Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-11 Joint work session MinutesBRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT COUNCIL /PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Monday, August 11, 2011 Council Chambers Record 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, Mr. Budde and Mr. Hardt. Ms. Kramb was absent. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Willis, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Noble, Ms. Martin and Ms. Husak. Consultants David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Don Elliot, Clarion Associates Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. He noted that the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Plan has received positive recognition at the national and local level. This is a transformative undertaking that will, hopefully, ensure the vibrancy of the City for decades in the future. A video created by MORPC, which focuses on the importance of this project and the planning themes that form the basis of this vision follows. [Video presentation of "Rethinking Streets for Successful Communities "] Mr. Dixon, Goody Clancy, stated that this is an opportunity for Council and PZC to bring up questions in the following three areas: • Has the plan matured as it ought; are the right elements present? • Does Council have all the information needed to make decisions about the Code? Are the Vision, the Code, Transportation, Planning and Fiscal Planning integrated and producing mutually consistent and reinforcing answers? • What should the next area of focus be to achieve your aspirations? He has been asked what is the big statement or what defines this project. Watching the MORPC video, he was struck that Dublin thinks regionally and acts locally. Dublin acts with a regional responsibility. To do so, Dublin has the ability to change course and remain a model. With this plan, Dublin wanted to create a community that would continue to appeal to a changing population; to become even more competitive as a desirable place to work and live; to appeal to the changing values that drive investment; and create the "heart' of the entire community. All of these efforts translate into a truly walkable environment, although it can take a variety of forms. Ms. Grigsby stated that this video was shared at a previous MORPC meeting. There was some concern regarding whether the vision was big enough to accomplish what is desired. The Bridge Street corridor is the first major component. However within the overall corridor and planning area, there will be other components, such as pedestrian bridges, that will be incorporated. The question of focus tonight is how the Code achieves that. Council and PZC will discuss their concerns. Mr. Gerber has met with Mr. Langworthy to discuss the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 2 of 16 form -based Code, and additional training sessions or discussions for Council members can be scheduled. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC has extensively discussed this process, and identified some issues. To maximize the time, PZC members decided to come to consensus first, then provide those consensus items at one time. Mr. Hardt has compiled those items and will provide PZC's perspective to Council tonight for purposes of discussion. Mr. Hardt stated that PZC attempted to distill their thoughts into four areas of concern that PZC members believe are either unfinished or need further attention: 1. Concern that the Vision Plan results in the appropriate distribution and configuration of open space. Although the Vision Plan in its current form does include a considerable amount of open space, the draft Code indicates that the Vision Plan is conceptual, not regulatory. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the greenspace on the map will necessarily materialize. Although the proposed Code dictates that each development must have a certain amount of open space associated with it, that approach is no different than the City's current requirements. With existing planned districts, there is a certain threshold for maximum lot coverage, which dictates that any given parcel of land must have a certain amount of open space on it. It does not, however, create cohesive public spaces, nor does it create connectivity. The best parks and open spaces in Dublin occurred when the City took the lead. PZC members believe a similar approach should be taken with the Bridge Street Corridor, versus leaving open space decisions up to future unknown development plans. There should be City- driven direction for open space. 2. Non - vehicular connectivity. The Vision Plan outlines several pockets of very high density development, including the OCLC site, Dublin Village Center, and the Historic District. Those subareas are separated from each other by natural and man -made barriers. Establishing connectivity can be very difficult to do after the fact. Without paying specific attention on how to establish those connections now, there is a risk that the vision in the video will not be realized. The subareas will remain isolated from each other, rather than walkable and connected. They will not succeed as part of an urban fabric because, individually, they do not have the needed critical area. 3. Development review and legal processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is a leading edge, comprehensive approach that will fundamentally change the core of the City in an unprecedented, profound way. There is no room for error. It is important to "get it right" the first time. But the draft Code also proposes that the City simultaneously eliminate the public review process, which has been used successfully for four decades in the City. That seems to put too many variables in play at once. PZC is not opposed to eliminating PZC review, but whatever new system is considered, it is necessary to be able to guarantee the same results in quality and public participation that have previously been present. 4. The Vision Map is conceptual in nature, illustrative, non - binding, but nevertheless, it will serve as a key indicator of the City's intentions. The map has an incredible Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 3 of 16 amount of work and ideas represented in it, but something significant is missing. What is the one singular unifying objective that the City is trying to accomplish with the Bridge Street Corridor Plan? What legacy do we want to leave behind? The map in its current form does not make that clear. It is not easy to identify the primary goal. The Plan needs to be tweaked to crystallize that, and leave behind a plan that future leaders can refer to, where the over - riding goal is apparent. PZC members are all very supportive of the Plan. