HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-15 Special Council MinutesRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Spe cial Meeting of Dublin City Coun
_.Minutes of _ -_ Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148
q
January 20, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
20
Mayor Keenan called the Tuesday, January 20, 2015 Special Meeting of Dublin City Council
to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. The meeting was for the purpose of
review of the Bridge Park Basic Development Plan and Basic Site Plan.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Mayor Keenan, Vice Mayor Gerber, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, Mr.
Lecklider, Mr. Peterson, and Ms. Salay. Mr. Reiner was absent (excused).
Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readier, Mr. Foegler, Ms.
Mumma, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Tyler, Ms.
Husak, Ms. Ray and Ms. Burness.
BRIDGE PARK BASIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND BASIC SITE PLAN (Case 15-
00213PR)
Introduction and Development Agreement Update
Mr. Foegler stated that in late 2012 /early 2013, City Council made the decision to make
the river corridor area the first focus of Bridge Street District, and authorized the River
Corridor framework planning effort to begin. A variety of items informed that planning
effort. One of these was the public improvements that the City had been contemplating —
a roundabout, a re- located road, and a river park. It would build upon the assets of the
Historic District of the City as well as the visibility afforded by the sheer volume of traffic
and the sites. There were some parcels and developments prime for redevelopment. As an
outgrowth of those planning efforts, private developers, particularly Crawford Hoying,
were very supportive of the City's planning effort and began tying up key parcels to help
advance that vision. In October 2013, the City held a large public meeting at OCLC to
present some of the initial ideas -- both from that development planning that was
emerging from Crawford Hoying as well as some of the planning of the City's River
Corridor details, such as the park, pedestrian bridge and other key elements.
Since that time, there has been a continuous planning effort on the public improvements
and private improvements. Those plans have advanced to the point where some formal
regulatory review can now begin. Simultaneous with those efforts, the team has also been
advancing discussions on the development agreement. In negotiations with the School
District to formulate an arrangement providing for predictable development incentives,
most of those efforts focused around expectations that the largest development financing
gaps would be in the area of parking structures and construction of the road grid system
within the corridor. That has proven to be true. He plans to highlight tonight the key
elements of this development agreement framework, which are still under negotiation.
There will be much more detail when the formal agreement is presented to Council.
New Community Authority /Community Reinvestment Area.
The agreement will provide for the utilization of the incentive that was negotiated
with the School District to place the City in a position to capture 100% of that tax
increment for the first 15 years; 90% for the second 15 years. With that financing
that will overwhelmingly assist with the funding of parking structures, the method
proposed by this developer combines tools to get to that same point, as opposed
to straight tax increment financing. The arrangement would create a New
Community Authority for the geography of the entire development. That New
Community Authority would be accompanied by a Community Reinvestment Area,
which effectively makes the taxes "go away," as provided for in the existing
agreements with the City. Rather than capturing the TIF revenue for the full 30
years, it is a combination of a New Community Authority fee being levied, which is
equivalent to the taxes that are being foregone, in combination with tax increment
financing. That will provide the revenues necessary to fund the parking structures.
In early discussions with the developer, the City made it clear that this financing
mechanism for the parking structure should not expose the City to credit risk. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minules_of Special Meeting of Dublin Ci Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC. FORM NO 10148
11 January 20, 2015 Page 2 of Z9 - - I
Held 20
model being developed accomplishes that objective, but there are several layers
of complexity that are being worked through. This is the largest mechanism and
incentive element that is critical to the arrangement.
• The City will provide funding for the road system within the project area, which is
currently estimated at $17 million. The City is looking for prospects that may exist
for long -term reimbursement.
• There will be some real estate transfers. There are roads, such as Dale Drive, that
are not in the location the City Thoroughfare Plan recommends for the grid
system, so there will be some rights -of -way in need of abandonment. Some of the
City's acquisitions, original land for parks, and relocated Riverside Drive were
estimates based on pre- design considerations. Subsequent to those efforts, the
design has been finalized. There is some excess land in those locations.
Therefore, in the development agreement, the City will be exploring ways to
address the land needed from the developer for right -of -way, as well as some of
the excess land that the City has either through abandonment or excess
purchases.
The other key feature proposed by the developer is the development of a special
event /conference facility in conjunction with a hotel. The developer is proposing
that they capture significant portions of the bed tax revenue from that in some
fashion to help underwrite the cost of that facility. They believe that the
conference facility and hotel would provide a totally different dimension to this
market, bringing people in on a daily basis for events, which will benefit
restaurants and retail within the area. The residential portions and offices portions
do not necessarily feed the restaurant and retail activity. They are proposing to
build a conference facility larger than any other within the City of Dublin, so it
would be able to accommodate larger activities, training and events that the City
cannot currently accommodate.
