Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-31-11 Work Session Minutes - BSCBRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, January 31, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Vice Mayor Salay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers The following were present Council members: Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Boring, and Mr. Reiner. Mayor Lecklider arrived at 6:05 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission members: Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Walter, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Hardt. Board of Zoning Appeals members: Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran, Ms. Ferguson, and Mr. Shankar. Architectural Review Board members: Mr. Souders, Ms. Franz King, Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, and Mr. Schisler. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Mr. Papp, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Ott, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis. Consultants: David Dixon and Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliot, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman and Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, EMH &T, and Josh Reneki, CDM. Vice Mayor Salay stated that one of Council's goals for 2010 -2011 is to complete the Bridge Street Corridor Plan, which will reinforce the City's continuing competitiveness, create a vibrant and walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, and enhance the City's long -term sustainability. As part of its near -term action strategies for achieving that goal, Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, which contains the illustrative vision plan, major principles, implementation strategy and vision statement. The other two near -term action strategies were to hold a work session with the consultants and a joint session with the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC), Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Architectural Review Board (ARB), which is the purpose of tonight's meeting. This meeting is intended to discuss the shared interests and ensure common understanding of Council's policy intent and key planning and implementation principles for the long -term redevelopment of the Bridge Street Corridor. This is the first joint session, but others are anticipated as the implementation plan progresses. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council passed Resolution 50 -10 in October 2010, which adopted the vision report and the implementation strategy for the Bridge Street Corridor. Since that time, staff has completed a process to select various consultants for the implementation studies, and establish their scope of work for the initiation of the project. This is the initial meeting with the consultants, City Council and their boards and commission for the purpose of discussing the consultants' work and for them to receive feedback and further direction from City Council. It is anticipated that additional meetings will be scheduled as the consultants move through the various implementation studies they are each working on. Tonight, each consultant will discuss their work and how it will connect with the Vision Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 2 of 16 Report, and the observations they have made to date. The intent is to provide the consultants with sufficient information to obtain a good understanding of what the City desires to achieve for this planning area so that they do not get too far along without confirming with Council that they are heading in the right direction. City Council will have the opportunity to provide direct feedback, ask questions, and obtain information from the consultants. This is an exciting and important project for the City. It is anticipated that it will develop or be implemented over many years. Last week, the Urban Land Institute held a meeting in Columbus entitled, "The City and 2050, Creating Blueprints for Change." Many of the issues and comments made were in line with the Vision Report that has been prepared for the Bridge Street Corridor. The changing demographics are creating the need for everyone to re -think how development will need to occur in our communities in order to remain a desired place to work and to live. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff has assembled a team of consultants with expertise and national and global experience in planning and implementing the kind of development the Bridge Street Corridor vision implies. This is a complicated project with many moving parts. Several disciplines are involved, and they are fully integrated and collaborating. They are also working proactively with the OCLC team, who has engaged a master developer. The City's consultants met for the first time today with OCLC's consulting team. The Stavroff team, which is working on the potential redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center, is involved in a complex effort to pull together properties. They are focusing their planning efforts with MSI consultants. Although this project is deadline- focused, it must be flexible and adaptable based on both Council direction and the dynamics that result as the teams interact. Although this is the first joint meeting with the consultants, it is not intended to be the last. Council will likely want to hold additional joint sessions as the project moves toward implementation and adoption. Mr. McDaniel stated that the first speaker is David Dixon of Goody Clancy. They are working on a pattern book or illustrative guide. They were also engaged with the City the past year in working on the Vision and a Concept Plan. The Clarion, Farr, and McBride /Dale teams have been working on the regulatory framework the past 30 days. Other consultants have recently come on board and are rapidly becoming familiar with the project. Each of the consultant groups will provide a brief background and summarize their purpose and principles. David Dixon, Goody Clancy, stated that he has had an opportunity to speak with Council, PZC, ARB and BZA, which has been very helpful to him. He will be attending three conferences during the next couple of months. Each of them has requested a presentation on their firm's work in Dublin. They are less interested in the plan than the way in which this community has participated in shaping the plan. Dublin's tradition of staying ahead of markets, being innovative, and anticipating the next wave of interest regarding how to live and work, has struck a national chord. They have become aware that people love Dublin and do not want to replace it or change it, just add or improve