Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-18 Work Session minutesDublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting Mayor Peterson called the Monday, June 20, 2018 Work Session of Dublin City Council to order at 5:36 p.m. at Dublin City Hall. Members present were: Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Alutto, Ms. De Rosa and Ms. Fox. Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner were absent. Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Goss, Ms. Mumma, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Foegler, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Gee, Ms. Ray, Ms. Readier, Ms. Burness and Mr. Plouck. Mr. McDaniel stated that this work session is a follow-up to the work session held in May in terms of topics -- specifically, Historic Dublin and the Bridge Street District. The first order of business is an overview describing where staff has been with the review processes and code processes and where staff is currently today. Overview Mr. Papsidero addressed the difference between zoning and guidelines. Zoning is the law and focuses on the "shalls," which are those things that must be done. Zoning focuses on requirements and measurable dimensions. Zoning is linked to public health, safety and welfare. As development occurs, zoning serves to protect the residents and property owners from any adverse impacts. Guidelines are more policy in nature. It is more about the "Should," and what should be done versus what must be done. Guidelines play the role of articulating the City's preferences for fulfilling the zoning requirements so there is consistency over time. Guidelines do not have the weight of the law, but are an important factor in making zoning decisions. In response to Mayor Peterson, Mr. Papsidero stated there is a difference in the process for making changes to these. Zoning changes are a legislative process. Guidelines are policy, which can be modified by Council. ARB, for example, could only change a guideline if Council delegated that authority to that board. For the Historic District and the Bridge Street District, any changes in guidelines should be approved by Council. ARB and PZC could have review of them, but Council should have the final authority. Ms. Fox asked if a developer were to challenge the guidelines and use only the Zoning Code in Bridge Street, what weight would the guidelines then have. Mr. Papsidero stated that the guidelines still have some weight because they are official City policy adopted by Council and the Zoning Code references them. Therefore, the guidelines are a tool used in decision making by ARB, PZC or Council. Ms. Readier added that one of the criteria for approval of a project is showing compliance with guidelines, so if they do not comply, that is a reason to deny the application. Mr. Papsidero stated another distinction between the two is that zoning does not need guidelines to be adopted and effective, but guidelines do need the zoning. Zoning serves as the base, so -to - speak, and guidelines act as a filter on top of that base. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 2 of 13 Historic District Ms. Rauch provided an overview of the zoning districts as they existed pre -Bridge Street District Code. Prior to Bridge Street, there were 15 different zoning districts represented within the boundaries of the Historic District, but only two of those were considered to be historic designations: Historic Residential and Historic Business. There were varied and inconsistent regulations. Historic Dublin Design Guidelines were adopted in 1999 and used prior to the Bridge Street District Code as well. The zoning process at that time included: • Standard Districts o Application submission o Comprehensive staff review and recommendation o Determination by ARB • Planned Districts o Application submission o Comprehensive staff review and recommendation o Recommendation by ARB o Determination by PZC In terms of current Bridge Street District zoning, properties are grouped into four sub -districts, and three of them are the historic designations: Historic Residential, Historic Core and Historic South. The intent with the Bridge Street District was to provide a more consistent base. The Historic Dublin Design Guidelines are still being used as well. Ms. Fox stated that she understood that the current Bridge Street District extended past the 1919 Building. Ms. Rauch responded that is correct. The map she provided shows the Historic District boundaries. Ms. Rauch continued, explaining that the current Bridge Street District zoning process is the same standard district process. However, the determining factor in the review process is whether or not there is a development agreement in place. If there is no development agreement in place, the process includes a comprehensive staff review and recommendation, a recommendation by ART and a determination by ARB. If there is a development agreement in place, after a staff review, an informal review is conducted by ARB, the ART provides recommendation to Council for their determination. Comparing the process from prior to Bridge Street District to current, the differences are: • Significant consolidation of zoning districts • Consistent base regulations • More robust development regulations • Historic Residential regulations are unchanged • Challenges now exist with clarity between the Bridge Street District Code and the Historic District Design Guidelines. Mr. Papsidero provided an update on the Bridge Street District Code (BSD Code) update work that is underway. At the May 16, 2016 joint work session, City Council established a priority for four different projects: two large and two small in terms of updating the BSD Code. