Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-08 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, January 14, 2008 Council Chambers MINUTES OF MEETING Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Present: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan. Staff members present: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Readier, Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Ott, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Cax, Ms. Willis, Mr. Richardson, Ms. Wawszkiewicz, Ms. Puskarcik and Mr. Crow. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the first item on tonight's study session agenda is the 2008 Land Use and Lang Range Planning Work Plan. LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING 1NORK PLAN Mr. Langworthy stated a memo was provided for Council's packet that listed the major anticipated activities for 2008 in Land Use and Long Range Planning. Three of those projects will be reviewed tonight: Community Plan Implementation, Zoning Code and Roadway Character Studies. Community Plan Implementation Process Overview: Mr. Langworthy stated that he has developed a 15-page Community Plan Implementation Strategy. There are over 80 objectives and over 350 strategies or actions that are anticipated. This is a long range plan, a 20-30 year plan, so there is time to put them into place. The key elements for implementation are: 1. Create or update the various codes and guidelines that will facilitate the implementation. 2. Keep the momentum of the Plan going. 3. Evaluate and learn from the recently completed Community Plan process and apply them in the implementation. 4. Match Council's goals to the objectives and strategies to determine the priorities. Council's goal-setting retreat this year will be critical in setting those priorities, which will be presented to Council for input. 5. Once the priorities are established, responsibilities for the tasks will be assigned and timelines and schedules developed. 6. Determine the actual work program and resources needed. 7. Publish/distribute the Community Plan within the community so that the City's intent, priorities and strategies are known. 8. Bring the Community Plan to the community in an interactive manner. The Long Range/Land Use Planning web page contains the current Planning project map, which provides links to information about each of the projects. They would like to provide something similarly interactive for the Land Use Plan. Develop a Community Plan brochure for distribution for citizens who do not need the entire Community Plan. The brochure will provide the same information as the web page. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 2 Ms. Salay inquired the anticipated timelines for the website information. Mr. Langworthy responded that a consultant will be hired to assist in the development of the information. It is anticipated to be completed and in place by summer. Zoning Code Update • Philosophy and Principles Defined: Mr. Langworthy stated that this project is more complicated in many respects than the Community Plan implementation. The effort begins by defining the philosophy. The philosophy is determined by what is the Code intended to accomplish; who are the users; how will the Code be used by the average person. Next, the basic zoning ordinance principles are defined. Finally, the zoning code development process is defined. An agreement upon those elements is necessary before beginning to write zoning language. • Process. 1. Define how the zoning code will look. The desire is to make it also an interactive tool for community use. 2. Drafting the zoning code. a. Define the districts. b. Define the processes far the individual districts. c. Define individual development requirements d. Define administrative sections Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the City has an existing zoning code. Would a zoning code update include historical information on how the community was built? Mr. Langworthy responded that relates to the philosophy and the principles. One of the principles to be developed is to identify what are the foundational elements of the Code that must not be altered and must be preserved. Those elements are carried forward; only those elements that are not working well would be revised. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if after those elements are separated and identified, would that assessment be presented to Council for agreement with that identification? Mr. Langworthy responded that at some paint it will be necessary to determine Council's desired involvement in the process. Staff will present some suggestions to Council, but it will ultimately be Council's decision. Mr. Reiner noted that this would be a "mini Community Plan process." It could involve a similar workload for Council. Vice Mayor Boring responded that the appropriate course could be to use Council's committee process. It could be referred to the Community Development Committee for initial review. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff would follow the process Council prefers. Ms. Salay stated that taking on a process similar to a community plan update causes some trepidation. Past experience has proven that the process can be excruciating, frustrating and, at times, seems to accomplish little. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Langworthy responded that if the philosophy and principles are resolved and established first, the rest of the process is easier. Should the process experience a "hang up," it is helpful to review the philosophy and principles and confirm that the product is matching up with the established direction. Whenever any Community Plan action is considered, it is essential to ask if it would achieve the pre-established objectives. Roadway Character Studies Mr. Langworthy stated the purpose of this project is to look at a transportation facility along with the land use and evaluate their interaction. Scenic, aesthetic and environmental resources are assessed, keeping in mind the purpose of the roadway is to provide safe mobility. The new buzz word in transportation and land use planning is "context sensitive solutions." Three departments will be involved in these studies - Planning, Engineering, and Economic Development. The resulting plan will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and City Council for adoption. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this would be easily quantifiable. His concern is that everyone will view the project differently based upon favorite roads and preferred character traits. It would be helpful to be able to quantify and measure it. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff discussed many roadways before they selected two different types of roadways for test reasons. Conducting a test roadway character exercise will show if the exercise will yield the desired results. If it does, the intent is to take the process or changes to the process and apply them to other roadways throughout the City as well. • Roadway #1 - US 33-Bridge Street The first roadway selected has its boundaries from I-270 to Riverside Drive and runs through Historic Dublin. They have not yet reached the issue identification stage, but important issues with this roadway are: {a} it represents a gateway at both ends - a gateway off I-270 into the City and a gateway into Historic Dublin; {2} it represents a significant level of resident and business participation; {3} there is a need to define and establish the Historic District boundaries; {4} there will be redevelopment issues in some areas; {5} traffic issues are critical due to its entry into the Historic District and the volume level; and {6} consideration of the roadway character and feel as it enters Historic Dublin. • Roadway #2 -Hyland-Croy Road The roadway section to be evaluated runs from Post Road at the City limits to Brock Road. This roadway was picked for study due to the following features: {1 }major developments in Jerome Township --Jerome Village and Halls Corner, and {2} major developments in Dublin -Tartan Ridge and Oak Park. All this development will need to use Hyland-Croy Road, as it is the only north-south traffic route. Issues involved: (1) Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 4 resident participation, (2} implementation of rural character on the roadway, (3) redevelopment/development impact on the roadway, (4} transportation limitations, (5} traffic volume issues, and (6} jurisdictional issues. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the issues involved in the study of each roadway would be considered with the input provided by Council during the Community Plan update. Mr. Langworthy responded that all of the projects referred to tonight are from the Community Plan. Vice Mayor Boring stated that although Council has indicated that roadways might be kept narrow to protect characteristics, which characteristics were not identified. Mr. Langworthy stated that to him, the character of a roadway is reflected by how it feels to the driver when being driven -- how it feels and how the roadway feels. 