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC believes that staff has done a fantastic job in the research, and has provided much information regarding transportation, utilities, etc. However, the Commission does not believe that a plan has been created that is ready to be presented to the public. The Commission believes they are a well- suited group to participate in this effort, and are very hopeful that Council will entrust to them the ability to work on this project. At the appropriate time, PZC would like to work with Goody Clancy or other identified consultant to "drill down" on the things in the Vision to ensure that the final plan is the best that could have been achieved. Mrs. Boring stated that these things have also been of concern to her, especially the map. It is appears the Code is now being written to satisfy that map. There have been issues with it from the beginning, particularly in regard to the appropriate configuration /distribution of open space. At this time, the map is a "handicap." Mr. Dixon stated that the Plan is not an actual plan. It is instead an illustration of how the vision and the principles would unfold in the area, given the property ownerships and likely market and distribution to different uses over the next 20 years. It is not a bible or a strict interpretation. There is a core idea that could develop in many different forms. For instance, in some places, such as the Stavroff development, it could be a place to go to a movie, shop, live nearby — an urban village. Midway between that development and the river would be a residential neighborhood, perhaps also with corner stores and cafes. Then, next to the river would be a river -front central park where civic events would occur, perhaps with a pedestrian crossing of the river. On the other side of the river would be Historic Dublin, then further west, a newer -scale district; finally, on the far side of this corridor would be OCLC — envisioned by a single developer, a potentially mixed -use subarea. Although there will be a tremendous variety of opportunities to do things, they are all united by the opportunity to interact with the environment in an urban way. The other four factors mentioned have to succeed for this basic vision to come forward. Their firm does much urban campus planning, and everyone wants a "signature" place. With this project, he believes it will become the place that people love within the area — perhaps the river. It is not the core idea, but the best expression of it that occurs. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that they are fine with the Code. What they really want to hear is how this will be made Dublin's. Mrs. Boring stated that in regard to the central park — if it is not made clear now what is desired and planning for that occurs now, developers will be coming in before the Code is finished. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Dixon stated that there is always a little of the "chicken versus the egg" in moving this type of process forward. It is important now to determine which aspects need to be better defined. He agrees that the best public realms are City- directed. Private sector may help create them, but the public sector conceived them or championed them. Dublin has a history of this, and it will be true here with the BSC. The best way to move the central park forward will probably be by completing the Code first, and by not approving development until Council has a good sense of the park. Until the Code is complete, it is difficult to say whether the City will need to acquire a certain property. The Code will provide a lot of answers as to what the built environment can be like. When the Code is complete would be a good time to do a public realm plan. That will determine the public policy decisions —what is Council's position on moving streets, buying property, programming and management of a space such as this; also, how does that link to and what is the role of a town green. What will make this a more confident plan is the fiscal piece. Through private - public partnerships, it is possible to invest a lot in creating a great public realm. It will be easier to understand how that will work when the fiscal piece is completed in a couple of weeks. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission does not want to find itself in a position of hoping that when 20 million square feet of space is developed there will be a great park at the river. It would be preferable to set aside the land, call that area on the map the new central park, and let that direct the development around it. PZC does not want to take the chance of ending up with something Council does not want because there was not a sufficiently clear vision in the beginning. Mr. Dixon stated that more engineering and planning information to more specifically target what Council wants to do is needed. It should be possible to stay ahead of development by making it clear that it is the City's intent to solve this piece. This is in everyone's best interest because it will enhance the value of the land around it, so the private sector should be willing to cooperate in giving the City time to do that. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how Council should do that additional, more targeted visioning. Mr. Dixon responded that Council would direct staff to select a team of consultants whose expertise is in designing great public spaces, with a full understanding of the planning, programming, design, funding and management involved. They would be requested to develop a conceptual vision that will allow Council to make the policy decisions. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her frustration is that what Council has so far is consultant- driven, and it appears to have lost the big vision. How can Council have a big vision by asking a consultant to give it to them? She would prefer that Council first articulate that vision. Who is best able to help Council do that, because Council needs an organized, facilitated meeting that helps them articulate the big vision sufficiently after which the map could be drawn. Perhaps it is a bubble map that is drawn while Council is articulating it. It should result in demonstrating the connectivity and significant open space desired. Mr. Dixon responded that he believes Council has enough information to state the foundation upon which they desire to build. Council can now request someone to work with them in a visioning process. In the process, the consultant would bring Council up -to -date, and provide information on what is being done elsewhere that is relevant to Dublin in order to stimulate discussion. From that, Council would then formulate a charge to bring back a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 5 of 16 proposal that accomplishes the vision that Council, in a more informed way, has been able to develop. Mr. Gerber stated that this project began with a vision report. This was followed by a discussion of what form -based code is or isn't; Council then looked at a code. That code can be worked on. When developers have a picture, that is what they work toward. Therefore, Council wants to have a vision picture that encompasses some of Dublin's core values — open space, scenic areas, etc. Council needs some assistance in putting forth its stated values in the report, thereby letting developers and others know what Council desires. Mr. Dixon stated that it doesn't have to be a completed document for Council to point out to developers that they have heard the intent for the Corridor, and they can figure out where they need to be. Mr. Gerber stated that he is looking for a consensus regarding the vision. He had the