Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-11 Joint Work Session MinutesBRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Tuesday, May 24, 2011 MEETING RECORD The following were present: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, and Mr. Reiner. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Hardt, Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Budde. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Gunnoe, Mr. Todoran, and Mr. Page. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, Mr. Souders, and Ms. Bailey. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ray, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Ms. Coen, Ms. Burness, Ms. Clarke. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliott, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, and Dr. Taymour EI- Hosseiny, EMH &T, and Josh Reinicke, CDM. Mr. McDaniel thanked the board and commission members in attendance and recognized the Bridge Street Corridor stakeholders also present. He introduced the consultants who would be presenting this evening. The purpose of this meeting is to provide updates regarding the progress made with the Bridge Street Corridor implementation studies. He stated the second draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code has been distributed to Council and board and commission members. Mr. McDaniel introduced the first speaker, Shane Spencer with EMH &T and noted that everyone would have the opportunity to ask questions of the consultant teams following the presentations. Water Distribution System Model Report Shane Spencer, EMH &T, stated he studied the city's existing water distribution system with the objective of determining the ability of the existing infrastructure to serve the Bridge Street Corridor at build -out. He explained the City of Dublin contracts for water from the City of Columbus. There are two separate pressure districts, which are areas where the hydraulic grade line is maintained at a level to maintain constant pressure. The pressure is often influenced by the topography of the land. He stated there are six water tanks surrounding the Corridor that are filled by the Cleveland Avenue and Henderson Road booster stations. He added that in the Bridge Street Corridor, there are 24 -inch main water lines from Sawmill Road west to Dublin Road, in addition to a 16 -inch water main along Bridge Street to the west. Mr. Spencer stated the water distribution computer model is based on the current model, last updated in 2006, which listed a citywide demand for 6.2 million gallons of water. The new model represents changes in water lines, including working with the City of Columbus' Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Operation Center to obtain the duration levels and monitoring data of their tanks' booster stations. He said he was able to check that data by running flow tests in fire hydrants to reconcile the model with real variations. Mr. Spencer explained demands on the water system change throughout the year, and these changes help determine when to run the model in terms of identifying peak demand. Historically, late August to early September are the months which require the highest water demand. In order to determine how to serve the Bridge Street Corridor development capacity, they reviewed two significant measurables, including system pressure and fire flow. Mr. Spencer explained the system pressure refers to daily uses and demands on the system. An operating range of 60 -80 psi with a minimum of 35 psi is what is desired in the system during typical peak demands. Mr. Spencer noted that fire flow is the second aspect of the water distribution system studied. He coordinated with the Washington Township Fire Department to identify a goal of 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) for fire flow, which is above the typical fire flow demands due to the mixed -use environment. The minimum operating pressure is 20 psi for standard fire flows. Mr. Spencer noted that it is important to begin the model by reviewing the existing system and existing demands. He said in 2010, the citywide demand was 1.6 billion gallons, and the existing demand in the Bridge Street Corridor is about .6 billion gallons. Mr. Spencer stated overall, the model meets the minimum desired standard of 3,000 GPM at build -out of the Bridge Street Corridor, with one exception around Kilgour Place near OCLC, which will only have 2,300 GPM, but still an acceptable level of service. Mr. Spencer stated in an effort to project future conditions for the model, they reviewed the 2007 Community Plan, which identifies a 1.7 MGD demand in the Bridge Street Corridor, which is about three times the current demand. He said the model estimated a build -out demand in the Bridge Street Corridor of approximately 2.1 MGD, which is 400,000 million gallons greater than the Community Plan projections. These demands were based on residential, commercial and office densities approximated for the build -out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Spencer concluded that potential improvements may be needed to accommodate the build -out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. Reinforcing the network of 12 -inch pipes, much of which is already in place, with several key loops to reduce dead ends is really the only improvements that will be needed. Additionally, any waterline improvements will need to be aligned with the street network and roadway improvements. He concluded the City of Dublin should continue to work with Columbus, but the major conclusion is that no up -front improvements are necessary to support development in the Corridor. Sanitary Sewer Service Model Report Dr. Taymour El- Hosseiny. EMH &T, stated the sanitary service model studied the existing conditions, the 2007 Community Plan projections, and the build -out capacities projected for the Bridge Street Corridor. He explained topographically, the Bridge Street Corridor sits at the lowest point of the city, and there are trunk sewers discharging from the north and Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 3 of 8 south, eventually reaching the two main trunk sewer lines, which run parallel to