HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-26 Joint Work Session MinutesJOINT WORK SESSION
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION,
JUNE 15, 2026
Minutes
Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, June 15, 2026 joint work session to order at 6:00
p.m.
Attendance
Council Members: Ms. Alutto, Mayor Amorose Groomes, Vice Mayor De Rosa, Ms. Johnson, Mr.
Keeler, Ms. Kramb and Dr. Lam.
PZC Members present: Ms. Damaser, Ms. Harter, Ms. Newell and Mr. Way
Members absent: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Chinnock and Mr. Garvin.
Staff Members: Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Bitar, Ms. Holt, Ms. Willis, Ms. Noble, Ms. Hunter, Ms. Goliver,
Ms. Wawszkiewicz, Mr. Barker, Mr. Boggs and Ms. Babbitt
Mr. Way led the pledge of allegiance.
Others Present: Geoff Green, Clarion Associates and Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion; Jeff Speck
and Mark Bennett, Speck Dempsey; and Mike Brehm, EMH&T.
Discussion Items:
Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations Audit
Ms. Holt introduced the Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations Audit, presenting it as a project
designed to deliver prioritized steps for future code updates and to ensure alignment with the
City's adopted policies and plans. Ms. Holt clarified that the project would not rewrite the code
immediately and would not reopen previously approved plans. Greg Dale of McBride Dale Clarion
and Geoff Green of Clarion Associates presented the report.
Project Overview and Timeline
Mr. Dale provided context on the consulting team's structure and the scope of the project. He
noted that the City's existing zoning code is the product of approximately 40 years of
amendments, resulting in a document that is difficult to navigate and use. He confirmed that the
project is on-schedule, with a target date of August 10 to present the finalized report to City
Council for acceptance, followed by a potential Phase 2 implementation. Extensive stakeholder
engagement has been conducted, including individual interviews with all City Council members,
focus group interviews, and surveys involving most Planning Commission members.
Six Evaluation Themes
Mr. Green presented six thematic areas identified through the audit, each tied to priorities
established in the Envision Dublin Comprehensive Plan:
Theme i — Reorganize and Restructure the Code: The current code suffers from decades of
piecemeal amendments, resulting in multiple effectively separate zoning codes combined into one
document. Duplicate definitions, inconsistent standards, and poor organization make the code
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 2 of 8
difficult for residents, developers, staff, and decision-making bodies to use. The audit
recommends consolidating the zoning code and subdivision regulations into a single, unified
development ordinance (UDO) with a logical structure, clear graphics, tables, and flowcharts to
illustrate complex provisions. A separate administrative procedures manual would house
application requirements that can change frequently, removing that material from the code itself.
Theme 2 — Enhance Site Development Standards: The City's base zoning districts lack site design
standards comparable to those in the Bridge Street or West Innovation districts. This gap makes it
difficult for applicants to understand the City's expectations prior to submitting planned unit
development (PUD) applications. The audit recommends updating off-street parking standards,
potentially eliminating or right-sizing minimums, adding provisions for electric vehicle and bicycle
parking, updating landscaping and tree protection standards, establishing comprehensive open
Space set-aside requirements, incorporating sustainability standards or incentives, and
streamlining subdivision standards including a simplified process for minor subdivisions.
Theme 3 — Clarify the PUD Process: Approximately 50 percent of the City is developed under PUD
agreements, many of which are 10 to 40 years old. The audit recommends clarifying the PUD
application process, better articulating how PUDs are expected to exceed baseline development
standards and creating a pathway for limited administrative adjustments to legacy PUDs to reduce
the cost and complexity of minor modifications.
Theme 4 — Address Diverse Housing Needs: The audit recommends expanding permitted housing
types in appropriate districts, clearly defining those types in the code, and allowing accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) in districts with larger lots, in alignment with the City's adopted housing
study.
Theme 5 — Update Zoning Districts and Uses: The audit recommends deleting obsolete zoning
districts no longer in use, updating commercial and other base districts for consistency with
Envision Dublin, and consolidating scattered use lists into a single, clearly organized use table
applicable across all districts.
Theme 6 — Improve the Development Review Process: The audit recommends consolidating all
development review procedures into a single chapter of the UDO, standardizing submission and
review procedures, and establishing clear, uniform decision-making criteria for each application
type.
