Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-17 Work Session MinutesDublin City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, April 17, 2017 Dublin City Council -Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Work Session to order at 6:00 p.m. at Dublin City Hall. Council Members present were: Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mayor Peterson, Ms. Salay, Vice Mayor Reiner and Ms. Alutto. Planning and Zoning Commissioners present: Ms. Newell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Miller, Mr. Stidhem, Ms. DeRosa, and Ms. Mitchell. Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Readler, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Ray, Mr. Gracia, Mr. Earman, Ms. Richison and Ms. Burness. Mr. McDaniel stated that because tonight's work session focuses on Planning -related items, Mr. Papsidero will guide the discussion. Mr. Papsidero stated that the discussion will focus on four projects. The objective is to obtain Council's input and ensure that the projects are proceeding in the desired direction — particularly for the zoning projects because there are a few new components on which Council's feedback is desired. Those projects are: 1. West Bridge Street Framework Plan Because this is a part of the Bridge Street District that impacts adjacent neighborhoods, significant public input has been obtained. A preliminary development concept will be shared tonight. 2. West Innovation District Zoning This project relates to minor tweaks to the zoning that is already in place, which reflect the work to date on the West Innovation District Plan update. Council has seen much of the update previously. Tonight's presentation is an interpretation of that work in terms of recommended Code changes. Metro -Blazer District Zoning The City has been undertaking a significant amount of work in this district over the last three years, looking at Legacy Office developments and understanding the role of Planning on the marketplace. Some shifts may be necessary in order to ensure that area remains a very vital part of the City. A new zoning approach is proposed for that area, which is based on what has been learned to date with the West Innovation District. 4. Bridge Street District Zoning This Code update was initiated six months ago. It has involved a significant amount of stakeholder interviews. With the consultant, they have looked at ways in which to improve that District both in terms of process and Code standards; these improvements are based upon experience over the last few years with project review and approvals. The goal with all the projects is to ensure more consistency in the Code and process and the development of design guidelines for each of these areas. The intent is to better communicate the City's expectations to the development community, ensure that applications the City receives reflect the City and the public's values, and identify what the City sees as most important about Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 23 each of the different geographies. WEST BRIDGE STREET FRAMEWORK PLAN Status Report and Preliminary Development Concept: Kim Way, ASLA, NBBJ Principal/Lead Urban Designer, stated that the presentation will be an overview of the Framework and a breakdown into some subarea plans. Part of the assignment was to look at future design of the right-of-way. • The intent of the project is to build on the previous work in this area and follow a logical process to help the community realize its vision through a consensus -based process. Burgess and Niple is assisting them with the utilities and transportation planning. This will involve a 12 -month process. In the first few months, they looked at existing conditions and analysis, development of visioning for the corridor, and obtained public input. They are now at the point of drafting a plan and obtaining additional public input and review. • There is existing work in this area. The Bridge Street Vision Plan is their guiding document. Their work will drill deeper into how the intent of that document might be realized. The Vision Plan included a Bridge Street District Street Network Plan. That was followed by a Thoroughfare Plan that identified new streets for the District, and that has evolved into the Western Roads Alignment Study (US 33/Frantz Road). The framework of those documents has served as the basis for their continuing planning [showed slide of the scope of the study area]. • Significant public input has been obtained via a special projects link at the City's website; three stakeholder working group meetings; two public input surveys; and a three-day charrette on January 18, 23 and 24. • From that input, a series of project goals was developed for this District: o Create a dense, walkable, mixed-use district o Make the SR 161 street corridor into a more walkable/bikeable environment o Reinforce SR 161 as a major gateway to the City and to the Bridge Street District o Enhance its development potential. If envisioned with a 50 -year plan, how might that develop? o Create a flexible streetscape design to accommodate future mobility options o Plan for adequate service access/bus access to the businesses o Provide traffic calming, as Bridge Street is a very busy street, moving from a fast to slow speed o Leverage and enhance the Indian Run natural corridor o Design for placemaking and creating identity for the corridor o Establish a more continuous building frontage o Create a street grid o Establish form and density of development throughout the District o Mitigate corridor transition from highway to City street o Respect residential neighborhoods • Those goals have resulted in a draft Framework Plan. In the charrettes, feedback was obtained for three scenarios for development of the District: Option A — Recall historic pattern; Option B — New hub; Option C — walkable neighborhood. From the charrettes, a composite plan was created: Option D — a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 23 Open Space Framework: • The Bridge Street Corridor development is surrounded by greenspace, which acts as a buffer between the District development and adjoining residential development. • The framework is built upon the existing street system: SR 161, Frantz, Corbin Mills and Monterey Drive; some new roads could cut through the school site, if it were to develop in the future. • Open space system. Indian Run is a major component, but to the west of Indian Run, there is an opportunity to create an east -west open space link to Coffman Park. To the south of SR161, there is a drainage area across Corbins Mill and Monterey Park that ultimately ends up at the river. It also provides an opportunity for an east -west open space link. That road and open space systems break down the District into a series of development areas: Post Road, Metro Place, Indian Run/John Shields, Kroger/Corbins Mill, Indian Run/School, Monterey. He reviewed framework development plans for each subarea. Land Use: Attempts are being made to find the appropriate land use mix throughout this District. Because the goal is for it to be walkable with buildings located at the streets, pedestrian -related retail at the street is desired. Moving past Frantz Road, there really isn't any walkability. They looked at the Post Road area to see if there is a way to create walkability, which does not exist there today. Above the first -floor of retail, there is the question of scale and character of the development. Community input indicated that taller buildings and density to the west was acceptable, due to the presence of Metro Place and the highway. Moving eastward along Bridge Street, the buildings should scale down to become more aligned to the buildings on the east side in the Historic District. There is the opportunity to consider massing, scale and density to create a walkable environment, transitioned appropriately to the east along Bridge Street, then north and south into the residential neighborhoods. Different Subareas/Development Zones: • Post Road - Provide for the realignment of Post Road to Rock Cress and across the creek. This opens up a development site. - Create a new street to run through the Post Road area — a new Main Street, which would have ground -level retail and office buildings along SR 161. - Reinforce as a Dublin gateway with a strong green edge - Have high density, mixed-use development, a mix of hotel and office buildings, 2-5 stories, residential buildings on the north side overlooking the creek. • Metro Place - Higher density, with its existing hotels and office buildings; perhaps a site for an additional office building within that corridor. - Infill development along Upper Metro Place - Taller buildings, up to 5 stories, structured parking - Strong green edge along W. Bridge Street Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 23 • Indian Run/John Shields - The Post Office site. It is unique because of its relationship to Indian Run Falls Park. If that park is extended west to Coffman Park, it