The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-17-14 Council Work Session MinutesDublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Bridge Street District — Tuller Flats Project Minutes of Meeting Mayor Keenan called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present Council Members Mayor Keenan, Vice Mayor Gerber, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Reiner and Ms. Salay. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Foegler, Ms. Mumma, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Ray. Applicant representatives: Joel Sullivan and Aaron Underhill. • Introduction Ms. Grigsby stated that as a result of Council's retreat discussion a couple of weeks ago and direction at their last Council meeting, Resolution 17 -14 was drafted as an affirmation of certain projects that have been discussed in the Bridge Street Corridor. The memo for Resolution 17 -14 stated that, in areas related to design and architecture and key development projects where an economic development agreement and partnership on infrastructure would be necessary, additional meetings /discussions with Council would be needed. Their purpose would be to give Council an opportunity to look at proposed development to verify that Council is supportive of the project and willing to enter into an economic development agreement. With some of those discussions, it will be possible to have preliminary discussions related to any necessary land acquisition. In regard to Casto's project on the Thomas property, Tuller Flats, staff is seeking Council's feedback/direction on some issues related to development in order to be in a position to work on an economic development agreement. At the March 10 Council meeting, Council requested this work session to review the Tuller Flats project. Mr. Foegler stated that for all these significant projects for which an economic development agreement will be needed, it is necessary to update Council at some appropriate level as the normal development review process does not provide Council that opportunity until the final plat stage. Some process is needed to ensure that Council is sufficiently comfortable with a project in order to advance it to an economic development agreement. The Tuller Flats project has reached the point that Council review should occur, as there are a number of steps that will need to proceed quickly, if the project is to move forward. Ms. Salay stated it is too late for this meeting, but, going forward, she would appreciate having a copy of the proposal several days in advance to review it before attempting to discuss it. The applicant is present tonight and expects Council's feedback, but Council has viewed only a few pictures before this evening. Ms. Grigsby stated that is one of the items listed where future direction is needed, because this project was going through the City review process. The project's next PZC review was postponed to allow an opportunity for Council's feedback. Council's review of this project was scheduled quickly, and for that reason less information was provided beforehand than will be Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 2 of 16 for future meetings. The timeframe for Council's review of these projects needs to be identified. Mr. Gerber stated that he was out of town and not present at the March 10 Council meeting. Typically, Concept Plans are not reviewed by City Council. Under the form -based Code, they go directly to Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Is the intent for Council to opine on a Concept Plan, or to discuss in general terms what Council is looking for in the area in terms of character, architecture, number of units, etc.? Ms. Grigsby responded that this will be somewhat different because it is the first project being reviewed. That is a decision for Council -- whether Council reviews a project before or after the Concept Plan stage? What will be reviewed tonight is based upon the feedback from staff through the Administrative Review Team review and the PZC discussion of the Concept Plan. Council will review some of the architecture and the diversity related issues of the project. Staff believes the density level has already been confirmed by Council in its previous actions. These projects will have infrastructure needs that will require City partnership, so there is a need to ensure Council is comfortable with a project before moving forward. Mr. Gerber inquired if Council's feedback tonight is binding. Ms. Grigsby responded that Council's feedback is not binding, but it is very important in determining whether the City will move forward with an economic development agreement for this project. Council's feedback will be important to the developer as it will provide assurance that Council will be supportive of the project when the economic development agreement is brought to Council for approval. Mr. Foegler added that Council should not view this as a formal development review process. This step is to ensure Council is comfortable with the project to the extent that the parties can proceed with negotiating an economic development agreement and move to the next level of planning. Due to the effort, time and costs, it would not be advisable for a project to move to PZC and Code review, if it is a project that gives Council concern. Ms. Salay inquired how Council's review dovetails with the PZC review process, i.e. which comes first? Mr. Foegler responded that an informal review on the Tuller Flats project has already been scheduled at PZC. There has been some discussion as to whether Council's review could occur after that, but staff does not have a precise recommendation for how the process should be modified. Council's feedback is needed and with some of these projects, it will be much earlier in the process than for this one. The developer would be sharing his initial plans to determine if it would make sense for him to commit to the property and engage in the review process, and for staff to bring in bond counsel and begin work on agreements. It does not bind Council whatsoever, but if it is a project that Council recognizes as one that they would not want to enter into an economic development agreement for — that would be important information. Mayor Keenan asked if Council will potentially need to modify the review procedures. Mr. Foegler responded that every major project will require an economic development agreement with the City, because of infrastructure