the Scioto River. Dr. El- Hosseiny explained the peak times for sewer use are during the morning and evening hours, when people wake up and return home from work. During the "dry" times, the average demand on the system is 1 million gallons per day (GPD), and during "wet" times, the demand is up to 5 million GPD. He said the city has meters placed throughout the system to collect accurate measurements on system demand, which are used to determine water flows. Dr. El- Hosseiny reported the Bridge Street Corridor currently produces 4 million GPD demand, while the rest of the city produces 38 million GPD for a total of about 42 million GPD. At build -out conditions, the model projected the Bridge Street Corridor will produce a flow of up to 10 million GPD, while the rest of the city will produce approximately 50 million GPD. The total demand for approximately 60 million GPD can be accommodated by the existing system, which can accommodate approximately 62 million GPD. He concluded this demand will not impact the main trunk sewer lines branching out from the Bridge Street Corridor. He stated the current main trunk sewer lines will not need to be increased in size to serve this demand, since the City has consistently installed sewer lines to meet and exceed demand levels. He noted a few specific areas would likely be improved during redevelopment Storm Water Management Model Report Josh Reinicke, CDM, explained the Bridge Street Corridor offers an opportunity in which storm water can be reviewed in a manner unlike the way storm water is typically viewed, and can be integrated into every aspect of development. He said CDM looked at storm water management in the Bridge Street Corridor with a broad scope, looking at the east and west sides of the Scioto River as a whole to allow storm water to be viewed at a watershed scale. Currently, every developer has to manage their own storm water on their individual site, whereas the results of the model presented today are based on a watershed - style, district -wide approach. Mr. Reinicke explained that on the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, there are two streams which provide different opportunities and challenges for storm water management because they are high quality streams that need to be maintained. On the east side, storm water is directly discharged into the Scioto River. Mr. Reinicke explained that CDM worked from the Vision Plan and build -out capacities to calculate the approximate percentages of impervious surfaces that could be expected based on different land uses. He noted the development on the east and west sides of the Scioto River differed in impervious coverage. Mr. Reinicke stated typical development in Dublin typically results in less than 50% impervious surfaces. Knowing this percentage allowed the model to look at Dublin's current storm water management needs and calculate preliminary detention volumes. He said most storm water management criteria requires retention ponds to be a maximum of four feet deep to meet quantity and quality requirements. Based on this depth assumption, on the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 4 of 8 west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, approximately 6.4 acres of water retention would be needed, and on the east side, 9 acres would be needed. Mr. Reinicke noted the draft zoning regulations can include block -by -block storm water management requirements because the approximate storm water retention needs are known. Knowing block size and depth of storage, the square foot requirement for each block can be determined. Mr. Reinicke stated that, due to the proximity of the North and South Forks of the Indian Run and the Scioto River, there is potential to modify the current quantity control requirements to allow the water to flow faster, which can be very beneficial. On the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, if there is no detention in place, there would be a slight increase of 14 cubic feet per second to the North Fork, which is not a big increase in flow. The City of Dublin's storm water management regulations currently provide an exemption for storm water quantity control within an area bounded by Riverside Drive and Dublin Road. Mr. Reinicke described modern, sustainable design techniques for storm water management that could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. He said green roofs reduce the volume of runoff from a site, and permeable pavement also helps soak up the water and is being used more frequently. Permeable pavement can be used not only for parking lots but for streets as well. Rather than having a raised curb around a parking lot island, there could be a concrete edge that allows the water to flow into planters and soak into the ground. Using curbside planters could allow up to 20 percent of the storm water management needs to be met per block. Planters can also be placed in parking lots. On a smaller scale, rain barrels and cisterns can be used to store and reuse storm water. He concluded that the use of detention ponds in the Bridge Street Corridor is not a preferred method of storm water management because it is not typical in urban environments; however, some ponds could be integrated into public parks to supplement storm water management on a district basis. Overall, the City has more opportunities to think of storm water as an amenity as opposed to an afterthought in development of the Bridge Street Corridor. Transportation Model Report Rick Chellman, Nelson \Ny4aard, noted that becoming more walkable and bikeable contributes to better transportation options in the future. He presented a refined street network derived from his team's work with staff, stakeholders, and Goody Clancy. Mr. Chellman commented that there is power in an interconnected street network. For example, an eight -block by eight -block grid provides thousands of ways to move from one end of the area to the other. In Nelson Nygaard's analysis of the street network on the west and east sides of the Scioto River, streets should not be too straight and continuous, but the objective is to provide interconnected streets with no dead ends. He said that in addition to refining