opportunity this week to meet with Mr. Langworthy and his staff to learn how form -based code works. It is a good concept, but if there is not a vision on which there is consensus, then the City will lose sight down the road of what it is doing. Mr. Elliott stated that this is not a PUD, not a development by a single owner, but of many owners that will come forward over 20 -30 years, and in an order not anticipated. Because of that, it cannot be viewed as a master plan, as if there were a rich landowner of all that acreage, and all that was required is to create a prettier picture than exists. The comment has been made that there is no big idea here. He believes there is; there always has been. The big picture is a walkable, mixed -use downtown at too big a scale for anyone to identify a site plan, or PUD. It is a process. They did not write a code to implement the picture /map. That picture is very controversial — some did not want one at all; others did. To him, the picture illustrates a flavor of the place that the City desires. That is also what they tried to accomplish with the code. He did say that it was necessary to have a road framework, which will change more than once during the process. The fact that it will be changed does not mean a framework shouldn't be included to align the roads and buildings. The plan is there, and it is a better, more visually compelling and complete plan than many cities have when they have hired their firm to write their code. Therefore, based on his personal experience, this is not an inadequate plan. It is as good as most entities have, and better than many. It is good to resist the temptation to focus on creating a better picture before writing the code. That would be a fundamental mistake. That is thinking as if there were one landowner, you had control over the site plan and could determine where you wanted to place a trail or park. Dublin does not have that control. There are many landowners, and in the future those properties could be divided into more parcels with more landowners or combined with fewer landowners. Whatever may occur, it still must work. Therefore, they have attempted to "get the fabric right" — send a message about lot sizes, mixed uses, and buildings near the street, so that whatever order the development proposals come in, they will be contributing to the overall density, walkability and mixed -use character of the corridor. Does that mean the City does not have an overall vision of what it wants? No -- it is because the City does not have control over the order in which that will occur. The City has control only over the public realm, not the private landowners. There is a plan, but a "snapshot" cannot be taken of that plan. That would be malpractice on their part, because it is only a "guess" as to how the future could unfold, consistent with the values the City identifies. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Gerber responded that he understands this needs to be very fluid, as it will occur over a long period of time. However, is there a way to put forth those stated values and objectives? He would like to have more of that type of clarity, which he could share with developers or others. Mr. Elliott responded that can certainly be done. This is a big area, and the City does have a plan, but will never be satisfied with it. With a plan in place, the most common failure is not to zone it at all, which are the very tools that will accomplish what is desired. The City must now do the zoning, knowing that they don't have all the details and cannot. There is a third process involved. The City can help build roads, infrastructure and parking structures. It can decide to build a large central park and determine, through the planning process, its location and on whose property it is located. However, he believes it would be a mistake to attempt to draw that big park on the plan and zone it as such, unless the City has the cooperation of that property owner. The owner might be willing to give that parkland to the City in return for something — for example, giving them a higher density or something else in return. That can be negotiated, but typically in an area this large, the landowner does not want to lock that down in terms of zoning. However, the development will occur predictably, and the City will want to use its powers to decide over time where the best investment of parks is. In his past work, he has tried to lock those things in a Code, but he has very little comfort it will turn out the way it is drawn. There are too many variables in play. What he would likely accomplish is a complaint from a landowner that the City has decided the use of their property. It is preferable that the City lock in the "fabric" and the tools that will eventually achieve the City's vision. In regard to the open space, what is contained in the Code does not paint a picture of a central or big park. The plan indicates that everyone needs to contribute to the open spaces, but it does not have to be on -site; it can be done by a fee in -lieu of. The funds will be used to aggregate open space in the order in which it unfolds over time. That decision does not need to be made today. He recommends that the City not try to visualize the end result. Mr. Taylor stated that PZC does not want to define the open space that closely. They want to look at the bigger picture. There is a lot of green in this drawing, the prospective sketch and in the Code, and that is good. It is the organizational principles that are missing. The concept of a central park has been proposed as an organizing principle to pull this together. The Commission recognizes that designating a large amount of land owned by several property owners for a civic use would result in issues, but that is the hard work necessary to establish a priority of what the City wants to see in the overall plan. It may "step on some toes," but the City will have to deal with that. Cities are often planned and the great spaces of the world are often very well planned, and the pieces fit together to accomplish that. Although the City cannot totally predict how this will all build out in the future, if the City does not have some organizing principle beyond a grid, than there is no hierarchy, no priority. When a project is proposed, it is important that the City approve it only if it still meets the large vision. As an example, the City had an earlier Community Plan that showed the corner of Bridge and High Street as two parks, one on each side. Now, there are buildings in place on both corners. Because the plan wasn't "nailed down," it changed. If what was originally decided was really important, the City should have negotiated with those property owners and developers to have the buildings in place, but still ensure the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 7 of 16 open space. That is what the Commission does not want to happen with this plan. There is a vision for something, but not the wherewithal to ensure that it happens. They are looking for something to pull the vision all together, and that vision is not just one of density or walkability. If the Code is the "fabric," we still want to define what will be made of the fabric. Mr. Gerber noted