These items are currently being negotiated, but this describes the basic framework of the
agreement for Council as they begin to review the project itself.
Mr. Lecklider asked who comprises the City's team that is negotiating with the developer.
Mr. Foegler responded that the lead team is comprised of the City Manager, the Finance
Director, himself, the Development Director /incoming City Manager, the City's legal
advisor at Squires and the City's law department.
Mr. Lecklider asked for confirmation that no City Council members are involved in that
effort.
Mr. Foegler confirmed that Council members are not involved.
7
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that the Casto devevlopment agreement included a requirement
that those properties remain apartments for the life of the TIF -- 30 years. Is a similar
restriction envisioned with respect to the property involved with tonight's proposal?
Mr. Foegler responded that this depends upon the nature of the TIF. The City is
contemplating Chapter 40 and 41 TIFs. For certain areas, there are limitations on
condominiums as opposed to rental units. Legal counsel will be recommending that for
some portion, if not all of the units, there be commitments to maintain them as
apartments. That does not mean that in the future there cannot be negotiations to undo
that requirement. However, the terms would have to address the debt that has been
issued with the expectation that the TIF revenue would be produced through use of those
tools. Future re- negotiations would have to identify another tool to provide those
payments. Given the limitations of tax increment financing in this case, however, those
units would have to remain as apartments.
Vice Mayor Gerber asked for confirmation that there is not another option upfront.
Mr. Foegler responded that is correct.
Mayor Keenan inquired if there is any ability to have such an option upfront.
Mr. Foegler responded that it depends upon the nature of the TIF. With the geography of
a Chapter 40 and 41 TIF, there will be more flexibility. Chapter 41 TIFs apply in
GAL BLANK, INC. FORM NO. 10148
Id
20
redevelopment areas, so how much of this area is characterized as a redevelopment area
versus a new development area will be the major determinant. That is one of the major
details that is being finalized. There is more reliability in the revenue stream in the
incentive districts in the residential component.
Mayor Keenan noted that it would be very difficult to convert the units to condominiums in
the future.
Mr. Foegler responded that the economics would have to permit it, such as retiring bonds
from the proceeds of that in a predictable way. Where the bonds are in their cycle and
what flexibility exists for those options can be explored.
F
Minutes of
Mayor Keenan stated that the lack of flexibility with this might not be a desirable thing.
Mr. Foegler responded that there would be a good mix of condominiums and apartments
in this development. The young professional market will lead the demand for apartments,
and increasingly, the empty nesters will also have a higher apartment rate. The young
professionals will also have a regular turnover need, which will be easier to meet with a
significant number of apartment products. This is an area with restaurants and activity
zones that will appeal to young professionals.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Ray provided an overview of the Basic Plan application for the Bridge Park mixed -used
development. Five motions will be requested of City Council this evening. Two are related
to the Basic Development Plan; two are related to the Basic Site plan; and a third is to
define the reviewing bodies for approval.
The Bridge Street District is comprised of the entire area inside the arc of I -270, between
Sawmill Road and the US 33/I270 interchange that extends along US 33 /Bridge Street to
the eastern boundary with Sawmill Road. The site under discussion tonight is a 30.9 -acre
site on the east side of the Scioto River, a small part of the overall Bridge Street District.
The site is on the to- be- relocated Riverside Drive; south of the first phase of John Shields
Parkway (currently under construction); west of the new connector roadway between Dale
Drive and Tuller Ridge; and north of SR 161. It includes the existing Bridge Pointe
shopping center, portions of the existing driving range, and the commercial properties
along Dale Drive. It is located south of the Grabill health care facility (currently under
construction).
The Basic Development Plan applies to the entire site. The purpose of this plan is to
evaluate at a conceptual level the cohesiveness of the framework that will set the tone for
the public realm. The public realm is composed of the street network, the block layout,
and the lots created for development. This application includes an analysis of the project
based on the principles of walkable urbanism, as well as the Community Plan's objectives
for the Bridge Street District. A preliminary plat was included, but prior PZC review and
recommendation is required, so that will be forwarded from PZC to Council at a later
meeting.
The Basic Site Plan does not include the full 30+ acres, but relates to a four -block area,
which involves an increasing level of detail. Future basic site plan reviews will be required
for the other lots that are not included this evening. The purpose of the Basic Site Plan
Review is to provide an early analysis of the arrangement of uses, where the buildings are
sited, and where the open spaces are planned, as well as for the applicant to obtain early
feedback on architectural concepts. This application includes the preliminary analysis of
those site details, although much more detail is expected in the next phase of review — the
Final Site Plan.