and related aspects. Now that there has been positive progress with the School District negotiations, those agreements will become Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 3 of 16 substantial and involve significant time and effort. This project review is outside the normal zoning review process. It is designed to familiarize Council with the proposed project. It could be a project for which Council may want public input. Council's review would occur much earlier in the development process. Mr. Lecklider stated that all of Council agrees that they will need sufficient information to be able to respond to projects. It won't be in anyone's best interests for a project to proceed to a point where Council objects to the City's contribution of potentially millions of dollars. He cannot articulate exactly what level of detail he or other Council members would need, but it is important for them to be a part of the process. • Project Overview Bridge Street District Context Justin Goodwin stated that he would provide a general overview of the proposed Tuller Flats project and where it falls within the Bridge Street District planning that has already occurred. The applicant, Casto Communities, is present tonight, and they will provide additional illustrations for the discussion, particularly in regard to concerns about architectural variety. Proposal Overview Mr. Goodwin shared a PowerPoint project overview. The area of the Bridge Street District located along Tuller Road and north of the Sycamore Ridge apartment complex is the 17 -acre Thomas site involved in this proposal. The Thomas family owns property immediately to the east of this site as well. Greystone Mews is located nearby as well. This project is located within one of the smaller sub districts in the area plan and this area is called the Tuller Greenway District. This was planned as the residential core for this portion of the Bridge Street District on the east side of the river. Some key points: - The intent is to provide critical population density to serve other commercial and mixed use areas surrounding this core area. - A greenway system is planned through this area along what is identified as the planned John Shields Parkway connection, which will connect Riverside Drive to Sawmill Road. - A design recommendation in the plan is the expectation for a broad variety of housing types and architectural styles to achieve the sense of place that was originally described in the Bridge Street District Vision. Ms. Salay stated that the intent is for the new neighborhood to include varied housing types. However, the visual seems to indicate not much opportunity for that. Greystone Mews and Sycamore Ridge are already established. Mr. Goodwin responded that is correct within this sub district. Mr. Lecklider inquired the total acreage. Mr. Goodwin responded that there are 17 acres included in this proposal. There are approximately another 17 acres to the east, but that includes the 10 -acre Byers site. That will accommodate the John Shields Parkway extension and the greenway extension, as well. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the total acreage that could be developed. Mr. Goodwin responded that approximately 28 acres could be developed. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 4 of 16 - The original Visioning Plan contemplated a wide variety of architectural concepts throughout the different districts, many more contemporary styles. One of Goody - Clancy's recommendations has been carried through the planning process, and that recognition that changing market trends and changing demographics will drive the demand for different types of housing units, proportions of rental versus ownership of the condominiums, as well as the architectural styles related to different demographics. They are targeting empty nesters and young professionals. The young professional demographic tends to expect a more contemporary architecture. - Key elements of the Bridge Street street network come together here, including: the Emerald Parkway extension; the public infrastructure improvements of the river corridor, including the Riverside Drive realignment, roundabout at US 33 and Riverside /Bridge Street, and a pedestrian bridge; and extension of the street network to the east through the property acquired by Crawford Hoying development partners. - Further to the east, through the Dublin Village Center site, is the Edwards apartment building that was approved last year, and portions of the street grid plan with that development included an eastern portion of the John Shields Parkway. In the center of this area, connecting John Shields Parkway, is the Thomas property and the proposed Tuller Flats development located in the center. This project will involve some significant portions of the street grid in the eastern portion of the BSC District, including John Shields Parkway from Tuller Ridge Drive through the Byers site to Village Parkway. This is the key piece of public infrastructure that would be negotiated through an economic development agreement. Development Review Process There have been previous reviews of this project. Those began with the pre - application review, a required step in the Bridge Street District Code. An early concept plan went to the Administrative Review Team (ART) in October - November 2013. ART provided non - binding feedback to the applicant. One of the key items of that discussion was a concern of ART that insufficient architectural variety was proposed in the initial concept. Following that was an informal review by PZC on January 9, 2014. The Commission provided non - binding feedback to the applicant. Discussion focused on the overall street and blocks frameworks; the general concept for /location of open space; overall architecture concept and variety. Ms. Salay stated that the project changed from ART review to PZC review. Did the applicant change the project? Mr. Goodwin stated that there were some minor adjustments to the site plan that were the result of ongoing discussions between the applicant and staff. There were some minor adjustments to the architectural concepts. Overall, the application was consistent between the ART and PZC review. A general feedback from PZC regarding the architecture was general support for the contemporary style of the architecture, but a need for additional diversity. The current status of the application in the review process is the basic development