would create a very significant open space for the area. - Would have development that relates to that open space amenity/setting. - Would open up views of the creek as it runs to the west, which residential could front on, with perhaps a retail pavilion. • Kroger/Corbins Mill - Low to Medium Density, 2-5 Stories, Mixed-Use/Retail on W. Bridge St. Retail at the ground level, residential on the south side. - Include a parking structure; at the base of the parking structure could be another neighborhood grocery - Open space interventions along the corridor; placemaking opportunities, offering areas in which to enjoy this corridor. - Townhouses and park transition at the southern edge - The existing vacant medical building behind the hotel and steakhouse is difficult to market due to its lack of visibility. With the east -west greenspace that is being promoted, this site could be another open space intervention. • Indian Run/School This site would develop only if and when the school were to relocate. - A street grid will be needed that will support the density and walkability. - Takes advantage of the Indian Run Falls Park - Low to medium density; 3-5 stories mixed-use/retail along the frontage of W. Bridge Street - Transition to townhouses along the park/northern edge - Preserve 1919 Building and create community open space; around that, create a civic campus - Include a new elementary school • Monterey - Low to medium density, 3-5 stories, mixed-use/retail along W. Bridge St. (residential above retail) - Townhouses transition at southern/east edge In summary, the draft Framework Plan looks to the future, and if development occurs, how to create a dense, walkable environment. It should emphasize Bridge Street as a place, bring buildings to the street and take advantage of open space resources. Tony Murry, NBBJ Landscape Architect, presented opportunities at the street level. • Project Goals — The goals for Bridge Street mirror those of the larger development. The public input process indicated: - A desire to retain the green corridor - The transition from I-270 to the Historic District is very important - Desire for a walkable, bikeable, multi -modal corridor - Reinforce Bridge Street as a major gateway Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 5 of 23 The existing right-of-way width along Bridge Street transitions from 75 feet on the east to 250 feet on the west by I-270. An attempt will be made to regularize that condition and bring the buildings to the street to activate the street and create more of a pedestrian environment. Envisioned is: - A significant green corridor with a large, impactful gateway landscape that would greet drivers coming off I-270 into the District. - A pedestrian bridge across the street would connect neighborhoods and developments from the south to the broader trail network and greenspace areas to the north. - The Indian Run corridor abuts the Bridge Street Corridor at Shawan Falls Drive, which presents an opportunity to use a natural feature like Indian Run to help create the gateway. That greenspace could be given visibility at the Shawan Falls Drive corner. - Presently, West Bridge Street is not a pedestrian -friendly environment. As part of a larger development that will activate the street, a pedestrian -friendly environment with comfortable spaces away from the traffic would be created. - The Monterey Drive intersection could have a lot of urban amenities, ample street buffer, multiuse path seating and feature paving in the intersections. This is the idea of creating a place within an urban destination. - Safe crosswalks would be created for people to move across the street. [Presented a flyover view of the proposed corridor.] Council/PZC Questions: Mr. Keenan inquired what is the timeframe horizon for this plan — 25 — 50- 100 years? Mr. Way responded that it is 50 years at the most. It is a long-term plan that will serve as a development tool against which future development proposals can be assessed. Mr. Papsidero noted that the following questions were included in the agenda to guide Council's and PZC's input. 1. Is the preferred development concept consistent with the adopted Vision Plan? 2. Does the preferred development concept further City's goals for this corridor? 3. Is the conceptual streetscape design for W. Bridge Street appropriate? 4. Do you support the direction of the planning process? He added that Council's first impressions would be helpful. For this project and all the others, there is still a great deal of work to do, including public engagement, before the plans reach the adoption process. Mayor Peterson: 1. Inquired how much public money will be invested in infrastructure to support the development plans. 2. Fifty years ago, walkable environments weren't the emphasis; today they are. The market drives what people want to consume. How do we know that the market will support the walkable goal 50 years from now? Mr. Papsidero responded that no cost estimates of the road improvements have been made. They have looked at the density and are still quantifying that component. This proposal is equal to or less than the density that was the basis for the original traffic modeling, so staff is comfortable with those numbers. Regarding walkability, our assumption is that we will always have walkable communities, today or 50 years from now. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 6 of 23 Mr. Way stated that an emphasis on making communities walkable wasn't necessary 50 years ago, because all communities were walkable at that time. The intent is to reinforce those historic patterns, because that is what creates place — people living, shopping and eating there. The plan is to create a place that is not there now. Vice Mayor Reiner: 1. The plan is interesting, as it does not follow the typical plan of cities radiating outward. As people seek the new edge, decay sets into the inner urban environments. This provides hope that, if planned correctly, Dublin will have an internal area that will allow another 50 years of growth. As we move up the corridor towards Marysville, they could be the next Dublin. Previously, when we talked about having a green corridor down the middle of the street, it required moving back the veterinarian building to provide space for pedestrian traffic. Is there sufficient room, curb to curb, for this plan to happen? He understands it is conceptual only. Mr. Way responded that they actually have looked at shifting the right-of-way to the north, especially if the school site were to re -develop. The road would also shift away from the cemetery, which would provide more space in that location. To the west, there is right-of-way on the north side to accommodate the plan. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if, essentially, they are picking up right-of-way on the north side. 2. Adding a bridge over Indian Run is a very sensitive issue. It probably could be done if the bridge were of architectural significance, such as the leaping chasm bridges seen in Italy, which add aesthetic value rather than detracting. Mr. Papsidero noted that concurrent with this are two other Engineering studies that have been have talked about in the past: the road alignment study and the intersection study for Frantz, SR161 and Post Roads. Those two studies are running behind this work. The reason the pedestrian bridge over the street has been suggested is that they have learned from Engineering that in order for the Frantz intersection to work, regardless of its future design, the elimination of pedestrian crossings at the intersection is necessary. The next intersection to the east becomes the true gateway, where there is on -street pedestrian access. At some point, a pedestrian bridge to mitigate that impact should be considered. 3. There is a trend toward more online shopping, so will retail shops along Bridge Street succeed in the future? That is difficult to predict, but this entire concept rests on the assumption that they will. Mr. Papsidero stated public input was that the existing Kroger, hardware store and the gas station are very important. CASTO, the owners of Dublin Plaza, are members of their stakeholder group. Although, they do not foresee any changes occurring with that shopping center in the near future, they are involved in stakeholder discussions regarding long-term applications. Ms. Salay: 1. This is obviously a long-term vision. She likes the idea of a pedestrian bridge, perhaps more than one — this is a very interesting design element in that streetscape. One of the things she likes best about this plan is the narrowing and slowing of traffic on SR161. Adding the road network and the landscaping will do much to enhance the area and perhaps spur more development. 2. At Kroger and Monterey, there is a roundabout and circular development at the corner. That is intriguing because it could open up the area and present an opportunity for additional plazas. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 7 of 23 3. She cannot imagine any type of bridge over the Indian Run that would not be a disaster for that ravine. She spends a lot of time there — many people do, and this issue is receiving a lot of attention. She has told those who've questioned her that this a long-term plan that Council is considering. She believes it is important to find a way to avoid a bridge, if at all possible. She does not know what the alternatives might be, but she is very concerned about the inability to do that without shredding the wildlife and the ambience of that area. Just a three minute -walk into the park, and one is suddenly in the middle of Hocking Hills, where it's beautiful, quiet and pristine. You would never know that, not far away, there is a school, shopping, post office, etc. This is a very important piece to everybody. 4. The street network is key to spurring positive changes. Mr. Brown: 1. Dublin has a lot of green beltways, boulevards and walkable districts. Every time a city develops, it is because either mass transit develops a node, and development radiates out from that mode, or there is a positive sense of place. At Bridge Park, a sense of place is being created with a park, pedestrian bridge and history. The only way to make this plan work is to create various "places." 2. Traffic will change — autonomous vehicles are coming. People will travel in different ways. 3. The school there is a "place." If more dense urban areas are being created, don't we also want the kids and their parents to be able to engage with the school, then walk and get a coffee or ice cream? He believes that should be preserved. 4. Is there a better way to connect to the residential area to the north of I-270 than Post Road and Dublin Road? The Indian Run ravine goes through the Cardinal Health campus. Perhaps a boardwalk or bike trail could be created through there, so the residential community could walk or bike to all the "places" that will be created. He saw a note regarding sound walls on I-270. He lived in Montgomery years ago, a mile from the freeway. He couldn't hear the highway at all until sound walls were put it, which projected the noise up and beyond. He discourages the use of sound walls. They would close off the view to everyone going through Dublin. We want people to notice the sense of place in Dublin and desire to be part of it. He cautions against blocking Dublin off over the long term. Ms. Salay inquired if the sound wall made the noise worse or made it better but cut into the community. Mr. Brown responded that the walls projected the noise well beyond the proximity of the highway. He anticipates that it would have a negative impact on the quieter communities to the north. Ms. Newell: 1. Stated that after sound walls were installed along I-270, there was a distinctive change in her neighborhood. Previously, they could not hear the freeway traffic; it is awful now in comparison to what it had been — the walls made a huge negative impact, not on the immediate neighborhoods next to I-270 but on those further away. The noise is worse at the second -story level than at the ground level. 2. She likes the plan's addition of more landscaping and greenspace, as long as it is done in a way that really preserves the character of Old Dublin. When she looks at the concept for aligning that roadway, she fears that this plan begins to negatively impact some of the character in Old Dublin. She has not seen anything that provides a good transition to preserve the existing bridge across Bridge Street without interfering with structures that are already in place. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 8 of 23 3. As she looked through all the Districts, they all indicate mixed-use development and creation of an urban setting. Now Council is taking that zoning and spreading it vastly across the entire City of Dublin. There is a point at which the City has to analyze how much residential property those areas can really support in conjunction with the retail businesses that Council is trying to locate there. Fully built out, that mass will create a huge increase in population. 5. The various districts all indicate mixed-use development and creation of an urban setting. We are leaving no other options within the City for how that land will be developed. The presentation is envisioning something 50 years in the future. However, today's development is different from 50 years ago; similarly, 50 years from now, Dublin will want to be developing something else. As she has seen with her children, although today's millennials want to live in a very urban setting, that mindset changes, and when they are in their 30s and having children, they want a more residential environment. We need to think about that as we are looking at the zoning in all these districts. She believes that component is being lost in the effort to be forward thinking. 6. In regard to the thoroughfare and the proposed interference of roads into Shawan Falls — that is a horrible mistake. It will completely ruin what is sacred and special about that property. Preserving that land was fought for very hard by many members of this community, both by the school children and residents. What resulted is a beautiful park, a park that has endangered vegetation species within it, such as pawpaw trees. Those will disappear. As more development comes in there, it threatens what is special about that area. Ms. Amorose Groomes: 1. Is it consistent with the adopted Vision Plan? She believes it is not. This plan is far too aggressive for what our Vision Plan set out for us. We had our largest density along the river, and we were going to capitalize on that space. She agrees with Ms. Newell. There is a large amount of real estate available for this high density at present without having to impact some of the most precious ground in our City. She is 100% supportive of increasing the landscape, greenscape and the appearance of SR161 through this corridor. It has been largely neglected for a long period of time. For nearly 30 years, the City has been trying to enhance the landscape around SR161. There is nothing that resembles a true tree canopy there. That should be done in the near term because it is appropriate for the gateway to our City, not to spur development. 2. Does this further Council's goals for the corridor? She does not know if this plan furthers Council's goals. When the traffic study was done for the Bridge Street Corridor, the capture rate for trips was 70-80%. Those may not be realistic numbers for us. She would like to re -visit the Traffic Study Plan with some more realistic capture rates, so that that we really know the number of vehicles that will be moving through this area. With the development that is anticipated -- hotels, athletic facilities, etc., we will not be getting near a 70- 80% capture rate. 3. Is the conceptual streetscape design for West Bridge Street appropriate? Yes. It is beautiful. We need a beautiful streetscape through the SR161 corridor; it has been needed for a long time. 4. Do I support the direction of this planning process? Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 9 of 23 She does not. She believes that Rock Cress is a street that should never be built. It is inappropriate. She does not believe that you celebrate, capitalize or enhance the Grand Canyon by putting a bridge over it. It is something to be respected, something tender, something to be reflective. If we do want to celebrate it, we could do that better perhaps, but it is celebrated fairly well right now. Ms. Salay has stated that she frequents that area often, as do many of us, and it still feels private. That is the value of that section of our City. We do not need every inch of it to be walkable, urban, capitalized and enhanced. Some of it should just be left as it is. She would like to see more numbers with revised capture rates before we look at this planning process further. A lot of additional pavement is going in, but she does not see any real roadway improvements. Yet, we are talking about road diets. We waited a long time for the I-270/US33 corridor interchange improvements, and we may not see another one for the next 30 years. So where are we at capacity with that? She does not see how SR161 can be placed on a road diet when we just built one of the largest roundabouts in the region in terms of traffic volumes. How can we get people out of the roundabout if they are headed west, if we put that roadway on a diet? That would create a traffic jam to the east, south and north. Although she appreciates the roadway diet concept, she is not sure that "ship didn't sail" when we built that roundabout. Certainly, this can be re -visited. Mr. Lecklider: 1. The conceptual images and layers Council has seen suggests a greater density than would be the ultimate reality. Is what has been proposed at or less than the densities that were previously adopted? Mr. Papsidero responded that is correct. This is consistent with the spirit of the adopted Vision Plan. Data has been compared to determine if from a square footage standpoint, they are consistent with the previous traffic modeling, or less -- they believe they are slightly less. This plan is consistent with the Vision Plan that was adopted in 2010. Mr. Lecklider stated that the 2010 Vision Plan was the result of comprehensive input. Mr. Papsidero responded that it was a very public process. Mr. Lecklider stated that is how we arrived at these numbers, which were deemed acceptable seven years ago. He would have concerns if this plan were suggesting something greater than the provisions of that Vision Plan. This certainly requires additional traffic modeling to avoid creating greater traffic problems. 