Implementation Options
Three implementation options were presented. Option 1 would reorganize the existing code and
subdivision regulations into a UDO without substantive changes beyond resolving clear conflicts or
redundancies. Option 2 would build upon that reorganization by incorporating substantive
changes reflecting all of the audit's recommendations. Option 3 would continue the current
approach, with selective adoption of individual recommendations into the existing code. Ms. Holt
shared that staff recommended Option 2, characterizing it as a two-step strategy: first organizing
the code to understand what is in place, then proceeding with substantive improvements through
a redline process.
Discussion
Members of both bodies expressed broad support for Option 2 and for the overall direction of the
audit. The discussion surfaced several substantive points of emphasis and concern.
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 3 of 8
Ms. Damaser expressed support for the overhaul from a legal perspective, noting that
disorganized and duplicative codes are difficult to work with in practice.
Mr. Way strongly endorsed the graphic and table-driven approach, and raised concerns from the
Commission's recent casework, including the lack of a design component in subdivision
regulations, the absence of market-driven demand for innovative housing types despite supportive
language in adopted plans, and persistent ambiguity around what constitutes mixed use
development. He also noted that the Suburban Office Institutional designation has caused
ongoing confusion due to the unclear meaning of its institutional component.
Ms. Newell expressed strong support for preserving the PUD process, cautioning against any
changes that would diminish its role, and noting the value of minor text amendment procedures
that the Commission has used effectively.
Ms. Harter emphasized the importance of public education and resident engagement throughout
the process, suggesting accessible formats such as videos to help the public understand what is
changing and why. She also highlighted the importance of ensuring housing diversity is not lost in
the reorganization.
Ms. Kramb noted she had read the audit in detail and expressed general support. She
recommended a hybrid release approach, suggesting the reorganized but substantively
unchanged UDO be made available to the public before the full revised version is complete. She
flagged that the Historic District did not appear to be called out in the annotated outline article on
zoning districts, which Mr. Green confirmed was an oversight that would be corrected. She
expressed caution about administrative approvals of PUD modifications, preferring to retain
Planning and Zoning Commission review even for older PUDs. She also expressed reservations
about any blanket standard permitting six to eight units per acre, citing concerns about dense
infill development being inserted between existing single-family residential properties, a pattern
she noted is occurring in surrounding communities.
Ms. Johnson expressed general support and indicated particular interest in the recommendation to
eliminate use variances, a mechanism she suggested has created community friction. She offered
a somewhat more open posture than Council Member Kramb on the question of broader density
standards, suggesting that consistent application across the city may produce better long-term
outcomes, though she acknowledged the matter warrants further discussion. She commended the
value of tracking deletions, moves, and cross-references throughout the rewrite process.
Ms. Alutto expressed support, noting the audit document itself was clearly written and accessible.
She endorsed the hybrid release concept and expressed support for additional housing types,
while emphasizing that density increases should be applied thoughtfully so that higher-density
housing is placed in contextually appropriate locations rather than inserted between incompatible
uses.
Dr. Lam expressed strong support for Option 2 and for themes 1 and 6 in particular, viewing
those as foundational to the success of all other themes. He shared the concern about resident
trust during a multi-year implementation and emphasized the need for robust public engagement,
particularly around ADUs. He also raised concerns about eliminating parking minimums in areas
that currently experience overflow into adjacent neighborhoods.
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Keeler expressed support for the overall direction and noted that the current code appears to
include zoning categories clearly designed for contexts that do not exist in Dublin, such as quarry
excavation and gas districts, which he suggested are appropriate candidates for removal. He also
raised the question of whether certain developments approved as PUDs in recent years truly
reflect the spirit of the PUD designation, and expressed interest in ensuring that definition is
better clarified going forward. He indicated support for cottage court units and ADUs, particularly
as options for senior residents seeking to downsize.
Vice Mayor De Rosa raised the need to ensure the revised code and its graphics are compatible
with artificial intelligence search tools and modern digital interfaces, noting that residents and
Staff increasingly interact with code through such platforms, and that graphics which are not
machine-readable may create future accessibility problems. She recommended feeding the
existing code through AI tools as part of the process to identify organizational improvements. She
also recommended adding a fiscal health and financial resiliency goal to the introductory section
of the code. She urged that mixed-use definitions be addressed on a parallel track rather than
waiting for the full code rewrite to conclude, given that mixed use questions arise regularly before
the Planning and Zoning Commission. She additionally noted that approximately 70 percent of the
City is subject to homeowners’ association (HOA) restrictions that may limit or complicate the
implementation of new housing types and suggested that dynamic be accounted for in the
planning process.