2008 HISTORIC DUBLIN WORK PLAN Historic Dublin Way Finding System Ms. Ott stated that Council has previously indicated an interest in having a way finding system in the Historic District. A process has been drafted similar to that suggested far the roadway character studies. It would look at: {1 } the entryway features, {2} overall theme of the way finding system, and {3} pedestrian and automobile components. It would be a two-phase process: {1) design in 2008 {2} funding for implementation in 2009. The design phase would consist of the following stages: • Week-long design studio in the Historic District; • Design proposal submitted to the Architectural Review Board (ARB} far review/recommendation; • City Council review and design selection. Throughout this process, community input will be sought. • Finalization of design details • Approval of design details by ARB and Council • Construction detail design and cast estimate Staff seeks Council approval of the process, including: {1 }the design charette. This is a different type of forum for gathering community input; and (2} ARB serving as the recommending body for the project. Ms. Salay inquired if it would be useful to hold a joint work session with ARB on this topic. This type of interaction with the Planning Commission on the Community Plan update was important. Council does not have much contact with ARB, and the communication of ideas would be helpful. She would prefer the joint dialogue as opposed to simply receiving a recommendation. Ms. Ott responded that the joint meeting could be scheduled for Council's April study session. Mr. Gerber agreed that it would be important to hear ARB's mindset on the issues. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Lecklider inquired if this would fit satisfactorily into the process. Ms. Ott responded that it would be fine. It will be best to wait until spring weather arrives, as it would be helpful to view the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Keenan noted that there would likely be different traffic patterns with the opening of the new municipal parking lot in the District. Ms. Ott responded that the parking area has been open for one month. They have discussed the possible changes that could occur with Engineering staff. Mr. Keenan noted that staff's memo refers to working with the anticipated consultant, Innocom. In the past, Council has not been entirely satisfied with some consultants. Has staff carefully checked their references? Ms. Salay responded that they have done so. Innocom has an impressive client list. They developed the way-finding systems for the Columbus Zoo, portions of The Ohio State University system, and Ohio Health. They have had some public work experience. Ms. Salay inquired if the way finding medium is strictly signage. There was previous discussion about having crosswalks of stamped concrete with paving markings. Ms. Ott responded that in addition to signage, pavement markings have been proposed. Also a map could be provided to visitors to the District that would provide a map and helpful information about the District. Mr. Gerber inquired how staff would communicate to the public that there would be a design studio. Ms. Ott responded that the standard external communications methods through the Community Relations division would be utilized, including press releases and the "In Touch" ad. In addition, there will be a concentrated focus through the Historic Dublin Association (HDA}, Historic Dublin Business Association (HDBA}, and the Dublin Convention & Visitors Bureau {DCVB}. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that an informational postcard inviting participation be provided to all the business establishments to distribute to their patrons. Ms. Ott inquired if Council desires a joint work session to review the design theme submissions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the work session is desired, but the proposed timeframe should not be extended. Ms. Ott responded that there are certain elements that could be implemented before 2009, should Council prefer. The anticipated budget impact could be worked up for Council's reference. Funding has intentionally nat been budgeted until the scope of the design is known. Bridge and High Southeast Plaza Ms. Ott that the project is now going through the land use approval process. Staff is requesting input from Council on the conditions for redesigning the southeast corner of Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 6 the Bridge and High project, which would be the corner immediately at the intersection. Specifically, does Council desire public input on the design, and how much public art should be involved with the project at this time? Typically, a public art component is handled at a later phase in a project, not with the construction phase. Approximately 1,600 sq. ft. will be enclosed within the brick and stone walls. Water walls were proposed in the original design submitted in June. The plan was formally submitted to ARB in December. ARB determined the design to be too contemporary for the Historic District and requested the design be modified. Ms. Salay inquired if the water wall idea in the original proposal was appealing due to the four season aspect. Ms. Ott responded that there were a couple of reasons staff supported the idea: {1) the look for off season. It would be necessary to winterize a fountain so it would not appear as an empty fountain. {2) Outdoor dining was a desired component on that corner, and a water feature would create a necessary noise buffer from the intersection noise. {3) A public art component in the plaza is also desired, and the water wall would be an appropriate backdrop. Mr. Reiner noted that he recalls an earlier version of the plan in which the water wall was located at the back of the plaza, attached to the building wall. Ms. Ott responded that she believes the dining space was always located where it is shown now. Mr. Reiner stated that he believed the plaza was to be used for the dining, and the water wall was to be located behind it against the wall; that would be more architecturally appealing. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the water feature as proposed in this design would serve to separate the eating area from the walking area. Ms. Salay stated that the intent is to include a water wall in the construction phase and additional public art sometime in the future. Ms. Ott responded that the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan proposes a vertical public art element in the space. Additional public art elements could either be incorporated into the plaza floor or carved into a limestone water wall at the back of the plaza. Ms. Salay noted that water walls have a contemporary look. Is there a way to re-design this to achieve a less contemporary look, make it more in keeping with the period? Ms. Ott stated that an attempt has been made to do so. Last week, a revised design was presented to ARB that included more natural stone than was originally proposed. The design still did not mean their expectations about what they wanted to see here. ARB had some trouble articulating what that is, as public art is not a component of the application. They indicated a desire to see some tribute or recognition of the history of the community in the lower plaza. Perhaps it could be a replica of the hand water pump that once was located on or near the site and served the community for quite a few years. Mosaics in the flooring of the plaza is another possibility. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 7 Ms. Salay stated those would be additional elements to the water wall. Ms. Ott noted that ARB has agreed that a water feature could be part of this site, albeit hesitantly. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired the basis of their objection. Water has always been a feature of Dublin. Ms. Ott responded that she does not believe the reason has been fully articulated to staff. Mr. Reiner stated that this corner is part of a historical route through Dublin. The pioneers heading west followed a route past this site. They crossed a ford of the river to the south, traveled up the road that is now SR 745 for a couple of blocks, and then turned left onto what is now SR 161. They would have also enjoyed a northwest view corridor through town. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has two concerns: (1 }water is a foundational feature of Dublin, and should continue to be so in all sections of the City; and {2} if they object to any water feature, ARB may not accept any version of the plan that continues to contain a water feature. It seems the water wall is their primary objection to the application. Ms. Salay requested clarification about the "chirping" sound/warning at the intersection. Why was that feature installed? It is her understanding that it is for the blind - to warn them. She would have a hard time believing that any blind person would trust that at such a busy intersection. Unless there is a particular need for that feature at that corner, she would be in favor of discontinuing it to encourage the outdoor ambience in the area. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Engineering staff has questioned the value of the chirp alert at that intersection. There is no particular need far it. Staff will reevaluate it. Ms. Salay stated that she does favor a water feature on this site, as it would generate of white noise to camouflage the traffic noise. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she visited a home last month that had a unique water feature. As part of a staircase feature, there was a brick water feature with a rippling water effect, which could be turned on or off. Perhaps an on/off feature would be useful here. Ms. Ott stated that the community has expressed their view that the size of the lower plaza should not be reduced far any reason -- water feature, public art, ar other. It is already very small. Staff is attempting to do so, but defined boundaries will be necessary as the plan goes forward. It is difficult to visually separate the future public art in this space from the design of the space. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not believe the public art is part of the current approval process, other than designating the space for it. Mr. Keenan stated that the townships did an interesting thing. Where the townships of Brown, Norwich and Washington meet, the area was utilized for a historical focus that Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 8 showed what that area would have looked like in 1900. That idea would work well in this location. The site where the pioneers forded the river in making the trip westward through Dublin, which Mr. Reiner described, would be an interesting site to preserve as it was at that time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the question is whether those ideas are part of the approval process for the Bridge & High redevelopment plan. Mr. Keenan responded that he concurs with the view that public art would be discussed during a future phase. He stated that it seems that the ultimate design of the site is undecided, but an important component of the design should be the conduit for the electricity and the water. Ms. Ott responded that the design provides for future electricity and water needs. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what direction Council needs to provide to staff and ARB. Ms. Ott responded that Council needs to clarify how much involvement Council wants in the re-design of the space and haw much public input should be solicited. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification of what needed to be re-designed. Ms. Ott responded that ARB approved the application with the condition that the 1,600 sq. ft. plaza component be re-designed. Vice Mayor Boring noted that her understanding of the review process is that if the Board did not approve the application, the applicant could request that the application be forwarded to Council for a final review. Ms. Ott responded that is true with the rezoning, but not the final development. Ms. Salay responded that ARB does not want the two water walls that are in the application. The best way to provide the desired historical elements ARB wants is through public art. Mr. Keenan responded that the historical element could be included within the floor of the plaza itself by selecting a time period and focusing on it. He inquired if ARB wanted public input. Ms. Ott responded that they wanted input from specific community organizations. On Legal's advice, that condition was broadened. Mr. Keenan noted that the danger in that is that Council will end up with another Veterans Project scenario. Ms. Brautigam stated that the intent is not to limit the input to the views of two or three individuals. It would facilitate the process to have Council make a commitment to the community that there will be public art in the future that will reflect the historical aspect of Dublin, and to have Council's direction that there will be two water features in the Bridge & High plaza, and to move on with the project. Council expressed consensus with the suggested direction. Ms. Readier stated that there have been jurisdictional issues throughout the process. It is an unusual application. It is a City project and technically, the City does not need to subject itself to the review/approval process. Typically in a planned district, PZC would review the architectural and landscaping components. However, ARB has that authority Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 9 in an historic district. ARB reviewed this at a meeting and issued a Board order. Those orders are not reviewed by Council. This week, there is another PZC meeting. Legal's memo attempted to clarify who had jurisdiction over what. Mr. Gerber noted that it also is an attempt to speed up the process. In the past, PZC always had the final review of the architecture. Mr. Readier stated that at the ARB meeting, the members initially wanted to appoint a task force with certain members and certain weights to their votes. That idea was discarded in favor of general public input. Because they are anticipating a public meeting, there is the need is clarify the jurisdiction responsibility regarding public art. Public art is completely within the purview of Council. Ms. Brautigam stated that the public input opportunity has already been provided through the public hearings of the project with ARB. Additional meetings to discuss redesigning would not be productive. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated there have been other opportunities for public input as well, for instance the public presentation at the Community Rec Center. Although not many members of the public may have seen the final version, the final version is a result of the public input received over those two years. She concurs with the City Manager's recommendation. Ms. Salay agreed. Council appreciates ARB's desire for an historic element, however, that will be developed further at a future date with its own public input process. Now, there is a need to have construction underway, not to redesign the area. Council agrees it is an historic corner within the City and that element should be referenced in the plaza. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the current design in packets is what Council would be acting on. Ms. Salay stated that this is the second design. The architecture of the building on the right does not accurately reflect what was approved. Vice Mayor Boring inquired how the second version made the design less contemporary. Ms. Ott responded that the revision breaks up the line across the top. In design A, the water fell like a sheet. In design B, the water flows and hits outcropped limestone. Steppers were also added. The challenge is that ARB has indicated that they don't like the plan. Other than a hand pump, they have not indicated what they do like. Mr. Reiner stated that there could be a problem. If the feature is six feet tall, it must be out from the wall a distance of three to one in relation to the height. Ms. Reader stated that the option available to Council is this: because this is a public plaza and aCity-driven project, Council could exempt the plaza from ARB review. This would, in effect, remove the condition and leave the design of the plaza within Council's jurisdiction. Council could then consider it at a future date. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 10 Vice Mayor Boring stated that some of the thoughts of ARB are worth considering. How can that best be accomplished? Ms. Brautigam stated that Council could propose a motion that essentially indicates that Council has heard ARB's opinion, and that public art of an historic nature would be handled in the future with a public process. The project will move forward with the plaza component of the application being subject to Council's review. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is not willing to go that far. Mr. Gerber inquired if this application would be coming back to P&Z on Thursday as a rezoning. Mr. Keenan inquired if it would also come back to Council for review. Ms. Ott responded that the final development plan would not; only the rezoning is forwarded to Council. The rezoning will come before Council for a first reading on February 4. Mr. Gerber inquired why P&Z is approving a final development plan, when Council has not yet approved the rezoning. Mr. Langworthy responded that a memo will be forwarded to Council with the explanation. Mr. Gerber inquired what rules were changed with this process. Ms. Brautigam responded that the City is under a contract with Stonehenge with a date specific. Ms. Ott noted that the City also agreed it would be a combined application when the contract was negotiated. Mr. Gerber stated that the normal process does not then apply in this case. Ms. Brautigam responded that the process had to be modified to meet the requirements. Vice Mayor Boring inquired what will happen should Council make modifications to the rezoning that would impact the final development plan that has already been approved. Mr. Langworthy stated that a condition of the final development plan approval is that the preliminary development plan was approved by Council. Mr. Gerber inquired if there are changes made by Council to the preliminary development plan with the rezoning approval, does the plan then return to P&Z? Mr. Langworthy responded that it would be necessary to find a way to address that. Mr. Reiner inquired why "A" was made of brick in a city that is known for limestone. The feature would be much more attractive clad in limestone and putting recessed arches in each of the piers. Ms. Ott responded that it was not possible because the building it is attached to is made of brick. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the resolution Council passes must be worded carefully. Council does not want to be committed to something in the future that could be a problem. It should address the fact that the City purchased this land 15 years ago Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 11 and has worked hard to achieve this project. She does not want to see approval of the project halted now for an unclear reason. She is more concerned about Mr. Refiner's comments regarding the technical aspects of the waterfall. Ms. Salay responded that has been part of the difficulty. Staff has asked ARB to articulate their desires for revisions. ARB recommended community input. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she can understand their concern. This particular developer is building developments in other cities, and if one drives around to view them, they all look the same. She understands their concern that this will be a contemporary design that repeats another city's project. She also concurs that it is important to move the project along. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if staff has the direction needed. Ms. Ott responded that a motion will be prepared for Council action. In addition, some redesign comments will be brought to Council for consideration. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the questions in the memo regarding public art needed to be discussed. Ms. Ott responded that she does not believe it is necessary. She understood that Council would not be changing its policy. Vice Mayor Boring stated that there were quite a few questions. What about the question as to who would oversee the project? Ms. Brautigam responded that those questions were posed to help Council understand the difficulty of the issue raised, but staff is not ready to respond to them at this time. 2008 ENGINEERING WC)RK PLAN Valley StreamlTullymore and Avery-MuirfieldlAvery Intersection Studies Mr. Hammersmith stated that these two intersections were studied last year and the improvements were discussed during the 2007 CIP work sessions. The study results will be presented tonight. Vice Mayor Boring inquired when these intersection improvements are budgeted. Mr. Hammersmith responded that construction is scheduled for 2012. Road Challenges: Ms. Wawszkiewicz stated the intersections were evaluated last year because of the traffic congestion that occurs in this area and peak hour delays. There are also geometric challenges at the intersections, including closing spacing and curvatures an the approaches, particularly on Avery Road. Currently, there are stop sign controls on Avery, Tullymare and Valleystream, and there are short turn lanes on Avery-Muirfield for the northbound left turns. However, there are no other turn lanes at intersections or stop sign approaches. Another challenge is the presence of the nature preserve. Benefits: Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 12 The City does control much of the land in this area, either as right-of-way or City-owned land. There is one parcel in the middle of this area that is privately owned but unoccupied. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the land is not owned by Lowell Trace. Ms. Wawszkiewicz responded that it is owned by a trust fund. Ms. Willis noted that it is the Kessler Trust. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this is where the subdivision entry features are maintained. Ms. Wawszkiewicz responded that there is a stone monument on this corner. Ms. Salay stated that Tullymore is to the left. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff would need to do additional research regarding the title on the property. Ms. Willis responded that Kessler is the current ownership. Study Results: Ms. Wawszkiewicz stated that geometric difficulties could precipitate crashes. Although there have not been a large number, a total of 11 crashes occurred with both intersections combined over the last three years. In comparison, the intersection to the south at Post Road and the intersection to the north at Tara Hill Drive have a higher accident rate. 45°~ of the 11 crashes involved injuries. This is a very directional area with most vehicles traveling south in the morning and north in the evening. There are long delays here. Valley Stream traffic is routing up through Tara Hill Drive. The level of service (LOS) is F at both intersections. Signal warrants are met at both intersections. Nine alternatives were considered: No build; two signalized options; two options with one roundabout; four options with two roundabouts. Option 1 - No build. Retain existing alignments. Option 2 -- Retain existing alignments with the necessary turn lane improvements and signals at both intersections. This is an improvement over the existing conditions, but this would require serious widening around Avery-Muirfield, 6 lanes south of Tullymore Drive. There is also a crossing at the half fork and the pedestrian tunnel. The geometric challenges would remain with the stacking problems. Option 3 -Avery Road realigned with signals and lane additions Re-routing Avery Road to intersect with Tullymore would permit an easier flow along Avery-Muirfield with only one signal. There would be six lanes south of Tullymore and the same geometric challenges and stacking problems. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if in the past Avery Road was re-routed to its current alignment. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it was. This option would return it to its former alignment. Option 4 - 5-leg roundabout The first roundabout option has all 5 approaches coming into a single intersection. It would involve a large circumference, which creates concerns about speeds. People tend to drive faster in a larger radius. It does allow for full access on all the approaches. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 13 There would probably be some impacts to the Nature Reserve and the two structures on the south leg. Option 5 - Roundabout with right in/right out at Valley Stream Drive The option is similar to the above but with a more standard diameter. This would be similar to the roundabout at Avery and Tuswell, with four-leg approaches. Valley Stream has been accommodated by restricting their left turns. To head south, drivers would need to make that direction change within the roundabout. This option involves the use of existing right-of-way and City property. There would be minimal impacts to the South Fork crossing and to surrounding residences, although buffering would be provided. This is the recommended option. Option 6 -Two roundabouts an Avery-Muirfield Drive. This option provides full access at Valley Stream, although a very short tangent section would be created. There would be very little room for cars to stack and queue in that area. Option 7 -Two roundabouts an Avery-Muirfield Drive with right inlright out at Valley Stream Drive. This places the roundabouts further to the west with less impact on the residential community. It would create a significant impact on the nature preserve. It provides more distance for maneuverability. Option 8 -Two roundabouts on Tullymore Drive. This places the second roundabout an Tullymore, not Avery-Muirfield Drive. It may be difficult for a driver to navigate through both roundabouts. However, there would be minimal impact to the South Fork and the nature preserve. Option 9 -Two three-legged roundabouts an Tullymore with right in/right out at Valley Stream. This is similar to the previous option but simplifies it by providing by pulling the access out. Mr. Reiner inquired how the recommended option compares with the roundabout in Muirfield. Ms. Wawszkiewicz responded that the recommended roundabout is closer in size to the Avery-Tuswell roundabout, approximately 180 feet in diameter. The Brand-Muirfield roundabout is much larger, over 230 feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that, perhaps due to landscaping differences, the Avery- Tuswell roundabout seems larger. Mr. Hammersmith stated that it is smaller, however. The Muirfield-Brand roundabout is expandable on the inside. That is the reason it is larger. One of the consequences of a Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 14 larger roundabout is that circulating speeds are higher. The desire is to keep the circulating speed at 20-25 mph. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not understand the reason staff is seeking Council's feedback tonight prior to seeking public input. This brings to mind the Post Preserve situation. If Council were to give direction tonight that the recommended option be pursued, why not educate the public on the preferred option? Ms. Wawszkiewicz responded that staff can do so. There are a couple of details with which it would be desirable to involve the neighborhood -- balancing the exact alignment between the Reserve and the single family home on the south leg. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that would be fine, but not to offer the 9 options discussed tonight. Ms. Wawszkiewicz stated that the intent was to present the neighborhood with the preferred option. Mr. Hammersmith noted that there is often a debate about when to seek public input from the neighborhood versus Council. Staff prefers to inform Council of the alternatives and staff's recommendation, to seek Council's concurrence, and then present it to the neighborhood to seek their input on specific issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed with the process. Mr. Keenan stated that a similar situation existed with the Muirfield-Brand roundabout, where it was necessary to work with a couple of the landowners on alignment of the roundabout. Mr. Lecklider inquired if only a small, triangular piece of land would be needed. Mr. Hammersmith confirmed there would be no need to acquire any additional residential land for the construction. Mr. Keenan inquired if there would be residual effects on the adjacent properties. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the residents seem to be most interested in the alignment of the road in reference to their properties. Ms. Salay stated that if construction does not begin until 2012, when will the design occur? Would making a selection now be too far in advance? Today, it is not possible to know how things will look at that paint in the future. Mr. Hammersmith responded that experience has shown that it is better to allow more time for input and to work through the design issues rather than attempting to do it within a ane-year timeframe. This provides better design estimates and the ability to program more accurate estimates in the CIP. It enables the residents to know what will occur in the future. Vice Mayor Boring stated that at one time Council had a Traffic Task Force. Perhaps this type of information should be reviewed by committee and a recommendation Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 15 provided to Council. There seem to be a larger number of traffic-related issues coming forward. Either a Traffic Task Force or perhaps the Community Services Advisory Commission could review the issues and provide a recommendation to Council. Mr. Lecklider inquired if a project such as this would be referred by Council to CSAC to review and make recommendation. Vice Mayor Boring responded that the entire presentation could be referred to CSAC far review with the engineering staff. Staff would then return with their recommendation and the recommendation of CSAC. Council would have the benefit of their minutes to determine if all the concerns were discussed. Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees that many issues can be very complicated and should be reviewed in committee first, but this seems to be a rather simple choice and committee review would not be necessary. It is pretty evident which is the best choice - it will solve the problem and have the least impact on the neighbors. It doesn't require additional scrutiny. There is the benefit now of Council making the decision. Vice Mayor Boring inquired the purpose of the commissions and the committees if Council will not be referring issues to them. Does Council want to continue to spend this amount of time on such issues, or let the people appointed for this purpose do it? Mr. Reiner agreed. However, in this case, Council has already spent the time reviewing it, sa it would not be necessary. In the future, there will be projects that are difficult and should be reviewed in committee first. Ms. Salay stated that those projects that are more complicated will ultimately result in Council spending more time on them. The residents will disagree with CSAC's recommendation, and then Council will want to "weigh in" on it. Mr. Lecklider agreed. Ms. Salay stated that the Traffic Task Force served a purpose during another time, but it's been abolished for at least 10 years. These issues ultimately are Council's decisions. Vice Mayor Baring responded that is true of everything that comes before Council. Her suggestion was to use this vehicle to take advantage of the talent in the community and to save Council some time. She believes that some of the Study Session items could be screened by a commission. It has been some time since Council last forwarded an item to CSAC for review. Mr. Reiner stated that he is satisfied with staffs recommendation on this issue. It appears to be the safest and most practical. Council is beginning to receive quite a bit of mail about having too many traffic circles in Dublin. This option calls for only one traffic circle, not two. If Council concurs with the Engineering staff recommendation, then this can be moved along to educating the neighbors on it. Otherwise, the issue and staff will be tied up in lengthy committee meetings and preparing presentations. He does not believe it to be necessary in this case. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 16 Mr. Lecklider inquired if the recommended option would complement Post and Avery roads. Mr. Hammersmith stated that roundabouts are proposed at Perimeter Loop and Hospital Drive and at Perimeter and Past Road with the latter scheduled for construction this year. The recommended option would introduce a continuous flow, therefore, would complement what is occurring south of it. Ms. Salay stated that, essentially, what staff is recommending here and further south to the City limits are roundabout controls all the way through. There are never too many roundabouts and this is the preferred method to control traffic. Mr. Hammersmith responded that a roundabout creates the safest intersection conditions, because it minimizes the contact point and lowers speeds. In the future, it is the way the City will provide capacity and meet appropriate levels of service. Ms. Wawszkiewicz noted that it resolves the issue without constructing six lanes on Avery Road. Ms. Salay stated that there is a Community Relations education opportunity here, because there have been many comments about the number of roundabouts in the City. It is important that the community understand the reasons why they are being utilized. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that there needs to be continued education. Ms. Salay stated that previously, there were numerous serious accidents at the Muirfield and Brand Road intersection. Now there are only a few minor accidents. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the recommended option also is the least expensive. Ms. Wawszkiewicz responded that all the estimates were compiled a year ago and are probably on the low side now. The estimate now would be nearer to $1.5 for construction of the recommended option and another $250,000-$300,000 for design - around $1.75 million for the total project. Staff would like to be able to obtain public input from the neighborhood on the proposed modified access, right in/right out, at Valley Stream Drive, and report the results to Council later this year. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she believes the house on the corner of Valley Stream Drive is a rental property. She has observed a "For Rent" sign there on several occasions. She would recommend caution in those discussions. The present property owner might want to pursue City purchase of the property. Ms. Salay stated that parkland on the southeast side of that intersection would compensate for that lost on the west side. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the residents in that area have the impression that whatever improvement is made along Valley Stream Drive, they would have full access and movement from that road onto Avery-Muirfield Drive. If they believe that there will only be a right in-right out there, perhaps the idea of going up to Tara Hill would be satisfactory. That is the type of input staff would like to have with the neighborhood. Briefing on Stormwater Management Program Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 17 Ms. Cox reported that the packet contained a large amount of background materials. Staff worked on many elements to the program. As with any program, the goals and the reason for the work must be stated: protect the environment; support the City's green initiatives and Council's goals; reduce pollution; preserve greenspace; reduce erosion; and maintain compliance with state and federal regulations. There are different components of the stormwater management program: the master plan, which is currently being updated; maintenance activities; capital improvement projects; NPDES permit compliance; City Code Chapter 151-floodplain regulations; and Chapter 53 -stormwater regulations. The original master plan, completed in 1999 per Community Plan requirements, included: stormwater regulations, water quality controls, modeling, CIP list, and a maintenance plan. Camp, Dresser & McKee are the consultants who have been hired to oversee the master plan update. The project will include modeling updates for Billingsley Creek, Cramer Creek, Cosgray Creek, and North Fork Indian Run. Since the last modeling, 104 new developments have come into those areas. After the modeling is completed, the CIP project list will be updated, inspection procedures and information will be reviewed, and forecasting completed. The maintenance work was funded in 2000 through the CIP Fund and includes the following on an ongoing basis: catch basin and curb inlet repair; outlet repair; pond maintenance; ditch grading/cleaning; resolution of drainage complaints; emergency repairs. In the original master plan, 20 CIP projects were identified. Of those, 10 have been completed, one is in design, one is partially complete, and eight are not yet completed. The Parks and Open Space projects include: porous concrete pavement parking lot at Indian Run Falls, and implementing different seeding mixtures which require less mowing. The original NPDES permit compliance was issued in December 2002 and expired December 2007. It contains six minimum control measures for the stormwater management programs. An annual report has been submitted every year to the OEPA that summarizes the City's compliance activities. City Code Chapter 53 was created in 1998 and includes controls on water quality, water quantity, erosion and sediment on construction sites -the first in Central Ohio. It was revised in 2005 for compliance with OEPA regulations. Cade Chapter 151 contains floodplain regulations. Currently, modernization of the flood insurance rate map is being done. FEMA indicates the new maps will be effective in June 2008. Mr. Keenan inquired if Council would receive a summary of the changes in the map. Ms. Cox responded that Engineering is working with the GIS department to overwrite the old maps with updated maps. The new maps will be provided to Council when complete. Ms. Salay inquired if there is evidence that the flood zones are growing or shrinking. Ms. Cox responded that she has not seen a trend for either; it depends on the specific area. The next steps on the stormwater program include: finalize master plan update; Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 18 review maintenance needs; program new CIP projects; review need for a utility fee; complete the NPDES permit compliance; update Chapter 53; and partnering with the Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District. They have bee mapping the stormwater autfalls. This will help regional communication. Also included are: develop good housekeeping plans for the City facilities; and develop stormwater and floodplain information web pages for community education purposes. Briefing on Central Ohio Innovations Center Infrastructure Improvements Ms. Cox presented a PowerPoint overview of the COIC interchange project, including a rendering of the plan for the bridge. Mr. Reiner inquired if it would be possible to identify the interchange on the railing, such as New Albany has done. Ms. Cox stated that the railing material will be different than the normal bridge railing. There is also a plan for uplighting on the backside. ODOT has also approved a 300-500 prairie grass approach on both sides, as an indication of entering a different area. Mr. Reiner inquired if the word "Dublin" could be interwoven into the design in some manner. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested the use of shamrocks. Ms. Cox responded that the architect has indicated that the shape of the shamrock has been incorporated. That shape is also on the fence for the Post Road bridge over I-270. Vice Mayor Boring stated that something similar was included with Emerald Parkway. Ms. Cox indicated that the options are limited as it is an ODOT structure. Securing their agreement to have them utilize a different landscaping material in the median was innovative. Ms. Cox stated that the project involves the reorientation of 33/161; the relocation of Industrial Parkway and construction of the roundabouts. Staff is still working on the roadway network to create atie-in off the roundabout to existing Eiterman Road and the relocation of Liggett Road. The construction cost estimates calculated in September 2007, which do not include right-of-way acquisition, are: - US 33ISR 161 /Post Road interchange - $24.1 million - Liggett Road relocation - $250,000 - SR 161 improvements/Industrial Parkway relocation - $7.3 million Total project construction costs: $31,575 Right-of-way acquisition costs have been estimated. The projects would affect a total of 29 parcels of land. Forty-three acres would be taken for permanent right-of--way; 6.3 acres for permanent easements; and 2.7 acres for temporary easements. The City has already purchased 10 of the 43 acres (Gorden property} for the southeast loop ramp. There are two projects also underway in conjunction with the interchange project. Extension of the sanitary sewer along South Fork Indian Run and along the tributary of South Fork toward Fishel Drive and the Darby Fields property. The water line is also being extended to that area. The estimates costs are: sanitary sewer extension - $1 M; and water line extension - $135,000. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 19 Mr. Keenan inquired if the Fishel property owners are interested in connection. Ms. Cox responded that staff met with the property owners a year ago to discuss the opportunity. They did not indicate any interest. Mr. Hammersmith added that although one property owner was interested, there was no collective interest. Mr. Salay inquired if there was a City policy in place to require sewer connection, if available. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is such a policy for City residents. This area is not yet annexed. Ms. Cox indicated that copies of the anticipated right-of--way acquisition maps were included in the packets. Mr. Hammersmith noted that Legal and Engineering staff are working diligently on accomplishing the necessary acquisitions and with ODOT personnel to process through their system. Once that is complete, much of the utility work will be done this summer. The roadway work will not begin before September 2008, at the earliest. The first project is the SR 161 improvements with the Industrial Parkway relocation. Mr. Lecklider inquired if there would be any construction initiated on the interchange itself. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the drawings would be turned over to ODOT, who will manage the construction. Ms. Cox stated that staff had indicated to the Post Preserve neighborhood, that they would meet with the residents closer to the construction time to refine the changes planned in that area. That will occur later this year. ODOT requires that this connection point be eliminated when the interchange is ready to open and function fully. The alternative is to connect the two stub streets off of Hyland-Croy. There is a need to ensure that happens in the best way possible for those neighborhoods. Mr. Lecklider inquired about an anticipated completion date. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would take approximately two years to complete, approximately fall 2010. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the programming of Post Preserve project. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is programmed in 2009. Part of the delay has been the anticipation that Mr. Gorden, who owns the 43 acres on the east side of Hyland Croy Road, would be pursuing the development of his property, but that has not occurred. Mr. Reiner inquired if there would be residual value for any of the 43 acres the City will be acquiring. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there would be. There would be residual pieces that could be combined with other properties and developed. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City would have access rights to the areas that are walled off by the highway system. Are those areas turned over to the State of Ohio? Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 20 Mr. Hammersmith responded that they will be in the limited access right-of--way, and will be under ODOT's jurisdiction. Ms. Cox noted that ODOT has given the City permission to do landscaping in the non- standard grading area. The landscape plan must be submitted to them as a right-of- way permit to da so. The plan will follow some of the landscape ideas that Mr. Combs suggested when they began to look at the entire COIC area. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff would bring the landscape plan back to Council. It has been some time since Council viewed it. Mr. Reiner stated that the idea of changing the plant material is interesting. When he was the Chair of the State Beautification Committee 10-15 years ago, they would meet with the head of ODOT and try to teach him the European practices of using landscape materials to signal the approach of exits and to reduce roadside maintenance casts. The U.S. has been slow in adopting landscape options for signalization. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would be interested in viewing the COIC area landscape plan again. 2008 Engineering Projects Summary Mr. Hammersmith presented a list of projects that are programmed in the CIP or in the operating budget. They are categorized as construction, design or tasks. There will be a renewed emphasis on public participation and communication processes to provide the best customer service possible to those who are impacted by these projects. On a quarterly basis this year, an update will be provided to Council on the status of these projects. A work plan schedule is being developed from this list. The first three projects have been outlined by Ms. Cox. He highlighted a couple of other projects on the list. • Construction of Avery-Muirfield Drive intersection improvement, atwo-lane roundabout. The original project included improvements an Post Road west of the intersection. Several different turn lanes have been committed to in the past. The intent was that this would be a ditch cross section road, much as it exists today. After discussion with Mr. Langwarthy, there are questions about the future character needs for that roadway. Perhaps a curb and gutter roadway would better meet the future aesthetic needs and pedestrian connectivity needs. Because there is a need for additional consideration of the character of Post Road, the project will be limited to the intersection only at this time. Mr. Keenan stated there are primarily medical office buildings on the south side and those types of improvements would fit well. However, the prime interest of the owners/tenants is that the traffic is maintained during construction and that the project be completed as quickly as possible. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is also Engineering's goal. The project will begin after the Memorial Tournament this year and completion is anticipated the end of November. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 21 • Emerald Parkway Improvements- installation of two traffic signals at Cardinal Health entrances. Roundabouts were evaluated for those intersections. The cost would be significantly higher and the impact would be significant to the adjoining properties. Because the level of service would not be significantly better than a signalized intersection, the original plan for signalization will be pursued. Mr. Reiner stated that those are T intersections. Would it be possible to maintain traffic flow in one lane, such as existed previously with Lane Avenue and Riverside Drive? Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff could evaluate the potential for doing so. There will be dedicated right turn lanes into the sites. Ms. Salay inquired if the intersections would have detectors so that the signals worked according to the peak hour traffic. Mr. Hammersmith responded that they are peak hour devices and could be put on flash on the off-peak hours. • Post Road Re-direction and Perimeter Drive Improvements -Cardinal Health impacts. This project was identified in the future Coffman Park Plan and to mitigate the Cardinal Health traffic impact at Emerald Parkway and Post Road. The project is under design and scheduled for construction this year. The Cardinal Health related engineering projects are scheduled to be completed by January 2009. Cardinal Health indicates that they are ahead of schedule with their construction project. • Avery-Muirfield Drive North Corridor, Hospital Ingress Lane - to improve access to Dublin Methodist Hospital. This is a $2 M project. The City received a $1 M grant from the state towards the funding, the hospital is contributing $150,000, and the City will fund the remaining costs. The project is under design and, optimistically, construction could occur later this year. Mr. Reiner inquired if this access would be for hospital use only. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is not; it will intersect with Hospital Drive. It will be a one-way ingress lane. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated that she had heard that Dublin Methodist Hospital had already submitted an application for expansion. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the medical office building is being constructed, but nothing else is planned. Mr. Hammersmith indicated that the Emerald Parkway, Phase 8 construction and the design of the Tuttle Crossing extension from Wilcox to Avery Road are also scheduled for 2008. Some of the studies listed are: SR 161/257/Riverside Drive alternatives; Frantz Raad north extension through OCLC and east to Dublin Road; Dublin-Glick Road intersection; and Avery Road Phase 3. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 22 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she met with Dennis Hoffer recently. He mentioned that due to the lane narrowing at the new roundabout in their area, there is a speeding issue occurring. Mr. Hammersmith responded that staff was also concerned about the effects of the lane transition and will be monitoring it. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the following intersections will be evaluated due to safety concerns: Riverside Drive/Hard Road; SR 161 /Corbins Mill/Shawan Falls; Bridge Street crosswalk; Riverside Drive crosswalk at east end of bridge. This year the annual bridge inspections will be contracted out. It is time to give the higher level bridges, such as Emerald Parkway over Scioto River and Emerald Parkway over SR 161/US 33, a more in-depth evaluation. State law requires that any bridge 10 feet or greater must be inspected annually. Dublin has 44 bridges. Finally, three outdoor warning sirens will be installed this year. The locations have not yet been determined. Vice Mayor Boring stated that at one time there was discussion about the creation of a map of the warning system locations and that in the future, the installation would be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Hammersmith responded that map does exist now. Tartan Ridge has a responsibility with the siren needed in their area. This list does not include projects that are commercial or residential related. Ms. Brautigam stated that a bike lane study is also being conducted this year. The results of that will be provided to Council in a later report. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in the past, bike lanes have been for recreational use. In the future, that use will need to be balanced with commuter use. Page 5 of the memo addresses this subject. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this issue is being driven by one person's comments. If so, he prefers not to spend staff time and energy on the study. That is not the philosophy driving what the City does. Ms. Brautigam responded that this effort is in cooperation with the Community Plan. There are no plans to construct bike lanes everywhere. Mr. Lecklider stated that he does not believe the City taxpayers would support the diversion of funds from bikepath construction to bike lane construction. Mr. Keenan agreed. There are 35,000-45,000 people driving to Dublin on a daily basis for employment. It is not likely they will want to begin to bicycle in from surrounding areas. Vice Mayor Boring responded that would be ignoring the people who do commute by bicycle; a couple do so from her ward. Mr. Keenan stated that with the existing traffic situation in the City, bike lanes would create safety issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in accordance with the new Community Plan, staff will be studying the issue and suggesting where bike lanes might make sense. 