Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-12 Study Session Minutes - BSCDublin City Council Study Session — Bridge Street Corridor Code (Ordinance 07 -12) Monday, March 19, 2012 Minutes of Meeting Vice Mayor Salay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present Council Members Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Boring and Mayor Lecklider arrived at 6:10. Mr. Reiner was absent. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Mumma, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Ray, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Martin, Ms. Willis, and Ms. Ott. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the purpose of the meeting is for Council to review and discuss the details of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Code, Ordinance 07 -12, which is scheduled for a second reading on the March 26 Council meeting agenda. Ms. Grigsby stated that a staff presentation on the BSC Code was not prepared, as Council indicated this meeting was solely for discussion purposes; however, the information from the October 17, 2011 study session on the BSC Code is available. In addition, materials provided for tonight's meeting include comments received from developers and builders regarding the proposed Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that last week, Council received an email from the owner of Red Rooster Quilts, located on Corbins Mill. For clarification purposes, what are the differences between the Code Council originally wanted and the version that is proposed for adoption? Has everyone who has contacted the City now been accommodated, with the result that the Code is other than what might have been Council's intended outcome? Or does the document, even with the accommodations, still meet the intent? Mr. Langworthy stated that he believes it does. Most of the accommodations that were made in response to property owners' requests were entirely appropriate. He has discussed this with staff, and staff does not believe too much compromise has been made. The requests that were not accommodated were primarily those that would affect building quality. Most of the requests were related to architectural details or clarification of language, and were very helpful. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she appreciates that clarification, but several of the questions raised related to changing the use of their property. How is that issue being addressed? Mr. Langworthy responded that issue does not relate to the text of the Code, but to the zoning map. The Planning and Zoning Commission received several requests from property owners within the corridor to change their zoning designation from what was recommended, and most of the requests were accommodated. Staff concurred with all of the requests except two, which were considered too much of a departure from the Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 20 vision. Those two were: (1) a site on the south side of SR 161 east of The Shoppes of River Ridge, and (2) a site across Village Parkway to the west, at the curb, extending the "Sawmill Center Neighborhood" zoning into that area. Those two requests were considered to be harmful to the BSC vision; the other requests were considered to be appropriate accommodations. The most recent request for the property on Corbins Mill was discussed by staff. There is no particular objection to changing that zoning to BSC Commercial from BSC Historic Transition, if that is Council's preference. Vice Mayor Salay asked if a business is rezoned from their current, and preferred, Commercial zoning to the proposed BSC Office, and they want to continue to operate their current business, what would prevent them from later changing that use? What she has understood is that the proposed rezoning accommodates their existing use -- they will not be required to change their business. The auto dealership asked to remain in Commercial zoning versus Office zoning. If the City does not accommodate their request and they are zoned Office, what will result for the business? Mr. Smith responded that the business can continue to operate as they are indefinitely, if that is their preference. However, this Code does not prevent them from requesting a change at some future time. When undertaking a rezoning for a project area of this size, there will be some property owners who wish to remain as they are currently zoned. Specific steps have been taken with this Code that should alleviate their concerns. Potentially, all property owners in the entire district could request to remain as they are currently zoned, and that would destroy the entire vision. However, any particular requests have been addressed. Mr. Keenan asked if a business that is currently zoned Commercial but will become BSC Office with this rezoning later desires to expand its current business — will it be permitted to do so? Mr. Langworthy responded that this possibility was considered on an individual property basis. This Code has a provision that permits the business to expand up to 50% beyond its current size. However, that expansion is larger than the businesses could practicably fit on their properties. Mr. Keenan stated that the zoning map proposed by the Planning Commission is the one that he would support. Mr. Langworthy responded that the Commercial zoning along SR 161 is the area of concern. In the original Vision Report, one of the central focuses of the Plan was to create an "address street" along SR 161; to create an opportunity for businesses to locate there as "the place to be." What would result if some of the requested changes are made? What is the potential to harm the ultimate vision? BSC Commercial permits single -story, retail strip development placed near the street. Since at least 1997, perhaps prior to that, there has been a vision for the SR 161 Corridor of taller, office -use buildings to frame the corridor. Staff is concerned that if the Commercial is put in place, and people take advantage of what is permitted, it will remain a strip commercial area, more of a Commercial /Retail street than Office. Great effort was taken with this Code to ensure that the existing businesses are able to operate exactly as they are for as long Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 20 as they wish to do so, and that the City considers them to be conforming to zoning for refinancing, insurance or any other purposes. However, the business may choose, at some point in the future, to begin to comply with the BSC Code. Mrs. Boring noted that Planning staff was willing to change the zoning for some of these properties. Mr. Langworthy responded that they did. They have now moved their focus down to the Corridor, and one other area above Village Parkway, although staff would prefer the November map be adopted in its entirety. Mayor Lecklider stated that the proposed BSC Code is now in an exceptionally accommodating position if the City is serious about achieving this vision. The re- development across this country has not occurred without some perception that it is infringing upon someone's rights. However, that is what every municipality, regulatory body and Code does. During the Community Plan process, there were citizens who objected to the changes. The other alternative is not to enact this Vision. Mrs. Boring stated that what is being discussed is a small portion of the area — one corner. Vice Mayor Salay responded that it is also the car dealerships and the shopping center at Riverside and SR 161. For whatever reason, the center has never thrived. Her long- term vision for the corridor is not for a shopping center in that location or for two auto dealerships. There will always be some citizen angst with adopting a vision, but, as has been pointed out, it is necessary to achieve the vision. She appreciates PZC's attempts to be accommodating, and the Code accommodates the existing businesses. In the future, should those businesses wish to change, the City's vision can be achieved. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she wants reassurance that those who complained the loudest were the ones accommodated, and those who weren't perceived to be as valuable in the discussion, or those who put their confidence in Council and staff and did not contact the City and raise an issue, were not accommodated. It seems that in the last few months, the City has accommodated everyone who came forward and requested a change in the language. If the language was in fact good to begin with, why did that occur? Council certainly does not want any harm to be done to existing businesses — the language should allow for their continuation and expansion until such time the business desires otherwise -- but she is concerned about the other changes. Mr. Langworthy responded that the zoning code text and the zoning map are separate. In regard to the text, the City sent the text to people to review and comment, and most of the changes that were requested staff considered minor and appropriate to the local conditions. Staff indicated to the consultants that some manipulation of the language they suggested would be necessary. Therefore, staff is not uncomfortable with the changes made to the text. The changes that staff was not uncomfortable with, and were not made, related to development quality, in particular, architectural quality. The same was true in regard to the changes requested by PZC. They were not significant, Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 20 were appropriate, and did not alter the basic tenets of the Code. Most were detail - based, and, in some cases, added flexibility and more discretion to decision - making authority, particularly in regard to architecture. The zoning map was another issue and staff disagreed with the changes made by PZC. Generally speaking, there was not a great deal of discussion by PZC in regard to the changes to the zoning map. Their direction was that whatever changes were requested by property owners should be made to the map and then provided to them. Staff did so, but also provided them an analysis that indicated which of those changes were appropriate and which were not. The Commission did not agree with staff and forwarded that map to Council with a recommendation for its adoption. Staff is recommending an alternative map. Mrs. Boring stated that the map appears to be carrying out the Vision, except for two small areas. The percentage of the area proposed as BSC Commercial is not that great. Mr. Langworthy responded that the issue is not the percentage, but rather the location. It is a high visibility corridor that will a big difference, as opposed to some of the streets farther to the north in the Corridor on the east side. S.R. 161 is the "prime address street," or "character street' that the vision is trying to achieve. Mr. Keenan stated that part of the intent was to move the buildings closer to the street. Mr. Langworthy stated that was part of the intent; it was also to achieve some height to the buildings. Mr. Keenan noted that there is a service road in place. How will this impact the potential of having buildings closer to the street in the future? Mr. Langworthy responded that he is not certain the service road will survive in the long- term. It may not be needed, but that has not yet been decided. There has been discussion regarding the potential of on- street parking along SR 161, which would have to be taken from the travel lanes. Mrs. Boring stated that in the past, the intent was for office development to occur to the west. Suddenly, the Commercial is moved west along SR 161, the address street. Why is the City no longer insisting on Office there, as originally intended? Now, that area along SR161 /US 33 is being permitted to remain Commercial. Mayor Salay noted that is the area next to 1 -270. She requested clarification of the intent for that area. Mr. Langworthy stated that there is a need for some Commercial within the Corridor. Goody - Clancy recommended that there be nodes of Commercial provided along the Corridor, and that was one of the areas they identified. Vice Mayor Salay asked if that would support the OCLC area, where there will be Residential and Office and the Indian Run neighborhood districts. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 5 of 20 Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. To the north of West Bridge Street, there is not a large amount of land to be developed, unless Post Road is relocated. That would make the area a developable pod, but still not a large portion. Vice Mayor Salay requested clarification of relocated Post Road on the map. Mr. Langworthy noted that it would be relocated to the east of the existing Toy Barn and through a roundabout. The section of Post Road after that point would no longer remain. Vice Mayor Salay asked for staffs response to the request concerning Historic Transitional versus Commercial? That seems a reasonable idea. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has no particular issue with that. The hope was that all of this property could be consolidated into a single grouping. There have been several, unsuccessful attempts to do so. Vice Mayor Salay asked if staff prefers to eliminate the Bridge Street Transitional, or keep it? The property owner who had an issue with this can continue their existing business. Is this primarily about consolidation, or is the Historic character being extended in that direction versus the more modern character that is on the other side of the river? Mr. Langworthy responded that the intent was to create a transition from the Historic District. The long -range plan has additional Historic transition areas that will provide transition into the Indian Run area and into some Commercial properties. Mrs. Boring stated that this plan will allow the BSC area at Bridge and Frantz Road to remain as it is. Another small property has asked to remain Commercial, and that is also acceptable. Yet, these other two small properties (blue on the map) will significantly impact the Vision of the Corridor. Mr. Langworthy responded that is due to the location, not the size. Mrs. Boring stated that there are some businesses in that location that have been in place for a long time. Leo Alfred Jewelers recently constructed an expensive building. And now the City is going to tell them that they don't fit the Vision. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she does not understand her objection. The City is encouraging those businesses to continue to exist as they are, as long as they desire, and they can even expand their business, if they desire. If a weather event were to impact their property, they are encouraged to rebuild there. If it was not the City's intent to encourage them to continue as they are and to be considered conforming, the text would not have been crafted to ensure that. Mrs. Boring asked what their status would be if they desired to sell their business. Mr. Langworthy responded that it would remain the same. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if that is only if it is the same use. Mr. Langworthy responded that it does not need to remain the same. The language has been constructed to permit it to be sold as the same use or any other uses that were previously permissible in that same zoning district. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 6 of 20 Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes the City has done a good job with protecting existing businesses, more so perhaps than in other times and situations. The City has always had different visions for various parts of the community because, long -term, it was considered to be in the best interest of the City to change and evolve. Mr. Langworthy noted that even in the case that something unforeseen should arise for that business, they still have the option of requesting a PUD or a different zoning. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the key is that this defines the vision for property owners and businesses who will want to make changes in the future. They will have the comfort of knowing the City supports that. When they make a long -term investment in their property, it will be supported by the City's vision and these planning documents. Mr. McDaniel stated that, from an economic development perspective, after the City heard some of the concerns about being conforming and the effect of that upon their financing ability, it was addressed. The existing businesses are appreciated; they are vibrant businesses and the City does not want them to suffer. Not only is the intent to support the existing businesses, but to also provide them with a "bridging" strategy, if they should ever desire to change to something else. If development occurs and the desired density results, they would have options available to them that they do not have today. It will also be an easier process to make a change than it is today. An effort was made to accommodate all their needs, yet not "water down" the vision. They will have the necessary tools to make any changes, if desired, to redevelop and increase the value of their property. Mrs. Boring asked about the reasons that PZC has resisted this. Mr. McDaniel responded that he does not believe they resisted the bridging strategy — but only the zoning map as proposed. Mr. Keenan stated that the zoning map is the issue. He is satisfied with everything but the map recommended by staff. Together with the map that PZC recommends, he can support the text. Without it, he cannot. Although the text is fine, words alone are not sufficient. Personal experience with his property has taught him otherwise. Several years from now when there are different people serving on Council, PZC and staff, there is risk of a different interpretation. He does not understand staff's concerns with the PZC map. They have done a really good job addressing the bridging concepts and the financing and insurance issues. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she does not believe this will take 20 -30 years to develop, as that is not the experience in Dublin. Stavroff and OCLC are ready to begin developing, and there are others who are anticipating Council's passage of this Code so they can begin the Residential component. This is one thing that she believes will be important for the City to stay on top of. This is a very different kind of vision and execution for the City. She works in downtown Columbus and views the fabulous results with Lifestyle Communities. That is her vision for this area. She expects to have that level of quality. She believes that there is a need for the City to benchmark itself, Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 7 of 20 and in six or 12 months, be willing to tweak this as needed. This is a test, a new process, and it is also new for the development community. They may find when they proceed with the execution that it isn't exactly as originally perceived. Council and staff must be willing to tweak this as needed. Ms. Grigsby responded that this has been discussed at several meetings, and staff is aware that there will be changes to this Code, once implementation has begun. Early on, there will probably be more revisions than later, unless there are changes in the market or demographics. It will need to be continually evaluated. The Code will now become the standard for development -- it will not be done project by project. Mr. Langworthy noted that indicators of the need for revisions will likely be the waivers that are requested. The waivers will be tracked to see if there are consistent types of waivers being requested. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that because the City knows this will likely come back for additional revision, is it possible to identify the zoning map recommended by PZC as an interim map — with the understanding that it left in place certain things, rather than making wholesale changes? She agrees with the value of the longer -term vision, but perhaps it can be accomplished incrementally. Mr. Langworthy responded that there will be a need to amend the Community Plan in the future due to the land use changes that are included in the BSC. In the Future Land Use map, this particular area will be shown as Office, so the City will have those opportunities in the future. Mr. Keenan stated that he has no objection to that. Mayor Lecklider stated that when he considers the map proposed by PZC, he believes there is too much Commercial. He intends no disrespect to the current property owners; he is their business customer and expects to continue to be. As this is set forth, they will be able to continue to operate as such into perpetuity and to expand by 50 percent. With respect to what has been suggested as a compromise, what is the distinction? Mr. Langworthy responded that the difficulty is that if a property owner redevelops their property under the BSC Commercial, it will be much more difficult to transition it over a period of time. The issue is not with what is occurring now, or even if the business expands by 50 %. The proposed Code accommodates that. The issue is if the site is rebuilt into a completely new use -- not what exists there now — and new building. The difficulty is not with the existing businesses and their expansion. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it will be the Code and the property owners can do things by right and not come back before the Planning Commission. Essentially, they would have the ability to scrape their existing site clean and do something that is not the City's long -term vision. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 8 of 20 Mayor Lecklider stated that when the Community Plan is updated, they will not be agreeable to their property being designated Office. They will make the same arguments then that they are making today. Mr. Gerber stated that he would like to share his view in regard to the zoning map. From a planning standpoint, Mr. Langworthy is correct, but reality and politics are the real issue. There are parts of the PZC map that he supports. Staffs map has the area around LaScala designated as Office. However, if the intent is to encourage pedestrian traffic from that area to the Historic District, there should be destination stops or shops along the way. On the southern edge, it would make sense to expand the Commercial for that purpose, because it does connect to the Historic District. To the north of that, there is plenty of Office that well defines the area; to the east of that on both sides there is Office all the way up to Sawmill Road. North of that is a good amount of Residential. Without that Commercial support there, people will use their cars to drive elsewhere. Therefore, a little more Commercial in that area would make sense. If, long -term, something different is added in the updated Community Plan, he would not necessarily be opposed to that. Mayor Lecklider stated that he believes some people are envisioning this area would be 100% Office. That is not his understanding of what the Code would allow. He asked Mr. Langworthy to comment. Mr. Langworthy responded that all of these districts have a mixture of uses. In regard to Mr. Gerber's point, staff and PZC's view is that SR 161 will never be a walkable street. The issue relates to where people are walking to and from. The frontage is both Office and Residential to the north. There is opportunity for walking there, as opposed to Commercial, which is really a drive -to area. The level of Commercial that has been proposed in that area is much more than anticipated for that area. There is opportunity for both Office and Retail — restaurants, places for people to walk. To what extent that occurs depends upon the property owners. Mr. Gerber stated that people will walk from the northern locations and some people will drive to that area. Hopefully, overtime, SR161 will become more pedestrian. We can sometimes be over - retailed as a society, and sometimes the retail is not in the right places. Mr. Langworthy stated that Goody - Clancy's opinion was that Retail should not be spread out over different locations, but concentrated in areas. Retail tends to build upon itself, it does not thrive as well independently. It would be preferable to concentrate it, for instance, in Sawmill Center, Bridge Pointe, and the Shoppes of River Ridge or stand out along the corridor. Mayor Lecklider stated that BSC Office is not 100% Office. Also in that area could be a dry cleaner, hair stylist, a deli or a restaurant. Therefore, he is not convinced that any Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 9 of 20 more Commercial was needed to the extent proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, recognizing that the existing Commercial could very well be there for the next 30 years. Mr. Gerber stated that the area they are discussing is only about 400 yards at most. Mr. Langworthy stated that it isn't so much the size of the land area that is the issue, as the location. Mr. Gerber noted that he is referring to the two parcels along SR.161, only about 400- 500 yards east to west. Mayor Lecklider noted that more Commercial is proposed in the PZC map than just on those two parcels. Mr. Gerber responded that a combination of the two maps is possible. He is interested in encouraging pedestrian traffic, and he believes more Commercial in that one area would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if he could support that map with the exception of those two parcels immediately to the right. Mr. Gerber responded affirmatively. Mayor Lecklider stated that his concern is the fact that there would be Residential immediately adjacent to the Commercial. A better adjacent neighbor would be Office. There was also an earlier conversation about the issue of sexually- oriented businesses. He is not sure whether that was ultimately resolved. Vice Mayor Salay noted that it was not resolved. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how it would be resolved. Mr. Smith responded that is being studied in the context of the entire City. Under the law, there must be some designated areas for this use. However, it can't be near schools or day care centers. They are working on that issue. Vice Mayor Salay stated that at this point, as the Code is written, if the area is BSC Commercial, that is a permitted use by right. Mr. Smith stated that is a Conditional use. Mayor Lecklider stated that it would be a Conditional use, but if he were looking at these maps for a desirable place to live in Dublin, there is one strip of BSC Residential that would not be attractive. He would not want to live next to BSC Commercial. Mrs. Boring stated that she understood the intent was to inform developers about what the City desires so that they would build it. She understood that the City was going to allow higher densities and provide a Code to follow. Then, the City began to consider all the items the developers didn't support, thereby lowering the standards. If the developer proposes exactly what is required, PZC reviews it and the public reviews it, there should be no discretion in regard to whether or not it would be approved. However, if there are Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 10 of 20 various options for the developer, then they can negotiate. If the applicant comes in and wants to request changes from this Code, then the application should be disapproved immediately. The Code refers to "required viewing body," but that team would not always be consistent. Also, she is concerned that at some point, the Fire Department or Police Department might disengage, because there are some things they would be unlikely to care about. Mr. Langworthy responded that the reason this step is in the process is that staff recognizes there are some things that must be decided by the required reviewing body. Much of the review criteria is very minor, and was included primarily at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who wanted to allow some degree of architectural flexibility. To assist with that review process, an architectural consultant will provide consultation to the Administrative Review Team. That process has been used with another development and it is working well. He does not recall anything on that list that is a "deal breaker." He believes most applicants will be able to comply with the Code or provide something that is entirely appropriate. In those circumstances where they do not, a process for that has been included, as well, that will permit the proposal to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a waiver. Protections have been built into the process for both the City and the applicant. This has to be a cooperative venture. Yes, there will be a Code and Vision, but flexibility will be permitted to the applicant in some aspects to encourage them to give the City the best product possible. No Code can address every possible detail. Mrs. Boring asked who makes the final decision when there is something that is not compliant with Code. Mr. Langworthy responded that the required viewing body decides. Some applications will automatically be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some will be reviewed by the ART. Mrs. Boring asked if the project moves forward at the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, will the process be as quick as envisioned? Mr. Langworthy responded that, although it could be done in the same amount of time, it depends on how cooperatively the City can work with the applicant. One piece missing from the Code -- because it can't be "coded" -- is the work staff does before the application is formally in the process. A good deal of time is spent prior to the application being submitted to make sure the application is in compliance with the Code and anticipates PZC's desires. That process has now been made more certain with requirements. What is not certain are the minor details intended to be addressed with flexibility. The intent is to address those in the pre - application process. The issue is that there is the possibility of working out all those details only to have the application later reviewed by the PZC, who reverses the actions -- therefore eliminating the predictability for the applicant. Now, the applicant will not be told what they have to do until they go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and PZC decides who will be the reviewing body. Only then will the applicant learn what the process will be. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 11 of 20 Mrs. Boring stated that is exactly what she does not understand. If the City informs an applicant that they have to do certain things, and their project meets the Code, how can the Planning and Zoning Commission then not support it? Mr. Langworthy responded that he hopes that is the way it works. If the reviewing body indicates they would prefer it to be some other way, the applicant will probably apply for the waiver to do so. Mrs. Boring responded that is her concern. If their project meets the Code requirements, then how can PZC require changes? Mr. Langworthy responded that is why he believes the approval should be left with the Administrative Review Team (ART). If the project meets the Code, the ART should be able to approve it. Mr. Gerber inquired what PZC's parameters of authority are with the Basic Plan Review. Mr. Langworthy responded that the closest comparison would be the Informal Concept Plan Review. The differences are the public comment component and that no vote occurs with the current Concept Plan review. Another difference is the level of detail provided for the Basic Plan Review -- it would be closer to a Preliminary Development Plan review. The goal is for the PZC to have a comfort level with the project. Mr. Gerber stated that this process would have two elements — first, an opportunity for the public to comment, and secondly, an opportunity for PZC to provide some "check and balance" to the system, to make sure it is consistent with the surrounding area and its setbacks fit in. However, he doesn't see that role articulated. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the project plan would be approximately 95% complete at the point when the Planning Commission has the opportunity to review it and the public may provide input. Mr. Langworthy clarified that the plan would be more developed than under a Concept Plan, but less detailed than a Preliminary Development Plan. He does not know what the level of completion would be. It could change from project to project, depending on how far along the applicant is in the development process and what input they want from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Gerber stated that if PZC provides a Basic Plan Review, and PZC allows for public comments, what does PZC do as a result? Can they set forth conditions? Mr. Langworthy responded that the way the process is structured at this point, PZC would provide only review and comment, similar to the Concept Plan review process. They provide comments for the applicant to consider. However, PZC's comments are not binding to the ART, although they will not be ignored. Vice Mayor Salay noted that PZC provides valuable input, and the ART might not be aware of the interest of the public or a potential purchaser of adjacent property. Such information would be learned during the PZC informal review process, and when the application is reviewed by the ART, the applicant would know PZC's and the public's Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 12 of 20 concerns. They would likely take those into account to gain the ART's approval, understanding the parameters that exist in this Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that they also have the ability to provide waivers. Mr. Langworthy clarified that waivers have to be approved by PZC. Mr. Gerber stated that PZC would not have the authority to direct an applicant to pursue a waiver on the basis the Commission does not like the plan. ART would have the option to agree or disagree with PZC's comments. Mr. Langworthy responded that he is not certain about that. If PZC indicated that the applicant should consider requesting a waiver because of certain conditions, he believes the applicant and ART would consider that carefully. A waiver application would be reviewed by the PZC. Mayor Lecklider stated that his understanding is that the core values of the community are reflected in this Code. If the core values are changing with every application, then this is not a different process. He understood that the underlying concept of this Code was to be predictable. That is what the City has heard from the development community for many years, and the appeal of this Code was its predictability. The fact is, whether it is real or perceived, there is the issue of arbitrariness. His understanding of a Code like this was that it would eliminate this perception. Council has modified this Code and tailored it to City standards by adjusting the process to allow for more public input and PZC involvement. For him it now "begs the question" of what is Council trying to accomplish here? Mrs. Boring suggested that Council could adopt the PZC process and monitor it to see if it provides the results desired. It can always be modified in the future. Ms. Grigsby stated that the first project taken through this process will receive significant attention through the process. PZC will receive reports on modifications in projects that are made, or those not made, and the reason why, in response to their comments. Mr. Gerber stated that he believes this Code reflects the City's core values, but under this Code, it is still possible to build a very unattractive building. He believes in checks and balances, and the only way that is possible is to have that be the role of a public body, i.e. the PZC, although it could be done on a very limited basis and in a shortened process, so it can still achieve the spirit of the intent of this Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that his response to that would be that the Code is then defective. If the Code as drafted will permit an ugly building to be constructed, the Code should be modified before passage. It makes no sense to approve a Code that has such potential, resulting in the need to create a process similar to the City's traditional process. His concern is that the City will receive a relatively tepid response to a process that doesn't appear to be that much different from its existing process. This land constitutes six percent of the City's overall land mass. There was an article in Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 13 of 20 today's newspaper regarding Dublin considering changes to its sign code — the word used in the description was "persnickety." That is the perception of Dublin, which he admits he personally contributed to. However, with respect to this corridor, this is only six percent of the City. Dublin needs to change with the times. Mr. Gerber agreed. He also is pleased that Dublin has such high standards. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it is uncertain how the Code will be interpreted and executed by developers. Only experience will tell. The intention was to create a Code for this small area of the City with a process whereby the developer should be able to complete a checklist and have limited changes made. Developers complain about any city's process, because the process costs money. However, Dublin has been fortunate to have many developers wanting to do business in Dublin for many years. The high - end product that results brings them a profit. Developers also use these as prototypes in other places. PUD processes allowed that opportunity of give and take between staff, developers and the Planning Commission. Part of that process was to require many, not insignificant, conditions to gain approval. They often changed the nature of the project. The developers have been successful in this community. She is concerned with ensuring the public has a voice in this process. There was a recent example of this with the development proposed along Brand Road. Had the community not had active, ongoing engagement in that project, it would have been a significantly different project. Because the public was able to work with the Planning Commission and the developer, important transition issues were accommodated. That is the importance of the public's engagement, and the timing of that is her concern. If the public engagement is too early in the process, concepts can change dramatically before they become a reality. She realizes that with this Code, in this location, when the concept or basic plan comes before the Commission, it will be developed significantly more because of this Code. Mr. Langworthy concurred. This Code will allow the application to be more significantly developed when submitted. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if it allows or requires that it be. Mr. Langworthy responded that it actually requires it to be. Because most of the requirements are already established, the basic plan will be more complete than a concept plan submittal. Vice Mayor Salay added that the building materials and architectural details, already established to reflect the City's core values, are stated in the Code. The project should be considerably further along at the basic plan review, which will provide the public a good sense of the project. She agrees with Council Member Chinnici - Zuercher's comments concerning the value of public input, based on the experience with the development considered at Council's last meeting. Public input is good for the community, and particularly for the neighbors. The Bridge Street Corridor is an area of the City, which she understood all of Council had agreed would be a place where a straight zoning code would work. If done right, Council would be comfortable with it, because Council had a clear vision of what was desired. There is more public Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 14 of 20 participation in this administration - recommended process than she first understood, and she has been persuaded that is a positive. The public and the Planning and Zoning Commission will have the ability to weigh in. Dublin is proud of the fact that it is in fact "persnickety" and she hopes this Code reflects that, yet also provides some certainty to the developers. She wants the development community to be excited about this. This is a different economic climate than five years ago, based on competition from other suburbs. Mr. Gerber responded that if PZC is to have some input at the basic plan review stage, what is the level of that review? What is their role, what is their authority? He assumes after that review, PZC is no longer involved, unless there is a waiver needed. He assumes they will be providing an additional check and balance that the project meets the community's standards, and perhaps suggesting a condition or two, to ensure that. The project would then move forward for ART review. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if he envisions that the ART can disregard PZC's recommendations. That is not the way Dublin has operated. It seems that the ART would consider carefully PZC's recommendations. Mr. Gerber stated that perhaps ART would, but perhaps not. The City has had previous projects on which staff and PZC had different opinions. It is not an adversarial situation, however; just a process to have all the views considered. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if PZC's recommendations should be binding. Mrs. Boring responded that would be arbitrary, because the applicant has already met the Code. There are some minor details, which are to be determined by the required viewing body. Mr. Gerber noted that ARB or another review body may review the plan, based upon its location. Mr. Langworthy stated that ARB will have exactly the same process that they have now. The ARB process did not change. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the project review will no longer move from ARB to PZC. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is correct. The ARB maintains its authority. Mayor Lecklider stated that he finds the different perspectives regarding public involvement interesting. He does not expect the public feedback to come only via formalized meetings. He expects to receive just as much public feedback outside that setting. He has already been receiving public feedback regarding the concept of this process. The City Manager will be a member of the ART, and the public has access to Council 24/7. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council does not have review authority, either. If the submittal meets the Code, it meets the Code. Mayor Lecklider responded that he believes Council will be able to have a conversation with the City Manager, the Planning Director, the Development Director and the Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 15 of 20 Planning Commission if needed. Council will have a liaison to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gerber stated that some architects have indicated to him that they could develop a product that would meet every Code requirement and still produce a product Council would not like. For that reason, he believes some review body should provide a check and balance review to ensure the development will meet the City's core values. However, he does not want a 30 -day review, or for the project to be held up with that review. Mr. Langworthy asked if he is seeking a more binding review from PZC. He believes that would depend, first, upon the level of detail provided for the Basic Plan Review, and then, upon what PZC does with that. Mr. Gerber responded that he does not want PZC to re- design the project. That should not be their role. Ms. Grigsby inquired if most of Council's concern relates to architectural issues. Most of that information will be available for the Basic Plan Review. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that perhaps the concern is because Council does not yet yet know what the process is — it's a little more than a Concept Plan Review, but not a Preliminary Development Plan Review. Until the first case is brought forward, it is hard to understand the extent of what is being presented and the reality of what the public and PZC will view and comment on. She also does not understand what the authority of PZC is under this Code. It appears to her that they have no authority; they will provide advice only. They are not the binding authority or approval; the ART is. Vice Mayor Salay inquired if that is similar to ARB's role. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is more similar to PZC's current role with a Concept Plan Review. There is no binding element to their review, just advice to the applicant. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that is because the plan will be becoming back to them at a later date. Mr. Langworthy responded that maybe the key is somewhere in between — giving a little more weight to PZC's comments, giving Council more comfort. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she likes the latter better, that what PZC is given is actually what is going to happen, that they are given comments closer to the Code. Mr. Gerber stated that would also give more certainty to the applicant and the public. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she disagrees with the former comment about less concern because this area is not adjacent to a $350,000 development. She actually expects to see, and is excited about, a lot of Residential here. If she is in a Residential building, then she has a significant interest on what is developing around her. The same is true if she has invested money in an Office development. She would want whoever develops next to her to have a great Office development, as well. Similar to when Duke was constructing buildings around 1 -270 a few years ago -- neighborhoods Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 16 of 20 not next to them, but in view of them, wanted to have input into the appearance of the buildings. Vice Mayor Salay responded that the difference to her is that this Code and the District gives certainty to the people who are buying and investing in the area. They will have been through that process themselves. They will be interested in their neighborhood, and they should have the ability to weigh in. There will much more certainty than there was when Dublin was a completely green - fields community. Applicants were coming in then with 100+ acre PUDs. Mayor Lecklider inquired if it is possible to draw any comparison to the EAZ zoning process, in regard to PZC's influence over that process. Mr. Langworthy responded that PZC will have more influence with the BSC process. The EAZ is a purely administrative review process. The only involvement PZC has with that is the waiver process. Mrs. Boring inquired how many uses are in the EAZ zoning. Mr. Langworthy responded that there numerous uses, a variety of Residential, Retail and Commercial. Mr. McDaniel responded that everyone became more comfortable with the EAZ zoning because it was more suburban than the way it had been done for decades. The BSC district is quite different, however, and he would expect Council to be less comfortable with this than the EAZ. Mayor Lecklider noted that he only wished to compare the processes. Mr. McDaniel stated that the original intent for the Bridge Street Corridor was the EAZ process. Then, it became clear that people wanted public input. That is why the Basic Plan Review process was added. Would it be helpful if staff came back with a definition of what the Basic Plan Review would entail? He believes the process could also work if staff were to take direction from the Basic Plan Review, and execute it. The faith he has in this Code is that it will condense the time, because that is built into the Code. He agrees with the public input; that is Dublin's culture. What he does not like, from an economic development perspective, is that when developers leave the Basic Plan Review, they do not have clear direction. Then, they will be spending lots of money on something vague. This Code will take a lot of that uncertainty away. They do differ from PZC's philosophy in regard to the need for a time frame. If the process goes beyond 70 days, it's back to the PUD process. If that's the case, then just remain with the PUD process. If staff can define the Basic Plan Review, then they can take PZC's directions and still proceed with a timely process. His goal is that this process accomplish the intent of Council's policy. Mayor Lecklider stated that he would like to eliminate to the extent possible the perception of arbitrariness in the process. That is what he thought Council wanted to achieve with this particular Code. He agrees that the PUD process is largely responsible for the fine community Dublin is today, and that process remains available outside this six percent of the City's land mass. However, the PUD process has not Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 17 of 20 always led to the best possible outcome. There are some of those projects that, in hindsight, we would do differently, so it is not a perfect process, either. Mr. Langworthy responded that part of that is caused by the lack of specificity in the Code prior to the PUD process. Mrs. Boring inquired if we now have a Code that provides that specificity, except for a few details, why should there also be any arbitrary direction. Mr. Smith responded that it is because the process is not a science. It involves some human nature to want a little more. Mrs. Boring inquired if what we are saying is that we don't trust PZC not to negotiate. Mr. Smith responded that is not what he is saying. Vice Mayor Salay that it is human nature for the public or perhaps Council to suggest a little more stone, landscaping, or something else than is required by the Code. That triggers a back and forth process, which ends up being arbitrary. Mrs. Boring stated that it is her expectation this would not work that way. If the Code requires 80% stone and the applicant's plan provides 80% stone, then they should not be asked for more. She expects everyone to abide by those rules. Mr. Gerber stated that, as Mr. McDaniel suggested, it would be good to define the Basic Plan Review. What criteria can PZC review? How binding are their comments? He believes their review should be to ensure the project is compatible with the surrounding area, and there is some criteria considered to determine what is compatible with the surrounding area. Their role is to opine on those areas only. He believes that definition could be written with some specificity. Mrs. Boring stated that the difference with a PUD is that the developer wants something different from the Code, so the City asks for something more, as well — that makes it a win -win solution. This process should not be compared to that; they are two different processes. PZC cannot negotiate with this zoning, because it is not a PUD. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the only negotiation is with the waiver process. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Gerber stated that it would be limited to the subject matter of the waiver. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would be helpful to have the definition for the Basic Plan Review, as staff has suggested. Vice Mayor Salay noted that Ms. Boring seems to be arguing against PZC's involvement at all, if they can't do anything with the application. Mrs. Boring stated that what she is saying is that if someone should decide it is necessary to modify a project that meets Code, that issue should be referred to PZC for review. Mr. Langworthy clarified that she is referring to issues other than a waiver. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Mrs. Boring stated that one phrase that has always bothered her is "generally consistent." This Code says that all those types of things would be reviewed by the RRB, which is not yet defined. She believes those things should be forwarded to the PZC. Mr. Keenan stated that in addition to the Basic Plan definition, he would also like staff to provide a description of the range of a waiver, from the broadest form to the most narrow form. A couple of examples would be helpful. There was an example with the EAZ Code. Mr. Gerber inquired if a waiver is required when the applicant wants to do something outside the Code. Mr. Langworthy responded that one example of a narrow range might be that the Code requires 80% of a building material, but the applicant wants to provide 70 %. A wide range might be that the applicant wants to construct a building type that is not permitted. In both cases, a waiver must be approved by the PZC. There are criteria in the Code for evaluating waiver requests. A waiver is the equivalent of a variance. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that with the first example Mr. Langworthy provided, she expected him to say that ART could make that decision. The second, which is significantly different than the Code, would go to PZC. What waiver would not go to PZC, but for which ART would be the approving body. Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code includes some minimal waivers that the ART can approve as modifications. They are limited in scope; for instance, a 10 percent deviation. The encouragement is to follow the Code. If not, a waiver is necessary, which will involve an additional 28 days in the review process. Following Code is the first and best option. Mrs. Boring inquired if a stormwater management plan would be required by this Code. Mr. Langworthy stated that the Code requires that a stormwater management plan be provided. Mr. Hammersmith can provide more details. Mr. Hammersmith stated that currently stormwater management is covered by Chapter 53 of the Codified Ordinances. The way they intended to handle it in the Bridge Street Corridor was by creating an independent manual for the Corridor itself, which would tie to Chapter 53. The Code would have to provide ability to do that. It would be handled by utilizing green infrastructure and sustainable practices. Currently, the City does a lot of "end of pipe" treatment, regulating rates of runoff to detention ponds. Other methods would include green infrastructure, regulating volume, permeable pavements, rain gardens, bio swales and curb inlet basins. Mrs. Boring stated that it sounds similar to the current practices. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct. Mrs. Boring inquired why there was the impression by Ms. King that the City would be discontinuing those. Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 19 of 20 Mr. Hammersmith stated that it would probably be helpful to send Ms. King a copy of the report done by CDM last year on the Bridge Street Corridor. Council requested that he do so. Mrs. Boring inquired if public art is addressed in the BSC Code. Mr. Langworthy stated that they could not require art to be used, so they include a provision to indicate to developers that the City is interested in ideas for public or private a rt. Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be the City's responsibility to encourage more public art, such as in the City's walkways, to create a pattern. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff will be looking at how to do public art along pathways and roadways. We know that the Bridge Street Corridor is an opportunity for public art to be included in the development. Mrs. Boring inquired if it is the City's responsibility then. Ms. Grigsby responded that in part it is. Many developers will want their developments to include these types of amenities, because it makes their properties more valuable. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has not asked questions about the Thoroughfare Plan. Typically, an updated Thoroughfare Plan is approved, as well. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a road network exhibit was included with the plan. That is the greatest level of detail currently available. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the street that goes through Historic Dublin. She thought that, at one time, the intent was to loop it around Historic Dublin. Specifically, where is the southern connector? Mr. Hammersmith described its proposed path from Village Parkway west across the river through the Library site, and continuing west. Vice Mayor Salay noted that the one crossing concerns her, because it appears to be on top of the Falls. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it appears that way due to the scale of the diagram. It is a two -way road. The intent is not to put a bridge over the Falls or destroy the Falls. Vice Mayor Salay inquired about the possibility of not having that connection. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it would begin to erode the grid pattern, which disperses traffic and provides the connectivity intended in the BSC Vision Plan. He believes it is better to pursue the network, and then work with the parameters to avoid impacting the Falls. There is room in there to do that. The intersection can be moved somewhat and the rest of the road swing that direction as well. The details will be worked out. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired at what point this would come to Council for approval. Mr. Langworthy responded that it would be part of the Community Plan update that is scheduled to come before Council by the end of the year. He noted that this depiction Dublin City Council Study Session March 19, 2012 Page 20 of 20 is illustrative, not actual. The intent is to establish a grid of smaller block sizes, so there are no 1,500 -foot blocks, which are difficult to travel through. Mr. Hammersmith stated over 50 percent of this drawing would not be shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. Only major collectors and arterials will be shown, not local streets. In regard to the stormwater issue, Ms. King was concerned about the extension of stormwater waivers for the Historic District. That is included in the CDM report, which Council will receive. It looks at how we would manage stormwater and the net effect of the proposed densities on stormwater management. The study indicates a two percent increase in the volume of water that comes down Indian Run, and considers what would be the effect of doing nothing, allowing the straight release of stormwater into the river. Mrs. Boring stated that the City granted a stormwater waiver in the Hard Road area. Considering that and the amount of heavy development on the east side of the river, what is the impact? Mr. Hammersmith responded that quality control will require certain methodology to be in place. That will have an effect on release rates. Mrs. Boring stated in regard to the Thoroughfare Plan, any roads close to Indian Run will impact the entire area, including the wildlife and fauna. Mr. Langworthy responded that is an area near and dear to our hearts. Mayor Lecklider thanked staff for the information. The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Clerk of Council