the street network, Nelson Nygaard is evaluating how it performs and trying to model travel behavior on a 'macro' level, meaning the number of trips on each street during morning or evening peak hours and on a daily basis. This analysis allows for projecting vehicle trips, but is not intended to be a number to focus too much attention on, since it will Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 5 of 8 just be a raw model number. Following this analysis, Nelson Nygaard will look at what happens with or without the additional bridges and additional model variations. Mr. Chellman stated that, currently, the Corridor has land uses that are not well- connected. They will be using a trip generation manual to project how many car trips new development will put on the roadway. He said the model will also study "trip capture" in the Corridor, which is a trip that is made by walking, biking or a trip made by car that does not leave the Corridor. He reported the preliminary results are promising, showing a capture rate of up to 40 %. Mr. Chellman reported that speeding is an issue, especially when trying to promote pedestrian safety. A cycle track is a space dedicated to bikes on the same level as the sidewalk, unlike a bike lane, and is a space where all bicycle riders can feel comfortable because it feels safer than a bike lane. Bike lanes can be problematic because they visually increase the space available for vehicles and create conflicts between bikes and cars for turning movements. Because the space is open most of the time, which has the effect of increasing the optical width of the street for drivers, this in turn increases speeds. For these reasons, bike lanes may not be appropriate for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Chellman said that backward diagonal parking should be considered as an option for Bridge Street, since it is the easiest way to get in and out of an on- street parking space. When a child opens a car door, the door creates a buffer between the child and the street, directing the child toward the sidewalk instead. The trunk is also located at the sidewalk so loading and unloading is safer. Mr. Chellman presented several example street sections that could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. One is a "queuing" street, which is a 21 -foot curb -to -curb two -way street with parking on one side. With a street this narrow, if there are two cars coming from opposing directions, one car will have to pull over to let the other one pass. He said there will not be many, if any, one -way streets in the Bridge Street. In general, the street should be as narrow as possible. Mr. Chellman stated that when considering bridges, the numbers must be carefully calculated. Nelson Nygaard's model has assumed some vehicular bridges. While the model has provided preliminary calculations, there is still a need to apply different variables to adjust the numbers according to travel behavior in a mixed -use environment. The "micro" analysis for the Corridor will look at intersections on Bridge Street and turning movements, but at this level, the macro analysis projecting the trips throughout the corridor shows that the network will work and can serve the development capacity. Conclusion /Discussion Mr. McDaniel noted that several potential options for an adoption schedule for the Bridge Street Code and area rezoning were provided for City Council. The options have all been reviewed by Legal staff, who indicate that Option 1 is the Code and the area rezoning could both be adopted at the next Joint Work Session on June 20. Option 2 involves adopting the Code at the third work session, with adoption of the area rezoning proceeding through the "traditional process," including Planning and Zoning Commission review and recommendation to City Council. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 6 of 8 He said a third option uses the traditional process by having Planning and Zoning Commission review, followed by City Council, which results in a November estimated time frame for adoption. Mr. McDaniel suggested "Option 3a," which would involve the traditional process, but would result in more frequent meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission to expedite the review and recommendation to City Council. "Option 4" provides for adoption following a traditional process with an additional joint work session, and "Option 5" includes a potential field trip. Mr. McDaniel suggested because the public notice for the potential adoption on June 20 would need to occur quickly, the notice could advertise the adoption of both the Code and the area rezoning. However, City Council may decide at their regular meeting on June 13 to modify the adoption schedule. Mr. Taylor, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission asked if there are other similarly - sized cities that have applied a form -based code. Before adopting this type of code, it would be helpful to learn from their experiences, for better or for worse, since the City is taking a big chance on a code that it does not have much experience with. Mr. Langworthy. Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning stated that comparisons to communities who have applied a form based code have been provided in the packet. The City of Miami, Florida adopted a form -based code that applies to the entire city; however, most codes don't apply to an entire city, but to a particular area, as is recommended for the Bridge Street Corridor. Staff has provided examples in the packet from different communities that have adopted form -based code, such as the Columbia Pike District in Arlington County, Virginia. Don Elliott, FAICP, Clarion Associates said there are a growing number of places that have adopted form -based codes for a discrete area where they have the same types of goals that Dublin is seeking. Denver adopted a form -based code along major corridors, and they have had a few buildings go through the process. Due to the economy, it is hard to find an entire neighborhood that has been built with a form -based code, since most area -wide form -based codes are relatively new. Mr. Taylor stated he would be interested in feedback from the city leaders in these places that have adopted form -based codes regarding the codes and their experiences — what they may want to change after they've been using it. Mr. Elliott stated he is writing a book on form -based zoning on this very topic. He noted that he would provide Planning with some examples to share. Codes are "living" documents that are going to need to be changed - even those cities who have adopted form -based codes will change them at some point. Updating the code does not indicate failure, but shows a city is looking at ways to make the codes better and to evolve with the changing times. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how developers and those who will use this code learn what each sections means and how it is intended to be used. She asked for more information about how this code is different from the current Zoning Code. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Mr. McDaniel stated there has been a lot of input and involvement by property owners, consultants, and individual land owners. He said the goal is to treat existing uses so that we are not stifling a business owner's ability to access money to make improvements on their existing businesses through creating a lot of nonconforming uses and structures. He said a lot of what we are doing helps set positive expectations. Developers will have a better understanding of what they need to provide to achieve the City's objectives for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. As a result, the timeline for development approvals can be reduced. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if all comments the City has received on the draft code are being kept so they can be reviewed, regardless of whether they are being incorporated into the Code. Mr. Langworthy stated many comments had been submitted in writing, and staff has discussed with those individuals why some changes cannot be made, and how there may be compromise on other changes. Mr. Reiner asked if the tax base had been studied to understand what kind of revenues will be generated from this type of development. Mr. McDaniel stated Tischler Bise will complete the fiscal impact analysis and will review the revenue projections as well as the cost projections. Mayor Lecklider asked what staff needs from Council at this time. Mr. McDaniel stated staff would appreciate continuous feedback from Council Members as well as stakeholders and property owners to keep everyone highly engaged. Staff has invited all land owners to engage in the code writing process. Mr. Langworthy stated that any Council or board and commission member can submit a marked -up version of the draft code, if they would like to do so. Mr. Souders, Chair, Architectural Review Board, asked for clarification regarding the build - out conditions, and whether the existing road system is capable of handling so much additional development. Mr. Chellman clarified the model looks at build -out conditions, with the full mix of land uses. If only a single land use, such as office, was built at one time, it would create a traffic problem because it is a big traffic generator with no opportunities to combine or reduce trips as there would be in a mixed -use environment. Managing phasing is an issue, but at full build -out, traffic in the Bridge Street Corridor will function. The micro simulation analysis will help to understand how specific intersections perform. Mr. Souders pointed out that currently, there are times where peak traffic in the evenings is really heavy, and new development will likely compound this problem by making access to the interstate more difficult. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Chellman responded that new intersections cannot be added between Post Road, Bridge Street and the interchange because it is limited access right -of -way. Nelson Nygaard is recommending Post Road be relocated farther north on the OCLC campus, away from Bridge Street, to provide more of a separation from that problematic intersection. Mr. Hardt, Planning and Zoning Commission stated he would like to have a better understanding of how the code will be used by the development community and the City. He asked what the process would be to evaluate and approve or disapprove redevelopment plans, and how that would compare to what other cities are doing that have similar codes. How can the City gain assurances that the process will bring the same results and the same quality as the current process? Mr. Gerber asked if Council were to adopt the Code on June 20, what are the options for the area rezoning review. Mr. Langworthy stated the Code would then be in place, but the land will not yet be zoned. For the area rezoning, staff could go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the public hearing, similar to the process used to adopt the Technology Flex District. There were no further comments. Mr. McDaniel asked Mr. Carlson to make concluding remarks. Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy stated the investment Dublin has made in the sophisticated infrastructure analysis and code development is impressive. When Goody Clancy put together the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor a year ago, they used the best practices for mixed -use development, and it has been interesting to see the way the numbers have come out and to confirm the initial assumptions. Mixed uses help the City make efficient use of infrastructure. Goody Clancy developed the Vision Plan based on the market opportunities it offered, which include equal benefit for making the most of streets, utilities, and green spaces. Those impacts can be understood at a district scale versus a site -by -site level. The new code has the right flexibility to accommodate different levels of development at different times to respond to the market and different property owners. Mr. Carlson thanked Council members for providing a great team of consultants to continue working with on implementing the Bridge Street Corridor plan. Mr. McDaniel concluded the meeting by thanking Council Members, the board and commission members and stakeholders for their comments and feedback. (Record compiled by Planning staff)