2. Was pleased to see the Option D that was proposed. Of Options A — C, he preferred Option C, the more walkable option. 3. Likes the proposed greenway connection from Shawan Falls Park to Coffman Park. 4. Believes that Rock Cress Road has value to some degree, as the proposed Library and Parking Garage do not work without Rock Cress, but whether it ultimately extends westward across the stream requires further discussion. 5. Likes the proposed West Bridge Street streetscape, the trees in the median, etc. He believes the goal should be to slow traffic on SR 161. The Historic District area cannot be viable if traffic speeds are not slowed. Installing concrete planters in front of Starbucks is not adequate. At one point in time, our focus was on moving traffic through our community, but he is less interested in creating the fastest route from points west of us — and if people don't like the 25mph speed limit through Dublin, they can find another route. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 10 of 23 Ms. Amorose Groomes: 1. Inquired if there is any access to the Library or the Garage directly from Rock Cress. Is there an entrance to the Garage from Rock Cress? Mr. Papsidero responded that there is an exit from the Garage onto Rock Cress, then Rock Cress connects with Franklin Street, which has an entrance into the second level of the Garage. This creates a circular pattern around the block. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if there is a connection from Rock Cress itself. Mr. Papsidero responded that there is only an exit from the Garage at the Book Drop area, and the Service Area for the Library has access from Rock Cress for loading/unloading in the northwest corner of the building—they have a small curb cut on Rock Cress. Ms. Salav: 1. Requested the image/slide of Rock Cress be shown. 2. Inquired what is the north/south street immediately east of Shawan Falls Drive – is that Monterey? Mr. Wray responded that it is a proposed road through the school site that will intersect with Monterey. 3. Referred to the section of Rock Cress between the extension of Monterey and Shawan Falls – if that creek crossing were eliminated, what impact would it have on traffic circulation, as the rest of the grid system would remain, including the east/west roadway on the southern end of the Cardinal Health site. She is interested in what that impact would be on the road network. As has been said, people are looking at different ways of traveling, and maybe there will be fewer cars in the future. If we are talking about a small, unobtrusive bridge, how much traffic will it really carry? Is that crossing really necessary? There could potentially be some traffic backup on Bridge Street, but waiting a couple more minutes in traffic isn't a negative. This is a different environment, and as Mr. Lecklider noted, we don't need to have fast moving traffic in this area. She is interested in looking at alternatives. She is not necessarily opposed to Rock Cress, but does not like the crossing across the creek area. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believes North Street, which is south of the Library at present, makes a far better connector than Rock Cress. She has previously suggested making a connection at North Street in order to direct traffic away from the more sensitive areas. She is also interested in looking at other alternatives. Ms. Alutto stated: 1. She is opposed to a crossing over the creek – believes that is not a good idea. 2. She is concerned about the proposed density of the Plan, although it may be less or equal to what was considered here before. She does not want to create an extension of the Bridge Park area on the other side of the river. This Plan would not leave room to do anything else. 3. She agrees with the need to slow traffic through this corridor. 4. She agrees with the comment that we do not need to open up Indian Run Falls to celebrate it. She and her family love the intimate feel of that area – it feels like you've entered a different place, and she does not want to lose that. That area should be celebrated in more understated ways and not risk losing the intimate feel of that area. 5. She likes the conceptual streetscape. 6. She is not sure this Plan furthers Council's goals for the corridor. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 11 of 23 7. She loves the community's passion about this area, and she does not believe they are strongly in support of the full extension of Rock Cress and Indian Run Falls. Ms. DeRosa: 1. Today's issue of the Wall Street Journal had an interesting supplement about Global Cities and Defining Cities — it was very timely. The article stated that by year 2035, 80% of the people will live in urban settings. She applauds Dublin's following of those global projections. 2. The article also comments on forwarding the goals of a city and building a brand. Today, you don't really know the brand of Dublin until three intersections into Dublin. What she likes about the proposed plan is that within two intersections in, you are experiencing Dublin. 3. If the environment we want here can be created quickly, it will have the effect of slowing traffic, as people will want to be in that environment. That will advance our goals. Mr. Stidhem: 1. Noted there are some great ideas in here. We don't currently have a good entry to the City in this space. The Kroger strip mall area isn't it. Changing the streetscape at the gateway to the City is a good idea. 2. Stated that the problem with looking at the issue 30-50 years out is that we are limited to the lens we have today. For instance, what will traffic be then? Although there will probably be more traffic, it is unlikely to be cars. There will be other devices and modes for accessing/receiving what we want. Because of our limited lens, locking ourselves into a pattern or plan that will be completely obsolete when all those traffic patterns change is not a good idea. Mr. Miller: 1. Liked the streetscape vision in this plan. 2. Is not a density or traffic expert, but as a resident looking at the proposed density, he does not see how the SR161 corridor will succeed without adding Rock Cress, or some semblance of Rock Cress, to move traffic through the City. Mr. Keenan stated: 1. The streetscape plan is strong, and he'd like to see that happen. 2. He is equally concerned about a route over the Indian Run. That will be a problem. 3. Believes that part of Rock Cress does need to be done. He believes Council missed a similar opportunity a few years ago when it did not make Post Road a major east/west artery — it is an arterial that connects to US33 to I-270. That was unfortunate and what we have to live with now. 4. We get tied up with visuals and illustrations. The public misinterprets them and that creates problems. He believes that market forces are an important part of what happens over a period of time. 5. The streetscape component should occur as early as possible. Westerville has an incredible streetscape, which gives a sense of place. Other communities have emphasized that, as well. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 12 of 23 Mayor Peterson: 1. Stated that he agrees with the comments but, as has been said, the issue isn't that "we don't plan to fail, but that we fail to plan." Dublin tries to plan and update plans constantly, so it remains prepared for the market. 2. Council has been receiving much feedback regarding Shawan Falls. We do not know what the future Council will do 50 years from now, but to put everyone's mind at ease, no one on this Council wants to do anything that will disturb the Falls. The Falls are safe as long as this Council remains. Mr. McDaniel stated that he wants to clarify Council's input and note a couple items: 1. Agrees with the streetscape concept. 2. Density - although consistent with the Visioning Plan, staff should re -validate that density, including how that translates into traffic. 