that at his earlier meeting with Mr. Langworthy, he pointed out that greenspace can be accomplished in different ways. It can be a street with walkability. The flexibility of this plan is what makes it attractive. He does not believe it would be wise for Council to decide today where that open space will be located. He would prefer that the vision statement clarify the City's values and objectives. This is different than a PUD. Mrs. Boring stated that the present practice has been that the City states where it wants connectivity and has asked developers to contribute greenspace or fees in lieu of land. Isn't it necessary to have a vision of where connectivity of the pieces should occur? Mr. Elliott responded that it is important to work on the issue of scale. This area is twice the size of downtown Denver. He could not have predicted 200 years ago where the trails or streets would go in downtown Denver — it's too big. So, what you do when you can't know exactly where they go is to say the blocks cannot be bigger than this. This achieves the fabric of connectivity, if the blocks are walkable. The reason downtown Portland is a great walking city is that the blocks are small. People can get where they want to go without walking around large areas. The connectivity is built into the street pattern. That does not need to be drawn today; rather, it must be established that as the area subdivides and is platted, the blocks may be no bigger than a certain number. If the block must be bigger for some reason, a mid -block throughway or connection must be made. All those will not line up; they don't line up in any city. If the fabric of the streets is at the right scale, it will be walkable and connected. Their work is not in PUDs. They are typically hired by cities who want to move away from PUDs. Therefore, what he is trying to achieve is not a map where you can see it, but a rule that says they must see it and figure it out as development occurs. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that the disconnect seems to be with the consultants' perception of allowing the public space to work itself out. However, she believes Dublin is more inclined to work out the big public space first, make the investment now, and then take the payments in lieu of to reimburse itself in the future. This process ensures that the City gets the right space, in the right place, at the right time. The vision will never be achieved if the City does not believe sufficiently in what it's doing to make the financial investment to "get the ball rolling." Mr. Dixon stated that there are many plans that have been constructed for multi -owner areas. The Daniel Burnham plan for Chicago is the "grandfather" of them all. That plan did certain things very right, and those methods have been successfully copied by succeeding plans. One of the things the Burnham Plan did brilliantly was identify Grant Park and some other very important public places in Chicago. Because of its location next to Lake Michigan and an existing downtown, the focus was on how to let the private sector of Chicago build the city out from there. There are certain aspects of fixing the public realm that are visible. Similarly, Dublin has the Indian Run, and the way in which development occurs next to that natural space is critically important — specific zoning requirements are necessary. Obviously, Dublin cannot move the river or Historic Dublin, so there is a pretty clear area in Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 8 of 16 which Dublin will be doing a lot of planning for a great central park. One great characteristic of Dublin is that the City is able to discuss and work with property owners on its area plans. For some time, Dublin has had in place plans to create a riverfront park on both sides -- it will not be news to anyone, and more specific planning on how to define and accomplish that can be anticipated. There are obvious places where greenways should go. The Stavroff group, which owns much of that land, is conducting planning at this time. What Dublin can state is that the City wants a great public space in that location -- a lively square, but the City cannot tell them where to put it. The best method is to work with Stavroff to find the right place, right configuration, and right uses surrounding it. Also, with the OCLC property, it is in everyone's best interest for them to create a public square, one very different from the Stavroff square. That is the partnership process — the City states its goal, and the property owners decide how they will create it for the City. The next step in the planning process is to determine those things that are very important and how fixed they are by circumstances. The City desires a downtown central park. It now knows more about what is hoped will be created around it. Now is the time to decide what the space could be that would make it the heart of Dublin, and what is the range of things that would be within that space — natural versus programmed elements. How much land is needed for that space? This will involve discussions with property owners, which could best be held during this process. Before long, it will likely be clear what that park should be. It might now be good to look at all the sector plans and identify what needs to be fixed, the important goals, and the qualities to embody in the Code. Vice Mayor Salay asked if he is suggesting breaking this plan down by subarea and defining what is desired in those subareas. Mr. Dixon agreed and indicated the obvious subareas. How those subareas are connected needs to be fixed, including the adjacent activity, so that pedestrian activity is encouraged. There is an opportunity for a transit connection from OCLC to the Stavroff property. It needs enough density around it to work. There are some things that can be understood and fixed now and memorialized in a diagrammatic way, so that goals and place- specific directions are visibly clear and provided as an underlay to the Code. Ms. Grigsby stated that the City has long had a Future Land Use Plan as a guide, along with general area plans that are not specific as to what will be there. The concern is that this diagram would also serve as a future land use map. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the consultant creates future land use maps with this type of project. Mr. Dixon responded that they do, but it is not similar to those the City has had in the past. It might say "mixed -use housing emphasis," or "mixed -use entertainment emphasis," or "mixed -use address street" (Bridge Street). A desired public square for civic use could also be indicated in the Stavroff and OCLC subareas. The next - generation document is developing, which will memorialize these discussions. It will be a foundation document that will serve as a basis for zoning and other decision making. An illustrative plan is not needed, but something that translates policy into land use and other goals. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that everyone is in agreement that is what is being requested. Mr. Dixon responded that the knowledge exists. They can confer with staff, and it should not take long to put together. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 9 of 16 Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the Commission would actually like to do that work. Mr. Elliott stated that Mr. Dixon has addressed the planning perspective. From the zoning perspective, there are three capital places here, not counting the river, that need to work together. This plan is too big to be one thing; it is three or four things. If those three or four things turn out well, even though they are different from each other, the sum total will be better than making it all one thing. The OCLC area, the Stavroff area and the Historic Dublin area can all be exceptional places. Trying to micro - coordinate them into something that hangs together as one thing is not an effective use of time. There are neighborhood development standards. Perhaps it would be more comforting if it were articulated along with those standards, and shown in a visual way, what open spaces will be there when they are developed. That would be more appropriate than in the overall vision drawing. The open space provision is within the text, but he is aware of a concern about big open spaces, as they are not specifically articulated. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not concerned about the land use, which is pretty clear. Her concern is making sure the connectivity is in place and that the public spaces are gathering places versus baseball fields, etc. She is particularly concerned about the area along the river. Mr. Reiner stated that Council views the river as one of the most important attributes of the City. In a recent visit to Portland, he observed that smaller city blocks allow for improved pedestrian traffic. He believes codifying that in this code will help ensure that occurs in Dublin. He agrees that the big vision is a big urban center. Another vision is the greenspace and river and the connectivity to it. What access does someone in a condominium above a Stavroff area shop have to an open space? He assumes it would be the riverfront. Portland has a lot of bridges, however; Dublin does not. Perhaps the additional street connectors will result in a need for an additional bridge or two over the river. He does understand PZC's concern. Dublin has been a PUD city, and has been very successful with them, creating a superior place in which to live. Many of the best ideas have come from PZC over the last 25 years. They are concerned with eliminating the review process. There cannot be any room for error, and how can the new process ensure that? Is a review process still needed to guarantee the perfection desired? Vice Mayor Salay acknowledged that this first effort will not bring perfect results. After some things are built, revisions to this Code will likely be made. This is a 20 -50 year vision, and things will change over that time. She views this as an evolution. There are many great neighborhoods and buildings in the City today that could be improved upon. However, it is important that everyone agree on the development review process. The goal of this entire undertaking was to achieve a development review process for the BSC that would be much easier and less cumbersome for developers. Instead of a year -long approval process, it would be a three -month process before construction could begin. That is how the City was attempting to make this area attractive for economic development. There is a conflict between an expedited process with a form -based code versus a full Planning Commission review process. The two processes do not mix. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Elliott stated that he has been writing code for 20 years. In the last 10 -15 years, without exception, cities that have asked them to re -write their codes have moved toward more objective and specific development standards that are administered by staff -- with the provision that if the proposed project is complex or controversial, it can be pushed up to a higher level of review, usually a planning commission. He has not had a client indicate that they have a staff - driven process that is not working and they want to switch to a commission review process. However, he is aware that Dublin has had success with a public review process based on close review and intense negotiations. It is not the way he observes cities evolving their codes. He believes it is more important for the Planning Commission's focus to be on whether the standards are right, the right messages are being sent to the private sector, and the results are satisfactory. If they are dissatisfied with the results, the answer is to fix the standards. This is the "safe harbor" for developers — if they do what the City's code tells them to do, they will obtain a permit. It is not just a start of negotiations. It is important to re -write the code with higher standards and to articulate what the City wants. Once that has been done, no negotiation is necessary. That is the role most planning commissions play — managing the system, rather than reviewing individual projects. He has researched for places that are similar to Dublin, either in their quality of life or dominance in local markets, who have a form -based code combined with a public review process. In Livermore, California, projects above a certain size are sent to a planning commission, and in Denver, Colorado, a project that meets a certain number of factors can be forwarded for planning commission review. Projects do not automatically go to planning commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there is a place within that process for the general public to weigh in. Mr. Elliott responded there is not. The trend is to say that the public has a responsibility to provide its input during the City's periodic review of its standards to ensure they are accomplishing the desired development. Mayor Lecklider stated that the public has traditionally had that opportunity in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when this process began, we understood it would be substantially different for this area of the City, but this part of the City only. Developers have told us that they will not build here because our process is too long and costly. We have to have a different process for this part of the City. The public may not understand that now is their opportunity to weigh in, not later. They are accustomed to waiting until the public review meetings to weigh in. The next BSC public meetings must be aggressively advertised and public interaction encouraged and allowed. The remainder of these meetings must be held in a space that facilitates that public interaction, before any vote occurs. Then, if the standards do not appear to work, in three or six months it may be necessary to revise them. It is important not to wait until this code is seriously outdated. Staff has to also consider doing things differently, not just holding public meetings. There is an urgent need to aggressively educate the community on their need to be involved now. Mr. Gerber concurred. Even with this new process, there will frequently be work for the Commission to do, such as re- reviewing the standards. There is a significant role for everyone. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Reiner asked if these standards will achieve the desired elevations and materials that result in the same quality of buildings in the City that PZC has provided to date. The City's consistent "high bar" for quality is an assurance that attracted people to Dublin. PZC is concerned that some architects will now take the opportunity to take short -cuts and produce buildings that are not as high quality as the City has always demanded. The assurance for people coming into Dublin has been that if they build here, they are confident their investment will be solid, because other developers must meet the same standards of quality. Everyone loves that aspect of Dublin — that investments here are sound. Do these standards assure that same level of quality? Mr. Elliott stated that they believe they do so, but they appreciate hearing Council's views on them. If Council believes the materials, signs or elevation requirements are too loose, he urged them to indicate that. He does not advise the government on how they should run their processes. However, if government proposes some requirements, they would advise them as to whether they are good enough. That's the rule of law. If government establishes the rules for a permit, and the public performs according to the rules, then they should obtain a permit — that is how America operates. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that she believes PZC has the opportunity to react differently on different things brought before them. The Commission operates differently on a PUD than it does on sign permits and informal reviews. PZC operates differently, depending upon what the application is for and the intent of it. She believes PZC should continue some review. She can't agree with eliminating the public input component. The public is simply not going to comprehend that now is their time for input. Frankly, how can that occur if this plan is evolving over the next 30 -40 years? People cannot provide input now if they don't even live here yet. PZC members agree that the development of this area needs to be handled differently than the City has previously handled development applications. It might be more of a "check the box" review of whether the required standards regarding architecture, street orientation, etc. are met. If it is possible to codify the rest of this, those standards could be codified as well. Mr. Gerber stated that he envisions a situation where PZC would actively monitor the process and provide a report back to Council or staff. Then the process can be tweaked as it moves forward. There is a very active role for PZC in this area. Its role will be different, but still a fairly vital role. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that perhaps it won't be this body, but another review body that is developed. Regardless, she believes that a citizen -based body should provide that review. Mayor Lecklider stated that, conceptually, this bears some similarities to the COIC zoning and some other recent rezonings. The overarching motivation with this effort was to respond to the economic times and the evolution that is taking place in the development world. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of the PUD process for this area will be replaced with its code and the code's review. Typically, every proposed project begins on the ground floor and then is moved through a review process. The effort with the code for this area is that the application received will essentially be where it needs to be -- or close to it, allowing for some variation based on size or the type of project. However, the Code and the zoning will basically be the PUD. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 12 of 16 Mrs. Boring stated that the concern she has is that some applications will meet the criteria, but with others, staff might decide it sufficient that they meet the intent. Meeting the intent is not acceptable in this case. Mr. Dixon responded there are both zoning and planning perspectives, and they're in sync. It is not conceivable that Council will not find a way to incorporate an appropriate level of community review of this district as it develops. It probably won't be building by building, but people need to have the ability to tell Council whether the environment that is being created is one that they support. This is a community that is very inclusive in its thinking. It will not be comparable to the sort of public hearings or open session design review that the City has provided for other projects, because design review probably will occur at the staff level. There will likely be a comparable checking process, which is yet to be determined. Perhaps PZC will be doing that, but Council will determine the approval process. However, this review will never be simply "checking boxes." While there will be some boxes that always have to be checked, this Code will have to be realized in spirit as well as in letter. There will always be some art to this — it will never be a science. As an example, years ago he shared a brief conversation with the director of the Boston Development Authority, who had been presented with a project that met every legal requirement of the City of Boston. Yet, he hated the project, and indicated that although he could not disapprove it, he could extend the review process significantly, meaning, the City will always have some leverage. Conscious of that, Council can be assured of liking the results. He doesn't know what form that approval process will take, or the public input. Clearly, the entire process will need to be monitored, and not by the staff that is implementing it, because it is their activity that will be monitored. The code for this area will not provide the overview; somebody who has the awareness and legitimate responsibility would do that. That body will have three review roles: (a) determining if the system is working; (2) determining how the public is involved, yet in a very different way than in the past because this is a different challenge; (3) determination of when something in the process needs to be changed and how. The review process is something you will need to resolve with each other. Mr. Taylor concurred. It isn't necessarily that PZC needs to be involved in every project review, but PZC is concerned that a proper level of public input be assured. Commission members have all reviewed projects that meet every requirement, but are really bad projects. However, there is also the project that doesn't meet any of the requirements, but is a wonderful project. There should be room for both types of projects to be massaged to achieve a satisfactory result. Mr. Elliott responded that the last criteria is that the application complies with all other requirements of the BSC district on which the land is located except as authorized by administrative departure, and that departure not be by more than a minimal percent. Their intent with the draft code was to require that the application meet the Code, not just the intent of the Code. The application must meet the standards, or in one of four situations, a request to the director can be made to change the compliance for that situation by a minimal amount, such as 10 percent. With that limited level of flexibility, the City will not get something that is very different from the Code. Council will inform staff how they're supposed to make those decisions. Outline them as clearly as possible, so it is apparent when it isn't done right. This draft has attempted to achieve that, but perhaps it needs to be tightened up. The direction with this area is more objectivity, clearer standards and more discipline, but the process will not get there completely. The goal is to have government operate the process by a few rules and then see if they work. If not, the rules are changed; the applicant is not the problem. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Mrs. Boring inquired if the process could include that, if an application does not meet the standards through negotiations with staff, at that point the application must be forwarded to PZC. Mr. Elliott responded that the draft code already indicates that the director can forward those up . if they choose. However, the code could indicate that it MUST be forwarded. In general, if it's a complex project, it should be sent up; otherwise, it should not. In his experience, staff's judgments are made on sound planning bases. Some triggers for forwarding applications could be provided in the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes Council may need to have a draft of what the proposed role of PZC would be in regard to the BSC area, including how they will monitor the process and the tools that staff needs to provide PZC to be able to monitor the decisions that have been made and the results of those decisions. Also included in the document should be a proposed process for public involvement. Council needs a draft document that they can "massage" and agree upon a process /policy to begin with, and then re- evaluate it after implementation. Mr. Reiner noted that PZC members are very knowledgeable about architectural detail. He would suggest that as they're going through this process, they observe what refinements could be made to tighten up the architectural issues. Is this draft the strongest code the consultants have seen in terms of controlling aesthetics? Mr. Elliott responded that it is, in terms of materials and articulation, but Council and PZC may identify issues they would typically raise. He is not a professional architect; he is a lawyer and planner who writes codes. Whatever level of detail this body wants can be written into that code. He would suggest caution, however. What makes a great city is not that every single building is a beautiful building; instead, it is the place. The goal is to achieve a place that attracts people because it is high class. In such a place, people can invest with confidence, and they will not be undercut by their neighbor. Their neighbor may not have the same level of fapade articulation that they have, and have preferred to spend their money in a different way, but that is acceptable. That exists in downtown Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, New York — all these other places. People are attracted because of the place, the public realm, the framing and the overall experience — not because every building has won an award. He would suggest adding everything in, then eliminating 20 percent of it. That allows architects to spend the money in the places the clients want them to spend the money and have some varieties. Mr. Taylor clarified that PZC has already reviewed the proposed Code thoroughly, and reported back to Planning several times on it. In return, Planning has incorporated much of what PZC recommended, and a certain level of detail has already been included in the draft Code. Although some additional tweaking may be necessary, essentially, PZC is in agreement with the draft Code. Mayor Lecklider noted that there are examples of similar areas near Dublin — the Short North, North Market, Victorian Village, Italian Village, the Arena District, where various districts all work. Although they weren't the result of a form -based Code, such as Dublin is doing in the Bridge Street Corridor, they are examples of subareas, which in and of themselves have distinct character, but work together as a larger district. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Dixon noted that the exact same Code could exist for the Arena District and the Short North, but they will not look like each other because one has single ownership and one has multiple owners. The goal is a process that will work for both and will produce very different kinds of results in different areas. Dublin will have a similar combination to the Arena District, Short North, and Italian Village, that is much different than Dublin has been. Everyone agrees that City leadership is important here. While Dublin is good in terms of City leadership and doesn't want to lose that, Council must realize that transition at this point in time with this charge. Although it will be different from how things were done in the past, it will not constitute abandoning any responsibilities. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if her suggestion would be an appropriate assignment for the consultants -- that is, defining the role of PZC, etc. Could they draft something for discussion by the group? Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that is a fantastic way to do it. The one comment she has heard is that if the people don't like what is occurring, they will elect a new Council. Planning staff doesn't work at the pleasure of Council. The Commission does not necessarily want to perpetuate anything. However, it is perfectly appropriate that the Commission look at the Code and the implementation process in consideration of what might best serve the City to maintain the best of the past and embrace the best of the future. She is not interested in being like every other city or working like Portland. She is interested in working like the best Dublin that Dublin can be. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher recommended that this assignment be given to PZC, along with whatever assistance is needed from staff in terms of materials to review. It is an appropriate assignment for the group who would be doing it to think through what their appropriate role would be in this different environment, for this part of Dublin only. Their role would not change for the other parts of the community. What things should PZC monitor, and how would that be done? Ms. Amorose- Groomes suggested that perhaps the current process could be scaled. It is much easier to remove review processes than to add them back in. Depending upon the level of success, if PZC did not feel that some area of review was necessary, that part could be removed. This method might help PZC to become more comfortable with the process as it moved forward. Vice Mayor Salay requested clarification of the proposed assignment Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Mr. Dixon has suggested that the City needs to define the role of PZC in this form -based Code. The form -based Code doesn't define PZC's role; it defines what the developer has to do. He has suggested that PZC's role would be a monitoring role to ensure that the Code we agree upon achieves what we want. The PZC skills and review would be used at a different place in the process than they have been used traditionally. To begin with, a written draft of their proposed role is needed, so that everyone is on the same page when discussing their role — the materials they would use, the process, the timeframes. Ms. Amorose- Groomes asked if she is suggesting the Commission look at the review process as a whole, or only at the role of PZC. Would she like to have recommendations for a holistic review process, including staff? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded she would assume that would be included Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Vice Mayor Salay asked if the intent is to define the point in the process — after a certain amount has been built -- at which PZC would then review the results and evaluate what has worked and what has not. Is that the role of PZC contemplated for this draft document? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked Mr. Dixon to articulate this more clearly. Mr. Dixon responded that he had pointed out three things that clearly were not yet resolved, but need to be part of this process. Those tasks appeared to be those in which PZC could probably have significant responsibility. These items would need to be part of the process, and perhaps PZC could do these: (1) A form of public consultation -- public engagement, that is both about education to the public and hearing back. How to keep people informed and aware, for their benefit, as well as the City's? (2) Monitor the whole process to evaluate if it is working — is it catching the egregious projects that are absolutely correct but are "just awful," and the projects that are absolutely incorrect yet absolutely wonderful. Mr. Gerber added: are the policies set forth by Council being achieved? (3) Evaluate when there is a need to change the rules or add to them — they've got to evolve. (4) A fourth role could be defining a safety valve -- it was supposed to go forward, but we need to find a way of dealing with it. Mr. Elliott stated that they were tasked to write a chapter that was very different than anything Dublin has done before. That has been done, and he is sure it will be revised along the way. The things you're talking about would be included in a modern development Code. When he is hired to re -write a development code for a whole city, there is always a section on the role of PZC in each type of approval process, what is the role of Council, and the role of ARB. Because modern development codes typically address those roles for the entire city, he had deferred including it here as this code is for one part of the City. However, that can easily be included and he would advise it. However, he would advise that it be put in once for the whole city, rather than for a section. Similarly, many modern codes have a very clear statement of how public involvement is achieved in the city. Some of the cities who have had the most pleasant experiences with zoning over the years are the ones who treat it as a two -way street — they listen to the citizens and also educate the citizens as to the right places to get informed in the process. The level of education increases dramatically, but the City receives better feedback when the public has a good idea of where they're supposed to be engaged in the process. In addition, although this is not included in the Code as Council is not required to comply with it, there should be a periodic review of the whole Code every six months or annually. A six month or annual review of whether the standards and procedures are working that is based on what was approved in the past year, is good policy, not just for the BSC, but for the whole city. It keeps the Code from getting out of date, and it helps the citizens because they know the defined periods of time when the City will make a concerted effort to get citizen input on any changes needed. Public input doesn't occur when citizens become angry. Instead, it occurs on a schedule that nonprofits and citizen organizations are aware of. Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates the discussion regarding community involvement, and that it is a two -way street. The citizens expect their leaders to lead, and that is part of Council's charge. He thanked Mr. Dixon and Mr. Elliott for their contributions to the discussion, and noted everyone's participation is appreciated. In looking at the next steps, in view of Mr. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Gerber's positive experience with the form -based Code workshop with staff, he suggests a similar opportunity be made available to other Council members and to PZC. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that PZC has already had this workshop provided to them. Vice Mayor Salay stated that Mr. Gerber has indicated he benefited from the one -on -one discussion with staff versus a workshop with everyone present. Although it would involve more staff time, it is important that Council becomes more knowledgeable regarding the form -based Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that PZC's workshop involved only the Commission and staff, so they were able to ask many questions. A small group was beneficial. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer a group session so she could hear the questions and ideas of other Council Members. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can do both. A group presentation can be scheduled before a Council meeting, or on a separate date. If a Council Member also wants an individual session with staff. that can also be scheduled. Mrs. Boring asked about the next step for the BSC plan process. Ms. Grigsby responded that the next step would be a discussion of the draft document of PZC's role in the BSC review process. Because of their familiarity with the things that should be considered in the draft document, she believes it would be helpful to have the consultants provide their ideas and draft the draft document. That document could then be presented to PZC, and then PZC can draft their proposed role. Finally, we can work on merging the two documents. Mr. Gerber stated that a suggestion was also made to create a subarea map, and discuss each subarea with input from all, regarding the features and expectations of each district. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that there could be an illustrative vision and a text vision. Mr. Gerber agreed, or it could be a combination of the two. There could be another joint workshop for that discussion. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff and the consultants would work on the draft document of PZC's role, then work on scheduling another next joint session to review the subareas. The form -based Code workshop could be scheduled for the next Council meeting, or on an additional off - Monday. It could also be videotaped and posted at the web to educate residents on how the form -based code would be used and implemented. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would be very helpful to have it available at the website. Also, even if Council members schedule individual discussions with staff, a form -based Code presentation should be provided to Council as a whole. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council