it. The community is proud of the quality of design that it has required and encouraged, and wants to continue to see the same commitment to quality even though a District, not the traditional Dublin development, is being built. To draw the best to the community, the intent is for a high density, walkable, mixed use, lively downtown, with something for everyone — great public spaces, cafes and entertainment. Embraced in this plan would be Dublin's natural setting. People want Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Dublin's natural features to be celebrated, such as the Indian Run. [Mr. Dixon continued a review of the features desired in the plan, as outlined in the materials.] Don Elliot, Clarion Associates, Denver, Colorado, stated that he is the project manager for the assembled zoning team. Their firm works with cities and counties to draft development codes. Two of their subcontractors are also present: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates, Chicago; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion. They are charged to prepare draft zoning regulations based on the Vision that has been developed. They are tasked with how to turn the vision into reality in a realistic way that could actually be implemented and achieved over time. They are to create confidence that the framework, fabric and sustainability of that plan will be realized by allowing property owners the flexibility to pursue market opportunities in an innovative development. When they look at the plan, they see a good illustration of how it might turn out, but life never turns out according to a picture. This will be a long build out, and flexibility is essential; all the details are not intended to be taken literally. They have a very quick timeframe for their work. They have conducted research during January, and by the end of February, they are to present a draft of their proposed regulations for review. They always do a staff draft first to identify potential mistakes or misunderstandings. That staff draft will be revised, and a draft for discussion and full review will be prepared by March 31. [Mr. Elliot covered the principles they would follow in developing the zoning code.] Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nvgaard, Boston, stated that they do national and international work. Their firm is tasked with developing the Transportation Plan for this project. In many cases, the best transportation plan is a good land use plan. Dublin already has a good foundation on that. In creating an intermodal, walkable neighborhood, Dublin will be enhancing not only that neighborhood, but the Dublin community. The most complicated part of their task will be the streets. Streets in a suburban development are very different than streets in an urban development. In a suburban area, every piece of land is stand- alone and must be able to provide all its functions — parking, lighting, drainage, etc. In an urban setting, there is more sharing, such as with parking. In designing an urban street, how the buildings front the street, width of the sidewalks, on- street parking, bicycle transportation, volume of pedestrians, type of vehicles using the street, etc. must all be considered. Their process will involve modeling. Dublin has sophisticated traffic modeling systems in place. They work very well for the existing suburban environment. In more urban settings with particular areas with interconnected street networks, it is much more complicated. The need is to move more people around while more people are walking around. They will begin with the models Dublin already has, and then evolve into a more urban model. Shane Spencer, EMH &T, stated that they are included with the team for the purpose of utility modeling, specifically City -owned water and sanitary sewer systems. They have worked with the City of Dublin and the City of Columbus in the past. This is important because Dublin is a contract community, receiving water and sewer discharge services from the City of Columbus. Their charge in connection with the Bridge Street Corridor project is to identify existing infrastructure of the water and sewer and identify what upgrades would be required to ensure the implementation of the plan. To accomplish this, they will be utilizing very specific technical modeling software, which the City already has in place for its system. Specifically, they will be looking at changes in density, land use and their impact Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 4 of 16 on the need for water and sewer, and, ultimately, changes in physical networking that directly impact utility networking and the ability for those to serve the users. They have identified four key challenges: 1. They cannot look at this area in a vacuum. With the sewer, there are four trunk sewers that pass through the Corridor, which receive sewage from upstream areas. 2. They must look at the utilities in the context of the Community Plan, and projection and growth. 3. The manner in which the City of Columbus operates their water and sanitary sewer systems. Those have to be considered in the context of whatever is considered. 4. The topographical challenges and features. Josh Reneki, CDM, stated that Dublin has recognized for some time that there is a coexistence of Economic Development and natural resource protection that is critical to an attractive and livable community. In 1995, CDM and the City worked together to begin development of a Stormwater Master Plan, and in 1998, City Council accepted that plan and adopted a stormwater ordinance, which included water quality requirements. Interestingly, 2003 was the first time the Ohio EPA passed stormwater requirements for all developments. Dublin is ahead of the Ohio EPA and has been for some time. In 2008, the City updated its Stormwater Master Plan. This project is an opportunity for forward thinking with stormwater management, because the Bridge Street Corridor is very much an urban core. CDM will be exploring which sustainable stormwater best management practices can be integrated into the Corridor Plan. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff wanted Council to be aware of all the team members and disciplines involved. They are prepared to respond questions and concerns and receive input. Mayor Lecklider stated that he had noticed that most of the projects Mr. Chellman has been involved with are in the Northeast or in California. Mr. Chellman responded that they have offices on both coasts, but did a project in St. Louis last year. He has worked in Ohio before. Nelson Nygaard began as a transit focused firm, so its earlier projects were in areas with more significant transit facilities. There isn't much transit in this area of the Midwest, but that is changing. The changed land use patterns that are occurring nationally and internationally reflect the ideas that the Goody Clancy plan has embodied for having more mixed -use, higher density, walkable transit support for neighborhoods. Real estate values appear to be holding or growing more in those areas. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Central Ohio Transit system isn't able to provide more service to Dublin due to financial reasons, and there is a continuing preference for cars in this portion of the county. Given those challenges, how could a form of transit be implemented as part of the Corridor Plan? Mr. Chellman responded that will not be included in the early stages, but it will be part of the phasing /modeling discussion. At such time as transit becomes viable, then it will create a mode shift and traffic patterns will vary because of that, as well. The build -out plan shows very little surface parking area, and that is good. At build -out, Dublin will probably have significant structured parking and on- street parking. In early phases, there will likely be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 5 of 16 surface parking lots that will transition over time into structured parking. Transit is similar. Density will come first, which transit will then support. Mayor Lecklider stated that he would expect in the early stages that Dublin would be dependent upon the existing Central Ohio Transit system. He would be concerned how a community this size could take on this type of service. Mr. Chellman responded that the whole Bridge Street Corridor is not transit dependent, but transit supportive. If a mixed -use, walkable place can be achieved without transit, that still would be an improvement. These communities have significantly less traffic than suburban land use areas, not because of transit use, but due to an increase in walking and biking. Mr. Gerber stated that this area will be developed with 14,000- 15,000 people living there and more people coming into this area for dining, etc. People living in this area will leave in the morning to go to work outside the area, then re -enter in the evening. Will the existing roadways experience more pressure that will create a need for additional roadways? Mr. Chellman responded that they are still defining the exact limits of the scope of their portion of the model. However, they will certainly be looking at trips to /from the outside areas in the model. The City's model will then address how those are distributed throughout the City. In the early stages, this will be an attraction and people will drive there However, the idea is that it will eventually be a "park once" environment. Mr. Keenan stated that a parking survey was completed. Is the consultant involved with that study present this evening? Mr. McDaniel responded that the consultant is not present; however, that study was limited to the Historic District. Mr. Keenan inquired when the results of the parking survey would be available. Mr. McDaniel responded that the intent is to present it at the next Council meeting. Mr. Keenan inquired if those results would be coordinated with the other consultants. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would, a number of other things would be incorporated as well, including an economic cluster analysis by Battelle and a square footage occupancy analysis. The various pieces will be integrated. Mr. Keenan stated that there is an immediate need to address the parking issue. Today, there are significant parking difficulties in Historic Dublin. It has been his opinion for some time that a structure, 1 -1/2 stories underground, perhaps two stories above, could be provided behind the new BriHi area without being onerous. There are numerous examples of those garages within the Ohio community. It is important not to lose sight of the near - term needs when talking about this Vision. Mr. Reiner referred to the comment that the City has unique stormwater and sewer requirements along the Corridor. In what way are Dublin's requirements unique — is it the overall density of the space? There are four sewer trunk lines involved. Will this be a construction impediment? Mr. Reneki responded that the sanitary studies will be conducted by EMH &T. There is a chance that there will be a construction impediment. From a stormwater management Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 6 of 16 perspective, what is unique for this area is that the density of the Bridge Street Corridor will be no denser than downtown Columbus. Development is occurring in downtown Columbus now, but they are managing the stormwater issue on a site by site basis. Dublin has the opportunity to put an imprint on the entire district. This is not a single -acre site, but a site of hundreds of acres. So it is unique in the scale of the area. Mr. Reiner inquired if that will be addressed by the regulations that will be designed. Mr. Reneki replied that would be the overarching goal -- that text will be built into the zoning and into the potential stormwater regulations specific for this area that will allow for the innovation required from the design engineers for this area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council accepted the concept Goody Clancy presented to Council without addressing the details. How will the development code ordinance be written /address /achieve the real development desired? Mr. Elliot responded that there are certain things that must be addressed for the development to proceed as desired —the fabric, the scale, the street network, open space distribution and types. The general approach is to address it in the general regulations for these districts. With a development with a 20 -30 year buildout, multiple property owners and hundreds of acres, the whole picture will not come into focus until it is ready to be built. For instance, in regard to open space -- as it occurs, each development will contribute to the open space distribution. It is not possible to predict when it will occur. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if a different tactic could be taken. Could the City direct that it wants the greenspace to take up a certain amount of area, and immediately put on the map where that greenspace will be located? Then, everything else would occur as a result of Council making that decision. Mr. Elliot responded that he has seen that occur more often in raw land contacts — a big acreage where nothing is built. While there is some raw land in this corridor. there is much redevelopment land, as well. This suggestioi than with multiple owners. The problem with the City is taking all of one property owner's I is ready to buy it, as the property owner woul located on his property. With redevelopment multiple agendas, it is more common to have vision. i is much easier to do with one property owner designating the greenspace is that may mean roperty. It can be presumed then that the City J have been made aware that a park will be involving multiple property owners and each property owner contribute to the overall Mr. Dixon stated that when the consultants have finished their work, his firm has been tasked with creating a pattern book that will illustrate in a literal way the translation of the Vision into much more specific planning concepts that will be embedded in the Code. If something will not work, it can be corrected at that point. The central park component can be evaluated more closely at that time to determine if what is desired can be achieved. Vice Mayor Salay stated that approach makes sense to her. Mr. Dixon suggested that a workshop be scheduled at some point in this process to discuss the open space area and how best to define it. The different kinds of suburban and urban open spaces can be discussed. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Gerber noted that preserving greenspace is one of Dublin's core values. Mr. Dixon responded that in the next stage, Dublin could be looked at in its totality, and determined what would complement it. Mr. Gerber stated that a similar value is placed on the Historic District; there is a desire to preserve it. It is important that the Code be written to prevent the District becoming diluted or too blended with what is around it. Mr. Elliot responded that it is possible to create a zoned district or more than one that will preserve the character of the Historic District, not change it or expand it beyond its historic boundaries. It should be possible to write something clearer and simpler than the multiple districts that the City has in place now to control development. The kind of building type, form -based zoning that is desired works best in that fine fabric historic area. It was made for that purpose. It should be possible, not only to preserve it, but with something easier to understand and build. Mr. Walter stated that one of the questions he has is relative to this area and its context to the rest of the area. There are boundaries — 1 -270, SR 161 and Sawmill Road -- that cause constriction. Is there consideration regarding bringing ODOT and MORPC into the conversation at some point? What about Dublin City Schools, since they are such a large land holder in the District? Those are two things he believes should be considered. Mr. McDaniel responded that there is ongoing dialogue with the schools. He and Ms. Grigsby interact with Dr. Axner and his team on a continuing basis. MORPC is aware of and watching the process. ODOT will become involved later, when the transportation piece is addressed. As a result of the analysis, there will be more clarity on the transportation impacts at that time. More vision about the impact is necessary before bringing ODOT in. Mr. Keenan inquired how the 1 -270 interchange interaction is being addressed. At one time, Council was given many potential configurations. Ms. Grigsby responded that there is a lot of interaction with ODOT on that project, as well as the Federal Highway Administration. They are familiar with much of what the City is doing in the area and will be doing in the future. It will be necessary to coordinate the project with them because these are State highways. Mr. Keenan stated that there has been discussion about the "bow tie" area across the street. There may be some uses there. How soon will it be known what land acquisition will be needed? Is that horizon ten years out or longer? Ms. Grigsby stated that they have already begun looking at some of the impacts on the bow tie piece. Based upon the preliminary design and environmental work, it appears that very little additional right -of -way will be needed from that area. Ms. Willis stated that Engineering has been working extensively with ODOT on the interchanges. The interchange footprint that has the most promise does have some impact on the bow tie piece, but it is more minimal than that of the others. ODOT is well aware of the need to minimize the impacts to Dublin's developing land in this area. The footprint of the current interchange is fortunate, as it is a cloverleaf, which is rather large and will be an advantage to Dublin in the future. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Keenan inquired the timeframe. Mr. Willis responded that it would probably 10 -15 years before construction would be completed. Mr. Taylor stated that he recognizes that what Goody Clancy has put together is a concept, but there is a lot of room for change. Using Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher's example, if the City were to decide that instead of a small park with a library next to it, a very large park is preferred in that area, how would the plan be updated to make that happen? Mr. Dixon responded that one thing that sets Dublin apart from many suburban communities is the fact that it has many review boards and a capable Planning staff. He would assume if that scenario came about, it would be because the City completed a planning study that looked in more detail at the amount of public space needed. That decision would then be made within the context of the realities of property ownership, how it would link into OCLC plans and the plans with the Historic District. When the planning study is completed and its recommendations adopted, the Plan would be amended to reflect those changes. As the project moves forward, the City make may a number of such changes, in a thoughtful and intentional manner. This should be considered a base upon which Dublin, as a thoughtful community, will continue to build upon. Ms. Grigsby responded that this relates to the previous process with the Community Plan. Prior to the 1997 Community Plan, there was no concept of an expanded Coffman Park. It was not identified in any master plan. It was conceived between the Community Plan processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan will set a baseline, which will change as the process moves forward and as Council's goals and objectives are modified at some future time. Between the City's planning process and Council's goal setting, this will continue to be a fluid document for a fluid development. Mr. Gerber stated that, previously, Dublin has created plans which everyone then followed. Revisions to those plans have not occurred easily or quickly, typically taking a minimum of five years. How can flexibility be built into a plan? Mr. Dixon responded that there