3. Rock Cress Road. For the record, if -- based on some future School District decision that site should ever develop -- the Community Plan provided for a potential Rock Cress type road on the School site that curved around and did not cross Indian Run Falls. Rock Cress Road, as it was originally conceived, was directed away from Indian Run, not pushed into Indian Run. 4. There is an ongoing alignment study for a potential John Shields Parkway that could cross the river from where it terminates at the river, proceed up the hill, parallel I-270 and proceed back into the CCLC site. Much work and discussion would need to occur. That opportunity has been considered for decades. It once was referred to as an "Historic Dublin bypass." That could be an alternative to Dublin Road. 5. Staff will provide information to Council on the impact of Rock Cress. However, if Council prefers that it not even be studied, then staff will not do so -- does Council want to make that decision now? Previously, the proposed road was a line on the 2013 Thoroughfare Plan. However, that does not mean it must occur; it was forward looking. We do need to understand the impacts and the reasons we wouldn't want to do it — that is a separate but parallel study that should occur. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that if such a study is done, she would like to also see the possibilities explored for North Street carrying that traffic, instead. If we are going to study how Rock Cress would go, what happens if we move the heavy lifting from Rock Cress to North Street? If we should have to build Rock Cress, she would like to see it be as small and insignificant as possible to discourage use — more of an alley. Mayor Peterson stated that this is not a major policy shift; it is still heading in the same direction, our intent is to send you a different signal -- to abort all efforts with that crossing. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff needs to provide the public a better understanding. Common sense indicates that shouldn't occur, but we also need to provide more analysis relative to the suggestion Ms. Amorose Groomes has made. Vice Mayor Reiner noted that a proposed Rock Cress was in previous Planning documents. Its importance in alleviating traffic downtown was understood 15-20 years ago. However, at that time, there was no suggestion that it should cross the Indian Run Falls. The proposed road was to curve to the left. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 13 of 23 Ms. Salav: Stated that she is interested in other alternatives. We need to take a look at that entire quadrant and identify some options. Council is very interested in avoiding the creek crossing if at all possible. Mr. McDaniel stated that he believes Council's key concern is with the density level -- if that could be "dialed back" somewhat, what would the impact be on that. Mr. Lecklider: Stated that it is clear that every Council member is concerned about crossing the stream. As Mr. McDaniel noted in his email earlier day, it is worth studying what happens if a creek crossing isn't created there. What impact would it have if that crossing does not occur? Alternatives are needed. Will we have the same concern about the extension of John Shields Parkway across Indian Run? We need some alternatives to SR161 and Bridge Street. Mr. Stidhem stated that we should not be doing a 50 -year plan using the limitations that exist today. He encouraged everyone to look at what will be there in 10-20 years. Self -driving cars will be a reality and parking garages will not be needed — those are classic examples of planning for the future, but not really planning with the future. We have a great opportunity here; let's not let it pass us by. We have intelligent people looking at the trends, including technology trends. Considering those, what will the City's traffic patterns become? WEST INNOVATION DISTRICT ZONING Mr. Papsidero introduced Elizabeth Fields from McBride Dale Clarion, a planning and zoning consulting firm in Cincinnati. Ms. Fields stated that their company is providing planning and zoning consultation on both the West Innovation District and the Metro -Blazer District. The existing Innovation District is located on Avery Road to the west boundary of the City. Some of that area currently is not in the City of Dublin; however, the City is planning for the future of that area. Goals: The goals for the West Innovation District update are to: 1. Develop regulations that coincide with the plan update and allow for efficient growth that is in line with the City's vision for this District. O'Brien Atkins is developing a Land Use Plan for this District. The zoning is the implementation tool for that Plan. It is important to ensure that the uses, design guidelines and the vision are being implemented in the zoning. 2. Have clear, concise, user-friendly regulations that identify the standards and guidelines that apply to development within the District. 3. Clear distinctions between the Special Area Plan, Zoning Code and Design Guidelines. - The Special Area Plan will focus on the overall design principles -- the feel and character, and the goals and objectives of the District. - The Zoning Code will focus on the non -discretionary and quantitative standards (uses, setbacks, development standards and process). The intent is to remove and replace "fluffy" language with specific requirements. - The Design Guidelines will contain the "fluffy" language and focus on discretionary guidelines that will concentrate on the architectural character, design guidelines, open space character, and material requirements for the overall district. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 14 of 23 District Zoning: The current zonings for the West Innovation District (WID) are: Research Office, Research Flex, Research Assembly, Research Mixed Use and Research Recreation. The plan update will revise it from those five districts to eight zoning districts, tailored with greater detail to the land use recommendations in the Plan. Those proposed districts are: Advanced Manufacturing, Academic Innovation, Academic Campus, Recreation, Residential, Innovation Hub, Research and Development and Mixed Use Commercial. Code Update will: • Update permitted uses • Revise development standards to reflect vision • Focus on simplifying and streamlining code regulations to make it more user-friendly with tables, charts and graphics • Move the "shoulds" to the design guidelines, leaving only the "shalls" in the Code • Improve consistency throughout the Code, using terms/definitions, process and development standards. Procedures/process: The procedure will essentially remain the same as is in place now but with more clarification. The intent is for it to be a mostly administrative process, with ART being the reviewing body for most cases but with the ability to "kick up" an application to PZC if certain criteria are met. The Master Sign Plan will require PZC approval and appeals of ARTs decisions will be heard by PZC. Code format: The Code would focus on: the uses; general development standards; measureable landscape standards; parking standards, shared parking, deferred parking, parking minimums; and sign requirements. Design guidelines: The guidelines will focus on: the building design and architectural requirements; site development and orientation; landscaping; parking and circulation and signage. These will be tailored to each of the eight districts and consistent where appropriate. Major changes proposed: • Additional innovation zoning districts (example - residential development standards and guidelines) Refined list of permitted uses and development standards that will be customized for each district • Defined criteria for "Kick -up" provision • Administrative approvals for a majority of the processes Next steps: • Finalize WID Special Area Plan - review and approval by Fall 2017 • Public Outreach • Draft Zoning Changes for review by staff and PZC with approval by City Council • Area rezoning process following the Code adoption Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 15 of 23 Proposed questions for Council and PZC: • Are the proposed revisions to the zoning consistent with the plan update? • Does Council support the direction of the substantive standards and guidelines? • Does Council have any other concerns? COUNCIL/PZC COMMENTS: Vice Mayor Reiner: Stated that, in regard to the non-measurable landscaping, what has made Dublin unique is the fact that it has a strict landscaping code, which screens all the parking lots. It is the subtleties that make our City different from most other cities, except Boca Raton and Carmel by the Sea, which have also adopted strict landscaping code. The subliminal relationship of humans to greenspace has given Dublin the image it has, and he does not want to see that Code modified. The buffering ideas and buffering zones to separate apartments from commercial are very important to the overall aesthetic and quality; it is what protects the values of those units. It is important to maintain those, as Dublin has never had the urban core that some other communities have had. People prefer to live here due to the sense of place that was created by the City's "green ordinances." He would be very concerned with any proposed changes to those, as they are what has made Dublin what it is. The old slogan, "It is greener in Dublin" is