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 3 of 13 • The initial priority was to update the sign code. This update to the code was adopted in February of 2017. • At the same time the sign code was being updated, staff began the process of establishing the Historic South District in response to the development application submitted for the former Biddie's property. This new zoning district was adopted in November of 2017. • The third project was to focus on the administrative procedures and submittal requirements. Some of the proposed changes were introduced at a joint work session in April 2017; subsequent to the feedback received, three joint work sessions for PZC and ARB have been held to review the recommendations. Staff is now ready to begin the legislative process for these changes. • Finally, the fourth and much larger project was to create a new set of guidelines, which involved pulling material out of the code itself in order to create a parallel set of standards and guidelines. This work began in 2016 with stakeholder interviews, staff analysis and consultant analysis. A draft has been prepared, however this project was put on hold until the third priority project was completed. He provided an illustration of the timelines and noted that the goal is to have the final amendment regarding process and submittal requirements to Council for review and adoption by the fourth quarter of this year. The final larger project is still on hold pending the completion of the process and submittal adoption. He asked Council for direction on whether or not they would like to see a detailed outline of what this final code update and design guidelines could look like, or would Council prefer to see draft proposals? Ms. De Rosa asked Mr. Papsidero for his preference. Mr. Papsidero responded that his preference is to share with Council the detailed outline as they found that to be very helpful in leading to very productive conversation and feedback. However, either deliverable would be valuable and can be accomplished within the scheduled timeframe. Ms. Fox stated that the Clarion work and the records of the Planning and Zoning discussion are now available, so that is helpful in the review. What is also helpful is having the information to review as early as possible so they can really delve deep and provide staff with the guidance they are seeking. It is important to hear public feedback and comment and take it all into consideration. Mr. Papsidero suggested giving the proposed document to Council in October for Council feedback, and then staff would have time to revise it per Council's input and then begin the public process. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if staff envisions a workshop for this. Mr. Papsidero responded that, initially, it could be one workshop with others to follow as needed. Another option would be to establish a subcommittee of Council, Planning and Zoning and ARB that could work together more frequently and then report back to Council. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes and Ms. Fox both indicated they would support the concept of having a subcommittee. Ms. De Rosa agreed. Ms. Fox suggested that the subcommittee be comprised of a balance of people who will view this in different ways. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 4 of 13 Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this would be somewhat similar to what was done with the Community Plan. Mr. Papsidero asked for input on what stakeholder groups Council would suggest participating in this subcommittee. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that including a few architects would be helpful. Mr. Papsidero stated that staff would bring forward a proposed make-up of the subcommittee for Council's sign -off before moving forward. Historic District Design Guidelines Ms. Rauch provided information on the status. The first stakeholder meeting was held in the first quarter of 2018, where good feedback was received on positives, negatives and suggestions made for other opportunities to consider. A few more meetings will be held to begin working on a potential outline and what that would look like, while also obtaining the feedback of the stakeholders (residents and business owners in the Historic District, Historical Society, Planning and Zoning Commission, ARB, etc.). A report to Council will follow in July on the status of this project. In response to Mayor Peterson's question regarding whether or not working on this project provides any protection in terms of denying an application in this process, Ms. Readler stated that staff can share with the applicant what is being considered. If the applicant wants the project to move forward, it would certainly be in their best interest to make it fit within what is being proposed. Mr. Papsidero stated that this subcommittee could be also used for any additional work item that may come up in the District because it would be well represented by all parties. Ms. De Rosa inquired how much change is expected to the existing guidelines. Ms. Rauch responded that they are still in the very preliminary stage. The general tone is preservation and what can be done to ensure that we are preserving character — understanding/recognizing that some properties need to be redeveloped, but maintaining the character that everyone loves about the Historic District. Mr. Papsidero added that the City already has good guidelines, so it may simply be a matter of tweaking what is in place. Mayor Peterson stated that the historic inventory that was done would certainly be helpful. Updates on Additional Projects Mr. Papsidero gave an update on three additional projects: • The West Bridge Street Corridor Framework Plan — on hold pending the Post/161/Frantz intersection study; • Post/161/Frantz intersection Study — underway, and should be completed in 2019; and • Western Roads Alignment Study — currently on hold. Mr. Papsidero provided an update on the Rock Cress bridge issue that was discussed last year. He stated that the traffic study work is nearly completed. Once completed, the street network map Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 5 of 13 amendment removing the extension will be brought to Council for approval. Historic District Discussion Mr. McDaniel introduced this topic noting that staff will also display Historic District boundary maps to facilitate the discussion. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes referred to the map being displayed and indicated it is really a conversation starter and intended to begin the dialogue. The map shown illustrates the different areas as follows: • The Historic District boundaries are shown in purple on the map; • The new library, parking garage and Z1 and Z2 buildings are shown in yellow; • Indian Run Falls is shown in green; and • Historic District Adjacent is shown in blue. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated her belief is that the Historic District should be removed from the Bridge Street Code so that there would be no conflicting guidelines. She suggested that the zoning code could be updated as it relates to the Historic District. There is value in having a discussion about the validity of removing the yellow highlighted area from the Historic District. At the time the Z buildings were proposed, they were basing their design on other buildings coming in the District to justify what they were proposing. The next building that comes in would then use these most recent buildings that were approved to justify what they are proposing. Council would be faced with the question of, "Why can't we do what they have done?" If these portions are removed from the Historic District, this conversation would not occur. There is nothing historic about the buildings or the property. In response to Ms. De Rosa's question regarding what was contained in the yellow highlighted portion on the map, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that this includes only the Z1 and Z2 buildings, the parking garage and the library. Her recommendation for the green highlighted area on the map is that it be a no build/no disturb zone. This would strengthen the message regarding this property versus strictly parkland designation. In response to Ms. Alutto's question regarding whether or not the City currently has any areas designated in that manner, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated there are no disturb zones throughout the City. Mr. Foegler noted that this area under discussion is a City easement granted to the City by the School District. It will likely be tweaked due to the work that is being done around the Grounds of Remembrance. All that the City wants to accomplish will be at the discretion of the School District. Ms. De Rosa clarified that he is indicating that in order to change this, it would require approval by the School District. Mr. Foegler stated that is correct due to the easement provided to the City. The only thing in place currently is the easement granted by the Schools to the City. Ms. Fox asked about the size of the property that is a scenic easement. Mr. Foegler responded that from the backs of the single-family properties located on the north side is all School property that is not usable by the School. They didn't want the liability resulting from the public coming onto the property. Ms. De Rosa asked for the location of the School property line. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it is the edge of the easement and noted on the map. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 6 of 13 Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that the blue highlighted area on the map delineates what she is calling "Historic District adjacent." The size, scale and massing of the buildings on Riverside Drive are not appropriate along this area of Bridge Street/161. She referenced a video rendering of potential future development in this area that three of the Council members viewed. She was surprised, but not pleasantly about what she viewed in those renderings. It was presented as something that could occur through that corridor. She believes that Council needs to consider this area as more transitional in terms of size and scale. The size and scale should be appropriate to its neighbors. The same requirements are true of a residential neighborhood. To retain the feel and character of the neighborhood, the size and scale matters —just as it does in the areas adjacent to the Historic District. This should be a transitionary portion leading back to the highway that protects the areas that are closest to the Bridge Street District. It will also provide a more consistent flow as one arrives into the City. She reiterated that she wants consideration given to size, scale and massing to these areas that lead into the historic core. Ms. Fox stated that she supports the concept of a transition. Along Shawan Falls and Corbins Mill are considered to be transition areas, so there is already evidence that transition is needed. The gateway to the town center is to occur at the intersection at Shawan Falls and Corbins Mill, and therefore she would like to see stronger historic guidelines for this area to ensure it is consistent with the Historic District character. Historic transition gives some assurances to the residents that this area will be considered sensitively. Once the gateway is planned appropriately, it will be an entrance to the economic development and the walkable urban activity. It will also draw the people in the Metro Blazer area and, hopefully, it becomes their circular connection and walkable space. This area allows the City to be sensitive to the area, yet still allow it to be economically viable with new mixed use and walkable urbanism. She reiterated that the area of Shawan Falls and Corbins Mill needs to be "heavier" in terms of its