plan and basic site plan review stage. This is the first formal step of the development review process. The ART has prepared a recommendation for PZC consideration. However, that review has been postponed to allow the Council review tonight. When this proceeds to PZC, in addition to making a decision as to whether this application is sufficient to proceed to the next step, the Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 5 of 16 Commission will also determine whether the application will proceed through a Commission - level review or an ART -level review. That is associated with a change to the zoning code that Council approved at the end of 2013 that provides that additional level of review for PZC. Following the basic development and site plan review, the application would proceed to the full development and site plan review, which provides the level of detail that is typically expected in a final development plan. This project would also require preliminary and final plats to establish the rights -of -way and open spaces. That is the piece that will also come back to Council for review. Current proposed plan - On a 17 -acre site, 30 three -story apartment buildings and a centrally- located clubhouse -- 392 total apartment units, along John Shields Parkway. He shared graphics of the proposed street network and block system. PZC discussed the potential for waivers for block size for a couple of the blocks. Block C is larger than the Code requirement to accommodate the clubhouse. Another block is longer than the maximum block size requirement, which is associated with the greenway location. This is likely appropriate in order to minimize vehicular interruptions to the greenway. The open space includes the greenway along John Shields Parkway and a series of centrally - located pocket parks in the middle of the site associated with the clubhouse location. - The proposed architecture is for seven different building types. The buildings are generally of two forms. Three are walk -up style units similar to townhomes -- a two - level unit with a flat on top and a shared entrance. The remainder of the units is entirely flat units within three -story buildings. The buildings range from eight units per building to 20 units per building. - The BSC District Code includes building variety requirements. The purpose of this is to create a walkable, vibrant place. Architectural variety is key to achieving that sense of place. Building designs must vary at a minimum through the use of different building materials. In addition, all buildings must vary through at least two of the following: the proportion of recesses and projections; changes to location of the entrances or windows along the facade; changes to the roof height or general roof form. He displayed a graphic of one example of two buildings showing proposed variations. The materials proposed vary from brick to stone, a cementious siding and cementious panel. Variations in recesses /projections and doors and windows are also indicated. The roofline is consistent. Some of the buildings meet the building variety requirement, but PZC was concerned that the overall development does not meet that requirement. Consequently, one ART recommendation to PZC was that adjustments to the architecture be incorporated. Their recommendation included several suggestions for variations. Council Comments Ms. Salay stated that in view of the ART's recommendation, why aren't more variations proposed? Mr. Goodwin responded that the developer would like some general feedback first to determine if the project is headed in the right direction. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 6 of 16 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would be helpful to have the Sycamore Ridge apartments and Greystone Mews photographs included in future presentations for this area. Greystone Mews is a newer development and has a lot of stone and a different feel. Sycamore Ridge is an old- fashioned type of apartment complex, which she did not believe Council wanted in this area. What are the sizes of the pocket parks? What value are they? What activities can occur in them? Are they simply green space to meet Code requirements? Mr. Goodwin responded that the pocket parks are a little less than a quarter of an acre each. They are proposing to include sitting areas and benches within the parks, but details of those areas would be addressed in subsequent phases of the development review process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired about the width of the greenway. She had hoped all those would be greenspace, but she sees apartment buildings are now proposed in that location. Mr. Goodwin responded that the width of the greenspace is approximately 20 feet and that is consistent with Code requirements. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that a policy issue for her is that -- while she respects that waivers can be requested — will that constitute perverting the system if waivers are granted? Is there a hierarchy of waivers? Which requirements will never be waived? These requirements address the desired core for this area. She is concerned, about the number of requests for waiver and waivers granted, based on reading minutes from those meetings. She had a vision, which perhaps she needs to re- think. However, in general terms, this seems very unattractive to her. It appears to have only internal entrances, a shared entrance. That is not what she is observing with new development. Some of these buildings seem to suggest a different kind of entrance -- or the appearance of at least the front of these should give a different feel than that of a regular apartment building with one type of entrance. She sees nothing interesting about the architecture or the materials being used. Mr. Peterson inquired if the list of possible solutions to address the building variations requirements had been provided to the applicant, and if so, what was their response. Mr. Goodwin responded that the list in the Powerpoint tonight was not provided to the applicant, but those are the types of suggestions staff has made to them. Staff has had some discussions with the applicant in recent days, and it does appear that there may be some approaches that the applicant believes could work with their project. From the pre - application review through the recent ART review, the applicant had not yet incorporated a number of the requirements. Mr. Peterson said the developer's position seems to be that the City can either waive its Code requirements, or they will not proceed. Essentially, either the applicant needs to make adjustment to the architecture using those types of solutions, or the City would have to consider a waiver of its requirements. Mr. Goodwin stated that is correct. Mr. Peterson inquired if staff has reviewed renderings more substantive than the pictures that Council has seen. Mr. Goodwin responded that more detailed elevations were included in the application. But this was representative of those provided. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Gerber asked what lies to the west of this project. Mr. Goodwin responded that there is a three - building office development located at the corner of Tuller Ridge and Tuller Road. Mr. Gerber stated that the proposed development appears to be a suburban apartment complex, common 15 -20 years ago. He is disappointed, because the intent was to create an urban -style environment. How are people encouraged to walk through this area to reach the next one? What type of community is really being developed? It doesn't seem to fit the City's vision and is not aligned with his vision of urbanism. The architecture could be more creative, as well as reflect more variety. With the addition of 392 apartments, there will be a lot of apartments along Riverside Drive, particularly if Edwards Company builds their project. How many more apartments are needed in this location? He had hoped to see some additional variety of housing, more like the condominiums Council discussed at its retreat -- similar to those on Gay and Fourth Streets — a little variety within one area. This proposal seems very sterile. There is parking for cars in the alley in back. He does not envision people being able to walk to a multi -use environment. Council discussed this issue at its retreat, PZC has looked at this proposal, and now Council is to devote more time tonight to this discussion. He does not understand the benefit of doing so. Ms. Salay stated that was her point as well. Where is the variety to be generated, if not within these two areas? There are 28 acres in which to achieve this variety. How do these buildings relate to the street? We have envisioned a very colorful environment — that when biking or walking along the area, there would be engagement with the street; an environment where there are a lot of people and activity. This project, however, suggests one drives in at the end of the day and disappears into the apartment. There is no interaction. She does not view this adding to the liveliness of the environment. How is that achieved? Mr. Goodwin responded that the overall orientation of the buildings in relationship to the street in this project is in line with the BSC plan. With the BSC Code, the buildings are closer to the public sidewalk. Some of them have a raised planter adjacent to the sidewalk. The steps from the walk -up units come directly out to the sidewalk. There is a relationship between the main entrance of the building and the public realm of the sidewalk. Some of the other buildings that do not have the walk -up configuration are similarly oriented, fairly close to the sidewalk with entrances that are oriented to the public realm. In that regard, the relationship of the buildings to the street is appropriate. Mr. Gerber acknowledged that may be true, but how can a dynamic neighborhood be created? He does not see how this plan achieves that. Mr. Goodwin responded that one way is through architectural variety and visual interest, so that it does not appear to passersby that the same building is repeated. That has been at the core of staff's original concerns. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that an issue with the old style of apartment complex is that, when it is necessary to walk through a corridor to reach an exit of the building, it discourages interaction with what is outside. What she had in mind was more in line with what has been developed on Gay Street in Columbus. There, it is possible to see people all the time. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 8 of 16 Something does not feel right about the orientation of these buildings. Even with a change of architecture, there should be a sense of energy that seems to be missing. Mr. Goodwin asked if she would prefer to have individual entrances to the units. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that might help. However, the Flats on Vine do not have individual entrances; it is the architecture that makes them interesting. That is where the challenge exists, and staff has already identified that. Without interesting architecture, what is achieved is the mundane 1970s apartment feel. Mr. Goodwin responded that the goal is to avoid the appearance of an apartment complex. The goal is to achieve something that feels like and is a neighborhood. Mayor Keenan stated that Council viewed some early iteration of contemporary styles that were attractive, but the consensus of Council is that the architecture of this plan does not achieve that. Mr. Lecklider asked if any of the similar developments in downtown Columbus referenced would have received approval in Dublin. Mr. Goodwin responded that some would, but some would not. At least one of those buildings is a podium apartment building, and the Edwards project in Dublin was a podium building. With that type of building, the entire ground floor is vehicular parking. That does allow for greater density and different masses of building. That may be appropriate in certain portions of the Bridge Street District, but that street relationship should not be emulated everywhere. There are elements of those projects in Columbus that would be appropriate in the Bridge Street District. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it could be helpful to Council for staff to provide photos of apartment buildings, both acceptable and unacceptable, that Council could drive by and view. She is aware of some examples on Front Street. Mr. Lecklider stated that there are also some projects in the Arena District and a number of infill projects in the Short North that could be photographed. The intent was to appeal to the young generation, which is primarily the target of this Bridge Street development. However, he recalls two infill projects in the area of High Street and Fourth Avenue that do not have a strong modern element, and they appeal to the younger generation in spite of the fact that they appear more traditional. Ms. Salay asked about the possibility of balconies or outside spaces for the individual units. The renderings don't reflect these. Mr. Goodwin responded that that the front facades of the walk -up units do not include balconies. The other building types have balconies integrated into the facade. The ground floor is a patio unit. These are somewhat hidden by the architectural form. Mr. Gerber stated that at a recent luncheon some Council members attended, the developer of apartments on Lane Avenue stated that they had anticipated the interest of primarily young people, but many older individuals were also interested. The same may occur in Dublin. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Goodwin responded that a mix of residents is expected in Dublin as well. The early development will likely cater more to the young professional demographic, but, over time, a high demand from empty nesters is expected. That is part of what drives the need for a variety of housing styles. Mr. Gerber stated that he lived for a period of time in the Georgetown area of D.C., which caters to a wide demographic. It is a vibrant area with a variety of housing types. He is trying to envision how something as urban and vibrant as Georgetown can be created out of what is essentially a cornfield. Mr. Foegler stated that it is important to keep in mind is that the challenge with the Thomas property is just that — it is a cornfield in the middle of the district. That is one of the reasons the plan for this area indicated that it probably doesn't lend itself to retail and other kinds of uses. It is hidden and lacks major roads. Retail and similar activities are located on more dynamic edges, where they have a chance to be successful. The plan recommended housing and the goal was to find a housing that achieves those goals. Where this project, versus previous ones that were put forward, has made real progress is that it is built around a grid. Previous developers had indicated that this is a big cornfield and they could not make it work around a grid. Part of that is because Byers and other parties have come into play as potential acquisitions. Achieving buildings that are oriented around a grid system toward sidewalks is a major step, considering previous development proposals. The primary issue seems to be that the repetition of building styles and appearances over such a large area reinforces the project nature of this development. It feels like a project rather than a neighborhood. It will require some buildings to turn corners and other options to make this development a bit more organic and an interesting place for pedestrians. This is apartment housing. There is some condo product that will be emerging in the district in some prime locations. However, the leverage with TIFs and other development incentives the City will be using is less effective with condo models than with apartment models. However, Council's concerns about design and lack of "place" mirror staff's conditions and comments. Mr. Gerber stated that makes sense. Looking west along John Shields Parkway, there is a health specialty building, a three - building commercial /office development, and then 33 blocks of apartments. The issue is achieving an urban feel and these apartment residents are surely not going to walk west along that road. Another question is how can this be connected to what will be located south of John Shields? How can it be pulled together to make it more dynamic? As these apartments are currently planned, they will remain separated, possibly forever from what will be located south of John Shields. Mr. Foegler that a primary challenge with the Bridge Street District is that there are a finite number of places ready for development. It is unavoidable that development will occur in a piecemeal manner. This is one of the few green field sites in the entire Bridge Street District. In regard to the walkability for these residents, development is anticipated for Dublin Village Center and amenities and crossings will be developed along the river. Although this site is one of the more remote sections in this District, it is not at that great a distance apart. It cannot be energized with a mix of uses, but important connections could occur if a satisfactory project occurs on the Thomas property. These include: roadway connections, particularly the east -west connection; the park and greenway to the river, which would provide a bicycle path Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 10 of 16 to the river; the pedestrian bridge; and an appropriate level of destinations on the river and the park. Those are value -added opportunities for this project. It is no question that this site is isolated and in the middle, and the series of projects around it will only redevelop when the usual life of the current use has ended. Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees with the other Council members on the importance of the architectural interest. Seventeen acres of this use is significant. Creative site planning is needed. As presented, the project does look similar to a typical apartment complex built a few years ago. That is not the intent of the Bridge Street Corridor, which envisioned an urban look and feel. He does not care as much about the density as the "feel" and parkability of vehicles. Applicant Overview Aaron Underhill, Casto Communities thanked Council for the opportunity to hear this discussion tonight. It has been educational. At this point, they will decide whether to go back to the drawing board or not proceed further. Significant monies have been invested to this point. He pointed out the following: - If there was not a form -based code in place, which is good and very forward- thinking, they may have designed the project differently. But the goal is to meet the Code standards and there are likely different ways to do that. - Although they did not have a plan that met this body's approval, they did overall make their best efforts with the "bible" of regulations in place. They were down to the need of three variances. Architecture is always the major issue, and is in the eye of the beholder. - Staff has been very open with them. For some of the suggestions provided in the PowerPoint tonight, there is probably a way to achieve those. - However, their concerns are more with the site planning. Their plan meets a great majority of