Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-11 Joint Work Session MinutesBRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, June 20, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Attendance: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent. Planning & Zoning Commission Members Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Budde. Mr. Hardt was absent. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Souders, Mr. Currie, Ms. Bailey, Mr. Karrer. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Cox, Ms. Noble, Ms. Willis, Ms. Martin. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion Farr; Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; and Carson Bise, TischlerBise. Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in Council Chambers, noting this is the third joint session of the Bridge Street Corridor Plan. From this point forward, the zoning process will follow a more traditional path in terms of review by Planning & Zoning Commission (July review at PZC with recommendation to Council), and Council will then consider the ordinances at the two August meetings. Currently, the target date for passage in some form would be late August /early September. He encouraged everyone with questions /concerns to contact staff. Introduction Mr. McDaniel noted that tonight, staff will provide an update on the ongoing analysis being done of the Code. He encouraged everyone to ask questions in conjunction with the presentations being made tonight. Tonight's agenda includes Mr. Langworthy speaking to the greenspace /open space feedback from the Planning charette held. A presentation will be made by Jason Schrieber, Nelson /Nygaard regarding the outcomes of the transportation /traffic modeling. The pattern book and regulatory framework will also be discussed, and staff is recommending this adoption in a form -based code. Staff can walk the group through the various sections of the form -based code. Staff will provide any information about major changes made over the last 30 days in follow -up to the open houses, and what outstanding issues remain with this code. He introduced the consultants present. He noted that Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Study, eight months ago, which established a vision creating a vibrant, walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, enhancing long -term sustainability, while preserving and highlighting the Corridor's natural features. The study was developed with significant public input and market analysis to develop the planning principles and the framework. This resolution further adopted a vision statement, the vision principles, and authorized staff to commence the Bridge Street Corridor implementation strategy. Regarding this strategy, Council authorized funding in the 2011 operating budget to move Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 15 forward with the appropriate consultants to address the various components of the implementation strategy. From a staff perspective, they believe they are significantly complete and are advancing the outcomes of the studies to the policy- making bodies, as evidenced in these joint work sessions. Staff is proposing to meld the district pattern book with the regulatory framework in the form -based code. Staff believes they are at the 90 percent plus mark for completion of this, and continues to receive input. They are working to address the issues raised as they are brought forward. Much written input and phone calls have been received and staff has tried to address those as they arise. The utility modeling is basically complete but for the final written report. Relative to infrastructure cost analysis, staff believes as a result of the studies and ongoing dialogue with several potential near -term and future developments, there is a good sense of what some of those infrastructure investments will be in order to have the Bridge Street Corridor concepts move forward. The fiscal analysis and the operating costs and revenues will be presented by Tischler. in accordance with the schedule. He noted that the recommended schedule has been somewhat modified. Staff is not recommending any formal adoption or vote tonight. The Bridge Street Corridor zoning and Code will be reviewed by P &Z in July and a recommendation made to Council by August 1, 2011. The Commission has added a special session on July 14 to review the BSC items. Council will review the Code and zoning in August. Based on some a -mails and questions after the green space charette, he has asked Mr. Langworthy to provide an update tonight. Open Space /Greenspace Mr. Langworthy noted that the purpose of the open space Code section was to develop a statutory requirement for both diversity and type of use of open spaces, and also have some minimum sizes and requirements for those spaces. They have incorporated the March 9, 2011 workshop findings. This is the vision plan, and he has highlighted the open space network, dominated by the floodplain of the Scioto River and the Indian Run branches, and also a number of open space provisions that are part of the greenway corridor and other small open spaces scattered in different places, including those that are City- owned. He shared an overview of the various zoning districts within the corridor, also the location of the individual greenways and important elements of the greenway termini points that are set. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what is considered to be a greenway. Mr. Langworthy responded that in the Code, there is a description of a greenway, with a width and a characteristic of what happens there. Essentially, a greenway is an elongated space — not a park per se, but an area used for pedestrian connectivity from major open spaces and major roadways to reach other highlighted points within the corridor. There is a continuous greenway desired from Sawmill all the way to the EAZ. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for its width and whether it is significant. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is on page 76, which indicates that a wide variety of open spaces are programmed — some on the map and some will occur with development. There are seven different open space types, including pocket park, green square, pocket plaza, plaza park and greenway. Mr. Currie asked for the difference between the brown and green highlighting on the map. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Langworthy responded the brown reflects hardscape -- streetscape, pedestrian walkways, which could include brick walks, sidewalks, a variety of things. Mr. Karrer asked if bicycle paths are included. Mr. Langworthy responded these pedestrian- oriented pathways are addressed here. The vehicle portion will be addressed later. Bikepaths fit in different locations and in different ways. Some of those ways will be introduced later. The notations on the maps are from the open space workshops. These include the greenway into Riverside Park across the river; central green in Historic Dublin; the new riverside park along the river, which will be challenging due to the narrow area in which to work. There was a request for improved access to the Dublin Arts Council building, Scioto Park and the Holder Wright earthworks. Part of that will be due to Emerald 8 and improving other projects outside the corridor, in terms of access. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification. Is the park along Riverside Drive going to be narrow? Mr. Langworthy responded there is not much space between Riverside Drive and the river edge. There may be opportunities to capture park space on the east side of Riverside Drive as well. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if this plan relocates Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that this plan does not. It is an issue that remains to be resolved. Mrs. Boring stated that she is very disappointed, as she understood this was part of Council's "wish lists" from long ago and part of the vision. She asked Council for input. Vice Mayor Salay asked for the rationale for not relocating Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that tonight's discussion focuses on the Code. There are some other issues yet to be addressed in road improvements. Until other decisions are made, the plan is based on the current conditions. As decisions are made, some provisions can be implemented. Staff would not make a policy decision about the location of Riverside Drive. Ms. Grigsby stated that this Plan does not preclude modifying the alignment of Riverside Drive. As staff began looking at that a couple of years ago, they identified many issues relating to acquisition and the actual movement and construction of the road. As development is initiated, those types of things will be reviewed and evaluated. The pedestrian crossing is still included in the Plan, and staff is looking at ways to incorporate that along with use of the river. Mrs. Boring stated that she understood this was to be a visionary plan — not just text. There was a beautiful plan for the Historic District years ago that included widening SR 161 and added parking, but then buildings were added and there was no longer room to accommodate that plan. Trying to control the development of each building as it comes along puts the City in somewhat of an argumentative position. Having a Community Plan to defend puts the City in a better position. She is concerned the opportunity will be lost. Ms. Grigsby responded some of the things originally identified for Bridge Street in the 1997 Community Plan are no longer what is preferred. As development occurs over time, preferences change, such as depth of setbacks. Any plan would be subject to modifications. It is a guide to be used, recognizing the intent is to look at opportunities to develop the parkland, specifically along the river. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 4 of 15 Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff is not asking Council to adopt this plan in any fashion. This is merely the mechanism used to incorporate Council's ideas from the workshops. Therefore, the statements regarding Riverside Drive Parkway and the new Riverside park are interpreted as wished for now until later decisions are made. Their goal is to codify open space requirements in this area, but not the location of those open spaces. Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Code may not provide specifications for a park along the river, as a result of Council's input, it does introduce green spaces and greenways that previously were not in the Community Plan, particularly as it relates to connectivity to and within Dublin Village Center. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she appreciates the explanation for realigned Riverside Drive not being shown in the plan at this time. However, she understood that to be a critical feature of this current exercise — because of the interest in making the river the centerpiece of this part of Dublin. To make the river the centerpiece would require it to be a larger area than currently exists. That opportunity is made possible by moving the road to the east. It was understood that would mean a significant financial investment, but Council was willing to consider that and plan accordingly because of the significant impact it would have on this part of the community. More importantly, it would set Dublin significantly apart from any other community in central Ohio — not only having a river, but then incorporating it as a dynamic element of the community. Therefore, she is surprised this Code does not take into consideration that the road would be moved. How can the Code be merely a guide, when a Code by nature is specific? Mr. Langworthy responded that this is not in the Code. It is the overview Council requested to show how the different types of greenspace were specified, also examples for how that could be implemented. This is not proposed for adoption. There is also an overview of