Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-16 Work Session MinutesDublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, April 18, 2016 Work Session of Dublin City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Members present were: Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Reiner, Ms. Alutto, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Keenan, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Lecklider was absent (excused). Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Papsidero, Mr. Earman, Mr. Foegler, Chief von Eckartsberg, Ms. Husak, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Richison, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Burness. Mr. McDaniel stated that tonight, staff will provide updates on various Bridge Street District related items. For some portions, staff will be seeking feedback or guidance from Council. Mr. Foegler commented regarding the agenda items: 1. The management systems for the on-street parking in the Bridge Street District is a more involved presentation in terms of the kinds of policy considerations, i.e. if Council wants to establish an on-street parking management system; staff will present the analysis that has been done with Walker Consultants over the last year plus; some of the recommendations for Phase 1 implementation of those moving forward; and feedback and dialogue from Council on a number of issues. Also tonight will be a demonstration of the kind of equipment staff is recommending Council endorse broadly, if Council chooses to move forward with this approach. 2. Regarding the Scioto River Park Master Plan, Council indicated at goal setting that there should be one more work session on this topic before the Plan is brought forward for adoption. Staff will include background and history for the benefit of new Council members. Staff will also provide some historical context of the planning that fed this effort over the last three years. 3. A library update will then be provided by Mr. McDaniel. 4. The development review process topic is largely focused on the questions of two major projects coming forward – the library and its parking garage and associated park improvements. 5. Finally, as mentioned at the goal setting session, staff will have a recommendation that Council move forward with an effort analogous to what was done with the Scioto River Corridor framework for West Bridge Street area. Mr. Papsidero will be presenting this. Update on Entertainment Districts Mr. Foegler stated that at the goal setting session, staff discussed the desire for three Community Entertainment Districts, as opposed to two.  With the large number of restaurants anticipated to trade in their current permit, they could consume a substantial number of the CED permits. The applications for those three districts will be scheduled for Council consideration on the April 25, 2016 meeting agenda. The goal is to achieve at least 75 acres in each CED in order to maximize the number of permits, and also, not to overwhelm any one district with existing permit holders.  These draft applications were reviewed by the State Liquor Control Board to ensure the City was in compliance. On the East Scioto CED, the Liquor Control Board has indicated that if a river is in the CED, there must also be an existing bridge. The Emerald Parkway Bridge Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 2 of 26 provides a connection in the north, and the SR 161 Bridge provides a connection to the south. Mr. Reiner stated that at the last Dublin Arts Council board meeting, he was asked about the possibility of including DAC in the CED district, so that they would have the opportunity to have a liquor permit. They would be able to have fundraiser dinners. Mr. Foegler stated that he is unsure if DAC would have to meet restaurant requirements to obtain a liquor permit. Ms. Readler responded they are limited to food operations, so they would need to check to see if the DAC meets the Ohio Revised Code requirements. Catering would not qualify. Mr. Reiner stated that DAC has a kitchen in the basement. Mr. Foegler responded that staff would have to verify that the kind of permit for which DAC would be eligible is one to which the state would issue a liquor permit. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that because they were located in the CED does not necessarily mean they would be issued a permit. They would have to meet the other requirements, the same as everyone else. It would seem best to include them in the district now, and, if the DAC wants to pursue that sometime in the future, there would be the flexibility to do so. Mr. Foegler stated that it would be necessary to stop this process and amend the applications for Council consideration, or amend them later. That can be discussed in more detail Monday, but the application as it is currently written has already been advertised. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if including the DAC site would be beneficial as it would add additional acreage. Mr. Foegler responded that district already meets the minimum requirement of 75 acres. The district that was short is the northern district, but the Wendy’s site has now been included, so all three districts now meet the minimum requirement of 75 acres. It would not be difficult to amend the district at a later date. Council can discuss those considerations Monday. Parking Policy Considerations – Bridge Park East Ms. Puranik presented the broad consideration for on-street parking management within Bridge Park and Riverside Drive. They also have a demo of parking meters. On-street Parking  Benefits: - Higher efficiency and conveniences – they are the most used and provide the highest turnover - Better land use – medium-sized town centers can save two or more acres of land by providing street parking vs traditional parking - Increased safety – drivers tend to travel at significantly slower speeds on streets with on-street parking and small building setbacks.  The reason for on-street parking in Bridge Park East and Riverside Drive include: - This will be a completely new street system that would be designed with on-street parking spaces - All other parking options in this district are structured – the garage, which is in the initial stage, will be free parking. - There are only two landowners, public and private, within the district – City of Dublin Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 26 and Crawford Hoying - The on-street parking will be a “test case” for fee-based parking. Depending on how the test case works, it could be expanded to other areas within the district.  On-street parking management goals are to: - Ensure an appropriate rate of turnover for parking spaces - Prevent misuse of the prime customer parking spaces by employees or residents for long periods of time - Provide technology that is user friendly and simple for visitor parking - Provide technology that simplifies administration and enforcement - Generate some revenues to help offset future operational costs for fee-parking spaces.  On-street parking would be implemented in phases. Phase one would provide a total of 175 spaces on: - Riverside Drive – 100 spaces - Bridge Park Shore – 26 spaces - Longshore Drive – 49 spaces  Hours of meter operation: - Consistent with the general hours of operation of the restaurant and retail tenants - 9 am – 11 pm – Monday-Thursday - 9 am – 2 am – Friday and Saturday - 9 am – 9 pm – Sunday  Parking Meter – Possible Fees and Fines - $1.00 per hour ($.25 per 15-minute increment) - Option for discounted parking through validations by merchants, if desired. - Initial parking fine structure: 1st offense – warning 2nd offense - $10 fine 3rd offense - $30 fine 4th and subsequent offenses - $50 fine Mayor Peterson inquired the maximum amount of time that one could park in an on street spot. Ms. Puranik responded that it is 12 hours, but must be paid at the outset. Mr. Keenan stated that there was information in the packet that indicated there would be some time limitations in consideration of potential tenants or employees that may want to park there for convenience. Ms. Puranik responded that information is correct. Mr. Keenan inquired if an individual would therefore have the opportunity to pay $12 and park there for that length of time. Ms. Puranik responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes that should be reconsidered. Mayor Peterson agreed. Even a very long dinner – 2 hours, should be sufficient time to park. If not, one should move the car or feed the meter. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 4 of 26 Mr. Papsidero stated that the parking meters are software based, so there should be no need to feed the meter. All of the garages are free, however, so employees working an 8-hour shift would want to park in the garage, versus paying $8 at the meter. They will review the time increments and identify the best way in which to manage that.  Equipment and Software - Multi-space smart meters with supporting web and phone-based software applications - “Pay by plate” option that is a virtual system, no paper receipts - Integrates with the enforcement system; provides a hand held device for monitoring - Provides for payment by credit card, phone, and app - A web-page that provides a parking map and a means for requesting assistance - One meter is installed per 8-10 parking spaces (typically one block face) and meters are solar powered with battery backup  Administration and Enforcement Legal staff has researched enforcement options and identified two: - City staff – employees, Code Enforcement officers, civilian police staff, or community service officers - Contract with third-party vendor or the Community Authority. Ms. Readler stated that they have identified the two options for enforcement. If either of those options are ones that Council would prefer not to pursue further, please advise them accordingly. She noted that community service officers are volunteers, but they do receive training and would be authorized to issue parking tickets. Mr. Keenan stated that the Police Chief is not interested in having police officers involved in that enforcement function. Using community service officer who are volunteers might be problematic from a scheduling perspective – it would be difficult to have their coverage for all the hours. It will be necessary to review the numbers to determine whether a third-party contractor makes sense. Hiring City staff to provide enforcement would involve paying employee benefits; therefore, a third-party provider may be the best option. Mayor Peterson noted that a third-party vendor could only issue a civil citation, which means it could not be enforced through Mayor’s Court. Ms. Readler responded that is correct. The City would also have to establish a separate hearing officer. This could be administered by the Court Administrator, but, technically, it would be a separate process. The City of Columbus uses that type of process. Mr. Keenan noted that would not be a difficult process. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if they had considered Easton’s process that uses nonprofits. Ms. Readler responded that they have not explored that option. Mr. Foegler stated that this is being proposed as Phase 1 of what will likely become part of a much larger City-wide system. Easton works with their Foundation, which determines what philanthropic purposes those revenues would be utilized for. In Dublin, the revenues would likely go into an enterprise fund, and Council would ultimately make the decision regarding the use of the excess revenue. Easton does fund their internal private security, as well. It is Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 5 of 26 doubtful that Bridge Park would have that component, but the potential for fulltime, on-site personnel would be explored, as well -- the New Community Authority could have such resources.  Initial Phase 1 cost and revenue considerations - Hardware (15 meters) = $159,380 (typical 8-10 year life in Ohio weather) o Software subscriptions and services (annual investment) o Year 1: $29,4448.00 (software and set up) o Subsequent years: $4,000 (software maintenance, license, support) - Enforcement staff - depends upon what enforcement option is selected - Projected revenue: o Depends upon parking usage. 100% usage of parking spaces during all parking hours = $900,000/year; 50-75% usage = $500,000-$700,000/year  Schedule - Procurement and bidding (approximately a 6-8 week process) - Hardware installed by Fall 2016 with first round of retail opening in Bridge Park East - Approximately 3 months from ordering the equipment to hardware and software installation and training Parking Meter Demonstration John Bambey, Vice President - Sales, Signature Control Systems, Blacklick, Ohio stated that his company is the local distributor for the manufacturer of T2 parking meters. They have installed the parking equipment at Ohio State and numerous areas throughout Ohio and Pennsylvania. Most recently, they have contracted with Crawford Hoying for the Bridge Park development. Their company provides installation, contracting and servicing for the T2 meter. Andy Harman, Regional Sales Manager,T2 Parking Systems, Columbus, Ohio demonstrated the LUKE II multispace parking meter, which can typically take the place of 8-10 single-space meters. It has a pay by license plate configuration; fee is paid by coin or credit. The management system is cloud-based. The enforcement officer has an enforcement app download on a smartphone or tablet. LUKE II Parking Meter: Features for Consumers - Range of convenient payment options, such as coins, bills, credit cards, smart cards, etc. - Extend-by-Phone service provides expiry reminders and the ability to add time via mobile device - Prompts in multiple languages - 38-key full alphanumeric keypad for easy license plate entry Features for Parking Operators: - Remote configuration of rates and policies saves time and money - Flexible rate structures and diverse payment options can increase revenue - Real-time credit card processing to reduce processing fees and eliminate bad credit - Complete audit trail and rich analytics - Real-time reporting and alarming Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 6 of 26 Mobile Enforcement App: Features: - Issue citations and includes photos - Perform permit lookups - Monitor meters parking with “check payment” feature - Tire chalking ability to track tire valve locations - Option for Motorist assistance Benefits: - Real-time Flex data provides accurate enforcement - Increased citation revenue - Enforcement anytime/anywhere via portable devices Ms. Salay inquired if the user could buy more time remotely via the app. Mr. Harman responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan inquired if the enforcement app is interfaced with BMV to identify the license plate user. Mr. Harman responded that it can be. Once the citation is issued, it would initiate an account for that license plate. Subsequent citations for that plate would show on that account. If the account is not paid, it can be interfaced with the BMV to access registered owner information. A task scheduler can send out citations, based on the City’s policy. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired about the percentage of citations issued. Mr. Harman responded that it can vary according to municipality or application. The City would have to monitor this particular application and make policy adjustments to ensure compliance. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if he had any statistics from installations in another municipality. Mr. Harman responded he does not have any statistics at hand, but can research it and forward. Vice Mayor Reiner asked how the cost of a single meter, such as in the Short North, compares with the multi-space meter. How many spaces can be monitored by one meter? Mr. Harman responded that this meter can monitor 8-10 parallel spaces. With angled parking, it can be 15-20 spaces. Within a parking lot, it would vary based on a number of factors. Their company does not sell single-space meters, but he believes a single meter head costs approximately $600. There are monthly transaction fees involved, as well. Mr. Keenan inquired if the installation of the multi-space meters occurs when the streets and sidewalks are installed. How deep are they installed? Mr. Harman stated that the meter is comprised of two pieces. The pedestal base is bolted to the concrete pad, up to a foot deep on the pad. The meters are 12-gauge steel. They do not have any issues with people removing the meters, and they are installed on-street in major cities -- Houston has approximately 1,000 meters; New Orleans has 450 meters. Ms. Alutto asked about the lifespan of a meter. Mr. Harman responded that it depends upon environmental and usage factors, but they last 8-10 years. Ms. Alutto inquired what issues could occur with the meter itself. Mr. Harman responded that there could be an issue if vandalism of the screen were to occur. The screen does have a Lexan protective shield, however. The machines are designed for inclement weather in a high-volume, on-street environment, so they are very durable. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 7 of 26 Ms. Alutto inquired how often software updates are needed. Mr. Harman responded that it varies; it isn’t always necessary to do them. They may be necessary in some locations, but not others. Ms. Alutto inquired how they are accomplished. Mr. Harman responded that they can be done via the cloud. Ms. Alutto inquired if they have experienced issues with the solar panels cracking. Mr. Harman responded that, typically, there are none, unless it is due to vandalism. Ms. Alutto inquired who the motorist would call if something is not working with the meter. Mr. Harman responded that there will be a City notification number on the machine. How the service is handled is determined by the service plan with Signature Control Systems, which provides local sales and support for these machines. There is a full support center in Vancouver. Ms. Alutto inquired if the City receives service records on the machines, should there be a question about a citation. Mr. Harman responded that the online system tracks all that. If a problem should occur with the machine, a service alert goes out to the appropriate contact. The online system has a log that includes when the critical alert for the machine went out and also when the machine came back online. Because the system is cloud-based, however, the motorist can use another meter to validate their time. Ms. Alutto inquired if the individual could choose to have a receipt emailed. Mr. Harman responded that they could not at the point of sale. In the back office, there is that functionality. The individual could call and ask to have a receipt emailed; it can be looked up by the license plate number. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if a machine is vandalized and needs to be replaced, is the City liable for the replacement cost. Mr. Harman responded that the City would have to buy a new machine, although there could be an insurance claim. Mr. Keenan inquired if there is a warranty on the machines. Mr. Harman responded that there is a one-year warranty on hardware and software and extended warranty options beyond that. Mayor Peterson inquired if the app provides a warning to the individual of the approaching time expiration. Mr. Harman responded that a text or app alert is sent, at which time additional payment can be loaded. The machines do have a feature called “Extend by phone,” which is a little different than “Pay by phone.” Payment is session based; the time can be extended. Mayor Peterson inquired if the enforcement officer can issue citations on vehicles that do not show any meter payment. Mr. Harman responded affirmatively. Mayor Peterson inquired if that also applies for out of state vehicles. Does the database have the necessary information on out of state vehicles? Mr. Harman responded that the back office has the capability to look up information on out-of- state license plate numbers. Mr. Keenan inquired who is responsible for the credit card information that goes into the cloud. Mr. Harman responded that their company is a Level 1 PCI provider and, therefore, is PCI Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 8 of 26 compliant. Mr. Keenan inquired who is responsible if that information is breached. Could he check the contract and provide that information to Council? Mr. Harman responded that he would do so. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the process. If the parking time is expired, a citation is not issued until someone checks to verify the vehicle is still there and puts a notice on the windshield? Mr. Harman responded affirmatively. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired the City’s intent. Is it to ensure rapid turnover of parking spaces or generate revenue? That question must be asked before determining if this system meets the City’s intent. Mr. Keenan stated that he believes the intent is to accomplish orderly parking facilities. The City has had to establish parking spaces with time restrictions in the Darby parking lot and utilized enforcement. Otherwise, residents and employees will use the parking spaces. Ms. Salay stated that the goal is to have turnover of the prime parking spaces and to ensure that employees do not take up those critical parking spaces. That is the issue that occurred with the Darby parking lot. Mayor Peterson stated that he believes that it may be more so residents’ use of the parking spaces that needs to be discouraged. Mr. Foegler responded that employees could choose to pay, even though they have a free option. The City can vet the behavior usage over time, and set its policy accordingly. There are not that many circumstances where a massive supply of free structured parking is bypassed for the convenience of nearer parking. The intent is that the prime, on-street parking will be for customers and visitors to the offices, businesses or restaurants -- the parking fees would be set to encourage that, but, hopefully, the accessible, free parking is a nice alternative. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that there has been an issue with the limited parking spaces behind La Chatelaine restaurant being used by the employees. There has to be a punishment/reward system to encourage the desired behavior. The City purchases expensive land and installs parking spaces, which then are abused by business employees. Mr. Papsidero responded that the City’s Code Enforcement officers know restaurant employees on a first name basis, because they are repeatedly citing them. They continue to abuse the surface parking lot. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if they pay the citation penalties. Mr. Papsidero responded that they do, but they are willing to pay the fees rather than parking up the hill in the back lot. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the same situation will hold true here. Mr. Papsidero responded that staff is trying to determine how to best manage that situation. One advantage is that each Block will have a structured garage, which will address volume and supply. Vice Mayor stated that part of the issue with La Chatelaine parking spaces is that the City did not have sufficient enforcement personnel allocated to address the problem. Mr. Papsidero responded that the City still does not have the resources in place to enforce it consistently – that is part of the issue. Enforcement occurs a couple of times a week. With Bridge Park, the anticipation is full-time enforcement coverage – that would make a big difference. That Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 9 of 26 cannot occur in Historic Dublin today. Ms. Salay inquired the total anticipated cost – hardware, software and enforcement personnel. If the anticipated revenue is $500,000, what will be the cost benefit? Mr. Foegler stated that there are a couple considerations: 1. The nature of the enforcement mechanism. Third-party enforcement has some advantages, from a cost perspective. 2. The challenge is that the City does not currently have metered parking, but the City is creating enough development to anticipate a significant demand for on-street parking in the future. There weren’t enough parking spaces in the Darby lot to pursue that direction. This is the City’s first phase of on-street metered parking. What is the critical mass of on- street spaces where it becomes financially net positive? In the City of Columbus, metered parking produces massive amounts of income beyond the costs of it. Starting with 175 spaces is modest. The park will not be on-line for two years; initially, the metered parking will primarily serve the businesses. The City will have to make a decision how to expand this parking over time. There will be much more demand for more surface parking on the west side of the river, eventually, and it will be desirable to have policies that reserve the prime spaces for the customers, and, increasingly, move employees to the more remote locations. The economics of this will improve as more spaces are added. Part of the Phase One approach is to learn about the customer base in these environments, so that the policies can continue to evolve. In Columbus, assessments of their parking program occur on a regular basis. There will be a learning experience aspect to Phase One, which is the reason staff discussed exploring renting this type of equipment, rather than purchasing it. There are a variety of options to be considered. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that staff’s memo indicated that a parking consultant would be hired to serve through this entire phase. Are the numbers comprehensive, i.e. nothing is included under another umbrella or budget? Mr. Foegler stated that this will likely be an enterprise account, through which all of its revenue and expenses would flow. Projecting those now is very difficult, because there is nothing to base it on. We do not know to what extent the structured parking will be used. It will be in the City’s interest, however, to encourage turnover of the on-street spaces. Therefore, it is necessary to identify all the costs and develop some best estimates, which can be adjusted moving forward. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that one of the proposed parking meters serves 8-10 parking spaces. Eight single-space meters at $600 each would be $4,800 versus $11,000. Is there an aesthetic consideration for this proposal – that one pole per eight spaces would look better than 8 poles? Mr. Papsidero responded that was a consideration, plus the effectiveness of the app base. The City of Columbus program is strictly credit-card based. Those meters will also ice over, and if not angled properly, they cannot be read at certain times of the day due to sun glare. He is not aware of the single meter heads that are available app based. That technology would increase the price substantially. That alternative can be explored, however. With this proposal there would be less clutter -- each block would have one meter on each side of the street. The streetscape designs have taken this kind of structure into consideration. Ms. Puranik noted that Kolar Design has conducted an initial analysis of meters within the streetscape design. Mr. Foegler stated that there also regulatory signs that would be needed indicating parking enforcement hours, but those would be affixed to existing poles – no new poles. Although that will Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 10 of 26 minimize the clutter, the City will remain compliant with the signage requirements for this program. Ms. Salay inquired if nearby Disabled Parking spaces are included. Mr. Papsidero responded that parking spaces meeting ADA requirements are located throughout the area. Ms. Alutto inquired if all the data storage is on-shore. Mr. Harman responded affirmatively. Ms. Alutto inquired if they utilize encryption in transferring data. Mr. Harman responded affirmatively. Mayor Peterson inquired if staff has the necessary input. Ms. Puranik responded that with tonight’s input, staff will finalize the details and bring back the program for final Council approval. [Displayed slide of next steps]  Next Steps - Prepare bid specs and initiate procurement of hardware & software vendor - Finalizing administrative and enforcement policies and budgets - Finalizing meter locations for accuracy and installation - Initiate needed Legislative actions (fees, fines, enforcement, etc.) - Installation of meters, public information campaign, etc. - On-going Communications, public education, etc. Mr. McDaniel stated that Council raised some questions tonight for which staff will provide follow- up information. Ms. Salay stated that if the expectation is to look at this phase as an experiment and purchase this equipment, if the City later determines not to pursue this direction, is there a secondary market for the equipment? Are the start-up costs justified, if the City should decide not to go that route? Mr. McDaniel responded that a rental model would be preferable for testing -- if there is that option. Staff will review that. He agrees that it is preferable not to incur too many “sunk” costs. Mr. Foegler stated that one of the challenges becomes the trial period. There will be a modest amount of restaurants and retail, as well as houses, in the beginning, and the park will not be on- line. From the outset, it is important to accustom people to having metered parking in that location. It will be two years before more retail and the park will be in place, and a better assessment is possible. It is possible to look at other enforcement options in the near term, but they will have to prepare some risk assessments and cost write offs for Council’s consideration. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it will be some period of time before the park will be completed. Perhaps a better trial location is the Darby parking lot, which the City owns. It is a “built” lot and could provide better information than waiting two years for the park to be completed, and it is possible to realize some revenue. Mr. McDaniel stated that the proposal pertains to Bridge Park East. At this time, he is not certain if it could be trialed on the west side the Bridge Street District. The issue is that this area also will be disrupted during the next year or so – with the work on the Library and Parking Garage. This would have to be evaluated. The Darby parking lot is where most of the issues have occurred. His concern would be the timing of doing this while the construction is so disruptive in the area. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 11 of 26 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that disruption will be occurring everywhere, so if we are looking for a place that is not disrupted, it would be best not to buy any at this time. It will be disruptive when the park is being built along Riverside Drive as well. Ms. Salay stated that the concept is great. She complimented staff on a thorough and well thought out presentation. She supports the idea of an app based system – that will really appeal to the clientele. Any tasks that can be accomplished with a smartphone is well received. Although it is a great idea, it is important that some issues be addressed before proceeding. Mr. Keenan stated that this concept really illustrates staff’s attention to detail – thinking through at the outset. Even though this may be down the road, this type of forethought is needed. He appreciates staff’s efforts to provide this, and he is supportive. Mr. Foegler stated that Planning staff has taken the lead in working the last year on these issues and has done an excellent job. In regard to the idea to trial metered parking on the west side of the river, he agrees that is a good example of where it is needed. However, there would be so many stakeholders involved – and it would be necessary to work with all of them to address all the issues and concerns -- that it would take quite a period of time. With one cooperative property owner, the landowner on the east side (except for the park), demonstrating this would be more acceptable as we begin to explore the role of these on the west side. For that reason, Bridge Park East was a logical phase one. Mayor Peterson stated that the introduction of paid on-street parking will be a new path for the City, where parking has been free. He expects that people will be less understanding. He agrees that the purchase costs and limiting the parking time frames are important issues. River Park Master Plan Update Mr. Earman stated that there have been several public input sessions on the River Park Master Plan, dating back to 2013. During those three years, the Master Plan has been tweaked to the current iteration. The most recent public input session on March 28, 2016 was the residents’ final opportunity to provide input on the Master Plan. Approximately 125 residents attended and constructive public input was received. After viewing this draft of the Master Plan, staff invites Council’s input and direction. That will be incorporated into a final draft, which will be presented to Council for adoption in the near future. Development of the park will occur in phases to coincide with construction of the pedestrian bridge and other CIP projects. Ms. Salay inquired about the compilation of all the resident input received in written and online form. Mr. Earman responded that for the March 28 session, there is a spreadsheet of the 300 entries received. Input received at the April 15th homeowner association meeting was collected and provided to MKSK. All of that input can be forwarded to Council. Ms. Salay responded that she would like to have that information. Council members are the citizen representatives, and she wants to know their thoughts. She assumes the input has been incorporated into the report, but she enjoys reading the comments. Darren Meyer, MKSK presented the history and context of some of the major planning pieces that have informed the current River Park Master Plan design. In 2013, Council looked at where some Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 12 of 26 of the initial public investment in the Bridge Street District would go, that would be of the most benefit to the community, and catalyze from the private investment and public redevelopment that was anticipated in the District. The area of focus was the Scioto River Corridor. The Historic Core and the Scioto River are anchors in the community – two of the most enduring assets. It was desirable to have new, walkable neighborhoods in the Bridge Street District, connecting to and building on the vibrant, walkable Historic Core and having the new, walkable neighborhoods and development front on the great natural feature and amenity – the Scioto River. As part of this process, four projects were identified for public investment for the Bridge Street District:  Pedestrian bridge – connecting the new development on the east side to Historic Dublin. - It is an important transportation link. One of the lynch pins of the Bridge Street District is a shift in modes of transportation from vehicle dominated to pedestrian and bicycle. - It is a destination within itself – a signature bridge  Riverside Drive realignment - to create some usable park space on the east side - Reconstructing/converting from a rural highway feel to a city street to calm traffic and crossable to the park, over the river, and to the west side. Mr. Foegler noted that the time point of this planning effort was January 2013.  Riverside Park—connecting from Indian Run on the west to the John Shields Parkway green to the east. - A great incentive and catalyst for private redevelopment – increases property values - An economic development - the park amenities attract/retain employees - Other benefits: health/wellness, environmental and social.  Riverside Roundabout – transportation improvement, envisioned for many years, now incorporated into the Bridge Street District. The intent was that those four catalytic projects would complement and help create the new neighborhood on the east side -- Bridge Park; future development to the north; redevelopment of the public Library; Bridge Park West. Today, the civic core is considered to be at the intersection of Bridge Street and High Street. Once the pedestrian bridge, Riverside Park, and other development occurs, it will create a greater civic core for the community. There were several public meetings on the proposed Bridge Street Framework Plan. Through those meetings, the elements of the Riverside Park became more defined, which has resulted in the current Riverside Park Master Plan. Consistent with public input, including multiple public opinion surveys, the focus of the Master Plan is to create access to and enjoyment of the great natural feature – the Scioto River. That amenity is currently untapped/unleveraged. It is important to note that the increased use and enjoyment of the river is not mutually exclusive with the protection of the river environment. The intent is to protect and enhance the health of the natural systems there while creating some great access for the public to see, use and enjoy the Scioto River, particularly on the west side, where the environment is more natural. Within that area, there will be some pockets of activity. The center of activity will be on the east side with the new development of Bridge Park. The east landing of the pedestrian bridge will be at Bridge Park Avenue/Riverside Drive. On a smaller scale, the bridge lands in Historic Dublin adjacent to the public library and Bridge Park West. In the future, there may be opportunity for some park activity with a potential Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 13 of 26 bridge at John Shields Parkway. That connector would run to the east and connect to Tuller Flats and future development that may occur in that area. These are the important crossings at the river; they are also the thresholds into the park. That is where the hardscape and architectural improvements may be focused. The bulk of the park will be the natural environment. Riverside Park Master Plan Components:  Pedestrian Bridge East Plaza Mr. Meyer noted that they have explored ways in which to extend use of the park through all seasons, including the feasibility of an ice rink. Dublin has some experience with the ice rink in Coffman Park. The public has provided positive feedback regarding the possible addition of that amenity. The east plaza would include comfort facilities and would be used for civic and public events, not private rentals.  Pedestrian Bridge West Plaza At this landing, the amenities will be simple, keeping the view east to the river and pedestrian bridge open. The space will be scaled smaller, more appropriate to Historic Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired how large this plaza will be. Mr. Meyer responded that the distance between Bridge Park West and the future development area owned by Crawford Hoying is approximately 100 feet. Ms. Salay stated that the landing for the bridge shifted to the north a little, since the initial discussions. Why was that moved? Mr. Meyer responded that during the last three years of the planning process, the east side location at Bridge Park has been fixed. At one point, the connection was at North Street; now it aligns with the future Rock Cress Parkway. There are a few reasons for that: o Accessibility – North Street is a very steep street, approximately 12% slope. Exiting the pedestrian at that location would have involved climbing that grade to High Street. In theory, the bridge could have been floated over the street, but there would have been issues with vehicles and access under bridge. It would have been necessary to land the bridge 15-20 feet below the intersection at North and High. In the current scenario, the bridge will land at the street and sidewalk grade of High Street. o Consideration of how the future street of North Riverview would serve the Bridge Park West design, o Potential for how this area might re-develop The primary reason was to make this an accessible route to all users. There is also a much better alignment with the internal loop of the cycle track, which will run along future Rock Cress Parkway, down along Bridge Park Avenue, loop to the east and back up John Shields Parkway. The earlier plan would have involved a jog at High Street to connect to the bikepath and the Indian Run greenway. Now there is a direct connection. Mr. Foegler stated that with the landing at the North Street grade, there would have been very little opportunity for much pedestrian access, due to the narrowness of the sidewalk area. There was also a potential for vehicular-pedestrian conflict because of all the streets that come together at North Riverview and North Street. Those conflicts will worsen due to the other street systems in the area and future changes under consideration. It was a much less desirable landing point, even if the grading issue could have been overcome. It was necessary to look for a landing point to the north. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 14 of 26  Pedestrian Bridge The original pedestrian bridge design has remained intact through the final design process.  The Green On the east side of the river, it is an open, flexible space for events and for passive use. The grade will fall naturally toward the river. Most of the streets that come down will have grades of 4 to 7%. They are exploring the potential for a low, battered wall – 2-3 feet high. It would allow the grade to be flattened to make some more usable space, and it would create a natural barrier between the park users and Riverside Drive. That wall would be offset 20-25 feet from the sidewalks, so it is not right up against Riverside Drive.  Pathways and trails The intent is to be sensitive about how access to the natural spaces is provided, so that they are not over-run.  Indian Run Falls trail This area will have amazing views as it moves down toward the Scioto River, creating the ability for the public to reach and enjoy the river space.  River access and overlooks On the west side, that access will be easier with respect to the grade change. There are some possible access points that could be provided. The desire is to provide access on the east side, as well. It will be more difficult, due to the steeper bluff. River access is something the public expressed a desire for, including for kayaking, canoeing and fishing.  John Shields Parkway plaza [future design]  Probable Cost Based on Master Plan level document. Additional feedback from Council and the community will tighten those estimates. This will be a phased project over a number of annual Capital Budget cycles. From a constructability and feasibility standpoint, it could be built all at one time, given some of the concurrent and future construction projects occurring. The time frame for the park is 2016 through 2024, as those development projects occur. - Pedestrian Bridge East Plaza - $8,400,000 - Pedestrian Bridge West Plaza - $1,000,000 - Pedestrian Bridge - ________________ The pedestrian bridge is in final design now and is scheduled to go out to public bid in early 2017. It will have an estimated two-year construction period. When that bridge opens, some level of park will be needed at the landing points. The community and Council will determine the level of amenities desired when that opens – the level of usable park that will be available at that time. Construction sequencing will occur, and the following projects will occur with the future John Shields Parkway Bridge. There will not be intense park construction until that bridge is built, so as to avoid disturbing significant finish work. These projects will occur beyond the current five-year capital plan. - The Green - $4,000,000 Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 15 of 26 - West Open Space - $3,000,000 - Indian Run Falls Trail - $2,500,000 - John Shields Parkway Plaza - $3,700,000 - East Bluff Climbing Access - $700,000 - East River Access - $1,000,000 Mr. Foegler stated that one of the sequencing needs is that the area on the west side will become a large “lay down” area for the construction associated with the pedestrian bridge. Much of the construction equipment will enter through the road extending from Indian Run Drive off of High Street to the east to that “lay down” area. There is also a concern with regard to the plaza on the west, due to logistics of getting the equipment into that area. The building to the south of that needs to proceed in a timely fashion. Crawford Hoying is attempting to accelerate that in recognition of the difficult timeframe. The issue of sequencing and constructability is being discussed with all of their consultants at the same time. The Library and High Street construction occurring on the west side of the river will add two other levels of work. The timing of some of these projects may not be driven by the practicality of needing to have plazas done when bridges open, but by when and how the equipment can be brought in to do the construction. There are limited windows of opportunity. Construction is not possible until some of the other areas have been built. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if there is any interest in hanging pedestrian walkways on either side of the existing SR161 bridge. Mr. Meyer responded that they have looked at it only preliminarily. The suggestion was made early in the planning process, particularly for the north side of the bridge where it fronts onto the park space -- there are subpar pedestrian facilities on the bridge now. It could be a great opportunity. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if there is an estimate of what the pedestrian bridge will cost. Mr. Foegler stated that the budget number in the CIP is what everyone involved with the design is working toward. When the project is at the 30% design stage, staff anticipates being in a position to provide some estimates to Council, both from a design perspective as well as the most meaningful cost estimates as of June 2016. They will be providing that update to Council at 30% design stage – a more detailed estimate, based on detailed construction drawings. The charge to do that within the established budget has been a strong directive. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that how the bridge is lit is very important – that could make it the icon of the City. Mayor Peterson stated that now that the houses and trees have been removed, it is possible to see what lies below. On the east side, there will be a more active park because it is an open and more usable space. How does that compare with what will be on the west side? The topography appears more severe. What is the plan for that area? Mr. Foegler stated that several options were considered for how to angle North Riverview down that hillside. One question was whether to utilize a large surface wall to minimize the amount of dirt that must be moved – creating a large, imposing wall within the park; another question is if the grades are sufficient to result in such a vast amount of park area, making it preferable to move earth around. There would be some fairly good embankments where that road would descend. Once there, the park is incredibly wide. The notion of a secondary road system extended along the river recognizes the need to get people back into the park area – at that point it gets very deep. The impact that would be caused by the amount of fill that would need to be moved in order Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 16 of 26 to extend that street downward was given extensive evaluation. Eventually, this was the preferred solution. Mayor Peterson inquired if a great deal of earth will be moved. Mr. Foegler responded affirmatively. Mr. Keenan stated that there will be walking trails down in that area, which will make it a more active area. He understands there will be a parking area there, as well. Mr. Keenan inquired if, as the pedestrian bridge is completed, the intent is to have both the east and west plazas completed simultaneously. Mr. Foegler responded that the intent is to have the plazas complete at the time the pedestrian bridge is complete. The question to be answered, particularly for the west side is how complete should the plaza be. Mr. Earman’s concern is that if the plaza is 50% complete at that time, and the following year, equipment is moved in again for construction, even that 50% will not be usable. The extent of what is completed initially may be based on disruption and access. Some of the elements need to be designed together, regardless, which will require making some capital budgeting decisions. The detail design for the logical elements to bundle will be done all at one time. Mr. Keenan stated that, looking at the numbers -- that appears to be another $9 million. Previously, Council has considered that the pedestrian bridge would cost approximately $20 million. Would the east and west plazas add another $9.4 million? Where is that scheduled in the CIP budget? Mr. Foegler responded that there is money programmed in the Five-Year CIP for the plazas, but it is not sufficient for this. Council will need to evaluate that in the context of these considerations. Mr. McDaniel stated that modifications will be made in the upcoming CIP budget considerations. Looking at the significant size and scope of the overall park, it will be built out over time, not within a year or two. All of the City’s large parks have been built out over time. A breakdown of those costs will be calculated, now that staff will have the benefit of Council’s input. Mr. Keenan stated that, initially, he was uncertain about the inclusion of an ice rink. However, it does make sense to have a winter use for the park. There would also have to be an ability to make ice in that location. Has that been discussed? Mr. Earman responded that it was discussed at length. Because this rink would be a prominent gathering place, refrigeration infrastructure would be needed to ensure its accessibility November through March. Mr. Keenan inquired if cost estimates for the rink would be provided for the August CIP discussion. Mr. Earman responded affirmatively. Mr. Foegler responded that the costs are actually included at this time under the Detailed Estimates. Part of the consideration is that this space is intended to be a plaza when it is not serving as an ice rink. The design includes tree islands in the middle and will have good sun exposure. The dilemma is how to make this a great plaza for nine months and a great ice rink for the remaining three months. They have been approached regarding the potential for local foundations to raise money for the ice rink component. The cost estimates currently shown in the materials will be refined, so Council can have more accurate numbers for consideration. Mr. Keenan inquired about the timing in relation to The Chiller Rink. Mr. McDaniel responded that there is a projected timeframe of 2018. Recently, Ms. Crandall met with The Chiller representatives to begin discussions on the future of that rink. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 17 of 26 Mr. Keenan stated that The Chiller’s 25-year lease expires soon. He would like to receive an update on that issue, as it will be a future budget discussion. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff would likely be addressing this toward the end of this year or the first of next year. Ms. Salay inquired if the cost estimate for the ice rink is included in the $84.4 million preliminary cost estimate. Mr. Meyer responded that the ice rink cost estimate is currently listed only in the “Detailed Costs.” They were not included in the preliminary park estimate, because there are a range of options for the ice rink. The equipment can initially be rented, if desired, to gauge the level of interest, users and revenue. In Fountain Square, Cincinnati, as well as some other places, the entire rink, including refrigeration equipment, is brought in by truck. Later, it is removed. The ice rink could be an annual operating expense, or could be a permanent structure and have annual costs related to staffing, skates, etc. – or a combination of permanent and rented components. At this time, the most feasible choice is not known. Mr. Foegler inquired if the Detailed Costs document was included in the packet materials. Mr. Earman responded that they were not. Mr. Foegler stated that he believes those costs are online, but they will be forwarded to Council, as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if there is a topography map of this park. Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would like to see that before commenting on this park. It was her understanding that everything between the pedestrian bridge on the east side of the river and Bridge Street would consist of a footpath; the remaining space would be a naturalized area. Is that correct? Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it would be likewise on the west side, between the pedestrian bridge and Bridge Street -- those grades would be difficult, as well. Mr. Meyer responded that on the west side side, the grades are fairly steep from North Riverview, sloping down 50-75 feet, then flattening out into a floodplain meadow. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if there is a drawing that includes the floodplain. Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she would like to review those two drawings. As she understands it, the river access where the water can be physically touched is only on the west side of the river. The east side will be simply an overlook. Mr. Meyer responded that an attempt is being made to provide access on both sides. It is certainly easier on the west side. A couple of locations are being considered: one on either side of where Indian Run spills out, and a pathway down the hill on the east side. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she does not disagree that extending the active life of the park for a greater part of the year makes sense. However, she is concerned about engagement with the river, which is subject to rapid flooding. There are safety concerns, particularly if water is released from the dam or there are storms to the north. She has observed the river rise 2-1/2 feet in as many hours. She would like to see something at that landing, such as a sprinkle park. It is a lovely river, but there are so many days of the year where it is not safe to touch. In addition to extending the park life in the winter with an ice rink, it would be good to add a sprinkle park or Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 18 of 26 something else for the warm seasons, as well. Because the river is so unpredictable, it will be inaccessible for a large amount of time. A climbing wall closer to John Shields Parkway is under consideration, but she believes something else is needed in the park. Mr. Meyer stated that the eight features that have been highlighted tonight are the main features of the park, but other programs and features will be included, as well, to fill out the park. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the location of the future ice rink is the best piece of real estate in the park. There is not much usable land there that is outside of the floodplain and not inhibited by grade changes. She hesitates to use the City’s best piece of real estate for a feature that will add something to the park for two months of the year. Perhaps there is an element that could be added that would add life 5-7 months of the year. She wants to clearly communicate that she has concerns about where the space is programmed. It is important to begin with the end in mind – know what it is that Council wants to happen in this park, how that could be achieved, and look at grades and floodplains. Additionally, it is too far along in the process, but she has concerns about the way that the pedestrian bridge is landing on the west side. We are physically turning our backs on Historic Dublin, which is what we set out to engage. Ms. Salay stated that she has similar thoughts regarding the ice rink. In Boston, they have the Frog Pond in their Common area, which is usable year round. It contains a summer element with water, which the public really enjoys. Splash parks are popular. She has noticed in social media communications that parents are already inquiring about the opening dates for the splash parks. If the ice rink is physically transportable, then in the summer the space could be used differently. She is curious about the flood plain paths on the west side. On the east side, everything is protected by the cliff. What will the paths be made of and how can they be made flood proof? Will the paths be covered by water for periods of times? Mr. Meyer responded that they have contemplated the idea of having two path systems on the west side. The upper path would be accessible, hardscape surface. It could have lighting and benches, because it is higher than the area of greater flood frequency. The desire is also to make the river’s edge accessible, similar to the current access just west of Bridge Street. Those could be more natural paths, similar to those in a Metro park, made of compacted earth, stone, or more natural material. They could withstand flooding with no damage to lighting or furniture. Ms. Salay stated that there is a crushed limestone path behind the Grounds of Remembrance to access the Indian Run ravine area. That material was chosen, rather than a blacktopped surface, so as not to disturb the natural environment. Would that type of path surface be impacted by rushing water? Mr. Meyer responded that would not be a surface they would consider using near the river for that reason. There are soil stabilizers that compact the earth. There are different options for consideration, other than stone -- which washes and ruts out -- which could be used on the lower paths. Ms. Salay inquired when the City is experiencing a flood in an area, does it regulate public access, and if so, how. Mr. Meyer stated that flash floods can occur within a couple hours. Other than posting signage along the paths, there is little ability to block access to that area. If it is an overriding concern, it would be best not to create the paths. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that the situation is similar with South Park, where the public now has that access. Mr. McDaniel stated that there is another area that is not often mentioned -- the wetlands park Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 19 of 26 south of SR161. Near Quarry Place, there is a complete boardwalk system that extends into the wetlands, essentially into the river. This area is in one of the area’s oldest parks and has a beautiful walk along a boardwalk immersed in the wetlands. That area, which routinely goes underwater, is addressed by signage. The City has successfully addressed this situation before, and the proposed paths could be managed in a similar fashion. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Kiwanis Park does go underwater. What makes this other area a little different is that the river widens out here. Mr. McDaniel agreed. The speed of water is the difference. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the water does not rush as strongly against the bank there as it does in this location. Mr. McDaniel responded that control of both issues would be essential – the frequency of the paths washing away and the public access. Mr. Foegler stated that from a planning perspective, the goal is to “freeze” the most current thinking as a Master Plan. Nearly three years have now been invested in that process. The Master Plan will be modified over time to reflect new ideas. We will be discussing what the review process will be for the park improvements going forward, as Council will need to be meaningfully involved, seeing early-level concepts and plans in order to make more detailed decisions than will be made tonight by approving a Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide some comfort level for significant decisions that will need to occur soon. Although the process has been deliberative for the last year or two, it is at a point now that some of them cannot be delayed. Plaza designing needs to advance, including how the pedestrian bridge will connect with both elevated pedestrian walkways and tie into the plazas. Detailed planning, designing and engineering work on the plaza on the west side is underway. One issue that is being evaluated is how to achieve an elevator, which would resolve access to the park in an easy manner. All the slopes on the surrounding streets are creating challenges. The Master Plan containing the consensus items needs to be approved in order to move toward implementation. Ms. Salay stated that she is comfortable with adopting this proposal as the Master Plan. Council has been considering it for a long time, and the questions she has had to date have all been answered. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she will need to review the topography and flood plain information. The structure shown at #1 on the concept needs to be a large structure. There needs to be some place to go there -- hopefully, an ice cream shop or something else in that space. She is not yet a strong supporter of an ice rink. Mr. Foegler stated that in addition to being a great ice rink, it should also be a great plaza that serves many other purposes. It should be a great plaza that facilitates events and other activities of interest to the public, not a site driven primarily by the ice rink feature. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it needs to be a place the public seeks. In view of the limited space that the City has there, she is unsure the ice rink would be the highest and best use. Mayor Peterson inquired if staff has received sufficient Council input. Mr. Earman stated that there is one additional item on which Council feedback is desired. This park is informally referred to as “Riverside Park.” Previous park naming processes have taken various criteria into consideration, such as history and geography. He recommends that a name be Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 20 of 26 formally adopted for this park and that a team comprise a list, using each of the criteria, for Council consideration. In the past, Council has used community input for park name suggestions. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the millstone at the Dublin spring, looking at the history there, and similar cues would be helpful. Mayor Peterson inquired how soon staff could provide the maps Ms. Amorose Groomes requested. Mr. Earman responded that staff has those available and can provide them. Mr. McDaniel stated that those would be forwarded to Council immediately. Next Steps: Mr. McDaniel stated that staff will provide to Council a resolution to accept the Park Master Plan, probably within a month. Mr. Keenan stated that it would simply be a plan, not authorization for financing any part of it. Mr. McDaniel responded that Council would be approving the concepts, which will provide staff guidance to move forward on the concepts, including formulating the budget. The budget would be addressed at a later date. Ms. Salay stated she would be interested in receiving the numbers as soon as possible. Mr. McDaniel responded that much of that information, including breakdowns, is available now. Mr. Earman responded that detailed breakdowns with itemized costs, which were developed by MKSK, are available. He will forward those to Council. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff would forward comprehensive estimates. Library Update Mr. McDaniel stated that there has been good progress the last several days with the Library and with Dublin City Schools. Discussions with Dr. Hoadley and the School Board were productive, and the terms are being refined. He anticipates that drafting of an agreement will occur soon. Development Approvals - Process Options Ms. Husak stated that in 2014, Council made updates to the Bridge Street Code, which included an amendment to the Bridge Street Review and Approval Procedures to include Council review for Basic Plans if there is a development agreement in place.  Since then, Council has conducted three Basic Plan reviews in 2015. Those occurred in 2015 and included Bridge Park Blocks B and C, the Home2 Hotel, and the Bridge Park Block A. Council’s Basic Plan Review also includes designation of the required reviewing body for all subsequent applications. In each of those three reviews, City Council selected the Planning and Zoning Commission as the Required Reviewing Body for all subsequent development applications. Bridge Park West occurred prior to that Code amendment, so the Architectural Review Board was the reviewing body for that application.  Staff is currently engaged with two large-scale public projects in the Bridge Street District involving pending or executed development agreements -- the proposed Scioto Riverside Park and the new Dublin Library. Historically, City projects, including park projects, have been reviewed per the underlying zoning requirements for the district in which they are located. Staff has determined that a majority of the Riverfront Park geography lies within the boundaries of the Architectural Review District and any modifications to land within the District require review and approval by the ARB. The District extends to the western right-of-way line of Riverside Drive north of SR161 and to Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 21 of 26 the eastern edge of the Scioto River south of SR161. Only the southeast portion of the park is outside of the Architectural Review District; it would be within the Planning and Zoning Commission’s review.  The Scioto Riverside Park Master Plan is expected to be formally adopted by City Council this spring. The Basic Plan for Scioto Riverside Park will also be coming before Council for review. The adoption of the master plan could be combined with the review of the Basic Plan for the park, and as part of this review, Council would determine the Required Reviewing Body for the future final Site Plans. Given the significant public investment into the park, Council’s substantial role and engagement in the river corridor planning effort to date, and the fact that the park geography expands across multiple review entities, it is staff’s recommendation that Council continue as the Required Reviewing Body for the park and all associated park elements.  In terms of the Library and its associated parking garage, the expectation is that development agreements involving three governmental entities (the City, Columbus Metropolitan Library and Dublin City Schools) will be necessary. Council will conduct the review of the Basic Plan, and as part of that review, determine the Required Reviewing Body for all future applications. The site is located in the Historic District and is within the purview of the Architectural Review Board. Planning staff and Legal staff have discussed who the appropriate reviewing body should be. Their recommendation is that with the on-going negotiations between the three intergovernmental bodies, Council may want to consider retaining final review of all future applications at the Council level. The second option would be to appoint the ARB as the Required Reviewing Body or as an advisory review body for all future applications for the Library and the garage. Ms. Salay stated that this is a significant public investment involving three public entities. Would there be a way to retain ARB as an advisory body similar to the way in which P&Z functions, so that Council is provided their input, but not as a final development plan? Ms. Readler stated that staff has discussed this. Their thought is that if the ARB reviewed it, those documents and meeting minutes would be provided to Council as part of Council’s review packet. Ms. Salay stated that it is preferable not to lose ARB’s advice in regard to the Library, so it is important that they be involved. Ms. Husak responded that one of the options was that ARB be retained in some advisory function to Council for these items. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believes the process should remain as it is. Ms. Salay responded that the process was changed to give Council the responsibility for designating the reviewing body. Therefore, Council must make that determination. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believes it should go through the standard development process, and review by the appropriate board or commission is the standard way in which other applications have navigated the process. Council has never retained that review; each time, it has been given away. She would be in support of giving this review away as well. Mr. Reiner stated that with the jurisdictional issues involved, this would be confusing. Also, based on the funding portion of this project – it is Council that prepares and sets that budget -- he concurs with staff’s recommendation. Mr. Keenan stated that this issue has been discussed previously. He concurs with staff’s Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 22 of 26 recommendation in terms of the process for these projects. There is significant money involved, many moving parts, and several jurisdictions. Staff has considered all this in making its recommendation. Mr. McDaniel clarified that with staff’s recommendation in regard to review for the Library and parking garage, ARB would be involved -- they would not be left out. Because of the development agreement, Council would provide the first review. ARB will then provide advice on subsequent applications to Council. They can be brought into the process as soon as Council believes it is appropriate. Having the collective bodies interact may provide better predictability for everyone involved, including the applicant. It could add efficiency to the process. Mayor Peterson stated that when Council first discussed the idea of adjusting the review process, it was because the development agreement was such a critical part of the project. The project had to be looked at upfront – it was the only logical way to do it. The overwhelming percentage of the City is not handled in that manner, because there aren’t development agreements in place. It was a necessary adjustment. The Library and parking garage will have a development agreement, and therefore, fit into the same mold. He understands Ms. Amorose Groomes’ reasons for preferring the original process. However, we have modified the process slightly to ensure that all that effort is not invested in a project that is never going to be completed. He agrees with Ms. Salay that having the advisory position of the original Planning process is critical. This recommendation for the Library review does seem to be a slight step further than its review of the Park, where it would be for the purpose of the investment dollars and a development agreement. He does not want to continue to slide from the original process. However, he understands the justifications and agrees, as long as that reliance on ARB is retained in a very meaningful way. However, he concurs with staff’s recommendation for the aforementioned reasons, and as an exception to the rule. Ms. Alutto inquired if the review relates only to this project. Mayor Peterson responded that it would be for the two projects. Ms. Husak clarified that Council would be the required reviewing body for the Basic Plans for both the Scioto River Park and the Library. That is the process that is in place today. Before those Basic Plan Reviews come before Council, the intent was to give Council an opportunity to think about the appropriate subsequent reviewing body. The question is being raised about these two projects, because it is not something staff has previously dealt with, thus far. Mayor Peterson inquired if staff has received the needed input. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes staff has the direction needed. In regard to Ms. Alutto’s question and Ms. Husak’s response, he wants to clarify that within the Bridge Street District, when there is a development agreement involved, in all cases Council conducts the Basic Review Plan first. West Bridge Street Framework Mr. Papsidero stated that Council was given advance information about staff’s proposal to extend the planning process for the West Bridge Street corridor west of Historic Dublin out to the I- 270/US33 interchange. Given the development interest in that area, the number of potential redevelopment sites, the number of stakeholders, and the number of residential neighborhoods abutting the corridor on the south side, it makes sense to undertake a formal planning process to address land use, character issues, Bridge Street and its right-of-way.  The Western Alignment Study that is underway addresses the north side of the corridor Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 23 of 26 and will hopefully identify some potential new redevelopment sites. There will also be an engineering study for reconstruction of the SR161/Frantz Road interchange. Coming off that interchange and into the Corridor is not the experience motorists should have in order to reach Historic Dublin and the City’s core. How that streetscape could be treated, conceptually, is a major component of this plan. Staff will be undertaking that planning process this year.  There is $50,000 available in Planning’s current budget that can be allocated for this effort, and an additional $50,000 will be requested. Hopefully, that will be sufficient, but competitive bids for the study have yet to be solicited.  A national search will be undertaken for a consultant team to work with staff, leadership, stakeholders and the public. The consultant team should have comparable national/regional experience and include a local partner with knowledge and experience in Dublin to facilitate project communication and coordination. The area is unique -- exiting an interstate and into the heart of a town must be addressed in a special way. Given the constraints of the Frantz intersection, it may be difficult to make Bridge Street walkable from that point to the east.  Public engagement in the process is important. A public three-day design charrette would serve as the starting point to develop the draft plan concepts. The venue is an efficient way in which to give residents and stakeholders an opportunity to share their thoughts with the design team. This is staff’s goal, and with Council approval, will proceed this year. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if this is anticipated to be a $100,000 project -- $50,000 currently in their budget; $50,000 additional needed. Mr. Papsidero responded that is the expectation. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if bids have been solicited yet. Mr. Papsidero responded that they have not. Ms. Salay inquired about the anticipated timeframe. Mr. Papsidero responded that staff has laid out a 12-month timeframe for adoption. There is potential development pressure. It is necessary to achieve certain benchmarks of consensus before a development proposal is created. Ms. Salay thanked staff for their attention to this issue. The public will be very interested. There have been questions and discussion among residents expressing concern about how this area would develop. This process will give comfort to residents of the adjacent neighborhoods, as what occurs in this Corridor could have significant impact on them. Hopefully, it will be inspirational and aspirational for people who own land in the area, helping them to see the possibilities. Mr. Papsidero stated that if the planning effort is successful in building consensus, it could really change investors’ perspective. For example, the Bob Evans/ Courtyard area near the interchange is just an entrance, not a gateway. It is really underdeveloped, so maybe the owners could see the potential and do something more dramatic there that fits with the Bridge Street corridor. Mr. Keenan stated that the estimate for this project is $100,000. Is it accurate to say that the City’s consulting costs in 2014-2015 and into 2016 have significantly exceeded the amounts budgeted? Mr. McDaniel responded affirmatively. Some adjustments have been made. Certain studies are approved in the current budget, such as the housing study in the Southwest Area, which will be Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 24 of 26 not be undertaken at this time and those funds can be used elsewhere. Mr. Papsidero responded that there is $50,000 unallocated in the current budget. In regard to the housing issue – there has been some discussion about doing a specific housing study versus the Southwest Area Plan, as a prelude to that. The Transit Study will occur this year, for which $50,000 has been allocated, and the Metro Blazer Study is underway. There is an effort to identify the best way to handle the single-family housing issue. Mr. McDaniel stated that will inform the Southwest Area Plan, so needs to occur in sequence. Mr. Reiner inquired if funding has been allocated for the Frantz Road study. Mr. Papsidero responded that there is money in the budget for that – to look at all of Metro, Blazer and Frantz Road. Mr. Reiner complimented staff on their forward thinking. Mr. McDaniel stated that the timing of this would be good, as it would be sequenced with the Legacy Office Study on Frantz, to see how all that area could be tied together. Mr. Foegler stated that in regard to the timing question that Ms. Salay raised: the Frantz/Post/SR161 interchange is being studied at the same time as this Bridge Street area. Those studies, along with the Western Alignment and Legacy Office studies, can all inform one another. There is a timing objective for this effort. Mr. Papsidero stated that one challenge will be the public engagement, as the same neighborhoods would be engaged – Frantz Road on one side and Bridge Street on another, so these will need to be scheduled carefully to enable the public to focus on the different areas. There will be tools to engage them on the land use issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that maybe they could be combined, rather than handled separately, each in a vacuum. Ms. Papsidero agreed. Whether that can be the same event, he is not sure, but the same information does need to be shared. The perspectives and the scale of commercial or non- residential development is different. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that it is preferable to require as little of their time as possible. Tucci’s Wine Room/Easement Request Mr. McDaniel stated that Tucci’s has requested a bumpout, which would impact City property. Ms. Crandall provided a brief overview. • In April 2014, a request was submitted by Mr. Barnum for sale or lease of an easement on City-owned land on the north side of Tucci’s. At that point in time, it was for a patio. • At that time, Council was in agreement with sale of the property, pending ARB approval and with the following requirements: o Reimbursement to City for value of land o Utility boxes screened o Rear of building improvements made • In April 2016, Mr. Barnum submitted a revised request, which is now for the addition of a wine room, instead of a patio, in this same area. The proposed wine room would provide 150 sq. ft. of storage. Mr. Keenan inquired the distance that addition would extend from the current building. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 25 of 26 Ms. Crandall responded that it would extend an additional six feet, just short of the existing light bollards. The proposed patio would have extended flush to the walkway. The questions for Council are: • Is Council in agreement with this revised concept? • Is Council requesting the same requirements be met? o Reimbursement to City for value of land o Utility boxes screened o Rear of building improvements made • Plans will need to be formally submitted to the City and approved by ARB. • Applicant would need to request a waiver from the side yard set-back requirements. Ms. Salay inquired if the addition would eliminate the current landscaping on that side. Ms. Crandall responded that it would. It would project to within two feet of the bollards. Ms. Salay inquired how much space exists there. Ms. Crandall responded that from the edge of the building to the sidewalk is approximately 10-12 feet. Mayor Peterson inquired if there would be room for landscaping to be added between the bumpout and the sidewalk. Ms. Crandall responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay inquired if the City owns the land up to Mr. Barnum’s building. Ms. Crandall responded affirmatively. Mr. Reiner stated that he would be more supportive if Mr. Barnum would be agreeable to adding stucco or some architectural embellishment all around the side and back of the building, as well as the addition of landscaping. The price of land in that corridor will be astronomical. Mr. McDaniel responded that it is high. Mr. Reiner inquired if this would be within ARB purview. Mr. Keenan stated that the issue is the ground. The issue is if the City is willing to give up the ground, whatever the cost or conditions. If Council agrees to the sale, then the plan would go to ARB. Mr. Reiner stated that there are some utility issues that ARB would probably need to address. Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Barnum is probably the only one who could make use of this land, other than the City. If Council concurs, the cost would be based upon the appraised value. He would speak to the appraisers. Mr. Keenan inquired if staff has a recommendation. Mr. McDaniel responded that Tucci’s is a vibrant business, and this addition would help the business. It would not take away the sidewalk, and the area would remain lit. Therefore, he would recommend Council approve the sale, pending agreement on the appraised value. Ms. Alutto inquired about the specifics of the rear building improvements and if they have already been done? Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Reiner has recommended some architectural improvements, and Mr. Barnum has already done some painting and screening. Ms. Crandall stated that Council did not specify improvements with its earlier approval. However, the original development plan that underwent ARB review included several modifications to the building.