Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-25 Work Session MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5555 PERIMETER DRIVE DUBLIN, OH 43017 APRIL 14, 2025 MINUTES Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, April 14, 2025 work session to order at 6:00 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keeler, Ms. Kramb and Mr. Reiner. Ms. De Rosa and Vice Mayor Alutto were absent. Staff present: Ms. O'Callaghan, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Will, Ms. Willis, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Barker, Ms. Weisenauer, Mr. Hartmann, Chief Paez and Mr. Ament. Also present were: Martin Zogran, Anthony Polidoro and Chris Hardy, Sasaki; Nathan McCoy, ODOT; and Matt Lawler, DLZ. Ms. Fox led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2027 Bridge Street Bridge Rehabilitation Mr. Taylor introduced Nathan McCoy from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Matt Lawler from DLZ, design consultant on this project. Mr. Taylor provided the history of the bridge at this location. The current concrete arch bridge was built by E. Elford & Son in 1935. Fifty years later, Franklin County widened and rehabilitated the bridge. This bridge is designated as historic, and staff will coordinate with ODOT to address any specific requirements related to this designation. The current project is funded by ODOT with Dublin participation for aesthetic enhancements. The bridge rehabilitation scope includes the deck replacement/overlay, substructure arch patching and sealing, existing rail painting and spot repairs and the addition of vandal fence over the southbound bypass road. A public meeting is planned for May and construction will begin in 2027. In consideration of this ODOT project, Dublin has requested some enhancements be included, which are on-deck lighting, a pedestrian separator, options for the required vandal fencing and exploring options for aesthetic bridge lighting. There is currently funding in the 2025 CIP ($135,000) for any design costs that may be incurred and $800,000 is funded in the 2026 CIP for enhancements. On-Deck Lighting Mr. Taylor stated that there are four existing light poles on the bridge that are scheduled to be replaced. Staff recommended matching the poles to the existing poles in the surrounding Bridge Street District. Staff also recommended painting the new poles and all the steel (railing) black consistent with the standards in Historic Dublin and the Bridge Street District. ODOT has included the cost of the light poles within their cost of the project. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no cost to the City for this enhancement. Ms. Fox referred to historic light poles that can be seen looking at the bridge from historic Dublin toward Bridge Park. Understanding that there are a lot of restrictions in place, she asked if there was a way to get historic poles along the bridge. Ms. O’Callaghan stated that she had inquired about maintaining historic poles on the bridge due to the bridge's historic designation. She invited Ms. Willis to share what had been learned about historic poles. Ms. Willis stated that the historic style Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 2 of 12 pole that we have in historic Dublin is not made at a height tall enough to be used for the on-deck lighting. She stated there was a possibility of adding it to the pedestrian parapet wall, but she was unsure of the restrictions or if that would be allowed. Ms. Fox expressed her support for considering it as an option if the restrictions allowed. Ms. Kramb stated that there would be two levels of light that would be bright and clash with each other. She would not be supportive of two levels of lighting. Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that this be part of the discussion for the pedestrian separator because those decisions could impact the lighting discussion. Pedestrian Separator Mr. Taylor stated that staff is recommending adding a pedestrian separator for enhanced pedestrian safety. He stated that ODOT is still investigating the feasibility of adding the additional load of a barrier wall to the bridge and how it would impact the bridge. Mr. Taylor provided the design options for a pedestrian separator. e Option 1: concrete railing with recessed panels (this is commonly seen on bridges). e Option 2: stone wall with planter — a concrete barrier with a laminate stone facing and a planter integrated into the top of it. e Option 3: stone wall with a painted metal railing (the railing is proposed to be painted black). e Option 4: painted steel railing (New Mexico Type). e Option 5: laid-up stone wall design, similar to what was done at Post Road/US33 recently. e Option 6: original 1935 bridge style design. Plantings could possibly be incorporated as well. Mr. Taylor shared the estimated costs associated with each option. Option Estimated Cost | Dublin Share Option 1: Concrete Railing with Recessed $220,000 $0 Panels (ODOT base design) Option 2: Stone Railing with Planters $310,000 $90,000 Option 2: Stone Railing with Stone and Metal $390,000 $170,000 Top Rail Option 4: Steel Railing (New Mexico Type $420,000 $200,000 A42 Railing) Option 5: Laid Up Railing Design (Post /33) $520,000 $300,000 Option 6: Original (circa 1935) Style Design TBD TBD Ms. O'Callaghan stated that they also vetted these options with Mr. Holton from the Dublin Historical Society. He shared with staff his opinion that it would be nice to be consistent with the history. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 3 of 12 Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if these designs were vetted with Engineering to determine that there was enough room and structural stability for these stone wall designs. Mr. Taylor stated that there is additional vetting to do, but staff wanted to have the conversation with Council as well. Mr. Reiner asked about the maintenance and durability of the stone. Mr. Taylor stated that the intent was to have a concrete wall with laminate stone over it. Mr. Taylor spoke to the durability of concrete versus laminate stone. Mr. Reiner asked about scuppers for drainage. Mr. Lawler stated that there are scuppers along the curb line. Ms. Kramb stated that it is already a narrow sidewalk, so she was supportive of the railing option. The railing provides safety without being claustrophobic. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked where the lighting would be mounted. Ms. Willis stated that staff was not planning to alter the location of the on-deck lighting. The lighting would be on the outside edge. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if it was difficult to move. Mr. Lawler stated that the best scenario is to leave it on the outside. He added that the pedestrian walkway is only about five feet, so it would be best to leave that room for the pedestrians and not move the on-deck lighting. Mr. Reiner clarified that there would be approximately five feet of pedestrian walking space after the pedestrian separator. Mr. Lawler responded affirmatively. Mr. Keeler stated that the finished width of Option 5 should be about a foot wide. He would prefer it to be faced with natural stone because of the durability, but he does not want to sacrifice walking area. He asked if Option 6 would be natural stone. Mr. Taylor stated that staff anticipated it being a natural stone laminate (thinner stone). Ms. O'Callaghan stated that Option 6 can come with or without the planters. Mr. Reiner agreed that Option 5 was the best option. He asked about the durability and whether adding a steel reinforcement in the center would make it wider. Mr. McCoy stated that regarding the width concerns, concrete and stone combinations can be used in different ways to achieve the width desired. He added that there are only so many crash-tested barriers to pick from. Mr. Reiner stated that real plants would likely not survive. Ms. Fox stated that it is important to remember that it is a historical bridge, and that the masonry should keep the integrity of the history of the bridge. She likes Options 5 or 6, and she is in favor of bringing some vertical elements into the plan. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that staff was trying to incorporate plantings because they have been requested in the past. Ms. Kramb stated that the top of the bridge was built in 1985, so it is not historic on the top. She added that when adding elements to historic structures, it should not be replicated to look old. The underside of the bridge is the historic part. She is supportive of a metal railing. Mr. Reiner stated that adding vertical elements would add to the aesthetics (referring to Ms. Fox’s comments). Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she frequently crosses the Emerald Parkway Bridge. She stated that the pedestrian separator there is like a concrete chute. It is not an enjoyable pedestrian experience. She is in favor of the openness of a railing. She stated that she likes the look of stone, but is concerned that when cars hit the wall, it will never look as intended after it is repaired. She is not in favor of trying to make the bridge look historic on the top. She is in favor of designing this Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 4 of 12 bridge so there is the ability for seasonal décor. She agreed that the feel of the bridge is important, but it is only one side of the bridge that is being considered for rehabilitation. Ms. Fox stated that this is a long distance, and it is an entrance to the historic district, so it needs to be dressed up. She would like to have some vertical columns at the end. Mr. Keeler clarified that Mayor Amorose Groomes and Ms. Kramb are in favor of Option 4. Mayor Amorose Groomes and Ms. Kramb responded affirmatively because it matches what is on the other side of the bridge and provides more walking room. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Option 3 would be fine with a low stone wall and the railing on the top. Mr. Keeler stated Option 3 was his first choice. Mr. Keeler asked if ODOT were to build this bridge today, would a separation be required. Mr. McCoy stated that a pedestrian separator would not be required because the curb is considered to be a pedestrian separator. Mr. Keeler asked if it would be acceptable to have a separator that is only two feet tall which would be lighter, not obstruct views of the river for cars passing by and not feel like a concrete chute. Mayor Amorose Groomes summarized the feedback as a modification between Option 3 and Option 4 that would be an acceptable load for the structure to bear, does not interrupt the line of sight, but does provide some safety separation. The materials would be natural materials, not synthetic materials made to look like natural materials and at the ends of the bridge there would be a gateway feature or column. Mr. Keeler agreed. Mr. Reiner agreed but prefers the look of Option 3 to Option 4. Ms. Fox stated that she was in agreement with the features at the end. Ms. Kramb prefers Option 4 but would compromise to Option 3. She is fine with the features as the ends. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that the base on Option 3 would need to be wider to support the rail. She added that a public meeting is planned to gain the public’s feedback as well. Council consensus was to show only Options 3 and 4 to the public. Ms. Fox asked if measurements could be included at the next discussion. Ms. Kramb suggested showing the public how wide the sidewalk would be with each option so they can see that as well. Mayor Amorose Groomes reiterated that she would like to see the light fixtures be able to support hanging baskets and holiday displays. Ms. Kramb agreed. Vandal Protection Fencing Mr. Taylor stated that vandal protection fencing is required by ODOT per the Bridge Design Manual. The minimum fence height for structures with a sidewalk is eight feet above the pavement surface. The fence is required over Riverside Drive and would be a fence length of about 100 feet. Mr. Taylor showed an option that would take the fencing over the full length of the bridge (550 feet). Council consensus was to have the fencing cover only the required 100 feet. ODOT’s standard for vandal fencing is chain-link fence. Mr. Taylor provided the following different fence options: e Option 1 —- ODOT standard chain-link e Option 2 — Post Road steel fence, which is chain-link as well but also has a block style shamrock incorporated e Option 3 — Emerald Parkway/Rings Road steel fence e Option 4 — Rectangular grid fencing e Option 5 — Stainless steel grid fencing Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Taylor stated that on the end treatments, it could be squared off or sloped down. Mr. Taylor shared the estimated cost differences in the fencing options. Estimated Cost Dublin Share (Full Length / Partial Length) Option 1: ODOT Standard Chain-Link $140,000 / $30,000 $0 Option 2: Post Road Steel Fence $180,000 / $30,000 $40,000 / $0 Option 3: Emerald / Rings Steel Fence $210,000 / $40,000 $70,000 / $10,000 Option 4: Rectangular Grid Fencing $230,000 / $40,000 $90,000 / $10,000 Option 5: Stainless Steel Grid $240,000 / $40,000 $100,000 / $10,000 Mr. Taylor noted that because only a partial length is desired, there would be no cost to the City for Option 1 or 2. For the remaining options, the City’s share of the costs would be the same no matter what option was chosen. Mr. Keeler stated he liked Option 2. He would support a transition section on both ends of the bridge. Mr. Reiner asked about the block style of the shamrock. He asked if it could be modified to look more like a shamrock. It must be a block formation. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she is not supportive of chain-link and prefers Option 4 because it is more of a mesh and looks transparent. Ms. O'Callaghan stated that from staff's perspective, because it is only on a portion of the bridge, a more transparent look would be better. Ms. Kramb is supportive of Option 4. Mr. Reiner agreed with Option 4. Ms. Fox agreed with Option 4. Mr. Keeler reiterated that he would still like to see a transition section on both ends. Consensus was that a transition section makes sense. Aesthetic Bridge Lighting Mr. Taylor presented five options to Council for feedback. The lighting is dimmable on each option. He added that there is circular on-deck lighting included with each of these options. If the circular on-deck lighting is not desired, it would subtract $70,000 from the estimated costs. Internal arch lighting is included with each option as well. Lighting is only provided on the north side of the bridge. e Option 1 - Internal arch lighting only e Option 2 - Arch outline e Option 3 - Facade detailed outline, 12 inches on center node spacing e Option 4 - Facade detailed outline, 6 inches on center node spacing e Option 5 - Complete flood lighting Mr. Taylor shared the estimated costs for the lighting options. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 6 of 12 Option | Estimated Cost Option 1: Internal Arch Lighting $200,000 Option 2: Arch Outline $310,000 Option 3: Fagade Detailed Outline, 12 Inches $420,000 On Center Option 4: Facade Detailed Outline, 6 Inches $550,000 On Center Option 5: Complete Flood Lighting $700,000 All costs may be reduced by $70,000 if remove the circular deck-side lights cee Ss tee P| Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if the circular deck-side lights would light the sidewalk above or are they too low on the side. Mr. Taylor stated that they would not provide lighting on the pedestrian side. Ms. Kramb stated that Option 1 is the only option that would not result in an adverse effect. The other options would need mitigation in order to install those lights. She likes Option 2, but lighting the arches would require adhering the lighting to the stone. The only way to adhere the lighting would be within mortar. She stated that she does not believe this would meet industry standards. The costs do not reflect the time and money required to mitigate those issues. She is in favor of Option 1 and likes the deck-side lights. Mr. Reiner likes Options 3, 4 and 5. He added that viewing it from the pedestrian bridge would be a focal point and dramatic, as it should be. He appreciates the arch lighting and how it reflects back into the water. Ms. Fox stated that she likes Option 1. She stated she was happy to hear that it was on the northern side only so it would not disrupt the residential areas to the south. She also liked Option 5 but it would need to be dimmed and she would not want to take away from the historical structure itself. Mr. Keeler stated that Option 3 was his first choice, but Option 1 is fine with him as well. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she likes the subtle nature of Option 1. She added that if there was a way to get the circular deck-side lights on the top so they could be enjoyed by the pedestrians using the bridge she would like it even more. Metro Center Design Guidelines and Zoning Approach Mr. Will stated this project is in furtherance of Council’s goal to "Revitalize Metro Center.” Since Council’s adoption of the Revitalization Plan in December 2024, staff has initiated the Metro Center Design Guidelines and Zoning approach with the assistance of Sasaki. Mr. Will introduced Mr. Zogran, Mr. Polidoro and Mr. Hardy from Sasaki who were present. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Zogran stated that this discussion is a kick-off of the next step in the process, which is to create design guidelines to build upon the Metro Center Revitalization Plan. He stated that he looks forward to the input from Council on approach, initial mapping (edges and landscape zones) and guidance on initial design direction for buildings and landscapes. He provided a framework overview of the four main guiding principles in the Revitalization Plan: Redefine the identity and shape a unique sense of place; Rebalance the District; Reimagine the water system and create purposeful open spaces; and Reprioritize mobility and strengthen connectivity. Mr. Zogran stated that the design guidelines and zoning code are the two regulatory mechanisms that will guide the standards for buildings, public space and development. He stated that planning the work for the design guidelines entails two phases. The first is the visioning process at this meeting and the work session to come in May. These will help inform an outline as the design guidelines begin to take shape. Mr. Zogran shared the Landscape Typologies drawing as a reminder of the four main landscape areas within this area. They are: e 1-270 Buffer Highway Frontage; e Frantz Road Gateway; e Waterway Park; and e Cosgray Run. Landscape Typologies Metro Center Character Visioning =m Metro Bike Loop == Commuter Boulevard === Connector Boulevard = Neighborhood Boulevard == Shared Street == Woonert (1) Highway Frontage Hs Frantz Road Gateway [EB Waterway Park GEE Cosgray Run IQ] strategic Activation Areas Focusing on Waterway Park, Mr. Zogran stated that there are discrete landscape rooms. These rooms depend on geography but also the scale and function of those spaces. Identifying these areas is a typical practice when moving forward with landscape design. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 8 of 12 Landscape Rooms Watervay Park Ee} waterway Wetland [E=) creen Buffer (C3 Landmark Plaza [E5 Amenity Plaza [9 Neighborhood Plazas J Weonert Looking at the buildings themselves to approach zoning discussions, Mr. Zogran stated that the series of centrally located buildings that either look onto the waterway or look onto the loop road. The architecture that is facing the waterway is an architectural feature and should be different than the architecture that is facing the roadway. He added that it should be coherent and not piece-meal. There would likely be different standards such as activated first floors with porosity and balconies on the upper floors. Edge Conditions. ica 65 Wiehe pues 1S (Vietvo Center Character We g ; sm Pewee ; Visioning " : meee Waterway Park [} ;' ex=aes Cosgray Run H] exams Frantz Road | =m Retail Priority | m= Loop Road mmm District Edge as Interstitial === Special Buildings mmm Gateways Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 9 of 12 There are also special buildings identified on the drawing. Noted in pink in the drawing, these buildings are the structures called out specifically to be a different architecture and specialty feature in the area. The black outlined areas identify the gateways which are vitally important to draw interest. Mr. Reiner expressed appreciation for the analysis. He stated that the waterway is so important to the area. He would like to see more interaction with the water and suggested a beach area. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she appreciates the name Waterway Park. She likes the porosity of the buildings on the water's edges. She stated that she would like to see a lot of engagement opportunities along the waterway, outdoor dining and outdoor seating. She did not envision a beach in the area. She would like to see some treatment of the buildings along Frantz Road to soften and make the area more welcoming. Ms. Kramb stated that she agrees with everything noted on the drawings and appreciates that it is not a straight line. She would add that the intention is that it is not vertically flat. Ms. Fox asked about the retail priority areas. She asked if restaurants and hospitality amenities will be along the waterway as well or if it is just the marked retail priority areas. She also sought clarification regarding defining the gateways and setting the expectations of what should be included in a gateway feature. Finally, Ms. Fox asked about what is meant by “Strategic Activation Areas.” Mr. Zogran stated that Strategic Activation Areas are the gathering areas where there is the most hardscape for activation. Referring to Ms. Fox’s point about retail spaces, he stated that another category should be added to illustrate the intention to have retail along the waterway. Ms. Fox stated that residents have commented that they are looking for small intimate gathering areas for smaller groups. She clarified that those types of areas still exist along the water's edge and where the landscaped areas might be able to accommodate such uses. Mr. Zogran responded affirmatively. Mr. Keeler stated that Council said they did not want another Bridge Park and this Plan is not another Bridge Park. Mr. Keeler, referring to Ms. Fox’s gateway comments, stated that a differentiator is color. The pavilion is an opportunity to create an identity. He stated that whether the vision is Venice- like, or a water park like Zoombezi Bay or both, these activities need to be happening in different areas. The woonerf in the middle area shows a little bridge which he appreciated. He agrees with the Mayor's comments regarding softening the buildings along Frantz Road. He would not want to see a wall of buildings. Mr. Reiner reiterated the work-live-play goal and activated first floor buildings. Mr. Polidoro stated that the next section of the discussion will focus on character relating to architecture and landscape. He stated that he would like to have a nuanced discussion around the examples provided in the presentation. He reviewed some terminology that is used when looking at the precedence of buildings and the overall building qualities. e Building Expression refers to how the building meets the ground/sky, and e Architectural Expression refers to the rhythm and proportions of facade, the hierarchy of elevations, massing and emphasis of height and expression of corner conditions. Additionally, the building elements themselves are important to note and discuss. Architectural elements such as doors, windows, balconies, shared spaces and the selection and use of materials are design details that create the character. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Keeler stated that he loves the use of color. He also supports the use of sunshades between buildings. He shared that he and Mr. Reiner are both supporters of green roofs. He would like to see a roof top restaurant. He stated that he is unsure how green roofs work in Ohio. Mr. Hardy stated that green roofs are very viable in Ohio. He added that it is an easy design solution with a lot of paybacks. Mr. Reiner agreed and stated that he looks forward to advancing the green roof initiative in Dublin. Mayor Amorose Groomes used Restoration Hardware in Easton as an example of a living eco-system on a roof that the public can enjoy. She added that some green roofs are not accessible to the public and cannot handle foot traffic. Ms. Fox stated that regarding building expression, she likes the idea of using angles as buildings meet the sky. She is not opposed to large buildings but likes the idea of “stair stepping” back from Frantz Road in colorful and unique ways. She added that the Frantz Road frontage is so important. She would like to see the use of color, and she supports the use of murals and artwork that could incorporate color and draw visual interest. Regarding massing, she stated that she reviewed what residents said they wanted and found that they want areas of enclosure and intimacy. She is not supportive of spaces that are too hard and would like more natural materials in these niche areas such as wood or bamboo. She stated that regarding corner conditions, she would like to get away from Lego-type block buildings. Balconies and curves are important in the architectural expression. Transparency on the first floors of the buildings is very important. Mr. Hardy reviewed the considerations when discussing landscape expression. The style (naturalistic versus formal), wayfinding, how it compliments architecture, how it supports desired uses and programs