are certain types of flexibility that need to be woven throughout the plan from the outset. For example, with land use and development, clearly the intent is a mixed use, lively and varied place. On the other hand, it is desirable to have people develop housing when a housing market is strong, so they can build the best quality housing; the same with hotels and with offices. Therefore, it is important to have the flexibility to encourage people to be developing toward strong markets, so that investment will be attracted to Dublin. Regarding the question about a decision to create a large park along the river -- it is not about creating urban or suburban; it is about creating a great community. When it comes to a dense or more walkable, lively and more urban space, then certain kinds of decisions, such as open space, should be very flexible — they need to be more carefully considered. From his perspective, Council has adopted a vision that goes as far as it should at this point, knowing that there will be more decisions of a refinement nature to make. When it comes to creating a great central park, it would not have been wise to have designated a certain area and amount of that area at this time. It could not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 9 of 16 possibly have been thoughtful enough, nor had enough people involved. However, this vision allows for that to be a next -stage decision. Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Earman and Mr. Hahn are involved in this process to cover the dimension of facilities. An increase in population will create a need for increased facilities, which would need to be included in the costs stage. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when discussing greenspace, it would be desirable to have a work session, as suggested by Mr. Dixon. Dublin is known for its greenspace, but they are pockets of parks used primarily by the neighborhoods. Visitors from outside the community typically use Coffman Park or Glacier Ridge Park, which is not owned by Dublin. For the Bridge Street Corridor area, there appears to be a more interactive relationship between that whole community — that being those who live, work and play there. Goodale Park, Columbus, or Schiller Park are large parks with which people have a different relationship than is typical with Dublin's current parks. A workshop would help broaden the thinking about the possibilities. Mr. Dixon stated that just as Dublin takes pride in periodically planning and writing a next chapter on how to stay ahead of markets, Dublin could also think the same regarding its public realm. Values change, types of recreation desired change, so it makes sense every 20 -30 years to think about how to build on the legacy created and adapt it to the world today. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in these economic times, it may seem more realistic to think that would not be for another 30 -40 years. However, Dublin has a solid reputation, and if this Plan is completed in the way anticipated, people will want to come here to build and live. This will happen more quickly than it might in some other communities. Dublin also has resources that other communities do not have, which will encourage that. Mr. Dixon noted that one of those resources is significant capacity of its government to take a leadership position that many other communities cannot undertake. Mrs. Boring stated that she concurs with that statement from a cautionary perspective. With a previous economic development study, the consultants said it would take 30 years. However, Dublin had them return in 10 years for a review. Mr. Fishman inquired how much interaction is occurring with the cities that surround Dublin, primarily the City of Columbus. He serves on the Bicycle Advisory Task Force, also, and it has been pointed out that Dublin ends rather quickly at Martin Road. If the bikepaths end at Martin Road, vehicles will be bottlenecked. So, is conversation occurring with Columbus, Plain City and Marysville? Mr. McDaniel stated that he and Mr. Hammersmith have been meeting regularly with Mark Kelsey, Service Director with the City of Columbus, on a number of issues. He has spoken to Mr. Kelsey about the need for an evaluation of all the shared boundary "touch points," in regard to current issues and anticipated future issues. Mr. Kelsey has indicated an interest in having that discussion. A similar conversation also needs to occur with the other contiguous communities. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Ms. Grigsby stated that an issue that is being discussed more frequently today is that of shared services, recognizing that all are interconnected, and working together enables more to be accomplished. Reaching out and working with other entities will be more important going forward. Mr. Zimmerman stated that as the plan is developed, how the residential and commercial aspects will come together to use the greenspaces will be looked at. He lives in the Brighton Park, Rings Road area. The residential and offices are interconnected with the parks, and employees from the businesses as well as the residents use those parks. The parks are active throughout the day and never appear "stale." He is hopeful that type of park interaction, but on a greater scale, will be included in this concept. Ms. King stated that the vision is exciting. The density concerns her, but it is better to be pulled forward than left behind in terms of where the market is going. She applauds the emphasis on the preservation of the Scioto River corridor. Item #3 — "Embrace Dublin's natural setting," enters into specifics and raises some good questions. She would like to emphasis the importance of stormwater management, realizing that the consultants are considering that. It should be made clear upfront that there should be no stormwater waivers, no direct access into the north fork, the south fork, or the Scioto River because of the impact that would have on water quality, quantity, turbidity, erosion, etc. She also encourages identification of a large park boundary as long as it is made very clear that this is permissive; that when landowners are ready, the City might be willing to talk with them. In some markets, at least, some landowners may find it comforting to know that they are in a potential park purchase area. Mr. Schisler stated that some of the speakers spoke about LEED new development or sustainability design, yet he does not see that as a principle in the document. If portions of the development will be expected to meet LEED regulations, such as in regard to stormwater management, it would be desirable to incorporate some of that into the zoning. Mr. Souders stated