the street network plan on page 17, and conceptual road realignment is depicted in that plan. Mr. McDaniel stated if it is Council's desire that more elements be depicted in the plan, it is possible to do so. Mrs. Boring stated that this is something that has already been discussed. Why is additional input necessary to include it in this plan? It was known that movement of the road would be expensive, but if it is to be a dynamic component of the plan, it must be included. Mayor Lecklider stated that he views this document as Code, which has minimum requirements, including widths. Perhaps another document could provide a description of what is desired in regard to the treatment of the river in this particular area. It would not be appropriately included here in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she understood this was to be both a Code and a vision. Mayor Lecklider stated that this part is just the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it should be a Code that reflects the vision. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she thought the intent was to codify the vision. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Mayor Lecklider stated that the Code cannot codify each and every parcel of the overall plan. This is to provide the minimum requirements. Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff was asked to provide the results of the open space workshop, and that is what has been presented. They pulled this part of the presentation out from the Code presentation to make it clear these were the elements discussed at the open space workshop. Mayor Lecklider stated that discussion is similar to the streets discussion, in which there was discussion of the different types of streets, widths, etc. Examples of those provided in the presentation wouldn't be what is being adopted — these are merely examples of how the Code might be implemented. Mr. Gerber stated that is true. However, people will be looking for visualization of the form - based Code. Also, during the most recent CIP workshop, there was discussion concerning scheduling of funding the study for the Riverside Road realignment. He prefers not to have a lengthy Code discussion, but prefers the focus be on achieving a better understanding of how this plan would look when implemented. Ms. Grigsby stated that these Code provisions will guide development as it occurs. Funding was programmed in last year's CIP for design of the Riverside Drive /Bridge Street intersection, but that was put on hold until the Bridge Street Corridor study is completed. Originally, a potential roundabout was identified as the best method to improve traffic movement through that intersection. This process has caused that objective to be reconsidered. It may be desirable to slow traffic movement at that intersection. The costs of land acquisition have changed since the original concept and there are other elements that have been re- evaluated. Although different and attractive features along the river are desired to make Dublin unique, the area may not need to be as large as the original concept envisioned. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there is a fundamental difference between what the Mayor has described and what she believes. She believes Code follows vision instead of Code forcing vision. What she sees is that a Code has been developed, and when a developer comes in with their vision, as long as they meet the Code, their vision will be permitted to be developed. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Code would be followed in conjunction with the Vision that was established as a guide for potential development. Also, some of the planning work has been completed to identify what the land uses will be to enable prediction of transportation needs and projected costs to service those uses. Mayor Lecklider asked if conceptual description of the riverfront greenspace exists anywhere in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the illustrative Vision Plan was not incorporated into the Code. However, on page 17 of the illustrative Vision Plan, which was adopted on October 25, the road is shown as realigned. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Mayor Lecklider asked if exact details concerning the Central Green are provided anywhere. As he understands, this is conceptual. Ms. Kramb asked if there is a zoning map depicting the proposed locations of the 11 zones that have been identified. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Ms. Kramb stated that there will be a Public District. Will public areas be zoned? If so, would the area along the river be zoned as a public area? Mr. Langworthy responded that the City can zone only what it owns. He is referring specifically to parkland. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City zones that area as commercial and builds the streets accordingly, what happens if, in 20 years, the City decides it wants to move Riverside Drive? Buildings will exist there in a commercial zone, and they will never be moved. Mrs. Boring added that the land will be more expensive to acquire at that time. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City has an intention of realigning the road -- just as the City now has plans to zone Office along S.R. 161 although those areas are existing retail -- if the City can have the foresight for that future zoning, why can't the City identify future park zoning for this area? Ms. Grigsby responded that this concept plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, not the more significant realignment originally discussed. The concept plan also shows a roundabout at Bridge Street and Riverside Drive, and that will likely not be what is adopted. The concept plan does recognize some important features -- the river and a pedestrian bridge over the river, but the park area is not as large as originally envisioned. Mrs. Boring stated that consultants can draft these concepts, but, in the end, who owns the plan? If Council wants to revert to an earlier plan, how could that occur? Mr. McDaniel responded that is influenced by how likely the City is to be able to acquire what is needed. From an area plan perspective, there is no problem with showing the intended greenspace on the plan, as well as a shifted Riverside Drive, if that is what Council desires. Currently, there are businesses and owners making investments in that area, which makes it difficult to purchase land at this time. However, it can be reflected in the plan as a long -term goal. Vice Mayor Salay stated that item 3 on the agenda is "transportation analysis update," which will likely focus on Riverside Drive, Bridge Street and the entire transportation network. It is important for everyone to understand what the ramifications of the decision to move Riverside Drive to the east would be. After analysis is presented and understood, then it will be possible to discuss what to do with Riverside Drive. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she does not disagree, but this is a dramatic change from the expectation. This exercise had contemplated the movement of Riverside Drive -- not an incremental move, but a significant movement. That may have been changed for very legitimate reasons, which may be revealed in future presentations. However, she would like to have known that the vision was dramatically different than what Council had anticipated. That would have permitted Council time to adjust its thinking and consider how the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 7 of 15 remainder of the area would make up the difference. For instance, at one time, there was discussion concerning a very large greenway that might traverse the area. That central park concept might have been dramatic enough that it could have replaced a plan around the river. At this point, there appear to be pockets of greenspace, but not the "drama" of significant greenspace, as she had envisioned. Ms. Grigsby responded that the plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, but not to the degree it was three to four years ago. Information on the current proposed alignment will be forwarded to Council. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff and the consultants have discussed the alignment. Traveling south on Riverside Drive, does Council want Riverside Drive to continue as the thoroughfare it currently is — a higher speed roadway -- or would Council prefer to begin changing the character as the road nears the intersection with SR 161? Beginning the grid pattern closer to the north would create other greenspace opportunities. It may be desirable to change the character of the road as it enters the new Bridge Street corridor. As development opportunities occur between 1 -270 and SR 161, there may be opportunity to change the character of the roadway and acquire greenspace. Mrs. Boring stated that the references to how it "could" or "likely" would develop are of concern to her. It then does not appear a decision has been made regarding how Council wants it to appear. Mayor Lecklider asked if the City has the discretion to move a State route. Mr. McDaniel responded that would have to be coordinated with ODOT. If they are also a funding partner, they will have more input. Mr. Taylor stated that two issues are being confused. Mrs. Boring used the 1997 Community Plan concerning the intersection of High Street and S.R. 161 as an example. There seems to be concern that the vision or drama has been lost. If those elements are established first, then Council can evaluate proposals in terms of those elements. Although there may be huge obstacles to moving the road, if Council doesn't identify now that is the vision, someone will build up to the road and then it will be impossible. The Code is separate from the vision. It is also important to maintain the strong, dramatic vision for the City and not allow the day -to -day realities to get in the way of it. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the hardscape transitions from the greenways to the urban settings on the east side and open spaces within the shopping corridors. There will also be larger plazas along SR 161. There are seven different types of open spaces built into the Code as requirements for development and building construction. There is a wide variety of open spaces and a variety of ways to achieve those open spaces. This is not to be adopted as part of the Code; it is an illustration for discussion tonight. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there would be a large central park in the area, Mr. Langworthy responded that there could be, but it is an area not designated, as the area currently is owned by private property owners. The City can have the property owner dedicate the space, and then add to the space via partnerships. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Mr. McDaniel asked if Council wants a central green area adjacent to Historic Dublin. Mr. Langworthy reviewed the changes from the previous draft of the proposed Code. It now contains a provision of open space that covers all non -civic land uses as commercial and residential, regardless of its size. The requirements of open space are based either on square footage or commercial use, or, if a mixed -use, then the number of dwelling units. Also added is a requirement for payment in lieu of open space, when the requirements cannot be met by the applicant or if the ART determines that the fee in lieu of would be more advantageous to the City than the actual open space. The fee must be used for open space purposes within the Corridor. The maximum amount of open water permitted has been reduced. Mrs. Boring noted that it is possible to plan the building so that the land dedication cannot be met. Mr. Langworthy stated that it is not anticipated there will be many circumstances where the open space dedication cannot be met, other than roadway constraints. Mr. Souders noted that on page 17 is the Corridor street network with disclaimers, providing a concept of where the roads could go. Perhaps that same technique could be used for the greenway spaces – providing the concept, with disclaimers, with the Code a visionary/guide for the greenway linkage? Mr. Langworthy responded that he would discuss the possibility with Legal staff. Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nvgaard stated that he would be presenting for Rick Chellman. He reviewed the transportation concepts. Most of the modeling has been completed, and they are in the process of documentation. The goal was to achieve a very walkable and interconnected place, which means a significant change in the traffic. Council had asked that they specifically address the river crossings. There will be two new bridges across the Scioto River. Much modeling has been done, including complex intersection analysis. To summarize, the reduction in traffic with two new bridges will not be substantial — only 13 %. That is due to the fact that adding the new connections across the river will result in more people using the connections. The reality is that all that is really needed is the existing bridge. However, bridges mean something for a community. It is all about "place making." Bridges link neighborhoods, and therefore, their recommendation is to add two more bridges. However, the traffic volume is completely supportable by one bridge. The streets in the City's network are the predominant open spaces in many cities. All of the streets need multi -modal connectivity. He displayed excerpts of pages that would be placed in the Code. The primary east -west streets would be the core east -west spine of the District, from OCLC to the Dublin Village Center. These primary streets would ideally also have cycle tracks. The review continued regarding the types of characteristics that would exist with the differing streets. Conservative evaluations by the models indicates a 40% internal capture -- which means the percent of people living, working, recreating, shopping and dining within the Bridge Street Corridor on foot or bike. For that reason Dublin will not need many bridges – it will have an environment that changes the characteristics of how people move around. Some of the maps included are: a recommended loop bicycle pathway network, primary and secondary routes, and potential COTA interface. The existing bridge would need some areas of improvement: pedestrian enhancements on the bridge dovetailing with changes in the Riverside Drive intersection. A roundabout is not the best way to encourage Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 9 of 15 pedestrian connections. The intersection with Post and Frantz Road will be a definite problem and require improvements as the traffic volume grows from the developing community. Review continued regarding other potential road improvements, as outlined in the presentation materials. Mr. Karrer commented on the traffic volume in the Historic District. A viable alternative to the existing roads is needed. He encourages more study of opportunities for the Historic District to have another bypass for S.R. 161 traffic. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there has been any discussion on the Frantz -Post realignment. Is the vision that it would ultimately connect to Emerald Parkway and thereby move traffic to the east side of the river? That would provide a traffic bypass around the Historic District. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff looked at some realignments. Funds are currently programmed for a Dublin Road west bypass through the Cardinal Health property. It would not connect to Emerald Parkway. Mrs. Boring asked if a potential connection through the Verizon property was also studied. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that a study was conducted, and it was determined that there was not adequate room for that connection based on height and slope. Mr. Schrieber stated that the advantages of adding a new connection for existing conditions is great. Hopefully, in the future there will be multiple connections to Dublin Road added, ideally every 200 -foot block. The goal is not to create an arterial, or classic bypass. This would be the backbone of a different kind of network. The more traffic is dispersed, the less big roads are needed. Mr. Currie asked in reference to the traffic reduction on S.R. 161, where did the modeling begin. Mr. Schrieber responded that the model is of the entire City. It assumes there are multiple intersections. The traffic volume on the existing bridge is not at its capacity, although it is expected to near that. More of a concern in relationship to the bridge is how the intersections perform at either end. Mr. Currie asked if the model included eastbound traffic on S.R. 161 from Plain City to Worthington. Mr. Schrieber responded that it did. The model assumes that in 20 years of growth, there is also background traffic growth associated with other developments and communities. Mr. Currie asked if the 110 -foot width of the streets is an overlay on existing streets. Mr. Schrieber responded that it reflects new streets to be built. The cross section was illustrative of a primary address street at its widest, such as the OCLC entry or Dublin Village Center. It could also be applied to Bridge Street. To the east of the river, it is wider than 110 feet, and to the west it is narrower. Mr. Page inquired if there are other small cities, similar to Dublin, that are about 10 -15 years further along in the process that could share information on how all this can be achieved. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the river was to be treated as an amenity or as a barrier to be crossed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the bridges were pedestrian or vehicular. If they are pedestrian, they would be incorporating the river as an amenity. Mr. Schrieber stated that a bridge that will connect communities should have sidewalks twice the width of the existing sidewalk, cycle tracks, and some form of a barrier protection from the traffic. It also should not be four lanes wide, but two lanes only. Vehicle traffic can be part of the bridge function, but the elements need to be very multi - modal. Bridges done well can also incorporate visual access to the river. Vice Mayor Salay stated that there was earlier discussion about changing the character of Riverside Drive from a fast - moving road. There was also discussion regarding the roundabout, which was assumed would be located at SR 161. She requested that he discuss the thought process behind not having a roundabout, the future character of Riverside Drive, and the reason it cannot be moved more to the east so that the park space envisioned can be added. Mr. Schrieber expressed support for Riverside Drive's character changing. It is difficult to address with Code, however, unless a developer is rebuilding it. He advocates narrower lanes, adding walkways and a multi -use path. The key is to humanize a street that will be a gateway or front door for many development parcels, not treat it as a bypass road, but a principal address street, a front door to places. That intent should continue down to its principal intersection with Bridge Street. Although a roundabout does help traffic move more safely, it is difficult for pedestrian traffic. Therefore, it may make more sense to have a compact surface intersection, which would make pedestrian crossings as short as possible. It would require more engineering of details, but it would make pedestrian connectivity an important component. Vice Mayor Salay stated that a big part of the previous discussion focused on not moving the road as far east as initially discussed. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a place- making decision. It is not really a traffic and circulation decision. That type of movement does not really impact intersection operations. It is the intersection design and the cross section of the street that is relevant. Therefore, he can't speak to changes in size of open space or where the roadway is aligned. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she was hoping to obtain clarity on why the roadway is not being moved. Mr. McDaniel responded that, previously, the intent was to have the road swing widely and for Tuller Road to be realigned. A suburban feel was the intent at that time; now staff is looking at a grid design. They had a $100 million dollar development project proposed at that time, but the shopping center is picking up vibrancy again. It is possible to change direction. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 11 of 15 Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would be helpful to see the dimensions now being considered, and the difference from previous plans. Ms. Newell stated that there was a plan for a 110 -foot wide boulevard street further west. How does that relate to the bridge connection? She assumes the width downsizes as it reaches the river. Mr. Schrieber referred to the street family diagram. Some of the streets are key connections that will reach up to OCLC and change street families. Even within one family, the Code is designed to indicate that there are primary families, but the details involve going to the user guide, which provides detailed cross sections. Any of those cross sections might be used, depending on the adjacent land use and the character of the cross section further down the road. For instance, traveling along North Street, a principal address street, the cross section might vary 20 times across its length. The Code permits for each development that is involved in the creation of that street to be reviewed for what the appropriate cross section would be at that time. In some places, a bicycle path might be needed; in other places, it may not. In other places, the sidewalk could be narrower in areas of lower pedestrian activity; in other areas wider due to more pedestrian activity. He envisions a multitude of cross sections used throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Ms. Newell stated that the plan indicates Bridge Street and SR 161 at 110 feet; nothing indicates other options. Mr. Schrieber responded that the Code language on page 18, J(2) provides 110 feet as "one example of the street configuration appropriate. Please refer to typical plan and ultimately the table. Refer to the Bridge Street Corridor's District applicable guide for the other cross sections." The language should be bolder for clarification purposes. There is no intention that the example on page 18 is what Bridge Street should look like. Showing numerous possible cross sections would be voluminous. A decision was made for clarity to show a few brief examples, with all of the language referring back to a technical appendix that does show all those cross sections. Ultimately, clarity is paramount, and it could be done differently. Mrs. Boring stated that J(1) does refer to the "intent," so there is not clarity. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the other examples do not give the name of an existing street. Using Bridge Street as the name makes it confusing; that should be changed. Mayor Lecklider asked about the remaining meeting timeframe. Mr. McDaniel responded that Carson Bise, TischlerBise, will review Code sections, unless Council would prefer to defer that. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has never had the opportunity to discuss these issues, and Council's input should be provided. She believes another workshop is needed. Ms. Grigsby responded that can be done. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she agrees another meeting is needed to discuss the development code, as that is the subject about which Council is receiving letters and phone calls. She would prefer to hear the fiscal review tonight. [Discussion re. Transportation continues.] Mr. Souders stated that traffic in the Historic District is an issue, backing up to 1 -270. If the number of lanes through the Historic District were reduced, does the model still work? Would another bridge, such as a North Street bridge, be needed if the number of lanes were reduced? Mr. Schrieber responded that if the number of lanes were reduced, the model will not work. That would cause a severe reduction in capacity. If the intersection is designed correctly, however, it can handle the volumes projected in any future scenario. Mr. Souders stated that it has been suggested that the Bridge Street bridge would better operate if the number of lanes were reduced, and the amount of pedestrian width increased. Because the bridge is a fixed width, the number of lanes would need to be reduced — but the model will no longer work. Mr. Schrieber clarified that his suggestion was that on Riverside Drive, the lane width be reduced. He would not suggest removing lanes on Bridge Street, but he would suggest doing whatever can be done to change the character of Bridge Street and its bridge. That is the key point. The model will handle the traffic, but it always breaks down when people "begin behaving more like people and less like cars." If the characteristics of the street change, regardless of the level of development, substantial changes in driving patterns will result. Mr. Souders asked if the consultant perceives an issue with pedestrians attempting to cross from the north side of Bridge Street to the south side. Mr. Schrieber responded that he observes there is an issue. Mr. Souders asked if the only solution is to reduce the width of the drive lanes. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a good way to solve it, but not the only way. For instance, the intersection of Bridge and Dublin Road might warrant some changes in how the signal operates; that could reduce the queues. Mr. Souders asked if it would make sense for current Bridge Street, with reductions, to become one -way, eastbound, and North Street to become one -way, westbound. Mr. Schrieber responded that he would expect that to be a disaster. It would cause significant high -speed traffic that would make pedestrian crossings difficult. It would also cause levels of diversions that cannot be conceived of at that point in time. It would be creating an exploded, one -way couplet that would be detrimental to the character of either side. Mr. Souders stated that the only solution, then, is to keep the lanes and change the width. Mr. Schrieber stated that making the travel lanes on Bridge Street as narrow as possible and introducing active uses, crosswalks and, where possible, on street parking to help create the friction and slow down the traffic volumes will make a difference. It is possible to handle just as much volume but at a slower speed -- 25 mph for the peak period would be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 13 of 15 good. The problem is that crossing the street in the Historic District any time of the day is difficult. The goal is to design a district that has life all day long. Mrs. Boring stated that, previously, there has been discussion about the stacking problems at the intersection of Riverside Drive /Emerald Parkway, the reason for realigning Tuller Road. In attempts to divert traffic on Emerald Parkway, she is hopeful that kind of situation is recalled. How do drivers make a reasonable north -south connection with Riverside Drive? Mr. Schrieber responded that one of the principles of this network is that the streets are not being designed as bypass alternate straight shots. Not only is the cross section changing, but other than where there are existing roads, there is not an opportunity to actually drive through the entire site without turning the wheels significantly, or making turns at intersections to continue. Doing so helps to preserve the character of those streets as slower -speed streets. They will still relieve traffic, but drivers will be forced to make turns, thereby going slower. It is possible to make an east -west connection in a dozen different options with this network. Mrs. Boring asked if drivers would be forced to use another north -south connector, rather than Riverside Drive. Mr. Schrieber responded that he does not believe any diversion for drivers would occur. The intent of multiple routes is that any additional traffic created by new development would have other options, rather than funneling everyone onto Riverside Drive, Sawmill Road or Bridge Street. In fact, there will be the opportunity for people who work within the corridor to never touch those streets all day, other than to cross them. He would not expect people who drive today on those through routes would necessarily shift their pattern significantly, although they may be intrigued to go elsewhere. The redundancy will reduce the opportunities for folks to find one convenient route, but increase the opportunities for everyone who lives and works in the District to move around. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the ramifications for people who live to the north of the Corridor and who use Riverside Drive to travel downtown. It seems that part of the focus should also be on giving folks an easier way to travel from Point A to Point B. Mr. Schrieber responded that sometimes they are also asked to conduct a travel -time run. The time to travel on Riverside Drive from Emerald Parkway to Bridge Street today versus the future when, hopefully, the travel speeds are reduced and will be 30 -45 seconds. That time difference will humanize the trip for this District. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher referred to the model for SR 161 traveling east. There has been discussion regarding the addition of left turns at Riverside Drive, as existed years ago. With a roundabout, that would have been possible. A roundabout is not being recommended, but are they recommending a left -turn lane in this location? Mr. Schrieber stated that there should be as much connectivity as possible, and therefore, he believes it would be a good idea. However, they have not studied that intersection in finite detail. That is the reason it is on the list of items for immediate consideration. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Fiscal Carson Bise, TischlerBise stated that they do not have any hard numbers to share tonight. They have worked several times with Dublin over the past 15 years. Their work focuses solely on cost of growth studies, primarily impact fee studies and fiscal impact analyses. With this project, they are responsible for the fiscal impact analysis and accompanying fiscal sustainability implementation recommendations. Some of the characteristics of the Bridge Street Corridor will be historically different for Dublin, such as the variety of housing densities, different development pattern, and different residential and non - residential products. Their analysis will cover the trip rates from this type of development and amount of local road frontage associated with these land use types that will be added. They will look at the incentives that must be utilized to achieve this vision. Tax increment financing will be used for some of the infrastructure improvement. They will look at the cost of the incentives, intervention strategies, and other actions the City must take to implement this. How will the structured parking be built — with TIF dollars? And how will it be operated? They will be creating a fiscal model that looks at costs on the margin, recognizing the City's existing capacity, and showing the ebbs and flows of surpluses and deficits. They will also be assessing capital facilities - the infrastructure provisions within the study area. [In -depth review of the fiscal analysis plan continued.] The fiscal impact model is 70% complete and he anticipates providing a draft report to the City by the end of July. They are finalizing assumptions for the development program, and the key aspect is phasing. The transportation analysis is needed to complete their work for the final report. Mr. Langworthy asked how similar this analysis is to that done for the Community Plan process. Mr. Bise responded that the difference is they are looking at a small area versus a City -wide analysis, and this development project has very different characteristics than the City's traditional developments. The focus of this analysis is developing the model and determine how it will behave differently in term of trip generation rates, socioeconomic characteristics, assessed values, etc. Mr. Souders asked how the fiscal analysis impacts the existing historic district. The mixed use will compete for the same people in the marketplace until the development takes off. Mr. Bise responded that is not their charge here; that is more of a market analysis. That type of analysis can be incorporated later, if desired. The spinoff of their work would lead to the "what if' questions, such as what happens short and long -term to the Historic District, which can be hypothesized and modeled. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if, in recommending incentives, they research what other communities are offering as incentives, or what the central Ohio market is doing. Mr. Bise responded that their role is not to tell the City what incentives it should use. They do not have preconceived ideas, although they can offer suggestions if requested. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested clarification of what he would be providing. She thought he would be addressing the future, not what has occurred in the past. Mr. Bise stated that they would offer modeling for different types of incentives. Perhaps the City may have to upfront some of the infrastructure. They will be offering implementation recommendations to make the Plan happen. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 15 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if in his experience he is aware of certain types of incentive models, wouldn't he suggest they be modeled in this Corridor? Mr. Bise responded that he would, but that would come later. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for the timeframe for completion. Mr. Bise indicated the end of July. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is looking for ideas, not an analysis of what the City is already doing. Is he modeling against the new plan incorporating the types of incentives the City is already doing? Mr. Bise responded that is correct. They would not take the liberty of assuming what the City should do, but will provide a "toolbox" of options. Ms. Bailey asked if it is a bit premature to model with so many items undecided in this plan. How does the City avoid "creeping the plan" to fit the budget? Mr. Bise responded that at some point, someone will have to make a decision as to what type of transportation improvements, for instance, they should model. They can do subsets of scenarios — with Riverside Drive moving or staying in place, for example. Mayor Lecklider asked staff about the timing for an additional workshop, based on tonight's discussion. The PZC review may need to be rescheduled for a later date. Mr. McDaniel responded he would like to check on the availability of consultants and forward those dates to Council for consideration. He would prefer they be involved in the meetings. Mayor Lecklider acknowledged that P &Z would need to delay their review until the workshops are completed. Ms. Kramb asked the percentage of completion of the Code presented tonight would be. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is difficult to provide a percentage. They now need to assess the amount of change needed in the Code language to address the recommendations that have been made, and need to circle back with the stakeholders. Mr. McDaniel responded that a rough estimate would be 90% complete. Ms. Kramb suggested that there are many items in the Code that do not require comment, but where references to figures need to be addressed, where references are not correct. These should be handled by the consultants. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Clerk of Council