and enables a sense of sequence and arrival. The landscape elements are the design details making up the landscape, such as pathways, plazas, patios and structures (walls, curbs, railing and fences). The softscape elements of landscape are the living systems of the landscape including trees and shrubs, wetland species and perennials, grasses and ground cover. Mr. Zogran referenced several displays on easels that were available around the Council Chamber for Council to look at and respond to. He encouraged Council members to interact with the images and then discuss. Council members reviewed the images on the boards for about 15 minutes. Mr. Zogran summarized some of the comments he heard during the board exercise. He stated that he heard comments regarding texture, human scale and natural elements that are unique. Positive comments were heard about the use of murals. Regarding architecture, Mr. Zogran stated that he heard some general themes emerging. He heard comments about the angular roof and terraces of some of the examples. The use of color on the corners was positively received. There were many notes of elements that Council would not be supportive of. He stated that there was great support for incorporating balconies of different sizes and shapes. Using the many opportunities for plantings is important to bring nature in to soften edges. Mr. Polidoro stated that regarding the facade of some of the examples on the boards, the interactions between the precedents and the open space are important. He stated that there were comments regarding having a variety of different types of shade throughout the public realm. Mr. Hardy appreciated all the comments regarding landscape and organized planting schemes. He heard feedback that there was a lot of hardscape in the images and not enough green. Smaller human scale green spaces with a tree canopy was heard as a desirable outcome. He stated that the comments regarding having nature inside the buildings with green walls were interesting. Green roofs were commented on as well. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Reiner agreed with incorporating unique landscapes within the buildings as well as outside the buildings. Ms. Kramb stated that the images that she liked the most were the buildings and landscape shapes mimicking each other. The curve of the roof lines and the landscaping made it look cohesive and interesting. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated she likes some of the different ways the water meets the edge. The mix of different treatments at the water's edge is impactful. Ms. Fox stated that balconies seem like an afterthought to the architect. She would prefer to have the balconies designed to incorporate the beauty of the architecture. The edges that are sometimes formal can relate to water in a formal way and then there are other areas that will interact with the water in a very informal way. She stated that as design guidelines are discussed, she would like whoever develops in this space to understand the responsibility to continue the intent. She stated that canopies over the streetscape would be helpful to create “rooms.” Mr. Reiner stated that the small gathering nodes are important. Mr. Zogran stated that there are some emerging themes that will be helpful moving forward, such as human scale and how we achieve that through the buildings, landscape, etc. The preference for curved, softer forms rather than hard box-shaped structures came out in the discussion as well. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Zogran if he will be outlining where reality meets aspirations so the City can attract some development to this space that is designed to be realistic and not cost prohibitive. Mr. Will stated that the goal is implementation and creating something buildable. This discussion helps to hear the vision and identify emerging themes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a high-quality development with high standards is what is desired, but it cannot appear unreachable to a developer. Mr. Gracia stated that it is important to start engaging with developers sooner rather than later, understanding there is a balance. Ms. Fox stated that we should concentrate on what we are trying to achieve, which is integrating architecture, development and nature. She added that if developers understand that the intention of their creative work is to be sure that the spaces interact with each other, then they will want to develop here. Places to gather, eat and interact is what members of this community love and they will spend their money and time to do it. Mr. Gracia stated that there is an expectation of public infrastructure improvements as well and making sure that the City is being intentional and realistic in support of these developments. Ms. Kramb stated that when the Code is developed for this area, she wants it to remain a little more open so creativity can be encouraged versus a form-based Code. Mr. Zogran thanked Council for the comments and feedback. Council Work Session April 14, 2025 Page 12 of 12 The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. fh. A. DB Presiding Officer - Mayor Clefk of Coluncil