that he recently put some information together, which was provided for this meeting. There are three pages of questions regarding issues he believes it is important to understand from both the ARB perspective and from an urban design perspective. Perhaps those can be addressed outside of this meeting. His greatest concern is how this will develop overtime. Mixed use is a great goal, but he is concerned how that would be accomplished — there is the Sawmill Road area that needs to be reinvented, a downtown Historic area that is trying to expand across SR 161/ Bridge Street. His concern is if the multi -use district is created, it will dilute the current development. He is not sure how much retail can be absorbed. The information he provided graphically indicates something that extends beyond the District's borders. There is Coffman High School, the parks, July 4th festivities, parades, festivals — how can a pleasant connection be achieved between those and the Historic District? Perhaps the anchors should be considered Sawmill Road, Dublin Methodist Hospital /Muirfield Drive and the Mall with the Historic District being the centerpiece. The Historic District already has a high volume of vehicle traffic, and SR 161 presents a natural barrier to people desiring to cross from one side of the Historic District to the other. However, in 20 years, if this area develops with the proposed density, the volume of cars will double or triple. SR 161 cannot be widened, so Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 11 of 16 how can cars be moved through the Bridge & High corridor? Would it be possible to make SR 161 /Bridge Street one -way through this part of town? Across from the library's location, a second bridge at Dale Drive would provide an opposite direction for one -way traffic. A parking garage partially underground has been proposed. The grade of land drops near the school and the library, creating a large hill. If a parking garage were to be constructed there, an entire level could be underground. In time, when the school is no longer there, the second road could connect with SR 161. A high volume of traffic moves north through the Historic District. He personally loves travelling down Riverside Drive, not having to stop at the light but go under the bridge. If the timing of the light at that intersection is changed or a roundabout is constructed, he does not see how traffic could be moved as effectively. He has enjoyed some places in the east with a bypass road similar to Dublin's. He understands that the Master Plan provides for that road to become part of the bikepath, but that is one of the joys in traveling Riverside Drive — the beauty of coming into a single lane. Dublin already has so many wide streets and intersections. He does not want to lose that one -way bypass lane on Riverside Drive, if at all possible. Perhaps 50 years from now the current bridge will be replaced with a high bridge, and Dale Drive could be used as a loop back within a one -way system. Perhaps a trolley system could connect Dublin Methodist Hospital and the medical retail there with the Sawmill Road retail. Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Souder for his comments. His document has been received by Council and other board /commission members. He has posed many interesting questions, and he is certain the traffic consultant will note those and is aware of the challenges. He inquired if Mr. Dixon was able at this time to make a brief response to the question Mr. Souder raised about Sawmill Road and a conflict between increasing retail and mixed use. Mr. Dixon stated that in regard to the question as to whether the retail will complement or compete -- the danger of too much supply and not enough demand -- this will be managed over a period of time. The reason they are reasonably optimistic that the retail development in this quarter will tend to be complementary rather than out - compete itself is because of the very different settings. Sawmill Road is a particular kind of market. The visibility and access along Sawmill provide the ability to create much larger floorplate retail, which suggests one type of retail, including opportunities for entertainment. Much smaller floorplate businesses, fine dining, etc. characterize and thrive in Historic Dublin. The center of the corridor will be the development that OCLC will undertake. So far, their emphasis involves more residential than retail, which would be complementary and of yet a different character. It will be important to watch what is going forward. There may need to be some adjustments if, over the next 10 -15 years, one area begins to drain another. The area they are the most optimistic about in terms of impact of this Plan on local businesses is the Historic District, because near the District but not in the District, should be much more housing. Housing, more than anything else, supports local restaurants and local small businesses; so, in the future, there will be a larger captive audience in the District. Ms. Newell, BZA, thanked Council for taking this task on. It will present an exciting opportunity for Dublin. She works and lives in Dublin and frequents Historic Dublin. She hopes that serious consideration is given to the logistics of walkability. That issue is best shown by an example. To get from her office on Frantz Road to Historic Dublin, a short drive, takes 30 minutes to walk at lunch time. The logistics of walkability relate to how far a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 12 of 16 person can actually walk within a period of time. The City has used step -down zoning to protect the residential neighborhood from the business district, and they are very polarized from each other right now. There is a large portion of Dublin's residential neighborhoods that will never be within walkable distance to Historic Dublin. With this project, there is an opportunity for Dublin to really consider how they are developing that area in terms of the entire community and residential neighborhoods. Mr. Paige, BZA, stated that he lives on the east side of Dublin. The proposed density of the Bridge Street Corridor concerns him. It may have a major impact on how the City analyzes its land use principles in the future, such as maintaining the rural character and a balance between that and connectivity. The concept of planning and park space is vital. People moving into a neighborhood want to rely on what is around them. The City already has a vibrant community, and how best to maintain that and move forward is important. It is important to maintain a balance with growing while sustaining, having schools that are not over - crowded, and having communities that are connected