Historic District look. She also added that she is pleased this map includes the 1919 building. Ms. Alutto stated she agrees that the area under discussion (highlighted in blue) should be transitional. She viewed the video rendering and believes the buildings were taller and larger than she would expect to see. She does not want to see large buildings with the residential areas that are already in place. She agrees that currently, there is not a nice transition into the Historic District. In thinking about other historic districts she has visited, there should be a nice introduction into the District. She agreed with Ms. Fox that the Historic District boundary (highlighted in purple) should go a little further to the west along SR161 (Bridge Street). Ms. De Rosa asked what currently exists in that area along SR161 (Bridge Street). Mayor Peterson stated that what exists are gas stations and a tire store. Ms. Fox pointed out that if this is redeveloped, these should be the considerations. Ms. Alutto posed the question that if the Historic District is removed from the Bridge Street Code, does it then have its own Code? Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it would return to the Historic Code that governed it previously. She noted there may be updating needed. Ms. Alutto clarified that the Historic District Design Guidelines would still be in effect. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is correct. Ms. Fox stated that there are elements such as the walkable urbanism, the principles of mixed use, the place -making principles, the "best of the best' out of the form -based code that could be included in the Historic District while still preserving the character. Taking advantage of some of those principles of great places that you want to work in, dine in, etc., while preserving the Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 7 of 13 character is possible Mr. Foegler stated that all that can be accomplished. The challenge from the development perspective relates to the center where the Kroger and other businesses exist and the likelihood of redevelopment. If a major project were proposed by the intersection at Frantz and 161, for example, transportation planning and infrastructure planning could drive opportunity for redevelopment. If Council desired redevelopment sooner than that, it would have to be incentivized. At this time, the area now is not very walkable and presents a design challenge for coming off the highway and transitioning that quickly. Mr. Papsidero stated that the work that was been done in the framework plan was moving in that direction, to narrow the street and create a pedestrian area. The zoning in place today in that blue highlighted area that was being discussed as transitional, does allow five -story buildings, except where it is adjacent to the Architecture Review District area. It did spark a good conversation to discuss what the character should be. He stated that residents felt that the area east near Shawan Falls should be treated more sensitively. The area more to the west of that was less concerning to the residents. It definitely creates the "front porch" opportunity that Council may be seeking. A parallel to consider is in Old Worthington. Their Architectural Review Board has always managed Old Worthington, but also manages High Street up to I270. Mr. McDaniel added that the buildings are taller as you go north out of Old Worthington, but the setbacks are larger so it isn't a huge contrast. Ms. Alutto agreed that as you exit I270 into a community, it is necessary to transition at a slow rate of speed. Worthington does this effectively. Mr. Papsidero stated that the linear footage for Worthington may be longer that they have to deal with, but Dublin's challenge would be the block to the east of the 161 and Frantz Road intersection. There is infrastructure in place that would be a challenge from a pedestrian standpoint. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated she was in Upper Arlington recently and noticed the western portion of Lane Avenue is very effective in terms of changing the feel of Lane Avenue. She compared Lane Avenue to 161, in that it, too, exits a highway in a fairly short distance. Upper Arlington has done an effective job in transitioning to a pedestrian feel on Lane Avenue. It is happening block by block, but it is working. Ms. Fox stated that on the far west side of Frantz Road, there are opportunities for higher buildings. The most that would be sacrificed on 161 are about six parcels. Everything else on the west side would be an opportunity. She added that anything that would create noise or traffic may have an impact on the serenity of Indian Falls, so that requires some consideration and sensitivity also. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes agreed and stated that sensitivity is required on both sides, north and south of Bridge Street. Ms. Fox reiterated that there are opportunities for higher buildings to the west. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes illustrated on the map that there are some larger parcels that would need to be held to an appropriate size and scale. Ms. Fox agreed. Ms. De Rosa stated that she believes removing the Historic District from the Bridge Street Code makes sense. She asked staff to provide any input about why they believe otherwise. Mr. Papsidero stated that the Historic District could remain within Bridge Street Code and it could Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 8 of 13 be modified to accomplish the goals that Council desires. Another option would be a comprehensive rezoning that creates a new zoning district altogether. A comprehensive rezoning would be required to move up through the corridor, but also encompass some of those residential areas as well. That would provide opportunity for more public discussion. Another consideration is that some development rights could be taken away to some degree by doing that. These are all factors to consider when making the decision — does Council want to open up larger conversations that could bring up issues they may not want to deal with. Ms. De Rosa stated that if the Bridge Street Code is modified, those conversations may need to occur in any case. Mr. Papsidero stated that is true, but the conversations would not be to the same degree. A comprehensive rezoning is somewhat of a blank slate to some property owners versus amending the Code or tweaking it. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that mass rezonings do create a lot of angst for property owners, based on her experience. Ms. Rauch suggested that another option is that Historic Residential retain very similar standards to what existed previously -- and not have to adhere to the building types that the form -based code piece of the Bridge Street Code allows. She suggested the Historic South, Historic Core and Historic Transition not have to adhere to the building types, but have very specific development standards that are outside of that to eliminate some of the scale and size issues that are of concern. Ms. Fox stated that a justification for removing the Historic District from the Bridge Street Code is based on her experience as an ARB member and now PZC member. The complexity of trying to determine what code applies to what is very cumbersome and is difficult to apply fairly. Ms. Rauch stated that there would still be specific standards that have to be met. Ms. De Rosa stated that from a planning perspective, distinction creates clarity. It creates ownership and sends a message that it is important enough to declare it different. For her, taking the Historic District out of the Bridge Street Code feels right. Mayor Peterson stated that he agrees it sends a message to the residents about the importance of the District and re-establishes our priorities. The library and garage discussions defined the contrast. It is worth the work and conversation to do this for the next generation. He believes that it strengthens both the Bridge Street District and the Historic District to define them separately. Ms. De Rosa stated that she is hearing that Council's consensus is it makes sense to remove the Historic District from the Bridge Street Code. In addition, the gateway into the City onto 161 from I270 needs to have character as well. The desire is to create a feeling that one has just entered Dublin, a vibrant place with a lot happening and also to set a tone for economic development. She doesn't want to put too many limitations on that space and what it could potentially be. Mayor Peterson stated that Mr. Foegler's point makes sense -- that the City will likely have to incentivize this area for redevelopment in the future. Mr. Foegler reminded Council that there is a highly successful strip center in place at this time. Mr. Papsidero added that Kroger has a multi -decade lease on that property. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the Community Development Committee discussed this parcel and the roadway enhancements that make it feel different. If it is not feasible to change the buildings, perhaps a stone wall with planters, lighting, etc. would give it a different feel. Mr. Foegler responded that the intersection design will influence all of that. The question is how Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 9 of 13 to handle that much traffic in a very busy area, while also making it a place of interest to pedestrians. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that perhaps a long, raised planter could be added that would separate the pedestrians from the cars and traffic. This may be the only opportunity in the short term to make one feel they are entering a vibrant, exciting place. Ms. De Rosa agreed, but reiterated that she does not want to place too many limitations on it. Mr. Foegler stated that what exists is a very common model of what strip centers were at the time when that was developed. Ms. Goss stated that another consideration is the existing outparcels. Ms. De Rosa stated Council should spend some time determining how this area is to be defined and the character that it should have. Mayor Peterson asked Mr. McDaniel what specific direction is needed from Council at this meeting. Mr. McDaniel responded that many of the comments he has heard from Council tonight have also been discussed by staff. He would like to take Council's input, review it and then bring more information back to Council. Mr. Papsidero stated that this could be added to the work of the subcommittee. Mr. Papsidero clarified that in terms of ARB authority along 161, staff needs to consider the parcel configuration and determine where the boundaries stop. For the yellow highlighted portion on the map (library, garage and z buildings), ARB has authority over the patios and facades, which seems relevant as tenants do move in and out. Staff would be supportive of keeping that authority with ARB. As new zoning districts are created for this geography, it would match ARB's authority and the two would coincide. Ms. Readler stated that ARB already has jurisdiction for the parcels that are enumerated and perhaps consideration could be given to have PZC review the patios. This could be an option. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that these patios are going to feel like the patios that are across the river from them, not like the balance of the patios that exist on the same side. Mr. Papsidero stated that staff has required consistency with everything along North High Street. Ms. Fox stated that what hasn't been discussed are the items other than the buildings -- landmarks, furniture, stone walls, etc. that ARB needs to review. Therefore, it is worthwhile to discuss and review what ARB will have purview over as one comes down the street into the District. Mr. Foegler stated that another point regarding the buildings in the yellow highlighted area are the details such as brick sidewalks, street lights, etc. -- trying to tie in the infrastructure details to the Historic District. Ms. Fox stated that it is important to bring this forward as the West Bridge Street Framework Plan is discussed. Mr. McDaniel stated that perhaps staff should discard the West Bridge Street Framework plan and just extend this District. Staff will discuss these things thoroughly and come back to Council. Ms. De Rosa commented positively on the historical lighting and details she recently saw during her visit to Dublin, Ireland. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she is very supportive of the historical detail that was Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 10 of 13 included on the directional signs. Bridge Street District Mr. Papsidero continued the slide presentation and noted the vision statement for the Bridge Street District (BSD). Ms. Fox stated that the vision statement wasn't applicable to reviewing the character of certain things. For example, the BSD doesn't say it's a mission statement -- but a purpose. The purpose is to implement the BSD area plan for development consistent with the Community Plan. The Community Plan outlines general principles, but not the specifics of a checklist. She believes it is more subjective, soft and interpretive. It breaks down those purposes into four specifics: walkable mixed use; creating places, but not actually giving place -making principles; simplify the development process; and allow property owners to take advantage of new business opportunities. She believes that in many ways, the development process is now more difficult and the Historic District has no predictability on the outcomes. The vision statement needs to be reworked to give the Commissioners and Council a better sense of the touchpoints that are so important. The vision principles state that there are five, yet only four are listed: general principles; streets, parking and transit; open space and buildings. She believes that, going forward, to ensure the outcomes are of the character and the placemaking desired, this section needs some revision. Mr. Papsidero clarified the document she is referencing. This is text in the Bridge Street Code. The vision statement and the principles could be added to the Code, but we wouldn't want to replicate the entire plan into the Code. Ms. Fox agreed. However, the City could give more specific guidelines, principles and elements rather than generalities. She used the example of walkable urbanism to illustrate her point about needed specifics. She believes it would be easier for Commissioners to apply the intent of the code and the vision of how the community should be built. Ms. De Rosa asked Ms. Fox if her suggestion is to take a step back and do a review. Ms. Fox responded that she believes it is always a good idea to review. It would give a better sense of these guidelines and how to provide guidance and apply these principles consistently. Mr. Papsidero suggested that an assessment of what has been built to date and whether or not we are satisfied would be great work for the subcommittee to do. Ms. Alutto agreed. Now that there are buildings in place, we can step back and review the impact. Mayor Peterson asked if Ms. Fox's concerns could be addressed in this process and subcommittee work. Mr. Papsidero confirmed that will be included. Ms. De Rosa referenced the chart that indicates the envisioned mix between commercial, retail, residential, etc. She noted that the retail portion is not likely to occur, based on what has developed to date. The numbers are therefore out of date. It would be useful from a conversation standpoint and what we would like to see in that area going forward. Mr. Papsidero stated that the numbers reflect market forecasting when the plan was done. He agreed it would be a good exercise to see how the market has changed. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the other factor to consider when discussing the 60-40 principle is the capture rate on the traffic studies and how the predictions for uses are lining up with the reality. Are we where we thought we would be, or are we trending one way or another? This would be useful as we consider the John Shields bridge and the traffic it will have to carry. Mr. Papsidero stated that staff could look into that as well. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 11 of 13 Mr. Papsidero stated the final piece for this discussion was an update on the process reform: • Stakeholder interviews and an independent analysis in April 2017; • An outline was prepared of proposed changes to the procedures and submittal requirements; • Three joint work sessions were held with PZC and ARB to review the findings and staff proposal; and • Next step is to draft the formal code amendment and schedule a review with ARB and PZC, then submit to Council for review and final action. Mr. Papsidero reviewed the illustration of the current process versus the proposed process. The proposed process eliminates ART's recommendation and goes directly from staff recommendation to PZC/ARB decision. It also proposes to eliminate Council from the decision step when an EDA is involved, so all decisions would rest with ARB and PZC. In response to Mayor Peterson's question about the EDA and Council's required action, Mr. Foegler stated that the Council decision on an EDA would run on its own track and not be a part of the development process. Mayor Peterson stated that if there is an EDA, it would likely be approved early in the process. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it would be more of a policy decision. It needs to be less about the look and feel of the project and more about the policy that Council wants to drive. She would prefer to review true concept plans. She suggested revising the nomenclature of the process. A true architectural concept plan is what makes it an economic decision versus a planning decision. Mayor Peterson added that if there is too much detail, then those details become baked into the part of the product that PZC or ARB reviews. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it almost becomes "law," and if changes are desired, it becomes difficult to do so. Mr. Foegler stated that a concept plan would be brought forward with basic economic terms -- meaning this is what it looks like, because the infrastructure costs are unknown -- and they would move on parallel tracks so as the concept is evolving, feedback can be given and would be a value add to everyone in the process. Mayor Peterson stated that the conversation regarding incentives is a perfect example. If someone wants to come in with a concept, they are going to want to know if the City will incentivize the project or not before moving too far forward. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the kind of concept plan that Council should see shouldn't take more than a day to create. Ms. Alutto stated that she is fine with what has been presented. In her short time on Council, she has heard concern that Planning and Zoning Commission is not certain about Council's direction to them. She encouraged better communication with the Commissions regarding what Council wants and what Council's expectations are. Ms. Fox stated that Ms. Alutto's point is well taken. For example, what if the Kroger center is incentivized for redevelopment with an EDA because of Council's desire for a gateway project. If that is what Council desires, it needs to be communicated to the Commission and Council should Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 12 of 13 explain the elements they want the Commission to consider. It would help to provide the Commission a framework for their review. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes agreed. Council has not been clear about their desires. There are very capable people serving on the Commission and if they are given the guidance, they can carry out their work. Ms. Fox stated that the guidelines will help. Giving them direction will help them make the best decisions. Ms. Alutto reiterated the importance of having a good communication loop with the boards and commissions. Mr. Foegler stated that in terms of a concept approach, when Council reviews the broad business terms of an EDA, they are going to want to see the concept plan to verify it is something they want to incentivize and to what degree. At that point, there is an opportunity for Council to communicate any concerns they may have about the concept plan. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that is generally what occurs in a PUD process. But when you begin with the Bridge Street Code, there is a lot to build upon. Ms. De Rosa stated that it would make sense to take this process, include the feedback loops and the simultaneous actions, and incorporate those into the process. She believes the boards and commissions would be very appreciative of that. Mayor Peterson stated that this subcommittee can certainly help with this, but Council also needs to clearly state what they want to achieve. Mr. McDaniel stated that there is a Council representative on the Commission to communication that as well. Mr. Papsidero referred to Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes' comment regarding revising the nomenclature and stated that staff would like to streamline the submittal requirements as well. The consensus of Council was they support the change to the process as illustrated on the slide. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if waivers were to be discussed at this meeting. Mr. Papsidero stated that waivers can certainly be discussed, but one of the points of the design guidelines is to reduce the need for waivers. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that waivers should be for something that is extraordinary and should not be expected to be approved. She also agrees that the vision statement and the principles need to be reworked as well. Ms. Fox asked about the process of forwarding something from staff administrative review to ARB. Is there Code language that indicates anything under a certain square footage doesn't require review by Planning and Zoning Commission? Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated those cases were for minor modifications. Mr. Papsidero stated that at this point, staff is not recommending any changes to that section. Ms. Rauch stated that it was really more about how ART relates to ARB. There were some director level administrative approvals that the group felt were not appropriate to remain at the director level. Ms. Fox asked if there was a certain square footage that triggered this. Mr. Papsidero stated that related to a concept plan or preliminary development plan and whether that review was required or not. The members had an issue with that in terms of clarity, so staff is providing that clarity. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, June 20, 2018 Page 13 of 13 Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a workaround is to bring whatever modifications are proposed to the reviewing body and let them decide who the decision-making body should be. Mr. Papsidero stated they considered that, but one of the challenges is that oftentimes it is due to timing of any construction issue they are encountering. They need a quicker response versus undergoing an entire process. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Council will look at the recommendations for the Code amendment when it comes forward to Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council