the Code requirements and they were at the point of needing only a few Code variances. Those are due to the fact that Tuller Road and John Shields present a boundary to the south, in addition to existing development on both sides. This lends itself to the need for a couple of deviations. - The economics are very difficult without the high density, and even with that, it difficult with the grid street systems. - Some suggestions were made tonight regarding desirable communities. However, those circumstances are quite different from Dublin. With the downtown Columbus examples, the grid street system is already in place and paid for. There are also abatements in place and the rents are higher than can be charged in the Bridge Street District. There are many things working against some of these sites economically. While not insurmountable, that is likely the reason for the types of applications the City has received to date. Joel Sullivan. Sullivan Bruck Architects, stated that he appreciates Council's feedback, which would have been very beneficial early in the process. He noted the following: Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 11 of 16 - Their company has been in existence for some time; they designed the Flats on Vine in downtown Columbus. They also worked on a project in the Short North that was in a similar timeframe to this project. - One of the challenges that exists with a cornfield is that it does not have the "patina" of age, and it is difficult to create that from scratch. - They also did the Victorian Gate project in the Short North on the previous White Cross Hospital site. At that time, there was no new large development. Part of the advantage of doing such a project is that apartments generate lots of people who support future development. When they developed Victorian Gate, the rents were very competitive. The numbers did not work in the sense of making any profit for the developer, but those kinds of projects are important to initiate because they encourage future projects. - As great as the Bridge Street corridor will be, it will be difficult economically to come in and make these projects work. He appreciates the interest in diversity. From the City's perspective, they would like to have every building different. From the developer's standpoint, in order to manage costs, they would like every building to be as simple and repetitive as possible. It is necessary to find a happy medium that works. - It is not a case of the applicant not hearing staff's feedback and trying to accomplish that. What Council has seen tonight is an evolution; it is not their first plan. They still believe they can respond to many of the issues that were addressed and meet all the diversity criteria. However, he is not certain that would succeed in addressing all that he heard tonight — essentially, a sound dislike for what they have proposed. - Clearly, design is in the eye of the beholder. They do have a reputation for projects looking much better built than anything that can be imagined or drawn. It is difficult to look at a site plan and understand its nuances. There is significant texture with these buildings; they do address the street; they do have entrances on the street; they do enliven and engage with the public realm. - Their firm has a reputation for projects that resonate with the public. Their Flats on Vine project was the first podium building in Columbus. It was "thinking outside the box," but it set new records for rent downtown -- they envisioned that. - If this project is done properly, it has the opportunity to set a high bar to help future projects. It is necessary to move past the architecture issue, but talented architects sit on the Planning Commission. The feedback received from them was positive, although there remained some diversity issues to work through. - He is not certain where his client will stand on this project, but they certainly will not be able to develop something similar to the Gay Street Neighborhood Launch — a wonderful project of $500,000 to $750,000 condos in a different economic environment. Someday, the condo market may rebound, but today there is a tremendous demand for rental housing to support people who work in the community. What they are providing is very high quality. Their team spent significant effort to create something they would be proud of, but they will regroup and reanalyze to determine next steps. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she did indicate that she had a vision, and she needed to re- think that vision in her mind of a Gay Street area. Council is not opposed to all that has been Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 12 of 16 presented, but it is very difficult to tell by the pictures what this dynamic architecture is that he is referencing. This is Council's first view of the project, and the materials appear bland. Mr. Sullivan responded that he would pull up a rendering for a building that is currently under construction in Victorian Village, and some construction photos that will show the actual materials. Part of their challenge is helping their clients understand what they are doing at an early stage. The rendering and photographs are of Aston Terrace, which is located next to the previous Doctor's Hospital site. It is a podium building — three stories over one level of parking, in a contemporary expression of hardi panel material. There are sunshades and balconies that are recessed, over -sized windows, a significant amount of masonry, and a dark Endicott brick. Construction is not completed, but the building is 60 percent leased at rents higher than possible in the Dublin market. There is a variation in materials, which is important to avoid the look of a long monolithic building. It has a contemporary feel, but that doesn't mean they cannot add some features, such as a building that turns the corner, or variations in roof form. This design could evolve. However, the execution of exactly what they have would provide something far richer than Council's impression from these renderings. He will let their reputation in this community stand on its own, because they have done many buildings that Dublin has pointed to as some of the best architecture around. Mr. Lecklider stated that from the little he has seen of the Aston Terrace project shown, he likes it, but Mr. Sullivan is indicating that he can't build that in Dublin. Mr. Sullivan responded that it doesn't mesh with