true, and people find that unique and appealing. Mayor Peterson requested that when the proposed Code update is provided to Council that it contain a red -lined version. Ms. Amorose Groomes: • ART: Stated that she hesitates to continue with the ART process. It creates a problem for PZC, as applications have already undergone two -three reviews before they come before PZC. She believes the process is inverted. Although ART is a public meeting, it is not noticed the same as meetings for the boards and commissions. Although the intent was to streamline the review process and make it more predictable to developers, she does not believe that has been accomplished. Therefore, she is concerned with further codifying the ART process. She believes PZC should be asked to evaluate the processes — is PZC getting better projects the first time they see them? If the answer is "no," we need to look at the process further. • Mass rezonings: If there were one thing she could take back from her eight years on PZC, it would be to eliminate approvals of mass rezonings. Those projects come in fully advanced and there is no opportunity to alter them. Every site is different, but mass rezonings treat every site within them the same. They lower the bar for entry. She agrees with Mr. Reiner — part of what makes Dublin so great is the heightened bar of entry. With mass rezonings, the City loses the capacity to respond to individual sites. • It is difficult to write development Code, due to the vast number of unintended consequences. Because it isn't possible to codify everything, it is important to be aware of the risks of exposure. She requested a list of the risks/rewards with the proposed Code modifications. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 16 of 23 Mr. Miller: Stated that he understands the need for the City to be competitive and not drive away development, but when this plan update was initially presented, his first thought was "do we have the fox in charge of the hen house?" However, he recognizes the intent is to streamline the process. Several of the current Council members previously served on PZC. He is curious to know what they would do to make it easier for an applicant to submit a project and not be deterred by the City's review process. However, the body of work that exists in the City supports what PZC had done over the years. His initial position was supportive, but in hindsight, what do Council members who previously served on PZC suggest? Ms. Salav: Responded that over these years, she has learned much. In its earlier days, Dublin was "It" -- it was the only place like it, and Council was able to lay much of its development foundations, such as its landscaping code. There were so many things Council was able to do in this place it was able to create. Over time, other suburbs began to mimic Dublin and put in place their own "place - making" codes. At one point, she stopped volunteering outside of Council and PZC — and realized later, it was due to the Bridge Street development project. That effort began in 2008 with a trip to Greenville, South Carolina. Council began to talk about economic competitiveness and what was needed to keep pace with changing trends — what do millennials and the community want as they age; what sort of community do we want to live in; how can we keep Dublin special and beautiful — and at the same time, have the needed economic competitiveness. Essentially, the Bridge Street projects are economic development projects in which the special features about Dublin are included as part of the planning process. Those things are accomplished by the Bridge Street District Zoning Code. Applicants understand those Code expectations for landscaping, building materials, etc. are high. The question was how that process would work best — with an ART, or individual PZC review. How does the City get something great without spending hours "hammering away" at individual projects? If less time is needed doing that, developers are more satisfied and the City still accomplishes adherence to its standards. Ms. Amorose Groomes: Stated that, in response to Mr. Miller's inquiry, one of the great tools that Planning put in place was the Informal Review. In retrospect, she would place greater significance on the Informal Review process, emphasizing the importance of applicants coming in early, before their rezoning, to present their initial applications to PZC. This would provide the seven PZC members the opportunity to have input on the projects in their early stages. PZC could have the ability to exercise the "kick up" clause, rather than staff having the ability to exercise a "kick up". PZC could give initial input to the applicant about pursuing further. Much could be accomplished in an hour of Informal Review before PZC. If not of public interest at that point, at least the PZC would have that opportunity before the project was fully developed. Mr. Brown: Stated that when he looks at the proposed plan, he sees fragmented design. Campuses in these innovation districts are all about collaboration, which isn't achieved by fragmenting everything. This won't happen overnight, but the intent should be to have all the people invested in this community — the campus, R&D, Advanced Manufacturing, Innovation. They need to be conversing with the students and professors, some of whom would be living within that district, on campus or nearby. The plan needs integration, not fragmentation. The ability to grow more organically is Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 17 of 23 fundamental to making this plan happen. The City wants to be forward -thinking, attractive to investors, so it is important not to fragment this area but to provide for collaboration — enable them to work, live, eat and play together. In summary, the fragmentation of this does not serve the City well in the long-term. Mr. McDaniel stated, having been involved with this planning process for 12 years, that is exactly what the plan is attempting to do. He has been meeting with and continues to meet with Ohio University since the early days of this agreement, and the focus of every discussion has been about the integration. There will be certain things best done on campus, and certain things OU does not want on campus — those things have to be placed elsewhere. Having a pre -zoning designation in place provides the ability to push those to the periphery — that is what this represents. Actually, the integration with the University is occurring throughout Dublin, not just here. The University is embedded in Dublin's Rec Center and they are discussing a potential performing arts center. We are constantly integrating beyond the bounds of these districts. He is in total agreement with Mr. Brown's comment about integration and wants to assure him that staff shares this view and all efforts are focused on it. Mr. Brown stated that he realizes that, but there won't be much latitude in a codification of this plan. A plan and code are needed, but the City must have a good amount of latitude with this. His concern was that this encourage economic development. He realizes everyone is focused on that aspect. Ms. Newell commented in regard to the question regarding whether the projects PZC receives are better because they have first undergone ART review. From staff's perspective, they are. However, PZC does not see and is not involved in that initial level of review, so the applicant must begin that process over again when they come before PZC. That makes it more difficult for the applicants. She has been on the other side — presenting cases to PZC, and that was always a point of frustration for the clients she represented and equally for herself. The client must work with staff on the details, but then they are presented with a different set of guidelines from a different group of individuals who have their own priorities and interests in the City. She believes that one of the best ideas was the Preliminary Concept Plan. There was an earlier time when the applicant was required to have all the stormwater and design completely engineered and all their lighting calculations before they went before PZC. The cost for an applicant to re -do that was tremendous. That is partially what gave Dublin the bad reputation of being difficult to work with. However, the PZC hearing is not that difficult for applicants. It's a practice that is common in many communities today; in fact, there are some communities that require PZC review of every project. She is not advocating for that, but there are a few things that defined the City from the beginning. Landscaping requirements is one of them, and the City's ability to control architecture. Does Council really want to take PZC out of that review process and leave the review of architecture to staff? Staff will always struggle with when to say "no." Council needs to make the decision if everything in this district will come to PZC. If so, the process should be structured accordingly. Perhaps the introduction of an