and involved. He is concerned about what the multi - family homes could turn into. Although the intent is for it to be multi - generational housing, how will that evolve? On the east side, that is currently an issue, which is impacting that side of Dublin. Therefore, he is concerned about multi- housing in the heart of Dublin. Already, there are disagreements about the zoning. Although overall, the plan appears exciting, underneath are hidden issues that need to be seriously considered. He hopes that very defined discussions occur regarding the multi -use zoning. Otherwise, due to economic circumstances, there may be a tendency toward leniency for less - enhancing aspects of development for an area. There should be tight restrictions on the land use principles, what the core is, and the things that may be developed — not to interject rigidity, but definition. What everyone is concerned about is the integrity. That is the important standpoint from which to view the Plan as it moves forward. The City has strong land -use principles right now. He has been informed that this is a major discussion point. Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates his thoughts, and how seriously he has taken his role on the Board of Zoning Appeals. She is the Council representative for that area, and would be interested in meeting with him to discuss these issues in more detail. Vice Mayor Salay stated that some calculations were made regarding what percentage the Bridge Street Corridor area would be of the total City. Mr. Dixon responded that he would locate that information and provide it to her. This Plan is not about changing the development pattern of Dublin. The suggestion is not for a pattern that should be spread across the City for new investment opportunities. It is about creating a place in Dublin that is circumscribed; that has real edges to it and does not spread. In fact, it will not work if it spreads. It is about creating an intensity that brings vitality and life within it and not expand into nearby neighborhoods. However, there is a desire to be able to walk to it, just not have it arrive at their front door. It is very much about a place that people travel to -- they know where it is and where it isn't. He agrees with the use of the term "integrity," and he believes this Vision has been addressed with a great deal of integrity. The goal is not for the plan that will make the City the most money, but for a plan of real quality that builds on Dublin's principles and, for this specific place, adds a new dimension. It is a place that will create appropriate value. So far, the integrity has been there. In regard to the multi - family housing, they very much believe in being market - driven in their work. A hard look has been taken at Dublin's housing. The whole thing is not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 13 of 16 changing, but there is a larger demand than in the past for multi - family housing that is high quality and market rate. Some of it would be rental, because many people moving to Dublin are not yet interested in home ownership. In this region, and many other regions throughout the nation, one -half to two - thirds of the residents are singles and couples. Those people want to come to Dublin and make a long -term investment that is relevant to them. These concerns are valid. The plan will not happen tomorrow. It will be monitored, and thoughtful people will keep track from different perspectives. Mr. Paige stated that he knew that the integrity of the vision was present. The people involved now are "invested" in the vision for the community. It is important that this Plan maintain a level of people who are invested but also want to make it sustainable and as livable as it is now. Vice Mayor Salay stated that in 2006, City Council and Planning Commission took a trip to Franklin, Tennessee and toured some developments. They saw many interesting communities. Everyone was able to "get on the same page" as they toured the same communities. A couple of years ago, a trip was also made to Greenville, South Carolina, and that, again, was very helpful because everyone was able to get on the same page. She would like to suggest something similar for this Vision. Would there be a community that would be helpful for this group to visit as this Vision is being considered? A tour of another community might help this group to come to a better understanding of and have a firmer grasp on the Vision. Mr. Dixon responded that they just completed a downtown plan for Wichita, Kansas. A large group of the City representatives there pay their own way for annual trips to other cities to observe what is being done. It really helps them to all get on the same page. Considering the type of questions that have been raised tonight, he would suggest Arlington, Virginia. That community has had a great deal of concern about preserving the character and quality of single - family neighborhoods immediately next to a more lively, walkable and high- density space. Evanston, Illinois is a suburban community next to a larger city, which was very successful in many regards. However, they believed what they needed was a vital, suburban downtown. They wanted a great center that did not change the nature of any of their residential neighborhoods. While considering the choices and concerns, it would be helpful to look at the communities that have succeeded in bridging those same concerns. Mr. Keenan stated that during the South Carolina trip mentioned, the group observed a large river, although not quite as large the Scioto River in Dublin, which had a pedestrian walkway. Although he did not participate in that trip, he viewed photos from the tour. He was impressed with the idea of using a pedestrian bridge to connect Historic Dublin with the area across the river. Not only would it provide a connection, but also a wonderful walking facility to view the river corridor. There are ideas gained from these tours that he is hopeful can be captured as this project proceeds. Mr. Dixon responded that they learned of that idea after they arrived and realized it would be a good idea to carry forward. He believes it is vital that everyone who can participate in one of these trips goes at the same time. The discussion among the group is invaluable. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Ms. Groomes stated that the charge was to discuss the implementation of the planning principles. She suggested that the areas that Council wants to claim as public space be designated on the diagram. Much work is being done upfront for the development community within this area. Those areas that Council believes critical to having the right public space should be identified. The community developed in those areas would be charged with funding that. Mr. Walter stated that he has a question about Council intent. Already, with some cases that have come before PZC, this document has been referenced as a guide. The Commission has had discussion regarding whether this is an appropriate guide to use at this time. What is Council's intent as to how PZC should interpret the process today as new development comes before the Commission? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes the Bridge Street Corridor Vision is a valid guide. Although there are many details that will be fine - tuned, Council has embraced the ideas and principles of this Plan. This project will evolve over 10 — 30 years. Mr. Walter responded that PZC understands the place the Community Plan holds and that is established as part of PZC's decision criteria. Is it Council's intent that the Bridge Street Corridor plan should supersede, complement, or serve as an adjunct document to the Community Plan? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes it would be a complement or addendum to the Community Plan. Mr. Gerber inquired what particular location he was referencing. Mr. Walter responded that he was referring to the case at Shamrock Court and S.R. 161, near Wendy's, and also Piadda 2 on Sawmill Road. Both parcels are on the fringe of the designated area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would agree that this Vision has not moved to the stage of the formally adopted Community Plan. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is in the process of formation. Council's affirmative vote on this Vision was an agreement to the concepts and principles of what is planned in this designated area of the community. Although it is a designated area of the community, that does not mean a street next to it would be considered not part of the Corridor. The two areas must relate to one another, so there is a blending that must occur. At this point, it would be important for PZC to understand the principles and vision of the Plan, rather than a level of detail. Mr. Reiner stated that with any large tract developments that come before the Commission now, this Plan should be recognized. If the Commission doesn't implement this Plan now, they will waste the developers' time and money. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes that in addition to the concepts and principles, it is also important to understand the reasoning behind them — the final product that Council is attempting to create in this corridor; the liveliness it will create for the community. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Gerber stated that it should be integrated. It is no more a bible than any other document, but it articulates the spirit and intent. Mr. Dixon stated that it was certainly their understanding that the Bridge Street Corridor Vision was meant as a complement, a refinement to build on the Community Plan. The Community Plan broke much of the ground; this will "till" and "plant" it. Hopefully, there won't be conflicts, certainly not in spirit. Mayor Lecklider invited public comment. All the stakeholders can expect to be involved as this plan moves through the process. Vice Mayor Salay noted that Mr. Dixon had provided the answer to her question about the percentage of Dublin involved — 6 percent of the land in Dublin is contained in the Bridge Street Corridor area. It is a small, defined section of the community. Mayor Lecklider stated in regard to Mr. McDaniel's question regarding Council's expectations regarding staff and the consultants checking back in with Council, what is Council's direction? Does Council want to be apprised on a regular basis or at certain decision points? Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be possible for the consultants to determine when they need to touch base with Council, rather than Council specifying times at this point. Mr. McDaniel stated that he believes Council has indicated a desire for more information on the open space issues. The timeframe for this project also anticipates a staff draft to be prepared by February 28. Therefore, there would be at least two additional sessions — one on the open space discussion and another to review the staff draft of the Code. This could be either a joint session or a charrette. Mr. Reiner stated that unless staff perceives a need to seek out Council's guidance earlier, he believes it would be best to let the consultants proceed according to their schedules. Mr. McDaniel noted that staff would be providing ongoing reports in Council packets, and those reports can also be provided to the boards and commissions, as well. If there are questions, staff will check with Council without necessarily needing to bring everyone together for a meeting. Mr. Gerber inquired the anticipated timeframe for the discussion draft of the Code. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes it will be ready by early April. Mr. Gerber noted that he would prefer to have that discussion sooner rather than later. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff is trying to set a realistic timeframe, but if it is possible to tighten the timeframe, staff will do so. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that the next joint session be held at the Rec Center or a space large enough to facilitate dialogue between Council and the boards and commission. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Mr. McDaniel responded that staff had deliberated that issue for this meeting. Suggestions for the meeting space will be forwarded to Council before the next session. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it was not Council's desire to be at the dais, but tonight it was important to have everyone in the same room and attempt to have everyone "on the same page" to the greatest extent possible. Mr. McDaniel inquired if the joint session approach is Council's preference. Council consensus was that a joint session approach would continue. Mr. McDaniel stated that in anticipation of the adoption phase, he has asked the Law Director if, in the interest of efficiency, the adoption could occur in a joint session as well. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes the joint process is not only a streamlined but a better process. Mr. Gerber stated that this process is on a fast track, and everyone is motivated, whether it is collectively or in separate groups, to move it along. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Council direction needed at this point has been provided. He thanked the board and commission members in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Clerk of Council