Mayor Amorose Groomes affirmed the importance of retaining a robust review process over PUDs,
expressing concern about the varied and individual character of those developments. She
expressed a preference for encouraging two-family residential development over ADUs, noting
that the City's street network does not lend itself well to accessory dwelling units. She also
highlighted the importance of reviewing parallel visioning documents and handbooks that have
been developed over the years alongside the code, many of which contain illustrations and
guidance that would be valuable to incorporate into the revised UDO.
Mr. Dale closed the presentation by affirming that the team understands Dublin's culture of
resident engagement and is not recommending any process that would diminish public
participation. Mr. Green noted that copious public engagement would be a recommended
component of any Phase 2 implementation process.
Bridge Street Corridor Visioning
Ms. Noble introduced the Bridge Street Corridor Visioning Study, describing it as a two-phase
effort examining the full corridor from Interstate 270 to Sawmill Road, divided by the Scioto River.
She noted that Phase 1, covering East Bridge Street, was presented to City Council in 2025. The
current session is focused on Phase 2, the West Bridge Street segment from Frantz Road to
Franklin Street, while maintaining a cohesive corridor-wide perspective. The consulting team for
this phase includes EMH&T, represented by Mike Brehm and Speck Dempsey, represented by Jeff
Speck and Mark Bennett.
Background and Context
Mr. Brehm provided traffic volume context for the corridor. Traffic volumes on Bridge Street range
from approximately 35,000 vehicles per day near the Interstate 270 interchange, declining to
approximately 26,000 east of Frantz Road, and to approximately 18,000 between Riverside Drive
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 5 of 8
and Sawmill Road. He described how the corridor's character transitions from a high-speed
highway environment west of Frantz Road to a more urban, historic character east toward the
river and into the Bridge Street District. He noted that the development/redevelopment potential
varies significantly across four identifiable zones: the highway transition zone west of Corbin Mills
Drive, the school and cemetery zone, the historic Dublin core, and the Bridge Street District east
of the river. He also presented planned trail network information, including the Emerald Trail
designation along East Bridge Street and Riverside Drive, and a proposed Signature Trail
alignment, emphasizing that the build-out of the trail network and the street network should
proceed in coordination with development.
Walkability Principles
Mr. Speck summarized the general theory of walkability as it applies to the Bridge Street corridor.
He organized the framework around four conditions a walk must meet to compete with driving:
the walk must be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting. He highlighted the opportunity that
Dublin possesses in having both a traditional historic downtown and Bridge Park as
complementary walkable districts. He characterized Bridge Park as among the best examples in
the United States of a mixed-use, new town-in-town development.
On the comfortable walk, Mr. Speck discussed the importance of spatial enclosure and the ratio of
building height to street width, noting that beyond a 6-to-1 ratio, pedestrians no longer feel
enclosed or comfortable. He noted that Historic Dublin's main street and Bridge Park both achieve
favorable ratios.
On the safe walk, Mr. Speck discussed the national pedestrian safety crisis, noting that pedestrian
fatality risk has increased by 78 percent over the past 15 years. He emphasized that street design
is the most actionable lever available to reduce pedestrian fatalities and introduced the Vision
Zero principle of designing streets so that drivers do not feel comfortable exceeding posted speed
~ limits. He identified key safety factors including lane count, lane width, presence of parallel
parking as a protective buffer, and street trees. He also addressed the concept of induced
demand, explaining that widening roads to reduce congestion is self-defeating because additional
capacity attracts additional traffic, reaching a new equilibrium. He noted that for Bridge Street,
which runs parallel to Interstate 270, Waze and other navigation applications route comparable
travel times on either road, meaning that any congestion reduction achieved by widening Bridge
Street would quickly be offset by additional diverted traffic.
Mr. Speck identified the principal existing deficiencies on West Bridge Street as: missing sidewalks
in several segments, paved shoulders that communicate a highway environment and encourage
speeding, narrow sidewalks, planting strips too narrow to support trees, missing crosswalks, and
long pedestrian signal wait times in the western portions of the corridor.
