Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-08 Study SessionJOINT DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Monday, October 13, 2448 Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council members present: MayarGhinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Baring, Mr. Reiner, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Ms. Salay and Mr. Lecklider. P&Z members present: Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Amorose Amorose Groomes, Mr. llValter, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Mr. Friemann Staff present: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Readier, Chief Epperson, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Swisher, Mr. Phillabaum, Mr. Goodwin. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that tonight's agenda includes: (1) Planned District Approval Process. This came about as a result of Council's hearing on September 15 of the StratfordlVrable Project (Case #08-027CP) at which time Council had some questions about the process. The intent tonight is to clarify the existing processes and determine whether there would be any recommendations for a change to be made. (2) Greenville, S.C. Trip Update. Planning & Zoning has had an opportunity at one of their work sessions to talk about role assessment and other items learned. Mr. Taylor has been able to bring forward a design concept for the purpose of discussion. She attended that work session and was very encouraged by the dialogue. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the Study Session must conclude at 8:30 p.m. because a Special Meeting of Council follows this meeting. PLANNED DISTRICT APPROVAL PROCESS Ms. Grigsby stated that the meeting packet included a memo and background materials which describe the current process. Also included were some questions that would be helpful to have answered. Mr. Langworthy will describe the current process and answer any questions Council may have. Mr. Langworthy provided a PowerPoint presentation including an overview chart. The overall process begins with the Planned Development process. That process begins with the design development process. The Design Development Team is responsible for meeting early on with the applicant to give them the parameters of the process and some of the site constraints or considerations that they would need to take into account before they move to filing an application. Once an application is filed, it is sent to Current Planning for review and acceptance of the application. From that point, the application can proceed in a couple of different directions: (1) Far complex projects, projects that are mare than 25 acres and projects that do not comply with the Community Plan, the Code requires that the project be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review of a Concept Plan. Following the P&Z review, it can then proceed to a Preliminary Plan and Rezoning application. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 2 (2) There is also a provision in the Code that permits an applicant both the P&Z review and Council review of the Concept Plan, even if it does not meet the criteria of complex projects of 25 acres or more or noncompliance with the Community Plan. If the applicant selects that option, it would be forwarded to Council for review of the Concept Plan. Following that review, the application for the Preliminary plan and Rezoning is filed, after which it follows the normal review process. Staff conducted research to determine what the practice has been since the beginning of 2003. In 2003, five Concept Plans were submitted, one of which went to Council for review. In 2004, seven Concept Plans were submitted, two of which went to Council. In 2005, 11 Concept Plans were submitted, 6 of which went to Council. In 2006, there were four, none of which went to Council. In 2007, there were three Concept Plans, one of which was reviewed by Council - Vllaterford Commons. In 2008, to date there have been three Concept Plans, one of which has been reviewed by Council --StratfordNrable Plan. This a total of 33 Concept Plans since 2003, 11 of which were also reviewed by Council. Staff's memo includes same clarifications that are needed in the Code: (1) Provide a clearer definition as to what may constitute a complex project. Currently, no parameters or definition is provided for clarification. (2) Provide the Planning Commission the option of waiving a Concept Plan review, even if the plan qualified for it. (3) Revisit whether the applicant should be given the option for Concept Plan review by P&Z and Council without meeting the criteria. (4) Add some specific review criteria for Concept Plan review. Council has some concerns about the lack of guidance in the Code. Because there is no approval given at the Concept Plan review level, the Code merely states, "suggestions, opinions and thoughts" regarding the plan. However, it would be helpful if more specific ideas were provided regarding what actually should be reviewed. Those suggestions are made by staff, but Council may have some additional ideas. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that regarding the definition of complex projects, what is his recommendation? Mr. Langworthy stated that some ideas have been provided. They looked at past projects that had some complexity, and some of them appeared to be ones that were multi-use projects. Those can sometimes require major infrastructure improvements that Council would need to budget in the CIP. There are other possible scenarios for a complex project. Mr. Vllalter inquired what is the problem that we are trying to solve with a clear definition. Mr. Langworthy responded that anytime there is a vague term, it is desirable to make it more specific. Currently, the determination of what should be considered complex is left to staff. The alternative would be to send everything to the Planning Commission and let them determine what is complex and should have a review. Coming back to P&Z for that review would then require a second meeting. An agreed-upon definition of complex would give staff guidance in the cases where the proposed project did not meet the criteria of either 25 acres or of non-compliance with the Community Plan. Mr. Friemann inquired if there are any specific examples where an applicant thought that their proposal constituted a complex project, but were denied complex plan review, or were Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 3 required to undergo a complex plan review, although they vigorously disagreed with that designation. Mr. Langworthy responded that he does not believe there has ever been an applicant that did not prefer to have the Concept Plan review, if eligible. He inquired if Mr. Gunderman could recall such an incident. Mr. Gunderman responded that he could not recall anyone who refused after being encouraged to do so. Mr. Friemann inquired if this is actually a problem then. Mr. Langworthy responded that Planning staff is satisfied to leave the process as it is, if that is what Council prefers. Not knowing the parameters of what Council was looking for, staff offered what ideas they had. Ms. Salay clarified one situation which arose recently. The Vrable/Statford plan came to Council for a Concept Plan Review. The plan provided to Council had drawings with very little detail. In addition, as is typical with a Concept Plan, there was no staff report. She was very uncomfortable looking at it and attempting to provide feedback, because it was such a big project and so vague. She did not feel that she could give an opinion, as she did not want it to be binding in any way. In the past when Concept Plans came before Council for review, she believed she had enough grasp of the plan that she could provide competent feedback. The Vrable/Stratford Concept Plan provided too little information from the developer for her to be able to do that. The rest of Council felt similarly. It seemed to be such a complex project that for her to be able to provide feedback, she needed more information. Mr. Gerber stated that approximately five years ago during an overall Code review, the issue came up regarding who should review the Concept Plans. It was determined that both the Planning Commission and City Council should review them. Regarding the Stratford plan, he was troubled by the fact that the Planning Commission had already spent 4-5 hours reviewing the plan and were "midstream" in their review of the concept. For the applicant to then come to City Council for additional thoughts and comments was a little disjointed. Ms. Salay inquired what would have happened if Council had sent them off in a different direction from the Planning Commission? Mr. VIlalter