Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-08 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 31, 2008 Council Chambers MINUTES OF MEETING Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. Present: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Keenan. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused). Staff members present: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Ott, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Gunderman, C. Combs. Also present: Ben Hale. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that tonight's study session topic is the Central Ohio Innovation Center {COIC} District regulations. The order of the discussion will be Procedure/Process, and then the Site. There have not been a lot of regulations in the City's written building standards Over the years, some basic practices have been used, but this was an attempt to put them in writing so that everyone can be "on the same page" when they seek to do business in this area. She asked staff to point out areas in town where these practices have been implemented to provide a visual example. Mr. Langworthy has pointed out that the commercial piece is not something that will be done immediately, so that portion of the site can be reviewed at some future point in time. Most of the commercial piece is not in Dublin, so annexation would need to occur first. The Planning Commission has reviewed the codes in detail. There were no public comments at those meeting discussions. If there is anyone present who wishes to share a public comment, they will be permitted to do so. It is hoped that Council will be able to have a fmal product to vote on Apri17. Mr. Combs stated that with the Community Plan process, a significant amount of time was spent reviewing the US 33 Corridor and the City's area plans. This was one the first major steps taken to attempt to implement the different design elements that were discussed during the Community Plan process. Out of the four districts, the high density and the low density pods are the two most critical. Staff has also been working with Slane Partners in reference to the Particle Therapy building regarding the City's different Codes. The memo in Council's packet summarizes the main issues. Most of those issues have been resolved with Slane Partners, but there are a couple outstanding issues staff would like to discuss with Council tonight. ISSUES RESOLVED Issue # 1: Freestanding CommerciaURetail Use Size Restrictions The Code requirement will be that anything over 20,000 square feet of commercial retail will require conditional use approval from the Planning Commission. Text clarifications were also made regarding Offices. The reference is to Offices-Retail, not Offices & Technology. No additional P&Z review is requested for basic office and technology uses. Mr. Gunderman stated that most of the items covered tonight have been agreed on by Mr. Hale, but are not yet incorporated into the City's Code. If Council concurs with these proposed changes, the Code will be updated accordingly. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if staff is essentially negotiating with developers about how to write the City's Code. Mr. Gunderman responded that their input is being considered due to this particular partnership. Issue #2. Membership of the Administrative Review Team (ARTS Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Carson said that at one time, there was discussion regarding having a citizen member on this team, but the opinion now is that the original composition proposed for the group would be best, which is: Planning Director, City Engineer, Police Chief, Chief Fire Official, Chief Building Official, and Diector of Parks. This negates the need for a majority vote. Issue #3: ART and Submission of Plan for Site Approval to the Planning Commission. The resolution of this is to delete the requirement. It is likely that should the ART review a large, high-profile project, their ability to approve it would be limited by the scale of the project itself. The procedure would be a denial and automatic forwarding of the project to the Planning Commission. Because of its stature, it would then be reviewed publicly. Vice Mayor Boring inquired what the Planning Commission's perspective was on this. Mr. Gunderman responded that this specific issue was addressed by the Planning Commission. Previously, they did discuss the central point, which was that the ART should have the open- ended ability to determine that a project should be referred to the Planning Commission. This specific item arose after their direction to that effect. Vice Mayor Boring asked for an example of this type of project. Mr. Gunderman responded that an example would be any really large project. Staff could not think of any particularly hazardous characteristics that would be seen, but it was recognized that any large project would be forwarded to ART anyway, due to criteria mentioned elsewhere in the Code. Vice Mayor Boring stated that there is a concern that it will be entirely up to the ART whether the project is forwarded to P&Z. It's important to remember that a future ART will not have the current Planning Director and current Police Chief serving in those review positions. Mr. Gunderman responded that the open-ended language has been removed. The specific language regarding Code compliance remains. That should ensure that a project ofthat size would be forwarded to P&Z. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the applicant's concern was that as origilally written, it vested too much discretion in ART. Mr. Gunderman concurred. There was no particular standard by which any developer could proceed. Mr. Lecklider noted that there was also concern that it ~~vould slow the process down. Mr. Smith stated that the other concern of the applicant was that when they have hired an attorney or architect to take thei• application through the process, they did not want this step of the process to slow them down due to lack of specific direction. They were concerned that the "catch all" language would allow the ART to forward the plan for P&Z review on everything. The applicant would prefer that the request for P&Z review be in reference to specific concerns or criteria that the applicant could respond to. Issue #4: Timin fg or Applications for Administrative Departures Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 3 The resolution of this issue is to remove the 42-day limit. The concern was that as a project is moving through the process, it maybe desirable to make some changes in it. The applicant needs the capability to ask if they could do something a little differently, provided they still