application could be reviewed by staff. Mr. McDaniel stated that regardless of whether the ART process is codified, ART will always occur at the staff level. No application will ever make it to an Informal Concept review without an initial ART review process. The ART is a multi -functional design team. In some cities, different aspects of a design are reviewed by different departments. Dublin has brought together a multi -functional design team to perform that review before an application is heard by PZC. ART codified would Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 18 of 23 make it an open process. He also likes the Informal Review Process. Ms. Newell stated that she reads the ART reports and is aware that Engineering staff and the Chief Building Official are providing input regarding Code requirements, but that occurs in every community -- they look at a project from those aspects, but not the final design and architecture. However, the Bridge Street Code also tasks them with providing input regarding the architecture and signage. Perhaps those components should be left to PZC. Mr. McDaniel stated that where the City went wrong with the ART process was putting it in the Bridge Street Code. That district was a type of development the City had not undertaken previously. It was not an intentional over -reach. That type of review was first used with the West Innovation District to achieve predictability. Because that type of development had occurred in the past, there was a high level of trust with staff conducting it. However, it was probably not the right move to incorporate it into the Bridge Street Code, because the type of development was going to be significantly different. The Bridge Street Code was new, and there was less experience with it. Mr. Papsidero stated that -- jumping ahead to the Bridge Street District zoning update -- the proposal is to remove the ART from the process, along with some other process improvements. However, the West Innovation Code proposal is substantially the same as its current process, although that can be re-explored. With the Metro -Blazer District, the proposal is to expand the ART geography. Mayor Peterson inquired what adjustments could be made. Mr. Papsidero responded that the proposal is to have more defined criteria, so a case could bypass ART and go directly to PZC. That would be based on size of new construction and proximity to residential neighborhoods. We are talking about a midpoint review of ART versus the role of PZC. When the West Innovation District was created, the goal was speed to build. That is still a value, so the goal is to keep it in place to some degree. Because the goal with Metro -Blazer is to encourage reinvestment, ART review is proposed, as well. Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates Mr. McDaniel's comments about ART. It was initially proposed to Council for the West Innovation District for the purpose of creating predictability, achieving Dublin's high standards and to address the complaints regarding timeliness of the review process. Because the goal was to remain competitive with our communities, it made sense with this District. Ms. DeRosa stated that we often spend more time on the process than on the substance. PZC doesn't spend much time talking about the fundamental requirements, because those are settled. She appreciates having the ability to spend time on developing guidelines, which are very useful tools. Creating a defined process will speed up the review. Staff effectively ensures that applicants understand the guidelines before PZC sees the projects. Applicants want to know the rules, and she appreciates that this effort focuses on that. She also likes the Informal Review process. Developers and the community also appreciate it, as there is opportunity for people to voice their opinion before the project is far advanced. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 19 of 23 • METRO -BLAZER DISTRICT ZONING Elizabeth Fields, McBride Dale Clarion, presented an overview. The major difference between the West Innovation (WID) and Metro -Blazer District is that the majority of the WID is undeveloped area, and new development is being proposed. With Metro -Blazer, the intent is to retrofit existing development and make it more competitive. Another firm has been retained to handle the land use plan for this project, and Jason Sudy with Side Street Planning is present. His firm is working on the Dublin corporate area master plan for this district. The zoning will be the implementation tool for that land use plan. Goals for the Metro -Blazer Plan update are: - Development regulations that coincide with the plan update and allow for redevelopment and new development that aligns with the City's vision for the Metro -Blazer district. - A clear, concise, and user-friendly set of regulations that identifies the standards and guidelines that apply to development within the District. - Clear distinction between the Dublin Corporate Area Plan, Zoning Code, and Design Guidelines. The plan will focus on the overall design principles, goals and objectives for the District. The zoning code will focus on the non -discretionary and quantitative standards (uses, setback, development standards, process). The design guidelines will focus on discretionary guidelines that will concentrate on the character of both the overall District and the individual buildings. Current Zoning/Proposed Zoning: - The existing zoning for this District is a mix of: Restricted Suburban Residential; Suburban Office and Institutional; Community Commercial; Tech Flex; Office, Laboratory and Research; Planned Unit Development; and BSD -Commercial. Much of the District is Planned Development. - A draft land use plan has been proposed for new districts. The Tech Flex and Bridge Street Districts would remain. Four new districts are proposed: Metro/Blazer; Emerald; Tuttle/Rings North; and Tuttle/Rings South. The Land Use Area Plans will describe the City's intent for each of those four areas. - The Code update will be the implementation tool for the Land Use Study. Rezoning this study area from the existing zoning districts to an overall Metro -Blazer zoning district will be a similar tool to the existing West Innovation districts. The Metro -Blazer districts will have their own list of Permitted Uses and Standards. The current proposal is to leave the existing PUDS as is, but the owners will have the discretion to re -develop to the existing plan development standards or develop under the new zoning standards. The plan allows them that flexibility. Minor changes would probably occur according to current standards, but a complete redevelopment would follow the new regulations. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if percentages have been assigned related degrees of modifications. Ms. Fields responded that has not yet been discussed. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that this is different and probably easier than the Bridge Street redevelopment. Mr. Papsidero stated that they would be looking at that. They were trying to follow the Bridge Street model. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 20 of 23 Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it created some difficulties for property owners wanting to make modifications. Ms. Fields stated that the intent is to provide incentives for property owners to follow the new regulations. Those details will be worked out. The approval process in the Metro -Blazer District would replicate that in the West Innovation District. The Code sections would be organized in the same manner, focusing on measurable standards. There would be unique uses and standards for each of the four subareas. The design guidelines would focus on the look, feel and character items. The Maior Chances Proposed are - New zoning districts for the Metro -Blazer district that are allow for more development options than what currently is permitted - Existing PUDs will be able to continue under their current regulations or develop under the new regulations - Defined criteria for "Kick -up" provision - Similar process and development standards to WID The Next Steps are: - Finalize Dublin Corporate Area Plan - review and approval by Fall 2017 - Public outreach for the zoning - Draft zoning changes for review by staff and PZC with approval by City Council - Area rezoning process following the Code adoption Council/PZC Questions: Ms. Salav referred to the football -shaped piece of land at the corner of Woerner-Temple, Rings Road and Emerald Parkway -- Emerald Town Center is located there. Could that Town Center be removed from the Emerald District? The neighborhood fought hard for that town center, and it is working well, at this point. On behalf of those neighborhoods, she does not want to have to go back to the drawing board with that. When that section of Emerald Parkway (Thomas Kohler) developed, the intent was for a 10 -pump gas station and UDF on the corner, where the Chinese restaurant current sits. The neighborhood strongly objected, and the UDF project was eliminated. She prefers to remove that section from the Emerald District and make it part of the neighborhood. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that her rezoning and process comments remain the same as on the previous plan. Mr. Reiner inquired if there is a master plan that addresses some areas separately. In addition, the landscaping and streetscape in this area has declined over the years. It was done in the 1980s and needs to be refreshed. Ms. Fields responded that the Dublin Corporate Plan on which Mr. Sudy's group is working will have concept plans for individual areas and address the mix of uses and landscaping. Council will have the opportunity to review those concept plans. She will not begin to work on the zoning code until Council has worked out the details of the concept plans in the Land Use Plan, including the ultimate goals, uses, setbacks, building heights, etc. desired in this area. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 21 of 23 Mr. Reiner stated that developers will want to know which areas are still open to them. That should facilitate more rapid development in this District. Ms. Salav stated that all three of these plans provide for a significant public process. She would like to have a copy of the public feedback that is received, so Council can be aware of the neighborhoods' perspectives on the proposed changes. Mr. Papsidero responded that a detailed copy of the input would be provided to Council. Mr. Lecklider inquired if staff input were needed on the conceptual concepts. Mr. Papsidero responded that it is not. The question tonight is if this is an approach on which staff should continue to work. The details will be addressed at a later date. BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT ZONING Donald L. Elliott, Clarion Associates, stated that: 1. Their team has written codes for many communities around the country, and most codes are hybrids. The Bridge Street Code is a success, not a failure; it was just difficult to do. Much development actually has happened here in the five years this Code has been in place. The amount of walkable, sustainable, urban development that has occurred within this adopted framework is unusual to find. There are now many buildings in place. 2. When the Bridge Street Code was developed, it followed a technical approach to form - based codes. That turned out to be a poor fit for Dublin, and there have been attempts to change the programmatic approach to make it work better for this community. With five years of experience, there is the ability to evaluate and update the Code, and Council has asked them to do so. Clarion's contract had three tasks: 1. Identify why the sign regulations were problematic for existing development. Those findings have been finalized and approved by Council. The change permits improvements or changes in existing buildings to continue under the previous signage requirements. Only a new building developed under the new code need follow new sign guidelines. 2. Determine if the Historic Core protections are sufficiently strong or if changes are needed. That review is being conducted by Leslie Oberholtzer, their technical form -based code specialist. 3. Provide general updates to simplify the review process, provide greater flexibility and design guidelines. Since last fall, work on general updates has been underway, working with stakeholders and the public. Many interviews have been conducted with builders and developers who have invested or tried to invest in the Bridge Street area. They have found that there are substantive challenges with the Bridge Street Code and there are process challenges. Substantive challenges were: (1) the Code's Building Design Standards lacked flexibility and created monotony; (2) some of the Site Development Standards inhibited good design; and (3) some don't work for existing buildings/development. One of the key changes is to re -visit the applicability thresholds. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 22 of 23 Process Challenges were: (1) the Development Review Process is lengthy and requires too much detail too early in the process, and (2) Major/Minor Amendments and Waivers and too few administrative amendments. The Proposed Solutions — Substantive are to: 1. Create a BSD Design Guidelines Handbook: Fagade Requirements, such as: transparency and window design; number of entryways — entry design; vertical and horizontal articulation; mechanical equipment screening Building Materials Parking Garage Design Open and Civic Space Design The guidelines are not codified; they are "shoulds" with flexibility for staff and PZC to finalize. 2. Revise Some Site Development Standards Building height in new development - need more variety along a block front and within a development. Open space range and size requirement - middle between pocket plaza and pocket park, and total amount. Landscaping requirements are too much for existing development - insufficient credit for existing trees; need for clarification of the threshold for compliance alignment with other districts. Review Building Types/Standards • Ensure differentiation in building typologies to increase variety • Eliminate some similar building types 4. Delete Vertical Mixed Use District 5. Add missing uses to Permitted Use Table/Definitions: • Specialty food production; Artisan industrial; Local brewery/distillery/vintner; Food trucks as a temporary use • Broaden definitions to address non-traditional commercial uses Proposed Solutions - Procedural 1. Allow Early Conceptual Review by Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Include Process Options for Applicant Council/PZC Questions: Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if they foresee the Conceptual Review option used for larger, more complex projects. Mr. Elliott responded that is the expectation. The Administrative Review model (ART) did not work well in Dublin with the Bridge Street Code and Dublin has inserted pre -reviews; that is unusual. The Concept Review would take the place of that and provide the opportunity to present conceptual ideas at the beginning of the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it would be ARB rather than PZC, where appropriate for their review. Mr. Elliott responded affirmatively. Mr. Papsidero noted that staff would be strictly staff, not ART. ART review will be eliminated. Dublin City Council -Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 23 of 23 Another suggestion is to remove the initial Basic Plan Review by Council, who then refers the application for pre -review with either ARB or PZC -- that is a matter for discussion. The number of steps the City has added over time has been significant, and a "reinvention" at each of those reviews has not really helped reach decisions as quickly as would be possible otherwise. Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed support for the changes. Mr. Lecklider stated that when Council adopted the Bridge Street Code, they fully anticipated that there would be a need to come back and re -visit and likely amend the Code after a few years of its application. He supports what is being proposed. Mr. Papsidero agreed. Whenever Council enacts a major new Code, they should always re -visit it after a certain period of time, because much is learned during the interim. Ms. Newell stated that since we will be re -visiting the BSC Code, PZC has talked about the need to include basic requirements in the Code addressing the quality of materials applied to the structures. If the text in the Code will be addressed, this should be included. There is now precedent for that in the State of Ohio. The Ohio Schools Facility Commission did exactly that when they re -vamped school design requirements throughout the State, and as design professionals, we live by those standards. That process includes an opportunity to seek a variance, but it puts in place a standard for projects. With the BSC Code, a reference was made to lack of flexibility in the design. However, she does not believe there is such a lack of flexibility with materials. There were two developers recently who placed their own limitations on what materials they wanted to use — it was cost driven. It is really important that no Code text is included that would instantly lower the threshold of performance. Ms. Amorose Groomes concurred. That would help accomplish our convertible building standards that were in the Code but with which there has been a struggle. What has been built is essentially limited to a single use for the future. Mayor Peterson thanked the consultants for their overviews of the proposed plan updates; staff, for the quality of the product and support that is provided to Council; and PZC members for their service to the community and for their joint review this evening. This information was important for the City's long-term planning. The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council