responded that he is not certain the applicant had "passed muster" yet. They were still "bouncing" lots of ideas around. The plan was very premature, and the fact that they brought it before Council was very troubling. Mr. Gerber stated that was his concern. The Planning Commission was right in the middle of reviewing the plan and the applicant diverted the review to Council. That seemed unfair. Vice Mayor Baring inquired whose suggestion it was that the applicant come before Council. Mr. Friemann responded that they hesitated to change the process far just this plan. The Stratford plan initially came to the Commission with three different issues. The first was this was the first opportunity the Commission had to look at the anticipated change that would be made at Riverside Drive and Tuller. The second was the architectural renderings -the Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 4 Commission said two looked fine, but the third would have to be re-done. The third issue was whether Council would even be interested in this use. That is where the Commission spent the most time in discussion. The architect present during the discussion wanted to know how big of a footprint the City would be willing to consider. Vllhen the Concept Plan was forwarded to Council for review, he thought that the only item Council would be reviewing was the land use, not the architecture. This is a very large tract of land, and it was important to know if anyone on Council was opposed to an assisted living development on the site. The applicant came back later to discuss only the architecture. Mr. Gerber inquired who recommended that the plan be forwarded to Council to address the land use question. Mr. Langworthy responded that the applicant requested it. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the applicant initially requested it, or did the Planning staff suggest it to the applicant, which is what she was told. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is his understanding that the applicant initially requested to obtain Council's feedback regarding the proposed use. They understood that it was a large change from what was anticipated for that site. Ms. Amorose Amorose Groomes stated that from the use standpoint, the Planning Commission was very clear with the applicant -they were all in concurrence with the use. However, she does not believe there is anything with that particular example that will help with a definition for Concept Plans. That was an error and should not have happened. Under any of the proposed definitions for a Concept Plan, it should not have come to Council at that point in time. Ms. Salay stated that she brought up the Stratford Concept Plan in response to Mr. VIlalter's question as to whether a problem existed. In fact, everyone on Council was very uncomfortable with that particular case. Previously, the Commission had work sessions, but those have been discontinued. V11ere the work sessions designed to review Concept Plans? UVhat is the difference between a work session, a Concept Plan review and an informal review? Mr. Zimmerman responded that in work sessions, every application was reviewed. Ms. Amorose Amorose Groomes noted that every plan was reviewed in work session for non-binding feedback. Mr. Gerber inquired the reason. In his last meeting while on the Commission, the discussion was that work sessions would be only for those very difficult cases where staff had no idea what position the Commission would take on the project. Mr. Vllalter responded that the Commission came to the conclusion that the work session review wasn't very useful. Ms. Amorose Amorose Groomes had some strong comments about staffs role, and that work sessions in essence took away staff's ability to work with the applicant. Staff was in a stronger position if everything was not going to have P&Z's feedback. Mr. Gerber inquired what occurred if staff disagreed with the Commission. Mr. Friemann responded that such a situation did occur. The Commission had gone through a work session and taken a direction. The applicant then went back to staff. Because the Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 5 work sessions were non-binding, the Commission ended up reversing their original decision. Eventually, the Commission decided the work sessions were not productive and returned to the traditional review. There is an opportunity for an informal plan review, but most of the plans are reviewed formally for a vote. Mr. Gerber inquired the distinction between an informal plan review and a Concept Plan review. Mr. Langworthy responded that the Concept Plan review is for a planned unit development; an informal plan review can be for any application. Mr. Zimmerman noted that an informal review is very brief. The materials are limited to small drawing and a brief summary of the plan. An example is the infill at Heather Glen. Ms. Salay stated that this is a situation in which a real "disconnect" could occur if the professional opinion of staff and the Commission differ. She relies heavily upon the professional training and expertise of staff. She sees it as a three-step process -Planning staff works with the applicant to come up with the best plan, then the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews/refines it, and lastly, it comes to Council for a final review. She asked Mr. Langworthy his opinion of the work sessions. Did he concur with the Planning Commission's view that they were not beneficial? Mr. Langworthy responded that he told the Planning Commission that staff wanted to adopt procedures that worked best for the Commission, not what worked better for staff or the applicants. He had told them at the beginning of the work session trial that this was an experiment. If at the end of the time, the Commission decided they did not want to continue the work sessions, the procedures would be revised accordingly. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is no need to spend a lot of time on this discussion since the Commission and staff have decided to discontinue the work sessions. However, if she, personally, understood that every application was to be reviewed first by a volunteer body, then she might select a different mix of skill sets for those serving on that body as opposed to having abroad-based representation of the community. That was the part she did not understand. Vllhat then becomes the role of the professional staff who should be reviewing the plans from a professional standpoint? The process of every plan coming before the Commission was placing the Commission in a position of having to offer opinions on subjects on which they had limited knowledge. That was not what they were appointed to da, and she is glad a decision has been made to no longer subject every application to that type of review. In addition, it would be extremely costly for the applicant. Uver the past 4-5 years, the City has worked hard to streamline the process because the applicants stated that they were spending more time and money with Dublin's planning review than is typical with any other community. Council preferred that those funds be used for the actual building that would be a part of the Dublin community rather than on the planning process. However, it appears that the process now has reverted to the traditional Concept Plan and informal plan review. Mr. Langworthy responded that is correct. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the request now is to ask the Planning Commission for a definition as to what should be considered for a Concept Plan or an informal plan review. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 6 Mr. Langworthy responded that the question is regarding the planned unit development process only, not all plans. The topic was the planned unit development process, and Ms. Grigsby requested staff put together any additional thoughts or recommendations staff might have for clarifying the process and how it might be improved. Vice Mayor Baring stated that she does not see anything in here that addresses the #1 purpose of the review -- land use. She is concerned that the current professional staff do not appear to be in "lack step" with what Council has identified as the values for the City, values to be maintained. Vl/hen an applicant wants the rules changed so they can have the plan they want, and subsequently a Code amendment is proposed for them, that is a problem. Mr. Gerber inquired if she is speaking about uses that do not conform to the Community Plan. Concept Plans were not to be used all the time, but as an extraordinary remedy for complex cases due to their size or the fact that they did not conform to the Community Plan in regard to land use or the other values referred to. That was a determination to be made at the staff level. If staff decided that an application was consistent with the land uses identified in the Community Plan, it would not require a preliminary Concept Plan review. The applicant could proceed with filing the application, or as an alternative, file an application for an Informal Review to gain a preliminary assessment of the Commission's response. Vice Mayor Boring stated the Planning Commission would still need to address the basic issue about land use. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she agrees with Mr. Gerber. There would be no objection to land use that is consistent with the Community Plan. Historically, that would be only those plans that are totally different, perhaps because the buildout around it has changed or occurred differently than the Community Plan originally provided, or because it is a very large project, maybe with mixed uses. Vice Mayor Boring stated that one example where that principle wasn't applied was the case regarding the intended use for the corner of Post Road and Avery Road. Although there was an existing agreement regarding that intended land use and the City had an understanding with the neighbors, a proposal came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has been trying to recall the decision reached regarding Concept Plans by the Development Code Revision Task Force. The objective of that task force was to streamline the process. The development community had been saying for many years that the Dublin planning review process was very long, unpredictable and expensive. The City made an attempt to address that issue with a Concept Plan Review, which would occur early in the process before a significant amount of expense had been expended by the developer. Although a recent Concept Plan appeared to "get off track," at least at the Council level, he does not believe Council is trying to say there is no utility in a Concept Plan review. Mr. Gerber responded that the question is when it is appropriate to use it. An applicant ar staff has two options in the process - an Informal Review or a Concept Plan review for those cases that are so large, complex, or do not conform to the Community Plan. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Gunderman noted that those were the characteristics that would require a Concept Plan review. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she does not see the need to identify a specific definition for a Concept Plan. Hopefully, the professional Planning staff are capable of exercising their judgment and determine when a Concept Plan review is appropriate. It would be better not to "paint staff into a corner" with a definition and to have a situation arise where staff is forced to say that a plan could not have a Concept Plan review because it did not meet the definition. The current definition may be somewhat vague by design - so that there can be some interpretation of which plans it would be important to have undergo a Concept Plan review. Mr. Gerber responded that it was written loosely by design and he is not inclined to re-define it tonight. The issue to him is once a Concept Plan review is occurring, when is it taken from one body to the next. Mr. Friemann stated the Planning Commission reviews approximately 5-6 Concept Plans per year. In comparison, they review approximately 4-5 plans per P&Z meeting, twice a month, 24 times/year. Therefore, out of 80-120 applications, only about 5 are referred to Council for Concept Plan review. There have only been 33 Concept Plans in the last 5 years, so there is definitely some utility in that type of review. However, what the Planning Commission can do is inform the applicant during a Concept Plan review when there is not enough "meat" on the application to forward it to Council for review. Mr. Gerber responded that is not consistent with the process, as not all Concept Plans begin with P&Z. Some come directly before Council. Mr. Friemann responded that a secondary review step can be eliminated, if Council prefers. It can be reviewed by one body or the other. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she did not want to eliminate it. Mr. Gerber noted that some Concept Plans begin with Council, not P&Z. Ms. Salay stated that with the Vrable Stratford Concept Plan, the lack she perceived was in staff's review. Vl/hen the plan came before Council, she wasn't really sure what she was to da with it. Mr. Zimmerman agreed; the Planning Commission was still working on it. Mr. Lecklider stated that the plan review may have gone better at Council level if everyone had clearly understood what Council's role was with that plan. Council was uncomfortable with the possibility of being asked to review some detail that still had not been completely fleshed out before the Planning Commission. If Council could have a clear understanding of what their role is in similar situations, it would be helpful. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that an effort is being made to sort out a situation that was, in fact, an error. That plan should not have been brought to Council for review. Ms. Salay responded that the applicant asked to have the plan reviewed by Council. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Vllalter stated that the plan was very complex. The applicant brought to them a Concept Plan with subareas and some architectural renderings. The Planning Commission had a series of conversations with the applicant, and none of the Commissioners realized it was then being forwarded to Council. Mr. Reiner stated that the City has a professional, highly qualified Planning staff. Council has also appointed a mix of citizens, not all planners or architects, to a planning review board. This has moved the review process a different direction. It is now time to return the planning review to the professional staff, and allow them to take a bigger role in this process. They need to give the citizen body more guidelines and more directions to use in their review. The Commissioners are not all professional planners. It is not their forte, nor is it supposed to be. The Commission at times tends to "waffle off' into a more experimental zone, which he does not agree with. Mr. Gerber stated that he agrees. He also agrees with Mr. Lecklider. He referred to a case when he was on the Planning Commission -- Tartan UVest. Concept Plan after Concept Plan was moving between Planning and Zoning and Council. At one point, Council was reviewing a far different Concept Plan than the Commission was looking at. Then, the Task Force came along and tried to revise the process to prevent that situation from occurring again. Ms. Salay stated that the purpose of the Concept Plan is to allow the applicant to gauge the interest in a proposal from the Planning Commission and/or Council. Including that additional plan review requires more staff review, in which case, the applicant needs to pay for staff's time, whether there is or is not an application. The Concept Plan review walks a fine line -there is a balance between how much staff time should/shouldn't be expected. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she agrees, but she does expect that the staff would at least provide information to Council on: how the proposed plan differs from the Community Plan; how the plan is/is not consistent with the area; and any unique qualities of the plan. It would be necessary for staff to meet with the applicant to learn whatever is needed to have a professional opinion to share with P&Z and/or Council. It is important, however, not to imply that Council will not allow creativity. Initially, that was one of the purposes of a Concept Plan -- to encourage creativity. The City might dream differently than it has before when it has something new to consider. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she believes timing is the key. She does not mind if a Concept Plan comes before Council first. Vl/hat she doesn't want to see is if one or two of the Commissioners make comments about something they don't like, the applicant then comes to Council with his/her application. Therefore, asking for a Concept Plan review is fine, but once it has entered a review process, the applicant shouldn't be permitted to seek review by the other body. Mr. Zimmerman noted that it isn't as difficult if everyone is looking at the same plan, not P&Z an earlier plan and Council a revised plan. Mr. Vllalter stated that the problem would be resolved it the applicant stays with one review body until they are finished before moving to another review body. If the applicant beings Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 9 with Council, then P&Z would have a clear understanding of Council's intent and be able to guide the applicant accordingly. "Bouncing back and forth," however, probably means the applicant is trying to find the most receptive body. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she did not have the impression that was what was occurring with the Vrable project. This was the next step available to the applicant, and they exercised their option to move forward. Mr. Vllalter responded that P&Z had not yet finished their review of the Concept Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Concept Plans are not intended to be a finished work. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the next stage, the preliminary development plan, is where P&Z would begin to request revisions to the plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that is a different stage of review - not a concept review. Mr. Friemann stated that if the P&Z doesn't approve a Concept Plan, then the applicant may want to have Council review it also. Vl/hat is the position for the applicant who has a Concept Plan for a very expensive development, and P&Z has a split vote on it. Does the applicant then take it to Council? Is there an intermediate appeal? Ms. Salay stated that at the Concept Plan review, a vote is not taken. Mr. Friemann responded that he is referring to the informal response of P&Z. Mr. Langworthy agreed that there is a problem because there is no release point, no finality. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that the Commissioners can say there is. That circumstance isself-imposed. Mr. Vllalter agreed. P&Z can indicate that they have heard everything they need to hear and they will be passing a recommendation on to Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that with the Vrable case, the only thing P&Z had completed was the land use. They had not come to any consensus on architecture or site development/layout. Mr. Vllalter stated that with that plan, one of the major components was that the direction of S.R. 161 would shift. The applicant said the "deal wasn't going to happen if that didn't occur," which meant that they needed to know Council's response to that idea before they proceeded any further. Mr. Lecklider responded that in those circumstances, it would be only fair that the applicant have that information. However, the applicant could have chosen to take their Concept Plan to Council first. Mr. Langworthy responded that is not how staff interprets that language. Mr. Lecklider inquired about sentence 3 that says, "The applicant may request review feedback from the P&Z Commission andlor City Council prior to preparing a preliminary Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 10 development plan." Mr. Langworthy responded that the first sentence says that if the applicant meets 1 of the 3 criteria, they must go to the Planning Commission-no choice. The option would be up to the applicant, even if they did not meet the criteria. Mr. Gunderman stated that infrequently, a large plan will begin with Council. With a significant financial commitment like BriHi, Council may receive initial drawings on the concept for feedback before it enters the official process. Mr. Lecklider responded that in retrospect perhaps that should have been the case with the StratfordNrable Concept Plan, given the scale of the project, and the need for City participation in the project. It may have been better for the applicant to obtain the tentative position of Council on the concept before anything else. He made a comment to that effect during Council's Concept Plan review -- that it was his impression that Council had, whether it was through Planning staff or otherwise, signaled that Council would be receptive to the idea. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the Concept Plan could have appropriately come before Council solely on the basis of the road re-location. Council did not need all that other information to make a ruling regarding the proposed road re-location. Ms. Salay stated that, actually, Council did need that information. Council's response would depend upon what the land use would be. Mr. Zimmerman responded that the applicant could have provided that information in a footprint without architectural detail. Mr. Friemann stated that with the exception of projects of that scale, all other Concept Plans would be reviewed by staff, then the Planning Commission. After that, the applicant would have a narrow window of opportunity to have their plan reviewed by Council. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she believes that with the Vrable Concept Plan, in some way the message was transmitted to the applicant that it was appropriate to have Council review their plan at that time. Her concern was that she did not want Council to act as a Planning and Zoning Commission, spending 3 hours reviewing details that the Commission was capable of reviewing, such as architecture. It appeared that the Commission had not been able to review it thoroughly. Mr. Vllalter inquired if there is a problem with the direction given to the applicant about what they should be presenting, or do they have the freedom to provide whatever information they wish? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not recall a previous occasion on which Council dealt with that level of detail on a Concept Plan. Council might remark either positively or negatively on the architecture, but no specific recommendatianstyould be made. Council's response typically would be vague - "the plan has promise." Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 11 Mr. Friemann stated that what appears to be missing is the appropriate release paint. How does Council know when a Concept Plan review has been completed by P&Z? With the Vrable plan, the Commissioners anticipated that the applicant would return to the Commission repeatedly with their Concept Plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked why the applicant would do that. A Concept Plan has a limited review. Mr. Friemann responded that the developer has not come to close to settling on a building footprint or how the building would interface with the landscape. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that those things would not be part of the Concept Plan. Ms. Salay stated that a "concept" is just that. All the Commission is supposed to determine is if they find the land use generally acceptable; what the general layout would require in the way of roadway changes; how the site would interact with the neighboring area; and where, roughly, they are thinking of placing the buildings, but not what the buildings will look like. Mr. Friemann stated that the Vrable project still would not meet even the Concept Plan needs. They brought a plan to the Planning Commission with 3 subareas, and they didn't know what would be in one of those. Ms. Salay responded that she was not referring to the Vrable plan, just Concept Plans in general. It is appropriate for a Concept Plan to be very vague. The Planning Commission should be looking at only the "bare bones" of a plan, and the response needed is merely whether the Commission has any objection to the proposed land use in that area, with the road network working in the manner indicated, that the project is appropriate for that site. The applicant can then bring the concept to Council far the same type of feedback. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that was what the applicant essentially provided. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded no, that was not the case. Because the Planning Commission had gone into a level of detail with them, they did not present the typical Concept Plan to Council, but a plan with details. That created a level of confusion for Council. Vice Mayor Baring inquired if the applicant brought that detail to the Commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the applicant initially brought aTudor-style architecture, and all the Commission said was the Tudor would not be an acceptable choice for that site; they would need to look at something else. Then they came back with Victorian- style architecture, to which the Commission also responded negatively. Mr. Vllalter stated that the scale of the building and everything associated with it required that some amount of detail be given. Otherwise, it was impossible to imagine how big the building would look. The Commission was trying to get them to put in a signature building on the site, and that's what drove the need for architectural detail. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it now seems that everyone is on the same page regarding a Concept Plan. If a project of this magnitude comes up again, the understanding Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 12 is that the Commission's response should be very general, i.e., "Yes, that land use would be fine; no, that architecture is not acceptable, probably won't like that footprint in the end..." and the applicant can move on. It is very vague, but that is all that a concept provides and all the response that is expected. The applicant would then have the option to bring the Concept Plan to Council, and Council will say the same kind of things, or give a little more direction. Then, if the applicant wants to pursue it, the resources can be invested to go into a greater level of detail. The Commission may choose to take it "off line," and have special meetings, to work and massage that level of detail without clogging up the regular agendas, etc. At the meeting, the Commission would tell the applicant that the Commission's review of the concept is completed. If they want to bring their concept to Council at that point, they may do so. Vice Mayor Baring stated that in this particular case, the applicant did not begin with a concept. They immediately wanted guidance about their architecture. That is where staff needs to give the direction that that level of detail would not be discussed at this point. Staff needs to exercise that discipline on the process. Mr. Gerber expressed agreement. What skewed this case was the fact that they were combining a concept and an informal review in one. That is where staff needs to say that a Concept Plan will not focus on details. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she still does not believe that there is any point in defining what a Concept Plan should be. Mr. Gerber responded that was the decision 4-5 years ago. The intent was that a Concept Plan would be vague - an idea. Mr. Langworthy inquired if he is also referring to the "complex" definition of a Concept Plan. Mr. Gerber responded that is correct. Staff can make that determination. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Lecklider wants to make a recommendation. Mr. Lecklider stated that there are occasions where the applicant may want to obtain a sense of Council, due to the size of the project or because there may be more than the project itself involved, such as moving roads, TIFs, etc. There may be some issues an which Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to rule upon. In those cases, it is the understanding that the applicant may bring a Concept Plan to Council prior to bringing it to the Planning Commission. Is there a way the present Code can be interpreted to allow that, or should the Code language be amended to permit the applicant to do so? Mr. Langworthy responded that it would require a Code amendment. Mr. Reiner responded that sometimes Council does not have the immediate answers, such as whether the money is available to move a road. Vice Mayor Baring stated that she does not read the present Cade language as being mutually exclusive in this case. The Code says the applicant may request review from the Planning Commission and City Council. It also says the Concept Plan will be forwarded to P&Z, but it doesn't say the plan can't come to City Council first. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 13 Ms. Readier stated that Legal will talk to Planning staff, review the Code language and determine if the interpretation could be such that it would achieve what Council desires. Legal will report back to Council for their next meeting. Mr. Lecklider noted that with this last Concept Plan, he believes that given the size of the investment, the applicant was looking for a signal from Council that it would be worth their time, effort and expense to continue to pursue the plan with the Planning Commission. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that Legal would review the current Code language and report back to Council on whether there would be a need to amend the language or if it could be interpreted differently. It appears that the majority of the concept cases that have come before Council have been appropriate. This is the first time that type of situation has arisen. GREENVILLE, SC TRIP UPDATE CITY MASTER PLAN Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher expressed thanks to Ms. Martin and other staff who worked hard to arrange this well-planned trip. She requested Planning staff to report on the information obtained from the trip. At the end of tonight's discussion, she is hopeful that Council can agree on a next step, and not lose the momentum. Her ultimate interest is that Council would agree to develop a master plan for a broader area than has typically been considered. Ms. Grigsby has reminded her that earlier discussion has focused on alternative kinds of groups that could be set up to work on this. In the past, Council has used task forces, as opposed to a Commission. A task force has a goal and a timeframe in which to achieve it. She would also like to see this achieved in 6 months, not in 3 years. That would dictate the type of process to be used. Many things the City does take a long period of time, and the projects tend to lose momentum. The City also has many other projects in process, so should this be lifted to a higher level of priority than something else? She does not know the answer to these questions. That summarizes her thoughts since the Greenville Trip and some subsequent discussions and materials she has read. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that in the interest of time, the Planning Commission has asked Mr. Taylor to review the plan he has developed. There has been extensive discussion and email sharing of ideas since then. Mr. Taylor will speak on the Planning Commission's behalf, and he will be assisted by Mr. Friemann. Mr. Taylor stated that the plan is truly a collaborative effort of the Planning Commission, especially Mr. Friemann. Mr. Friemann will share some remarks to begin their presentation. Mr. Friemann thanked City Council and staff for the Greenville, SC trip, which was excellent. As the Mayor pointed out, lessons learned have a shelf life. If the City does not act upon the lessons learned from this trip, they will be forever lost. Staff has many other projects, and the Commission and Council have other issues to address. P&Z agrees with the Mayor's rapid timeframe for moving forward, and they have same ideas on how to do that which they will share at the end. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 14 The lessons they learned in Greenville are applicable outside of the downtown area of Dublin, however, they believe that the downtown area of Dublin is where they could achieve immediate impact, especially with the Stratford Commons development, the Monterey development, Montgomery Inn, the Parks Commission discussion of new bikepaths and moving civic centers. Their concern was that if Planning and Zoning did not lead, they would be left with whatever disjointed aspects happened downtown. They did not want to lase the lessons they learned. Dublin is not really built out. There are many differences between Greenville and Dublin; however, there are a few key similarities: • There is a beautiful, under-used riverscape. The City of Greenville had that, and they ended up creating that riverfront into a focal point. • There is a strong desire to bring people to the downtown area. At the time Greenville started their project, their town was absolutely "derelict." That may not be applicable here, but there is a desire to bring people to the Dublin downtown area. • There is agreement about the concept of "Live, VIlork and Play," and the City wants to make sure that people can do that in downtown Dublin. Greenville's success was built upon master plans. A master plan is different from a Community Plan. A Community Plan contains broad brush strokes about how the City can grow and use its land use. The Master Plan is in addition to, not in lieu of -- a determination of how the City feels it can best use a given area. A master plan allows everyone to share the same vision. The developers know that everyone is going to be held to the same exacting standards. It also enables a developer to look at the plan and selectively choose one aspect of the Master Plan to build. Everyone knows the standards from the outset. It is an opportunity for everybody to be part of something great - a signature project, a gemstone. There are 4 key aspects to a master plan: • Need to leverage your assets • Need anchors • Need connectivity internally and externally • Need good use of public and private space With the Falls Parkin Greenville, it is impossible to tell where the public space ends and the private space begins. There is incredible fluidity between the two. He and Mr. Taylor discussed how