2008 ST. PATRICK'S DAY PARADE CC)NCEPTS Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 23 Ms. Brautigam stated that in their monthly staff meeting, Ms. Puskarcik indicated that their division is considering a change in the St. Patrick's Day parade process. She asked her to review the preliminary concept with Council and seek Council feedback. If Council supports the concept, additional information will be provided in a future packet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there is a handout. Ms. Puskarcik indicated that following the presentation, she would provide copies of the memo to Council. There are two annual parades in Dublin -the Fourth of July and St. Patrick's Day. Traditionally, in production they have mirrored themselves. With the discontinuation of the Blarney Bash, staff has been evaluating how to make the parade a centerpiece of the St. Patrick's Day celebration with the goal of attracting a larger crowd, post parade activity and more overnight hotel stays. The Independence Day parade would remain unchanged; it would remain a community focused, family event. St. Patrick's Day would focus more on the entertainment value. To that end, Council's role is being evaluated and the purpose of this presentation. The three-year plan would include the following: • Add units that have a high entertainment value • Minimize the number of units that do not have entertainment value • Create participation and marketing opportunities for local and regional businesses/organizations through entertainment unit sponsorship • Reintroduce the review stand with a professional announcer • Reintroduce/enhance the opportunity for high school bands and other units for a brief parade production presentation • Re-introduce bleacher seating along the parade route • Re-introduce a VIP section near the review stand for sponsors The primary change for Council would be their role in the parade. In the past year, Council has not taken advantage of the hospitality venues prior to the parade, and that is one of the reasons this concept is being suggested. The consideration is for a parade preview area in Historic Dublin where Council members would be located. They would not be on a parade float. There, Council would be able to invite VIPs and their families. A ceremonial component does exist with the Independence Day parade that does not exist with the St. Patrick's Day parade. A breakfast reception could be provided for Council and guests. The Grand Leprechaun reception would occur later in one of the Historic Dublin establishments. The size of the parade would not change, but the entertainment value of the individual units would be improved. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there would be a change in cost. Ms. Puskarcik responded that there would not. This would occur based upon community participation. Vice Mayor Boring stated that in regard to community involvement, the City did eliminate the Blarney Bash for the purpose of cost effectiveness. If something else is now added, that argument doesn't make sense. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the intent was to use marketing and sponsorship funds for the parade. A review stand would not be appropriate with the current parade, as it is not a centerpiece parade. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 24 Mr. Reiner inquired if a better parade would really result in more hotel nights. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the opportunity does not exist with the Independence Day parade. It exists with this parade because people in the region want to come to Dublin for St. Patrick's Day. Mr. Reiner stated that investing the effort in this seems risky, due to the weather impacts on that event. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would not be interested in a VIP area. Council has very few opportunities to be among the people, and parades are one of those opportunities -Council members walk and hand out candy, the residents call out and wave. These are not the people who come to meetings to speak on major issues. This an opportunity for the people to see those they have elected, which is not exclusive or by invitation only. In regard to pre parade activities, she was not aware of the event at the Crowne Plaza until recently. She did attend the last 2-3 years, but no one was present. She was not aware that there were expectations of Council members in regard to that event. Ms. Puskarcik responded that the event was moved inside to the Crowne Plaza in response to prior Council members' comments that it was too cold to attend apre- parade event outside. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the parade could be upgraded and Council members continue to participate in it. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. She does not object to ideas to upgrade the parade. She objects to Council viewing the parade from a VIP area and not participating in it. Mr. Reiner stated that the parade could be made more interesting to attract people from other communities. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that it is likely there will be less people attending, now that there is no longer a party after the parade. If people come to Dublin to see the parade, what else will they do? There are not that many places in Historic Dublin for people to entertain themselves, and there are no children-focused activities such as those that were successful in the hotel. She would not anticipate the parade itself drawing mare than the local people. Ms. Puskarcik responded that in other communities that have centerpiece parades, it is the community that is responsible far pre and post parade activities, not the city. The hope is that these activities become more of a community responsibility than the City's. Dublin does many things other communities do not. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired who in the community would take on this responsibility. The City wanted to handle these things. The citizens are taxed and money is used to have events for the community. That has been one of the things that made Dublin unique from the other communities. Does staff have anyone specific in mind who would be able to sponsor a community party before or after the parade? Ms. Puskarcik responded that years ago, the Dublin Community Church and the library held such activities. When the City began to hold these events, they were more popular and the others were discontinued. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 25 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the community today is also much larger, and it is no longer possible for those with small venues to host community events of this scale. Ms. Puskarcik stated that tonight's purpose is to ask Council if they want to revisit their role in the parade - whether to keep it the same or have a VIP area? Mr. Keenan stated to that him, Dublin's distinctive event was the Blarney Bash with the Irish music as the St. Patrick's Day celebration. That is what drew people to the community an St. Patrick's Day. He made his view clear when it was eliminated. He does not object to upgrading the parade, however. Mr. Keenan indicated that due to the lateness of the hour and a commitment at home, he must leave. [Mr. Keenan departed.] Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if Council members were not prepared to provide feedback tonight, they could email Ms. Puskarcik. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she agreed with the Mayor's position. She has no desire to be in a separate, VIP area. She would prefer to ride on the float. Ms. Salay stated that she is in agreement with the others regarding a VIP area. She is concerned about the parade upgrade. There are many children's groups that participate and they really enjoy it. Although this many not be considered entertainment value, it is important to the groups participating. It is important to maintain the community groups that want to be involved. Ms. Puskarcik responded that children's groups would be of entertainment value. The concerns are with the number of cars entered in the parade with a business name only. This creates a 1-1 /2 hour parade, and the residents aren't staying for the entire parade. Ms. Brautigam stated that the direction she has heard from Council is that they desire to continue their present practice of riding on a float in the parade. Adjournment to Executive Session Mr. Reiner moved to adjourn to executive session to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, ar compensation of a public employee or official. Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 10:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11 p.m. and formally adjourned. Clerk of Council Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, January 14, 2008 Page 26