Street Cross-Section Recommendations
Mr. Bennett presented draft cross-section concepts for four representative segments of West
Bridge Street, translating the walkability principles into physical design recommendations.
Near Franklin Street, the primary intervention proposed is a shared-use path on the north side of
the corridor, with modest sidewalk widening.
At the West High School Road intersection, the recommendations focus on widening the south
sidewalk adjacent to the historic cemetery wall and expanding the planting strip by reallocating
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 6 of 8
space from vehicle lanes that are wider than necessary, while continuing the shared-use path on
the north side.
Near Shawan Falls Drive, where a sidewalk is currently absent on the south side and drainage
infrastructure complicates construction, the recommendations include adding a south-side
sidewalk, widening the median to enhance planting and visual calming, and providing additional
Space to support tree health along the north-side boardwalk.
At Frantz Road, recommendations include completing the sidewalk on the south side, widening
the median to accommodate future transit infrastructure, and exploring the feasibility of reducing
from three westbound vehicle lanes to two at the approach, which would shorten the pedestrian
crossing distance.
Mr. Bennett noted that the general toolkit of interventions includes wider sidewalks and filled
sidewalk gaps, wider buffers between sidewalks and vehicle lanes, additional trees and planted
medians, shorter and more frequent pedestrian crossings, reduced signal wait times, right-sized
vehicle lanes and curb radii, removal of paved shoulders, improved access management, low-
stress bicycle facilities, and improved lighting.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Considerations
Mr. Bennett presented preliminary analysis of how Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure could be
accommodated on West Bridge Street. He reported that a recent meeting with COTA confirmed
that Phase 1 of the regional BRT network is expected to be operational in 2031, and that West
Bridge Street falls within Phase 3, for which no current timeline exists, though a reasonable
planning horizon is 5 to 10 years or more. He emphasized that COTA indicated it would work
collaboratively with the City on station locations and corridor design, without imposing
infrastructure the community does not want.
Mr. Bennett divided the corridor study area into three segments for BRT planning purposes.
Segment A, the eastern end near the Historic District, is effectively constrained to its current curb-
to-curb width, meaning BRT would require either repurposing a vehicle travel lane for a dedicated
bus lane or operating in mixed traffic. Segment B offers more room on the north side of the
corridor and could potentially accommodate both preserved vehicle lanes and new dedicated bus
lanes through roadway widening, pending further analysis and stakeholder input. Segment C, the
westernmost portion near Frantz Road, is already wide enough curb-to-curb to accommodate two
vehicle travel lanes in each direction plus dedicated BRT lanes. Mr. Bennett described the team's
strategy as future-proofing the corridor by setting curb lines and median widths today in a
manner that reduces the reconstruction required when BRT ultimately arrives, rather than fully
deferring action or committing to full reconstruction twice.
Discussion
Members of both bodies affirmed the walkability vision for the corridor and offered commentary
on specific design and policy dimensions.
Ms. Alutto expressed support for the overall vision and the multimodal approach, and appreciated
the value of the physical corridor walks conducted with council members. She expressed some
concern about reducing the number of vehicle lanes near the west end of the corridor, suggesting
that mixed-traffic BRT operation in the constrained eastern segment may be appropriate, while
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 7 of 8
dedicated lanes in segments B and C make more sense. She expressed broad support for lane
width reductions and parallel parking where applicable.
Ms. Johnson affirmed the vision and expressed openness to designing the corridor around a two-
direction dedicated BRT configuration throughout, noting the project's alignment with goals
related to housing diversity and the Metro Place area. She asked for confirmation that 10-foot
lane widths are used elsewhere in Dublin and was advised that they exist on Bridge Street near
High Street in historic Dublin.
Ms. Kramb expressed support for narrowing lanes and for reducing the three westbound lanes
near Frantz Road to two. She supported planning for dedicated BRT lanes, particularly in the
median between Corbin's Mill Drive and Frantz Road, and recommended that improvements to the
north side of the corridor in the interim be kept minimal to preserve flexibility for future BRT
alignment. She noted the improved connectivity provided by Franklin Street, which has reduced
pressure on the Bridge Street and High Street intersection.