to develop a similarly beautiful area in Dublin. This is where Mr. Taylor's architectural skills came into play; and a beautiful plan is the result, which they are excited to present to Council tonight. Mr. Taylor stated that the design that was provided in Council's packet was a simple graphic representation of the thoughts of the Planning Commission. It is not intended to be the solution, or even suggest the direction the plan should go, but it pulls together in a graphic form some of the things they have been thinking about. He purposely kept the drawing very loose, as it would be up to others to fill in the details. His drawing focuses on central Dublin, but it could and should be extended much further into Dublin proper. The trick is to establish the structure and the connectivity first, and then they can begin to look at the pieces that will be connected. Looking at the pieces first will result in a problem making the connections later on. That is the part of the problem the Commission faces with the Stratford Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 1 ~ development now -they have the piece and no way to connect it to anything. This master plan is a continuation of the Community Plan. It organizes and extends many things in the Community Plan with several significant additions. Master Plan Additions • New Town Center The most important was the issue of the Bridge and High intersection. Much time has been spent defining that intersection, and the continual dilemma has seemed to be how to make that the center of town - a center of activity, but also a major thoroughfare moving traffic across the river. The solution may be to stop trying to make that the center of the City. Instead, shift the center to the school property and allow SR 161 to be an edge to the district, rather than the center of the district. That immediately addresses the following issues: (1) the attempt to turn the street into a strong pedestrian environment in the center of the city, although it doesn't have many of the things necessary to accomplish that; (2) the potential traffic problem of a major thoroughfare moving traffic across the river; (3) allows the City to develop the center of the town appropriately by creating a new town center. • Connection between New City Center and the River A couple of elements in the Community Plan already lead in this direction: (1) parks in the Scioto River area and (2} a pedestrian bridge. • Stratford Development The Stratford project actually generated the discussion, as the Commission realized there was not a context in which to place the project. It would be an interesting building, but it doesn't currently fit Dublin. How could it be "dropped" into the large, grass area across the river? How would it connect to a future park that might be there? The answer is to take the park down by the river, open things up enough so that wherever the building is, it would be visible from downtown Dublin. This would make it a landmark building - a signature or legacy building. This would draw the eye across the river. That would be reinforced by taking the bridge that was already in the Community Plan and orient it differently to make it part of this axis - a critical piece to define the axis. Not only would it connect the east and west, but it would bring the east side of the park and the west side of the park into one park, allowing enjoyment of the entire park environment. From the Stratford's point of view, it would make the exit from that residential building much more visually pleasant, crossing the river and heading into dawntawn Dublin. • Create a Central Public Space, Village Green and Civic Building A civic building is already located in this area in the Community Plan. Their suggestion is, rather than have that civic building located at the end of a parking lot with a small grass median, make that a real village green - a place where the band plays after the parade, where the art festival can take place, a place where people can stroll with their children on a Saturday afternoon. This would be a place that everyone would identify and "feel" as the center of Dublin. The only way to accomplish that is to make that a more significant size. That would create a need for the following. • Push the New Development Around the Civic Center All the VIIay to Indian Run. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 16 The Community Plan does call for Indian Run to be parkland, but it is not currently engaged with development in the downtown area. The proposal is to develop that as a very strong, well-developed linear park with good access to the village green. In Greenville, the River Place building was directly engaged with the Riverwalk, the bridges and the amphitheater, etc. In Cleveland Park, as well, there are residential buildings that interface with the park and road. Given the natural beauty of this natural asset, there is an opportunity to increase its value as a community asset. Beginning at Indian Run Falls, extend it under Dublin Road and connect it to the park by the river - a very nice linear park with an ease of flow for pedestrians. VIlhen this was presented to the Planning Commission, Tom Holton, ARB member was there. He shared that at one time there was a pretty dramatic bridge there. He later forwarded to him a photo of the bridge -Indian Run stone arch bridge, 1875-1935, in this exact location. Obviously, there is an historical precedent for a bridge there. It would be very similar to what exists in Greenville - a park that passes under the bridge and continues to the river park. This would connect the riverfrant to Indian Run, connect Indian Run to the downtown, and connect downtown to BriHi. The purpose of the access is to provide connectivity - to provide visibility from one end to the other. This could be improved by the addition of some object in the village green, yet to be determined, that can be seen from the other end. Greenville is in the process of negotiating to erect a bell tower in the center of River Place to serve as a signature object. • Develop both Banks of the River as a Community Park and Connect with the Bridge. With the community functions located in downtown Dublin, this would take advantage of an asset that is currently under-used. Adding an amphitheater there would provide the public an opportunity to enjoy a concert without driving to it, as is currently necessary with the concerts at Scioto Park. The public could walk across the bridge and to downtown Dublin and its amenities. This area has the potential for aworld-class caliber development. In addition, It could be expanded into adjoining areas with development potential. This concept does not need to be restricted to a small area. The Planning Commission has forwarded their recommendations for a master plan for this area to Council, which is self-explanatory. Therefore, he will touch on another item which arose from a discussion that he had with Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher while in Greenville. At that time, no concept far a master plan for downtown had been developed yet, but the discussion was about ways in which to apply the lessons learned from that trip, and how to make them happen. He suggested to the Mayor a "design competition." There would be nothing for the City to do; a consultant would be hired to do that for the City. Since then, he has contacted a fellow professional in Boston who is an advisor far international design competitions. Based on the suggested downtown master plan concept, he has prepared a hypothetical design competition. He reviewed Dublin's Community Plan online in developing it. He is proposing that Dublin have a design development competition, which produces an end product of a buildable, financeable plan that the City could execute. He indicated that one of the two primary causes for failure of design competitions is when the goals are not clearly defined. Therefore, he would like to work with the City and private citizens to clearly define the vision of this Master Plan -the outcome of the project. The second cause of failure is when there is an architectural firm in town that's previously participated in the competition, and they believe they know how to run the competition. His suggestion is for an Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 17 international design competition that would commit the sponsor, the City, to a development scenario agreement, if all pre-qualifying and final qualifying conditions are strictly met by the designer development team -the winner of the competition. The City would actually pay several teams to develop designs based upon the vision the City and the competition advisor would have shared. The criteria for the design