this site. They could do a project like this, but it is expensive to develop. It would not be possible to obtain the same rents as Aston Terrace. That project already had streets installed, a tax abatement was in place, as well as other items that helped. In addition, there was a unique developer for that project, who "pushed the limit." Fortunately, they are seeing a return on the investment they made on the design. Mr. Lecklider inquired the size of the site. Mr. Sullivan responded that the site is not large -- approximately an acre. Mr. Foegler stated that the goal for tonight was to obtain a sense of direction from Council. Is there any direction Council wants to provide to the developer? Namely, that if the developer were to develop a project similar to what was provided, but that also addresses Council's specific concerns that Council could then be interested in an economic development agreement. If Council is nowhere near that point, it is something the developer needs to know and understand. Is it a salvageable project? Mayor Keenan stated that he is confident that project could be developed and made more palatable to Council. His sense is that Council members are still grappling with the whole vision, the walkability and the urbanism with a site that is outside the more dynamic area. Ms. Salay stated that it has always been helpful for this Council and PZC to take field trips to certain areas of interest. It gives them common denominators to discuss. She continues to have an open mind. Although she understands the discussion tonight may not appear encouraging, she is not sure that is where it should be left. Staff provided a lot of guidance and suggestions. She would like to have seen the design after those had been incorporated. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Sullivan stated that the site plan informed the architecture, because the block system as defined is very rigid. Looking at the site plan, this almost follows the Bridge Street Corridor plan exactly. There were some suggestions that they tried to do, but there are many variables and many people to be pleased in the process. Their design had to meet multiple engineering criteria, and they settled on this design. However, this design does not lend itself to breaking buildings into different lengths because the blocks define the building length. It is a very tight box in which they must design. He respects the challenge it is to write a Code, but, as has been said, it is not possible to legislate good taste. It is very difficult to create something in words that will guarantee a good solution. Dublin is having its first projects subjected to this Code, and as the projects are worked through, it will be possible to identify those requirements that are appropriate and those that are not. One requirement he would discard is the minimum balcony depth. That is not a balcony; it is an entire exterior room. It is difficult to design yet camouflage the balcony so that it does not hang off the building. Mr. Underhill noted that they attempted to meet the Code to the greatest extent possible, because they thought that was most important. Some things are subjective, however. Going forward, is there an appetite for more deviations, if it yields a better product or design? Mr. Reiner responded that Council has confidence in Mr. Sullivan's firm. He understands that meeting the Code requirements on a 17 -acre development is a challenge. It may also have been difficult to handle the mandated green spaces. Mr. Sullivan responded that there were alternate ideas, but they were unable to work through the engineering implications. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated he is in the unfortunate position of having the first project. Of course, Council is observing the things that they don't like about the way the Code was written — Council is not sure about the actualization of this now. So she will counteract what she said in the beginning about waivers. Maybe to get the product desired, the City will need to consider more waivers. That will inform the City about what needs to be changed with the Code so that in the future, fewer waivers would be needed and projects encouraged. That is something staff will have to work through. Council has provided feedback and he has provided good feedback, as well. Council was aware that the Bridge Street Code was much different than what has historically been done, and now is seeing a product to realize the difference. Mr. Sullivan stated that he hopes there is a way to identify a common solution. Council is presented with its first development in a cornfield while attempting to realize a vision it has had. He could not assemble a better team to do that than the one that is now at the table. They also have the financial wherewithal to accomplish this and the history of staying with their projects. Working through these challenges could result in a good first project that will establish a high bar for future projects -- that may take some real effort. It has been beneficial for them to hear this discussion because it is helpful to understand Council's preferences. His client will need to consider the cost of meeting those expectations and if it is economically viable. Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 14 of 16 Vice Mayor Gerber stated that most of the Council members previously served on PZC, so are accustomed to looking at drawings. Why not 20 one -acre buildings? This doesn't have to be all apartment complexes. There could be some creativity with the buildings. That would add significant variety and would resolve the diversity issues. Although he is sensitive to cost considerations, this could be possible. Mr. Sullivan responded that his client would need to evaluate that possibility. He can tell him that -- as the project is currently proposed, it is a challenge to make the numbers work economically. Added diversity also increases complexity, which also adds to the cost. That does not mean there isn't a solution. However, this is different input, and they will need to evaluate whether that direction is possible. Mr. Gerber stated that adopting a form -based Code was a challenge for Council, as all are accustomed to planned unit development (PUDs). The bar has been raised by the form -based Code, and there is no doubt that they have already spent much time trying to comply with that Code without requiring waivers. Mr. Peterson stated that it seems that