that the decision between steel versus concrete is not purely aesthetics. It is more of a structural issue. Mr. Olmer added that steel in general, requires more maintenance Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification of what is the best material to be used in this scenario. Ms. Bishop stated that the teams believes that steel is not the best choice due to connectivity, maintenance, and durability. Mr. Keenan stated he likes the concrete piers. Mr. Peterson inquired what decisions need to be made at this time. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that she wanted to review with Council any changes from the initial design. In addition, direction from Council is needed regarding the lighting options. She asked Mr. Endres to address the aesthetics of the concrete piers. Mr. Endres stated that the most important point of focus is the pylon, so any secondary structure (the piers) should reflect the main element (the pylon). Mr. Keenan requested more written material and illustrations of these three lighting options to review. Mr. Reiner inquired as to whether or not this is the "latest greatest" lighting. Mr. Endres stated that the most iconic element is the pylon, so making sure it can be seen is most important. The other question to ask is what the lighting will be used for? The closer the spacing of the LEDs on vertical suspension hangers the more costly it will be. Is this to be an art installation? Identifying the need is most important as well as who will be programming these lights. Mr. Reiner inquired Mr. Endres' opinion on how this should be lit. Mr. Endres stated that these are iconic shapes that should have the brightest intensity and be shown as a landmark. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 16 In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Endres stated that for someone standing on the 161 bridge, the pedestrian bridge will appear as flat, not the "S" shape. In response to Mr. Reiner's second question, Mr. Endres confirmed that the deck of the bridge will be concrete. Mr. Endres added that he believes it will be possible to see the form of the pylon from 270. Mr. Reiner stated the original design of the pedestrian bridge carried a little more grace. Mr. Reiner inquired as to whether or not the tower should be above the suspension cable. Mr. Endres stated that, as a designer, what makes this bridge so special is the continuity of form of the curvature of the individual components. Mr. Endres agreed that the taller tower is more graceful, it is an equation of cost and height. The height of the tower is part of the iconic element. Mr. Reiner stated that taller is preferred, as it is more visible. He inquired as to what the cost variation would be to put the elegant "swoop" back in the design. Mr. Olmer stated that one of the mandates was to lower the tower to 83 feet. The symmetry of the early concept was beautiful but was not feasible to cover all the conditions that needed to be met. Mr. Endres stated that the height of the tower is based on proportion of the span. In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Olmer stated that raising the tower would bring an increase in the cost, but he could not say exactly how much. It is possible to raise the tower, but the value engineering determined the tower should be lower. The original concept was not feasible due to the local conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the lengthening of the bridge. She has a tremendous concern about the aesthetics of the bridge. She stated that it appears that a person would be halfway across the bridge before one gets to the suspension portion. There are bridges in Columbus that appear as suspension bridges but are not. She doesn't feel that this design meets the vision. Mr. Reiner agrees that there was a need to be mindful of costs, but his issue is with the aesthetics of the bridge. Ms. Bishop stated that in 2014, the value engineering was a concept of the elevated walkway that led to the suspension bridge; the items reflected here are in the 30 percent design. Mr. Peterson stated that the concern is that all the renderings focused on the teardrop but 50% of what will be built is not the iconic part. He stated that there may be some hesitation now that Council is actually seeing this. Mr. Lecklider does not agree. He believes what is shown is more than an elevated walkway. This is a unique environment with embankment and trees. The question is really whether the height of the pylon should be increased for some greater aesthetic appeal or would more piers be needed? Mr. Olmer stated that the height could be increased without a complete redesign. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 17 Mr. Endres stated that he would recommend moving cable higher and not adding a piece on the top of the tower. Mr. Keenan agrees with Mr. Lecklider and stated that what has been shown is great. Mr. Endres stated that the overall proportion has changed by the height of the top and height of the base. Ms. Bishop stated that the change in location of the west landing had a host of benefits. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. O'Callaghan stated there is not yet a tree survey showing what trees will remain. Ms. Bishop stated that a survey will eventually be done as it is in the scope of services. Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed concern regarding whether or not there will be trees left to provide a canopy. In response to Ms. Alutto, Mr. Endres responded that this is a major pedestrian bridge. They know of no other pedestrian bridge with an "S" shape form with one suspension cable. Ms. Alutto's concern is essentially one of human behavior. The length of the bridge from landing point to landing point is 760 feet. Will people use a bridge of this length? Mr. Olmer stated that comparing other pedestrian bridges, this is relatively short. He just completed the pedestrian sidewalk on the Bay Bridge that is three miles long. Mr. Foegler discussed the early stages of exploring the placement of the bridge and how some landing points were not feasible for many reasons. He stated that the connectivity, the best landing point at grade and having a series of experiences were all taken into consideration in selecting the placement location. In response to Ms. Alutto, Mr. Foegler explained that there were ADA issues that needed to be addressed. Ms. Alutto stated that she understood why the west landing was moved and that it is important that every person has access to the bridge. The width of the bridge was briefly discussed. Mr. Endres stated that the bridge is a generous width. The narrowest path to accommodate both pedestrians and bikes would be 10 or 12 feet. At 14 feet, the bridge provides two extra feet of space. Ms. Alutto stated that she would like to see additional renderings to understand the elevated walkway experience. Mr. Foegler agreed that the renderings provided for the meeting purposes were not to show that experience. Ms. Alutto stated that approaching from the east side will be beautiful, but in terms of approaching from the west side, she would like to see what the experience would be. Mr. Foegler stated that it will be part elevated and part suspension due to the expense and feasibility. Mayor Peterson stated that the current graphics provided to Council show a linear view so the curving shape and the bowing cables are not visible in this graphic. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 18 Mayor Peterson stated that what he is struggling with is the lowering of the bridge and the less dramatic swoop of the shape. Mr. Foegler stated he would need to explore cost implications and any other limitations. Mr. Peterson would like to know that information. He stated that this is the first time he has seen it lowered so he would like to know what the trade-off is for having it lowered versus keeping it at the height originally shown. Mr. Foegler stated that the lowering of the tower was addressed in the initial value engineering report, but this is the first time a graphic is illustrating that change. Mr. Reiner stated that there is a certain cadence to scale and that clipping the top does make a difference. Mr. Peterson stated that at some point, someone must have said the bridge being lower will save a certain amount of money. Mr. Endres noted that he takes responsibility for making that statement in the process. He stated that the team looked at the 350 foot span, stress on the cable, and all other costs related to the tower if the span were to be reduced. If the tower were to be moved up 27 feet, there would be an increased cost to the cable and the cost of the tower. It will impact construction because some of the components will change. It is a change in schedule and the cost in reanalyzing the bridge again. Mr. Reiner stated that what he has heard us it cost around half a million dollars to raise the tower, but it could delay construction and there will be costs to reengineer. Mr. Endres agreed that the aesthetics are improved by the higher tower. In initial phases, different heights were explored in increments. Ultimately, however, it was determined that to decrease the stress on the cable it was left at the 83 foot height and the 250 foot span. There was talk of changing that, but because of the cost considerations, that was not done. Mr. Foegler added that if Council wants this examined, he suggests that the team have the opportunity to go back and vet both in terms of cost, time, process what they believe this would be so that there is consensus among the team. He is not certain what timeframe would be required to do this, but it seems there is enough interest in this on Council's part to consider these cost variables for further consideration. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that in 2014, the budget for this bridge, as she recalls, was $12 million; in 2015, it increased to $15 million; tonight, it is at $20 plus million, depending upon options. There is $8 million in the plaza on the west side landing. She asked whether or not having the bridge landing in its original location in the Historic District was studied, and what could possibly have been done with that approximately $10 million or so in terms of resolving the ADA issue — if that is the reason the original location was not good. Mr. Foegler stated that he does not agree with the numbers she has provided. The current CIP budget amount, as approved by Council in 2015 has construction at a little over $19 million for this pedestrian bridge. With regard to whether a cost was run for construction on the side of the cliff that ends at North Street, that was not done because there were a series of reasons why that is a poor and unworkable location. Basically, people are dumped at the end of a street where four curb cuts meet and there is 12 feet of elevation to get to the sidewalk, and very little Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 19 room to improve pedestrian accessibility up to North Street. In addition, the City does not own the real estate at that location. Mayor Peterson asked Council Members if they would support reviewing the tower height issue that has been raised. Mr. Lecklider stated he would like to have this examined. But he added that it was not an objective for him to be able to see the bridge from I-270. He is more concerned with the overall experience for those on the east and west bank, the future John Shields bridge and the existing 161 bridge. It is not his primary objective to create height so that the bridge can be seen from a much greater distance. He is concerned with the overall design aesthetics, but also balancing that against engineering, cost and schedule impacts. If not for the quite physical obstacles, perhaps another preferred location for the landing on the west side would have been different — but it is simply not practical. He asked for clarification from Ms. Amorose Groomes about her comment that seemed to imply the bridge landing on the west side will not be in the Historic District. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that the landing on the west side of the river will not be in the midst of anything historical. Technically, by a matter of feet, the landing will be in the Historic District as marked by the pylon, but it is certainly at the far end of the District and there will be nothing further of the Bridge Street district on that side of the street to the north. She would prefer it be in the heart of the Historic District. The City did not own the ground now planned for the landing before it was purchased by the City. Mr. Lecklider understands her issue about the technical boundaries of the Historic District. He views this as a positive outcome of an expansion of the Historic District. However, the preference would have been for a landing further to the south. But he understands the physical and geographic challenges that are presented by doing so. Mr. Foegler noted that is clearly where we started when looking at this. The Bridge Street District goes to 270, so there is quite a bit of distance to the north. If you think of it in the context where the new library is being built, North Street to the south, Rock Cress to the north, you are either landing at the street that forms the southern edge of the new library or the street that forms the northern edge of the new library site there. So it is one building further to the north. Mr. Lecklider added that a number of Council and Commissioners visited the Liberty bridge in Greenville, South Carolina, and that bridge was 345 feet in length. He felt that was a fairly short bridge. It is clearly a personal perspective about what length of bridge is daunting to cross. Mr. Meyer, MKSK stated that the architect for the Greenville bridge communicated that the interest for the creation of the bridge in Greenville was to create views and enjoy the river, not to create something iconic. Ms. Alutto stated that she would support looking into a greater height of the tower, but maybe something in between 83 and 110 feet would be appropriate taking into account cost and scheduling. Minutes of Joint Work Session June 20, 2016 Page 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes requested total figures on cost of the pedestrian bridge, including land acquisition, plaza design, bridge design, consultants, etc. -- an entire picture of everything that relates to the total cost. Ms. Alutto stated that she would like to see the cost in context of time, since not all the costs are occurring at one time. Mr. Foegler stated that the CIP information will show what has been spent to date on design and construction. The property on the west side was given to the City by the developer. He clarified that the $8 million dollar plaza referenced is on the east side and is at total build out. The west side is about $1 million. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted she would also like to see the tree information and the tree height. Mr. Reiner thanked the team for designing a bridge that will set Dublin apart. He is fine with the concrete supports -- the only issue for him is the height of the tower. He is interested in information to make it more iconic and a more beautiful piece of art that is unique. He is supportive of reexamining the height of tower. Mr. Peterson summarized that staff will provide information to Council on the impacts of changing the tower height and also the incremental costs of upgrading the lighting package above the basic package. John Shields Parkway Bridge It was the consensus of Council to delay the John Shields Parkway Bridge discussion to a later date. The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Clerk of Council