Ms. Harter expressed support for the vision and noted the importance of creating safe pedestrian
access from nearby neighborhoods to the corridor, as well as the opportunity to improve the
visual environment by moving utility infrastructure underground as was done in historic Dublin.
She raised awareness of evolving traffic signal technology as a related consideration and
cautioned that public education will be essential as bike facilities are introduced, since pedestrians
and drivers are not accustomed to looking for cyclists in protected lanes.
Ms. Newell expressed strong personal support for walkability but raised concerns about 10-foot
lane widths given the prevalence of large pickup trucks with extended mirrors, drawing on her
experience with narrow streets in her own neighborhood. She suggested that incorporating visual
elements such as planters or other barriers near the sidewalk edge could calm traffic without
necessarily reducing lanes to the minimum width, and proposed that a compromise between full
lane width reduction and complementary design elements might be appropriate.
Mr. Way expressed full support for the recommendations, noted personal experience with the
inadequate bicycle facilities near Post Road, and expressed hope that the BRT line would
ultimately extend to a future passenger rail station.
Ms. Damaser echoed the residents who testified during the Monterey Square case about the
discomfort of traveling on that portion of Bridge Street. She expressed support for the walkability
measures and noted that traffic calming on Bridge Street may naturally divert some traffic to
Interstate 270 via navigation applications. She raised concerns about e-bike speeds on shared-use
paths as a growing safety issue.
Dr. Lam affirmed the vision and supported graduated lane width reduction as an effective speed
management tool. He expressed reservation about reducing the number of westbound lanes at
the Frantz Road intersection, noting that the three westbound lanes serve distinct turning and
through movements that back up significantly at peak hours. He asked whether ODOT standards
would permit 10-foot lanes on State Route 161. Mr. Brehm confirmed that Dublin, as a home rule
city, has considerable latitude on that roadway and that ODOT does permit 10-foot lanes in some
locations. Dr. Lam also raised the question of how e-bike speeds on shared-use paths can be
managed through design, to which Mr. Speck acknowledged the challenge, noting that shared-use
paths predate the e-bike era and that enforcement is difficult.
Joint Work Session Minutes of Council and PZC
June 15, 2026
Page 8 of 8
Mr. Keeler expressed support for 10-foot lanes, noting personal comfort with the width even for a
large vehicle, and endorsing the principle that drivers who are uncomfortable with the route or
with congestion will seek alternatives. He expressed uncertainty about committing to dedicated
BRT lanes today given the uncertain timeline, while acknowledging the public benefit of
consolidating riders into fewer vehicles.
Vice Mayor De Rosa noted from personal bicycle use that the school-side sidewalk is nearly
impassable due to poor curb cuts and discontinuities, and suggested that improvements to curb
cuts alone would meaningfully improve safety independent of lane width changes. She expressed
support for the 10- or 11-foot shared-use path standard the city previously adopted but has not
yet implemented, and recommended doing so here. She endorsed the wider median concept as
sound forward planning for BRT, while acknowledging the timeline uncertainty.
Mayor Amorose Groomes affirmed the vision and expressed the view that BRT may arrive sooner
than anticipated given COTA's inflationary revenue position and political pressure to deliver on
commitments made to voters. She expressed a preference for maximizing dedicated transit
infrastructure to preserve future opportunities for fixed rail or light rail, recommending
bidirectional or dedicated lanes wherever feasible rather than mixed-traffic configurations. She
raised a concern about the feasibility of tree canopy in narrow medians and planting strips given
the size of freight and commercial vehicles that use the corridor, and suggested that more
columnar tree species or alternative streetscape elements such as lighting fixtures might be
necessary in constrained locations. Mr. Speck confirmed that columnar species are the standard
solution for that condition, and affirmed the importance of tree placement in medians as a visual
cue that communicates an urban rather than highway environment.
Mr. Speck offered a clarification at the close of discussion, noting that when members referred to
lane reduction, it was important to distinguish between reducing lane count and reducing lane
width, as the data are clear that narrower lanes do not reduce traffic throughput. Throughput is
determined primarily by the number of lanes approaching intersections, not by lane width.
The joint work session was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
(O-A_ S—
Mayor, Dublin City Council Mm wr
Chair, Planning and Zoning remission
rk of Cguncil