the Bridge Street Corridor is similar to a puzzle. It is necessary to have all the pieces to achieve the vision, but each individual piece has to be reviewed in the context of how it fits into the bigger picture. Could the parkland be reconfigured in a way to incorporate it into the surrounding community? Not just that piece, but how it will interact with the pieces around it? When the Cardinal Health building was built, they included a bridge that seemed to lead nowhere. Then they built a second Cardinal building, and the bridge was recognized as a brilliant idea. In this case, is there a way to "bridge" to the surrounding areas to make this piece seem better incorporated into the big picture? Mr. Sullivan responded that is a valid point. With one of the iterations, all of the buildings had open space facing John Shields Parkway, and that was his preference. However, they couldn't get past certain issues. Perhaps they could continue to explore that. The difficulty is meeting all the dimensional criteria established as part of the grid system. Every project is site specific, and the opportunities are a function of the specific aspects of that site. It is difficult to fit into a formula. His personal view is that sometimes, it is more important to have a good design than it is to meet a formula. However, he is not disparaging the process, as it is a monumental effort the City has taken on and is attempting to implement. Mr. Peterson stated that similar to Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, his opinion of the use of waivers has evolved during this conversation. This body is interested in seeing some options. Perhaps they could bring in the other configurations for this property and provide some feature to make this community interesting and integrate this site with the pieces next to it. If he were to present a better option that didn't exactly match the Code, Council would be willing to consider it. Mr. Reiner asked if he views these as potential condominium conversion units in the future. Mr. Sullivan responded that is a possibility. The buildings that front John Shields and Tuller are townhouses on the first floor with a flat above. Although there are common entries, every unit has an attached garage. Those types of units could be converted to condos. The specifications they are using for the apartment units are condo specs — granite countertops, hardwood Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 15 of 16 floors, and many things not seen in apartments in the past. Part of that is because a large segment of the population is choosing to rent by choice; it is not an economic decision. It provides them with more flexibility than purchasing at certain phases of life. It is not so much about the ownership mechanism but the product itself. Mr. Lecklider stated that he wants to provide an honest appraisal. Sometimes the answer is simply "no." However, taking into consideration what his colleagues have said, if he is willing and his client is willing, maybe a compromise can be reached -- perhaps through the use of some waivers. For him, however, there is a imit to the compromise that he is willing to accept. It is important to have a high bar as there is only one opportunity with this cornfield, which is part of a larger district. He means no offense to them, and he has high respect for the quality of work they do. He understands that it all boils down to economics and there is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with the City setting high standards. Perhaps Council will discover that the Code can't accommodate what is desired. Perhaps the City will learn a hard lesson, but he wants to make certain that Council attempts to maintain a high standard. Vice Mayor Gerber asked if they could do computer modeling of how this is anticipated to fill over time. It will add substance based on the market. Obviously, the market will drive this development, not the government, but there are some expectations of government. This would assist interested developers in understanding the City's expectations. Mr. Goodwin inquired if he is referring to a three - dimensional visualization or market analysis. Mr. Gerber responded that the 3D visualization would be helpful. Mr. Goodwin responded that each of the developers is actually assembling their own three - dimensional models. All that is needed from staff is to "stitch" them together. Mr. Gerber stated that would be beneficial to all parties. Mr. Goodwin stated that they would work on that effort. Summary Mr. Foegler stated that at their retreat, Council indicated a need for some tools to better align expectations with design architecture. Staff will provide Council with some ideas in this regard. With regard to moving forward on the more significant projects which require partnership, staff will attempt to define a process that can seek and obtain the right kind of input from Council and that will also mesh with the development review processes that need to move forward. The purpose is to achieve alignment as early in the process as possible. They will share their ideas with additional input from Council, as Council gives additional thought to that, as well. Ms. Salay stated that if staff brings something to Council early in the process, that feedback would be provided to the Planning Commission. She wants to avoid putting pressure on the Commission in view of their role. Mr. Foegler responded that Council's feedback would be limited to the general nature of what they are supportive of with basic developments of this type -- general density parameters, and building heights, deals that would require the City to TIF -fund the public improvements, and, subject to Planning Commission conducting all of its development review, design review, site Dublin City Council Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 16 of 16 plan layout concept, if Council is generally comfortable with the development concept at this stage. That type of feedback makes sense. Ms. Salay stated that would be something very different from what Council did tonight which was basically critiquing architecture. Mr. Foegler agreed. Tonight, there was a project that had moved along much further in the process. Mayor Keenan stated that much of this discussion was really part of the PZC and ART process. Council needs to consider that, as there was some discourse regarding that. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Clerk of Council