meet all the requirements. Removing the 42-day limit allows time for plans to be modified to address site specific issues, as they are revealed during the process. Issue #5: Timing for Decision by P&Z for Site Plan Approvals Revision of text to change the decision requirement to 56 days from the next available zoning application deadline, to account for the P&Z meeting schedule. Issue #6: Timing for P&Z Site Plan Approval for ART Denials. Revision of text from "may" to "shall" to change P&Z Site Plan approvals from a discretionary to a mandatory review. If the ART reviews a project, and there are things the project cannot comply with, the plan is automatically form--~arded to P&Z for review. Issue #6: ART Approvals with Undesirable Conditions/Changes This addresses a situation in ~~~hich ART reviews a project, and as part of thew approval there are conditions that the developer must change in particular aspects of the project to comply with the Code. A new paragraph will be added to permit an applicant to submit a plan for Site Plan Approval to P&Z if the ART attached conditions or otherwise changed the plan in a manner with which the applicant does not agree. REMAINING PARTNERSHIP ISSUES: Mr. Combs stated that staff seeks Council's input on the following two issues. Issue #1 -Commercial Uses in the High Density (HD) POD are subject to Planning Commission review rather than ART review. Originally, the language included a maximum project size of 60,000 sq. feet. The particular issues remain under discussion. This change addresses commercial in terms of retail, hotel and restaurant issues. The remaining issue is what can/cannot go to the Planning Commission. Slane proposes that the Code be revised to subject all projects in the HD POD to review by the ART, regardless of use type. All development in the HD PD gains competitive advantage due to streamlined review process - "one stop shopping." Master plans can be approved by a single body. Issue #2: Building Specific Issues Related to the Particle Therapy Project Those issues are: front yard setback, front yard parking, and four-sided architecture requirement. Staff believes that these are issues that need to be looked at from the larger picture perspective of the full COIC District. These requirements would apply to multiple projects, not one. Mr. Smith stated in reference to the Particle Therapy Building that he and Mr. Langworthy have discussed this issue. It is their view that this process is being structured so that it will all work. This will not be a detriment to the partner who is developing in this location, because if his application is not initially approved, he will have the opportunity to have it reviewed by the Planning Commission and, later, by City Council. It would be preferable not to provide an exemption for the Particle Therapy Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 4 Building in the Economic Development agreement. It would be preferable to have the Particle Therapy building go through the usual approval process, so that there is the standard public awareness of the project. Mr. Combs stated that in particular with the Commercial Use issue, those are issues that have been discussed in regard to setting up the COIC standards and the need to respond quickly when technology firms come in. In regard to retail, hotel, restaurants and other Support Uses, those types of projects do not have the same need for quick approval, and they tend to have more impact on visual character. For that reason, the Planning Commission believed it was essential that those uses undergo the additional review related to architecture and signage. Also, based on the square footage criteria, staff believes that review is important. Ms. Salay inquired if Planning anticipates a certain "look" in this project, either in style or architecture. Is that already envisioned or will it be permitted to evolve? Mr. Combs responded that in terms of the HD Pod and the Low Density Pod, it is being looked at in terms of massing and layout of the buildings. No particular architectural style or materials have been defined. When some of the initial projects come in that are unique, the elements of those projects and COIC elements such as the bridge design and streetscape will begin to develop into a guiding palette. Mr. Gerber stated that when the COIC was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission, they expressed a need for safeguards to be in place to ensure that the Community Plan, policies of Council, and the themes in place in that corridor were followed. Mr. Combs responded that with the area plan, staff attempted to lay out patterns for the high density and low density pods and the appropriate support uses. That provides a general form, density and shape. It is a charge to the ART, Planning Commission and Council to require that occurs. It will require a continual reference to the Community Plan. Where something has been missed, additional regulations will evolve. Staff will not be able to address everything with the current effort. It will be necessary to see how the projects work, how the regulations work, and from time to time, improve the regulations. Mr. Gerber stated that it's beneficial to stay with the PUD process in Dublin, because staff always has some discretion. With straight zoning like this, it is more challenging. Mr. Gunderman responded that the building massing will provide a pattern that won't be wide open. Architecturally, there will be a level of deviation. In terms of how the area looks, if the City can follow these rules, it will be possible to achieve a distinctive look. It is unfortunate that the City must start out with the Particle Therapy Building, but for some good reasons, there will be some deviation on that project. Mr. Lecklider stated that this is a departure from what Council has been accustomed to the last 10-15 years. He envisioned having to demonstrate the flexibility that the City exercised with Dublin n•Iethodist Hospital. That building was not the typical architecture, but that aspect was driven by the use. IWIr. Smith responded that was the case - it was designed from the inside out, not outside in. Mr. Gerber responded that the end product carried a theme. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Combs stated that as he looked through the specific design regulations, his view was that they capture what the City generally looks for in a planned district. What he likes about them is that the regulations go well beyond that. Whether it is the bicycle facilities, parking structure, or basic design elements -- all are a step up to a higher level. Staff often spends a lot of time working with a planned district to achieve a constant base line. Having these regulations with all the additional design criteria will allow staff to take things to the next level. Mr. Gunder~rran stated that the issue with this item is that staff is concerned that changing the Cit}-'s Code, as the applicant has suggested, without addressing the basic building massing issue would result in a loss of the ability to do so for the rest of the projects. Staff recognizes that the Particle Therapy Building may need some of the administrative departures, as mentioned, but most of the other buildings will need to have those regulations in place. Mr. Lecklider inquired if Planning's recommendation is to allo~~ the administrative departure process to work in the way it's been drafted. This will maintain the integrity of the Code. Mr. Gunderman stated that ~n-•ill address the second issue. In regard to the fu•st issue, these are commercial retail uses that would be in this high density pod. It does not include the other commercial uses further north; they are not part of the area south of Post Road. The question is whether the commercial uses within this high density pod should be required to go to the Planning Commission as is typical for commercial uses, or should they, as part of this high density pod, first go through the ART? Then, if needed, they would be referred to the Planning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the Planning Commission requested that retail, hotels and restaurants be subject to P&Z review. Mr. Gunderman responded that is true. Mr. Smith stated that issue has been resolved. Mr. Hale has agreed that the Commercial Uses can go before P&Z, with an appeal process to Council. Therefore, the Particle Therapy Building is the only unresolved issue. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested Mr. Hale to present his perspective. Ben Hale, representing Slane Particle Therapy, stated they have not asked for many changes. Those they have requested have been to address some inconsistencies. With Dublin Methodist Hospital and Cardinal Health, they used a technical team, which met every week and made significant progress. It was then taken to the Planning Commission. This project will institutionalize that process, which ~vorked. The problem with a zoning and fmal development plan is that it takes a year to complete. The process they recommend is similar to zoning this area into a PUD in large tracts and institutionalizing the system that has been found to work with Cardinal and the Hospital. Once they have resolved the Code issues concerning the required plan criteria and the right to appeal to Council any imposed conditions they may object to, he will be satisfied. Everyone should have the right of appeal. The City's review is an Administrative process, and if Dublin is not willing to provide the right of appeal, the only recourse would be to go to Court -- a very lengthy process. However, he believes the proposed language provides sufficient buffers and appeal rights, so it should work for everyone. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 6 His only remaining issue is with the 20,000 square foot commercial use devmition. The current language includes hotels. That means every hotel would be required to obtain a conditional use permit, because every hotel is larger than 20,000 feet. He does not believe a hotel should be subject to this requirement. Mr. Gunderman stated that they should have no problem with a hotel, or hoteUconference center, because they are listed in other categories, as well. Mr. Hale responded that they are also listed under the Commercial Uses. When the Code is revised, care should be taken to ensure a situation isn't created where hotels will automatically need a Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the building setback. Mr. Hale stated that there were several items which they knew they would require Code exceptions. That happens with the larger projects, as larger projects require more Code deviation. That is one of the reasons the ART can decide to send a case on to the Planning Commission. He would suggest that at some point, the City provide some language in the Code that makes its clear that the standard shouldn't be as tight on some of the issues, such as setbacks. However, with an appeal right, the applicant has a u-~ay to address those decisions they object to. Mr. Gerber inquired if he objects to retail and hotel uses requiring P&Z review. I~•Ir. Hale responded that these are not as time sensitive, so he does not object to their review by P&Z. Mr. Gerber stated that when he hears "conditional use," that raises the bar a little more. Mr. Hale responded that they are not conditional uses. The Commission will have the right to review the architecture, take these standards and apply them to the case. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Hale seems to be satisfied with these resolutions and believes the process should work appropriately. Do any Council members object? Vice Mayor Boring stated that she would like to further discuss the conditional use. She inquired if a building is over 20,000 sq. ft., would they be subject to the big box retail guidelines? Mr. Gunderman responded that in the straight zoning district in which it is listed, it should not impact anything addressed tonight. The big box standards would be part of the criteria. A Conditional Use Permit as a required separate category applies only in the CC current zoning. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if a commercial use exceeds 20,000 sq. ft., would it be a conditional use in this particular district. 1\•Ir. Gunderman confu-med that is correct. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the purpose for identifying something as a conditional use is usually because its impact would be different. Is that the reason it is occurring in this situation? If a commercial use of 20,000 plus sq. ft. is required to have P&Z review, why must a "conditional use" be secured as well also? Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Gunderman responded that the category of 20,000 square feet and over was drafted initially to be applied to the two commercial categories only. That gave the Planning Commission an extra level of regulation that still applies. At the beginning, this set of COIC District amendments was to include the potential of exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. into the High Density Pod as well. There, it would be a conditional use. Mr. Gerber stated that it is the high density area that receives the extra scrutiny from the Planning Commission. Mr. Gunderman responded that the standard is mare relaxed if it is not a conditional use. If it is a conditional use, a higher bar is applied. The level at which that occurred was originally suggested for 60,000 square feet, but the Planning Commission reduced it to 20,000 square feet, thus including more projects in this type of review. Vice Mayor Boring stated that this type of review does not occur except in the Corridor Development review. She is trying to understand why it needs to be done for this. The projects are already required to come before P&Z, but now there will be the additional review for a conditional use. Also, in a high density area, big box retail would be expected. Why the need for additional review? In a low density area, it would be more critical to control, so why wouldn't the additional scrutiny be directed there? Mr. Gunderman explained that in the two commercial districts, there is a desire for a discreet look. A large box over 20,000 feet begins to encroach on those limits and create a conflict. In the High Density Pod, the theory is these uses are supplying services that are needed by the other uses, so a closer proximity is needed. However, the concern remains that if the box became too big, it would change the character of the area. Vice Mayor Boring stated that if the box becomes a certain size, there are design restrictions in place. Mr. Gunderman responded that is true, but what is in this Code amendment is more intense than what is in the current big box regulations. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the conditional use runs with the building. 1\•1r. Gunderman responded that the conditional use runs with the site. The occupants can change. DISTRICT USES: Mr. Combs reviewed proposed Ordinance 13-08, establishing the COIC Districts, describing the proposed districts and their uses. There are two pods, high and low density. The existing Town Center, Village Center and Neighborhood Center are translated in this Code under Village Center and Community Center. The latter is indentified on a Future Land Use Map in the Sawmill Road area and another location in the US 33 Corridor area. The High Density Pods have a more pedestrian orientation, so buildings are closer to the street - an urban environment. Parking is located to the rear and sides. The Low Density Pod has a smaller scale architecture, lower story architecture and large uses such as large companies that might conduct research or light manufacturing. There are also the Community Center and the Village Center. These offer two different scales in terms of the size and scope of the development. These developments are also intended to provide a lot of support services, amenities, and a pedestrian type of enviranment. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 8 Under Ordinance 03-08, there is a table that describes all the uses. The one change provided in the packet is the 20,000 square feet for commercial uses and the high density pod. This gives an idea of the conditional and permitted uses within the Code and whether the ART or the Planning & Zoning Commission would have the initial review of those. In the Code, on pages 3-6, for each of the categories, such as Research and Development and Medical Uses, there are additional descriptors that tell exactly what is intended in those categories. Vice Mayor Boring inquu-ed if there is a defmition of the Medical Uses, which are not permitted in the Community Center and the Village Center. Are physician offices considered medical uses? Mr. Combs responded that they are; that is at the bottom of page 3. Vice Mayor Boring inquired the reason they are not desired in the Community or Village Center, if the intent is to create walkable support services. It makes sense not to want a hospital in this category, but why wouldn't medical offices be appropriate? Mr. Gunderman responded that is a reasonable point. They could be included, if Council prefers. Vice Mayor Boring stated that Medical Uses are permitted in the residential area, and would also make sense for this. Mr. Gunderman responded that if they are not contemplated elsewhere, then they should be included in one of these categories. Mr. Reiner inquired if they are not included because they do not provide a great attraction. I~Ir. Gunderman responded that they are listed in the same category as hospitals and major medical treatment facilities, which are defmitely desired in the High Density Pod. Those two are compatible. However, the medical offices would also be desired closer to the residential and service areas that are in the commercial zones. Mr. Gerber inquired if there is a defmition of Medical Uses. Mr. Gunderman responded that the solution is to list this use in one of the categories that would make it available to the Village or Commercial areas versus not permitting it or removing it from the Medical Use category. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that they do want to exclude hospitals. Vice Mayor Boring suggested that they could be listed as a Conditional Use or by building size. Mr. Gunderman stated that they could also be included as an Accessory Support, which is permitted across all the districts. Ms. Brautigam inquired if everyone agrees on. If so, the language will be drafted. ~•Ir. Reiner inquired if it was in Residential also. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she was incorrect; it was not. NIr. Reiner noted that it was his impression that the intent was to pattern this after the more progressive areas observed on the Franklin trip, where the physician offices were placed in the neighborhoods. Mr. Gunderman stated that it will actually work out that way because the Commercial Districts where the accessory uses would be permitted are the areas where residential is also permitted. Mr. Keenan requested clarification. Will there be physician offices either in or adjacent to the neighborhoods? ~•Ir. Gunderman responded affirmatively. I~~Ir. Keenan stated that the only existing example of this he is familiar with is North~n~est Family Physicians at Tremont and Five Corners, where there is very little parking available. The clients must Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 9 park on the neighborhood streets. He assumes that the parking needs have been considered in this plan. Mr. Gunderman responded that they have by the fact that the medical offices are oriented with multi- family rather than a single family neighborhood. Mr. Keenan stated that there is a mix with multi-family in the Upper Arlington example he mentioned, but if staff has addressed the parking needs in the proposed language, he is satisfied. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH DENSITY AND LOVi~ DENSITY PODS Building Articulation: Mr. Combs noted the key points. Mr. Reiner inquired if the illustrations provided tonight would be included in the Code. Mr. Gunderman responded that these particular illustrations are not, but there will be more illustrations in this section of the Code than there are in the other sections. Mr. Combs inquired if that is something Council would prefer. I~Ir. Reiner responded that illustrations are often easier for the community to interpret. n~Ir. Keener stated that the visuals are very important. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the visuals could be provided in a companion document that is a Quick Guide to this Code section. 1\•Ir. Keenan agreed, noting that it would probably be similar to the Franklin County guidebook. Roofs Mr. Carson stated that this section addresses roofs: breaking up massing of roofs, ensuring varied eave lines and flat roofs with parapet variations. The Code sets up minimum requirements for parapet heights and addresses various roof pitch expectations. Material Requirements: The Code requires that 80% of the walls should have primary materials, but there should be a mix of materials to achieve diversity on the facades. The primary materials are brick, hardiplank, glass, stone and EIFS. Secondary materials are also listed. The intent is to ensure a mix of materials on the facades. Mr. Keenan inquired if EIFS was an issue. There are issues in his industry with EIFS. It creates mold issues. In Hilton Head, everyone was required to tear it off their buildings and replace it with stucco. Mr. Phillabaum responded that in this area, it is used as a secondary, or accent material. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is listed here under primary materials. It would be best to move it. Vice Mayor Boring inquired why stucco couldn't replace EIFS in that list. Mr. Gunderman responded that the perception was that stucco was not of as high quality as the other materials listed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that EIFS be removed from the primary materials list and, if listed at all, that it be under the secondary materials list. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Lecklider inquired what local structures are in Dublin that have EIFS. Aren't there a couple in Metro Center? Mr. Keenan stated that it is used on large houses, such as Tudors, for window sills and archways, but it is not used on the whole structure. Mr. Combs responded that it is used as a banding material on some retail buildings. Mr. Gunderman stated that he believes there are some buildings in Metro Center with it. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if stucco would be appropriate. I~Ir. Lecklider stated that he does not like the stucco. It is not a popular material for office buildings. Council consensus was to move "EYES" materials from the primary materials list to secondary materials. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the building depicted in the materials is 80% glass. Mr. Combs responded that it is over one-half glass -probably 55%-60%. Vice Mayor Boring inquired about the other material. Mr. Combs said he could not tell from the picture, but he would guess that it is concrete panels. Vice Mayor Boring stated that concrete panels are not listed as a primary material. Mr. Gunderman responded that if an applicant wanted that look, staff would try to identity another material to use. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there might be an appropriate use far them on big buildings. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the Ashland Chemical building. Mr. Smith stated that the Verizon building has concrete panels. 1\•1r. Combs responded that it is correct. 1\•Iayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff to research the materials issue more thoroughly, particularly stucco and concrete panels. Mr. Gunderman responded that staff would look into something that might give the appearance of a white building. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would not fmd the concrete panels as objectionable, if they are used with glass -glass being the primary material. Ms. Brautigam noted that the building in the photograph is Ashland Chemical, which is built of glass and brick. Mr. Reiner inquired the specific objection to concrete panels. Mr. Gunderman stated that staff does not necessarily have a particular objection to concrete panels. The problem is that there is imprecision about what the exterior of concrete panels should like. Concrete panels as a structural component in the exterior would probably work fine, if it is possible to define an absolute good finish on the exterior that is as attractive as the example in the photograph. Mr. Reiner inquired if that would likely be an area of contention. Is it better to ban it? I~•Ir. Gunderman responded that was the point of staff's recommendation. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that staff has already been deected to review the materials issue more closely, and EIFS has been moved to the Secondary Materials List. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 11 Mr. Phillabaum noted that the City's 5800 Building was constructed ~-~ith concrete panels with a stone aggregate fmish. Mr. Reiner noted that it is not Council's intention to influence staff to include it if they have a prejudice against this material or if they don't believe it «-~ould be as attractive as other elements. Vice Mayor Boring inquired how many acres the City would be developing with large commercial use other than retail. I~Ir. Gunderman responded that it will be a very large number. Mr. Combs agreed that it would include many buildings. Ms. Brautigam stated that concrete panels would not be added to this ordinance for its second reading. However, the staff assignment will be to look into the use of concrete panels as an exterior material during the next two months and provide building examples to Council; Council then would have the option of amending the ordinance. The immediate objective is to have this legislation approved. Building Entries: Mr. Combs stated that the purpose of these Code regulations is to ensure that any potential business coming in will use architectural components to provide architectural variety and to draw attention to the entry points of that business. Building Heights: Mr. Combs stated that, depending on whether it is a high density or low density pod, there are different height maximums. The one thing of note in this section is that there is an effort to implement green provisions. Doing certain things, such as searching out LEED ratings for the building design, alternative storm water techniques or structured parking will provide the ability for buildings within those districts to be a little higher. Therefore, adding green components to the project design will increase development ability. That concludes the general development standards related to the two pods. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of the allowable building height in the high density and low density pods. Mr. Combs stated that in the high density pod, the buildings can be 5-7 stories; in the low density pods, the buildings can be 3-5 stories. This gives an incentive for people to look at the objectives the City is trying to achieve related to the environment. Mr. Gerber inquu•ed about the permitted size of the parking lots. P&Z has discussed the intent to reduce the size of the parking lots. Mr. Combs responded that staff has looked at the standards. Standards have been included in the proposed legislation for uses that are different than in the existing Code. The objective is to address the concern that too many parking spaces and too much pavement is provided for parking within the City. This is particularly addressed in the high density pod areas. Structured parking or underground parking under office buildings would provide more flexibility. VILLAGE CENTER AND COMIt•IUNITY CENTER DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 12 Mr. Combs noted that there will be one location in the overall plan for the US 33 corridor for a community center. There will be two locations for village centers, one along SR 161. The summary chart on page 10 provides an overview of the standards. Even though the comparison is between commercial and mixed use vs technology-related industry, the architectural issues are the same. Included in the design guidelines is an expression line. Embassy Suites is a good example of haw architectural detail is used to break up a larger mass. It also is a good example of using recesses to break up a monotonous wall. Gabled walls and changes of parapets will also add horizontal and vertical variety. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if these districts will come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Combs responded that these are in relation to future uses; they are denoted in the future land use plan to the north of SR 161. When the COIC begins to grow, mixed uses for support will be added to augment the research and development. Roof Requirements: These requirements relate to the pitched roofs, gables, etc., which will be used in the Community Center to give it a more residential appearance. Four-Sided Architecture: These guidelines address the primary and secondary materials, which were discussed previously. The intent is to ensure four-sided architecture, not just on the street-facing fagade. V ice Mayor Boring inquired if they would remove EIFS from the list of primary materials in this section, also. Mr. Combs responded that staffwould address the same issues for all of the districts. Entry Points This addresses the need to have elements in the architecture that clearly identify the entry points. Hem: These guidelines address the maximum heights for the community center and village centers, with the ability to strive for green incentives. The guidelines address LEED certification, stormwater provisions, and alternative methods such as rain gardens and other engineering and landscape architecture ideas that respond to the issues in a nontraditional manner. There is also the consideration of structured parking and residential uses on one of the upper floors. These are other ways to encourage mixed uses to help cut down on trips -keeping uses together so it is not necessary to travel outside the neighborhood for needs. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if restaurants and flower shops are permitted to be integrated into the commercial office buildings. Mr. Combs responded that the standards address having uses on the first floor. They are encouraged in both the high and low density pods. NIs. Salay inquired if the building codes are different for upper story residential. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 13 Mr. Combs responded that residential is a use that triggers additional building code requirements to address safety concerns. That would have an impact on the "bottom line" of a project. The idea is that the City would give additional incentives to offset that to accomplish the City's goal for additional mixed use and also address its environmental goals. Mr. Keenan stated that across the country, the old town centers with the businesses below and residential above have the highest frequency of fire incidents. Mr. Combs responded that new construction will look at additional requirements such as sprinkler systems, but including the residential component would result in additional cost. Ms. Salay stated that developers bring up the cost prohibitive factor for adding residential to retail units. NIs. Combs stated that there are related challenges, but they have looked at projects, such as Crocker Park near Cleveland. There are projects around the country now that are integrating office and retail on the first floor and high-end lofts or condos on the 2nd and 3rd stories that are very successful. Dublin has the same demographic to support that type of use. Windows Mr. Combs stated that in the Community Center and Village Centers, one thing that is different from the Office requirements for windows is transparency. The goal is that on streetscapes with pedestrian activity, they will be able to see in the stores to encourage shopping. The basic standards on page 13 and 14 discuss the overall base percentages that the City is striving for in terms of windows vs solid architecture for the first and second floors, which will provide a basic quality of architecture. This is similar in some aspects to the Historic District guidelines. Additional Building Requirements -Residential Components Articulation, expression in building lines, pitched roofs, and material requirements are again addressed. Mr. Reiner inquired how articulation is required. The example shown has significant articulation. Mr. Combs noted this is an example in Crocker Park, which has high end condos which, around the corner, abut big box retail establishment. This is an example that shows how such uses can be integrated. The pedestrian «-alks «-i11 lead directly to the commercial center of the Town Center development. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is considering a field trip for Council to Crocker Park, Hudson and Carmel. Mr. Combs stated that this section addresses residential, so there are also requirements for porches, steps, decks and patios. There are also LEED and green requirements, including alternative stormwater. Site Development Requirements Parking, lighting and open space are addressed in the technology center. Parking -A chart on page 18 covers the new parking ratios, which are lower than the current Code requirement, in an attempt to address the issue of lot coverage and excess parking. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 14 Vice Mayor Boring inquired about flex use of office space parking. Mr. Combs stated that page 6, Parking Adjustments, discusses shared parking and deferred parking. Later approval for adding additional parking spaces is also covered. These arrangements would be handled through the BZA or PUD requirements. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is the need to require a certain size parking space also, to avoid the tendency of one vehicle's door to hit the adjacent vehicle. Mr. Combs stated that Dublin's standard re the parking space size has not changed. In regard to parking structures, basic parameters have also been stipulated to avoid undercutting. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if parking lots that have a green look, bricks with grass, are an option in this climate. Mr. Combs responded that there are products, such as grassy grids, that have certain issues in this climate, but they will be looked at in conjunction with the green incentives. Bicycle Parking -This in new in the zoning code. Each development will be required to provide a certain amount of space where bicycles can be parked. Vice Mayor Boring noted that previously there has been discussion about a requirement to provide decorative bike racks, for retail not office. Mr. Combs responded staff would take a look at that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she is pleased that this item has been included. It is important to make sure that the City's requirement encourages this. It should be a requu•ement that makes sense economically for them to do, as well as visually. Previously, the City received some correspondence from citizens wanting to bicycle from Historic Dublin to Kroger's, but there were no bike racks. Wasn't the intent to forward a letter to existing commercial businesses encouraging them to install bike racks? Ms. Brautigam stated that the intent was to contact Kroger because the supervisor had responded to the citizens' request by indicating that the City did not permit them to install the bicycle racks. She is not certain what was intended regarding other businesses. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the City would requu•e bike racks that will accommodate all users. Some individuals have very expensive bicycles and need to be able to lock them up. Some remove a tire or the seat. Mr. Combs stated that the City would encourage biking by providing a place a bicycle can be locked safely. It is true that some bikers do want to carry them inside. Mr. Gunderman stated that serious bikers will attach their bicycles to almost anything, so there shouldn't be much difference from the security aspect. They just need something solid that they can strap the bicycle to. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 15 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if an employee wants to bring his bicycle inside, that would be an employer issue, not the municipality's issue. Parking Structures -This is also new to the Code. Basic standards are set, including parking dimensions, lighting and fagade. There are four pages of regulations with substantial detail. One point to note is on page 23, under #8, regarding the Community Center, which also encourages putting retail or other uses on the first floor of the parking structure. This will not only break up the facade, but provide activity on the ground level. Mr. Lecklider stated that 8-10 years ago, he was opposed to parking structures because they were unappealing. Do these regulations accomplish something similar to the structure that is in the arena district? Mr. Combs responded that they do. There are regulations regarding the character and the massing, and making horizontal facade changes, which means trellis work and windows. The objective is to avoid the stereotypical, monotonous structure. The structure should blend into the streetscape. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would prefer to see parking structures, assuming that they are made attractive, versus use of black asphalt everywhere. I~Ir. Combs responded that is part of the green initiative -- achieving more open space by placing parking into structures, particularly in the Community Center, in the high density pod. This will also make everything much more walkable for people. Vice Mayor Boring inquired about the incentive. Mr. Combs responded that additional stories provide more square footage in terms of the building area, which helps offset the additional cost of structured parking. Land is expensive, and less land would be needed. Landscape Requirements: The Code already has extensive detail, so there are only a couple of minor additions. Si~nage: In addition to the existing Code requirements, additional sign requirements are provided on page 27. In particular, ground and wall signs for all uses are addressed. In regard to the Community and Village Centers, small projecting window and awning signs are included. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the ground sign -how was the maximum height of 8 feet arrived at? Mr. Combs responded that is the typical requirement for a monument sign. Current Code requirements for a straight zone permit a sign up to 15 feet, so this is an attempt to make that consistent with monument sign requirements. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the Chase and Vi~endy's grounds signs on Avery-Muufield. Mr. Combs stated that the text for those signs limits the signs to 8 feet. Mr. Gunderman stated that there are a number of shorter signs, but a number of oi~ice complexes, bank signs, and others in that category usually are 8 feet. They do not look inappropriate due to their placement, ~~hich is typically back from and off the right-of--way. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 16 Mr. Keenan stated that his business sign is less than 5 feet. Mr. Gunderman responded that there are also many signs that are shorter. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the request is to change the 8 feet requirement. NIr. Gerber stated that he believes the requirement far many of the signs has been less than 8 feet. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that staff check out if a greater number of signs are being approved at 6 feet. Mr. Gerber stated that the Planning Commission has had issues with window signage. How is that addressed in this section? Mr. Smith stated that there has been recent discussion regarding code enforcement related to signs. There are certain issues involving current litigation. There are businesses in Dublin that have had window signs in place for 15 years. He would prefer to bring this topic to Council for discussion in a different setting. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if Council could address the Code aspect of it for this purpose. Mr. Smith responded that Council could change the sign code as they wish. However, it might be beneficial for Council to hear some of the existing issues before doing that. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she would like to avoid any issue such as the one at SR 161 and High Street, where there were a number of "House for Sale" signs in the windows. In that case, the City was not able to prohibit them. Mr. Smith responded that was due to the way the PUD text was written, and other issues regarding the tenants . NIr. Gerber responded that is the reason later PUDS have appropriate restrictions. Vice Mayor Boring stated that the Hard Road Kroger Center is beginning to look like the other side of Sawmill Road. NIs. Brautigam stated that there is a need to have a future discussion related to the Sign Code. Ms. Salay stated that in looking at the table provided here, it appears that more signs would be permitted than are typically peiTnitted by the existing Code. Mr. Gunderman responded that in terms of the number of signs permitted, it is similar to current Code. I~Is. Salay stated that it appears to permit both a ground sign and a wall sign. Mr. Gunderman responded that it is either/or, not both. On page 25, it states that signs are regulated by Chapter 151, so it defers to that standard in the current Code. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be so unless otherwise modified here. Ms. Salay stated that is what it appears to do. In reading this, it appears to be cumulative, which means more and bigger signs. When McDonalds went in on Tuttle Crossing Blvd, everyone believed that sign exceeded Code. In that case, the sign is out of proportion to the building. More important than the numbers is the scale of the sign to the building. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 17 Mr. Gunderman stated that is true. That is the reason that in some cases, in the right context the larger signs appear appropriate. However, stair will review this language to verify that more signs are not being permitted, particularly with walls and ground signs, than is currently permitted. Mr. Smith stated that the intent is not to increase the number of signs permitted. Ms. Salay stated that it would seem that, in general, the sign code for the new area should be the same as the existing sign code. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this wording appears to permit more signs than the current signs. Mr. Gunderman stated that the intent was not to expand the number, so additional language will be added to clarify that. Mr. Keenan stated that many of the roadways around First Watch, Giant Eagle and behind Mercedes are now in a state of disrepair. In the COIC, the roadways will also not be public, but rather private roads. Who will be responsible for the paving, etc? Mr. Gunderman responded that all of the current roadways in the district, and what will likely be seen in the future, are public roads. Future discussion related to the commercial area will address the alleyways and secondary connecting drives. Mr. Keenan inquired if the City did not have the tools to enforce in the areas he noted. Mr. Gunderman responded that is the case in a couple of those areas. Mr. Keenan stated that it will be important to make sure the City has the ability to do that in the COIC area. Site Lighting, Circulation and Access: In this section, current practices are codified. Sidewalks: Wider sidewalks are required. Internal sidewalks and covered sidewalks between buildings are addressed. Common/Open Space: Mr. Combs stated that there will be an open space or common space requirement for commercial facilities to encourage the idea of establishing pedestrian areas within the developments as well as setting base standards for the residential developments. It also requires outdoor seating as a common component of all the pedestrian areas. These will not be addressed through the Conditional Use process but with the original development in regard to hour the pedestrian areas relate to the building itself. Development Approval Process: These have been previously discussed by Mr. Langworthy. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one correction was made in regard to the ART composition. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if these regulations relate to the high density pod. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 18 Mr. Combs responded that they are for the entire COIC district. It addresses ~~hich items would be heard by the ART team vs. the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Boring stated that it was her understanding that P&Z did not want the residential development to go through the ART process. Mr. Smith responded that it is excluded from the ART review and ~~ill continue to go to P&Z. Mr. Gerber stated that a reference is made to eliminating the majority vote requirement. Mr. Combs stated that had to do with the issue of placing two citizens on that panel, and it has been eliminated. Mr. Smith stated that the issues addressed and agreed upon in the earlier discussion regarding the review/approval process will be incorporated in the final document. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired where the language states that residential applications will be excluded from ART review in the development approval process and are required to be heard by P&Z. Mr. Gunderman stated that the only place residential is permitted is in the Village or Commercial districts, and all Village and the Commercial applications go to P&Z. Vice Mayor Boring asked where it is stated that if it were permitted, it would go to P&Z, not the ART. Mr. Combs stated that in the Development Approval process, on the table on page 28-29, applications within the VC or the I-CC district, which refers to the Village/Commercial in the Community or the Village Center and the Community Center, mentions the reviewing body as P&Z. Mr. Gunderman stated that the chart on page 3 would be controlling as well. There, it indicates residential is not permitted in the LD or HD, but is permitted in the Village and in the Commercial districts, and those tu~o sections must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. Clerk of Council