would need to provide: the estimated cost, time to execute, timeframe, development partners, etc. The individual he contacted claims to have strong connections with national and international designers and developers. That access would be valuable to the City. He estimates that the cost of conducting an international designer competition would be in excess of $550,000. He asked him to provide information on what he believed that amount would cover, and he provided a list, which includes jury fees and advertising, promotion and travel fees. The end result would be a design the City would actually execute. After he and Mr. Friemann discussed the proposal, he called his contact back to suggest that if the City were to move ahead with the competition, they might want to invite some of these individuals to visit Dublin and spend a couple of days with the City to learn what they really need to know in order to be able to submit a proposal. He responded that he would do it for a per diem rate of $1,200 with a 2-day minimum fee, and he would meet with Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and local organizations and companies to identify the City's goals. This is a process, a method that would result in a Master Plan for downtown Dublin and beyond. Once committed to and implemented, it would essentially lay down the tracks for all the development to follow. If this had been done several years ago and was now in place, when the Stratford project was proposed, the City would have been able to say exactly where it should fit in the Master Plan. Any developer would be far more likely to commit to a project in a Master Plan with structure, order, a development plan over a specified time frame, and financing strategies. Mr. Reiner inquired if the developers that are included in the design team actually commit to building any of the project. Mr. Taylor responded that he has not asked that question yet. The materials he received do seem to suggest that the developer selected could have a role in the actual execution of the design. However, there would be ample opportunity for the developers in the community to develop parts of this. Mr. Friemann stated that the key to the Master Plan is that individual developers have an opportunity to look at different aspects of the Plan and decide which they would like to develop. In Greenville, they had lunch with the developers and walked around River Place. They learned that two competing developers had worked there. The City had designed the outside of the project, all they had to do was build from the inside, with the knowledge of what else would be around their projects. With a Dublin master plan, the developer would know where City Hall would be located and where the library would be located, even though they were not yet built. Mr. Reiner noted that Greenville did have highly-qualified developers who had grown up in that city, were aware of the traditions, and were proud of their city. In Dublin's case, it would be necessary to implement construction guidelines that would ensure the quality of the product. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 18 Ms. Salay responded that she believes that would go without saying. She loves the idea and the fact that Planning Commission was thinking and talking about these ideas. Vt(hat about the existing environment? There are long-time stakeholders in that area. How could the City implement such a vision in an area in which the City does not have much control? Mr. Taylor responded that his concept is only one idea of what could be designed. The objective of the competition is to design something that fits this area. The competition could take 15-18 months. Not all that time is spent drawing pictures; much of it is spent holding meetings with community and business leaders to find the answers to pertinent questions, such as who are the landowners and how could they be integrated into the Master Plan. If it would be necessary for an existing business to relocate, the City would help them find a satisfactory relocation site. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is referring to some complicated ownership issues - a difficult puzzle to solve. The City has already tried to resolve same of these issues. Mr. Taylor stated that is why he has not recommended some types of design competitions. However, this information is based on one 20-minute phone call. V11hat he does recommend is a competition in which the designer and developer work as a team. Mr. Gerber applauded the Commission members for their passion and efforts. For many years, Council has expressed the desire to be "cutting edge," and this fits within that category. As the Mayor has indicated, everything in the City seems to be a priority, and the City will need to identify which are the most important. Mr. Taylor stated that their recommendation going forward would be to do an RFP for an RFP. He noted that it their opinion that the potential participants would need to spend more than 2 days here in Dublin to learn what they need to know to design a plan. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Rick Schweitermann of OCLC asked her to meet last week. OCLC has been re-evaluating their campus and has hired Friedl Bohm to flesh out a concept. She asked Mr. Taylor to accompany her there since he already had shared his vision, and she was anticipating that OCLC would share another vision. Perhaps it would be possible to marry the two visions or broaden the City's vision. That is exactly what occurred. It was a very interesting meeting. OCLC shared the various options that had been presented to them for their campus. In the process, they commented that they were missing certain pieces, such as one in regard to the water component. At that point, she asked Mr. Taylor to share his ideas. V11hen he shared his plan, OCLC said that was what had been missing. They also discussed the fact that the City owns the land west of that site -all the land on Post Road. UVhat if the Master Plan were to extend that far? In all, that would be a critical land mass that would enable an incredible design. She would really like to see the City do this. This is the last really interesting land in Dublin - it includes the river and Indian Run Falls. If the City were to do something really outstanding with this, it would set Dublin significantly apart from any other community in central Ohio and perhaps in the Midwest. It would draw people to want to work, live and locate their businesses here. It would be a long- term project, but the potential for the future is exciting. If the City were to have the vision, it would then be a matter of filling it in. As a result of the OCLC conversation, she had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Phillabaum. She also contacted Rich Horn of the Stratford Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 19 project and asked him if he would be interested in talking with Mr. Taylor about his new ideas. Subsequently, Mr. Taylor has shared his idea with Mr. Horn. She has asked Mr. Horn to evaluate if, after hearing Mr. Taylor's plan, that could influence his thinking about his proposed building. They are still in the process of discussing these ideas. She believes there are developers who would be interested in participating in this type of exciting venture. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired where the previous arched bridge was located. Mr. Taylor responded that it was located where Indian Run flows under Dublin Road. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one of the ideas was that the library would be a 3-story brick building. Mr. Friemann stated that one Greenville idea they would like to incorporate in the Master Plan is parking structures with interesting architecture on the outside. This would eliminate the need for surface parking lots, consistent with the theme "It's Greener in Dublin." There could be underground orabove-ground parking structures. The goal is to keep vehicles from cluttering up the entire area. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would like to hear Mr. Langworthy's response to this idea. Mr. Langworthy responded that apart from the design aspects, the process part is outside his experience. In his 30 years, he has never participated in a design competition process; however, he is intrigued by the idea. He agrees that some of the logistics would be difficult, although that does not mean they cannot be overcome. Certainly, it would be vital to have the property owners involved. In addition, it is important not to overlook the area south of Bridge Street. There are many viable businesses and interesting, historic properties in that area that would need to be included in the Master Plan somehow. He is also not ready to give up on the idea of connecting the north and south areas. He dislikes the idea of a further divide between the two, and to think only east and west. That does not preclude anything that has been proposed or the process; it would only broaden it. He agrees with the Mayor's suggestion to broaden the proposed concept. In fact, he would suggest broadening it to include Dublin Village Center, and from there, taking the "spine" of the Plan all the way through the City. That is the core of the community and should be planned along with the rest of the area. Mr. Lecklider inquired if he would agree that $.5 million would be a good investment. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is outside his area of knowledge. Mr. Taylor's background enables him to provide a better opinion regarding the process. Mr. Friemann stated that one of the things that made Greenville exciting was the use of different zones. He and Mr. Taylor have discussed the possibility of the following zones in the Master Plan -residential, retail, professional, civic uses, retail and restaurant/dining. Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Langworthy's comments are important and would need to be heard by the professionals. As indicated earlier, the design would need to address all those concerns -- in this case, to keep the north and south connected and to include the area to the east, including Dublin Village Center. Mr. Vllalter stated that along with Council's recognition of the effort and ideas of these two gentlemen, he would like to stress the need to recognize the excellent Community Plan, Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 20 which is a result of the ideas and efforts of Council, staff, community and many others. He is not certain the City realizes its 2008 Community Plan serves as a national standard. It is an amazing document. To him, the proposed Master Plan would be a culmination of the Community Plan process. It could also be a project that would bring national acclaim to Dublin. Vllhen they were in Greenville, they noticed that on a Thursday night, people were walking around and enjoying their community. The City of Greenville gives tours of their city all of the time. In comparison to the resources that Greenville has been able to apply to their Master Plan, consider the resources that Dublin has. Mr. Zimmerman thanked Council for extending the opportunity for the Greenville tour to the Planning Commission. The opportunity to see how well integrated the city's history from the 1800's Civil V11ar time to the present day was very impressive. It was also interesting to see how the 4-5 story parking structures, with tasteful exterior facades, gave the city sa much more surface area for greenspace or for other buildings. To him, one of the most impressive aspects was that everything was so well integrated. Ms. Salay responded that is true. Somehow, contemporary structures next to historical structures worked well together. In the past, that has been a real concern to her. Vice Mayor Baring stated that Council will have to make a decision on whether they wish to pursue this. She did not participate in the Greenville trip. She has been concerned that a downtown development plan could result in Historic Dublin looking like Disneyland Main Street. She has been to Raleigh, North Carolina, to Gahanna, Ohio, and some other "historic" areas of cities, and they all looked alike. It wasn't possible to tell what city she was in because they all looked the same. This is the only time that she has become excited by a plan for this area. She would be prepared to make a commitment to achieve something that looks different from other areas. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that was one of the things they heard repeatedly in Greenville. The commendation of their Planning Commission and staff on the vision of their City Council and their steadfastness during difficult times when there was tension with landowners. Council's leadership is the only leadership that will make this a reality. Ms. Salay responded that she heard the term "political will" from Nancy and Mary Douglas on that trip. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the reason that was able to happen was they all had the same goal in mind. Even when the participants disagreed, they were all committed to the same goal. Mr. Lecklider asked that his comments not be misunderstood. He concurs that the Greenville trip was exciting and that there were many ideas to take away from it. He also agrees that it is important to "seize the moment." However, financially speaking, is the idea feasible for Dublin right now? The suggestion for a parking structure in Historic Dublin has been debated for many years. Due to the cost; there still is no parking garage. Greenville has multiple parking structures. There have been families with significant financial resources involved in Greenville's development. Dublin does not have a party willing to contribute a large amount of money for this. Given the tens of millions of dollars the City is investing in the COIC, he Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 21 would prefer that the City's financial experts discuss the financial aspect with Greenville's financial experts. He is very concerned about this. At lunch one day, Greenville's Deputy City Manager commented that their City Council was not afraid to go into debt. He believes he also shared that much of the project was financed with bonds. He would like to discover the potential implications to Dublin's financial status in borrowing, should other things come up in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that with the downtown development occurring now, the City has its first actual expense report for digging a foundation in that area. That would be helpful information to have now. Mr. Fishman responded that in Greenville, he spoke with the downtown developer, who shared that they have invested millions and millions of dollars in Greenville. He commented that it was agive-give situation. They invested that large amount of money because they had faith in the city. In many situations, they lost money, but gained in the long run. For instance, with the small art studios in the buildings, they lost money -they make nothing on those. However, they do very well with the condominiums and in some other areas. In the end, everyone made money and everyone benefited. Vllhen they went into the project, they weren't sure of the end result. From his point of view, he is excited that Council is willing to look into this possibility. He is interested in the design competition, which would bring top- notch designers and developers to the city. If Dublin is willing to spend the money and instill that confidence, the developers will do so as well. Mr. Gerber stated that he would be supportive of Council discussing this further among themselves to identify what the next step might be. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that there has been a request for an RFP. Ms. Salay stated that she would also be supportive of looking into the possibility. Mr. Lecklider's point is well taken. Mr. Gerber responded that he would not be supportive of any action to commit any money at this point. It won't cost anything to start the process of looking into it further. Mr. Friemann stated that there would be a small cost. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the request is for authorization to create an RFP to draw some professionals to the committee, who would be interested in submitting another RFP to run a design competition process. one of those would be selected to run the competition process. The approximate cost of contracting with that individual would be approximately $500, 000. Vice Mayor Boring inquired what the attempt would be -- to find someone equivalent to a competition general contractor? Mr. Taylor responded that is correct. The first step is to invite people to visit Dublin to see if they would be interested in structuring and running a design competition, and if so, their fee to do so. Joint Dublin City Council & Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Monday, October 13, 2008 Page 22 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that they create the RFP and provide a copy to Council which will help clarify this. Ms. Salay requested a flow chart for the process. Mr. VIlalter pointed out that that what they are creating is an RFI. From the RFI, an RFP would then be generated. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested a draft in Council's packet next week. Mr. Friemann responded that they would do so. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Clerk of Council