The purpose of a Basic Plan review is not to make determinations on all the project
details. It is to determine that all the basic building blocks are in place, and that the
development character is appropriate and consistent with the Community Plan objectives
for this area. This request includes waivers for both the Development Plan and Site Plan.
Waivers are required for elements of a project that do not meet the letter of a specific
Code requirement. They are not variances, which have a negative connotation. The
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of Du blin City C ouncil Meeting
January 20 - 201 - 5 Page 3 of 29 II
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
S pecial M eetin g of Dublin City Council
Minutes of _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ __ _ Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
11 January 2015 Page 4of - 29
20
Bridge Street Zoning regulations are form -based and specific. Yet not all developments
could or should be "one size fits all" and meet every single Code requirement. It was
anticipated with the Code that a degree of flexibility would be necessary. The five waivers
requested reflect that measure of flexibility along with all the Code requirements that have
been met at this time.
The next steps following this application include:
• The Final Development Plan review to determine all those project details as well as
the public realm. That will correspond with the Final Plat phase.
• The Final Site Plan review that includes the highly detailed review of all the project
elements, all the aspects of the architecture and landscaping, open spaces and
parking.
• The Conditional Use review for the parking structures – those that are visible from
the right -of -way, as well as the master sign plan – looking at all the tenant sign
plans for all these buildings.
• A request for open space fee in lieu if needed to meet the open space provision for
this project.
• Building permit process.
This evening, Council will determine the required reviewing body for those next phases of
review.
The Administrative Review Team (ART) made a recommendation to City Council on this
application on January 8. The ART recommendation is the culmination of a significant
amount of work on the part of the applicant as well as a number of public reviews: public
reviews with City Council of the preliminary plat in September and an informal review the
preceding year; four recent P&Z reviews; and many staff meetings to work through the
project details. Staff appreciates the applicant's effort and collaboration with staff to
ensure this is the best possible project.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if at each of the steps, the project received approval.
Ms. Ray responded that the formal decisions regarding the Preliminary Plat and the Basic
Plan were for approval.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that included the PZC.
Ms. Ray responded affirmatively.
Basic Development Plan Components
The proposed Basic Development Plan includes: a grid street network, nine development
blocks and five new public streets -- including Bridge Park Avenue, Mooney Street, Tuller
Ridge Drive, Banker Drive and Longshore Street. It also includes designation of a future
mixed -use shopping corridor. Although all the streets in the area are expected to be very
pedestrian oriented, the shopping corridor is the area where the highest degree of
pedestrian activity is anticipated. All the front doors are for shops, restaurants and patio
spaces. The plan also includes the Preliminary Plat for all the utilities, right -of -way
vacation, etc.
Bike facilities on the site have been discussed. Under its previous iteration, the Basic Plan
included below -grade parking structures. The revised plan has all above -grade parking
structures. That also changed the block framework and street framework. The cycle
network is a loop system that includes the pedestrian bridge and the future John Shields
Parkway vehicular bridge. In this portion, Bridge Park Avenue will be in the center of the
site with five -foot, one -way cycle tracks on both sides of the street. At Riverside Drive, a
ten -foot, two -way cycle track will run along the west side -- the park side, of the roadway.
This will allow for more pedestrian space and patio space on the development side of that
area.
Basic Site Plan
Phase 1 of the proposed Basic Site Plan is a four -block area with eight mixed -use
buildings, 371 housing units and 260,000 square feet of commercial uses, including office,
retail, personal services and restaurants. The developer is considering a hotel and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting o Dubli City Council
Minutes of Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC. FORM NO. 10148
11 January 20, 2015 Page 5 of - 29 J
20
conference facility, but that is not proposed with Phase 1. Their plan also provides two
parking garages off of Riverside Drive, one block east, that have a total of 1,700 parking
spaces. There are no surface parking lots with this development. The review also includes
conceptual open space plans as well as preliminary parking, landscaping and sign details.
A diagram is included that indicates how the open spaces would be distributed throughout
the four -block site. Essentially, at least one gathering space is provided on each block,
linear in nature that leads up to the new riverfront parkland. Details will be provided for
the Final Site Plan review.
Mayor Keenan asked for clarification about public open space designated versus future
park space.
Ms. Ray responded that, based on the number of residential units and the commercial
developments, the applicant is required to provide a total of 1.83 acres of publicly
accessible open space. In developing the Code requirements for the Bridge Street District,
staff was aware that some projects would be able to provide all that within the scope of
their overall project, whereas some would rely on other developments.
Mayor Keenan inquired if that would be future park space or is dedicated open space. Do
they pay for that space?
Ms. Ray responded that there is a fee in lieu requirement.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired if the five -foot cycle track is on one street or all streets.
Ms. Ray responded that it is only on Bridge Park Avenue.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired if that is different from the previous plan reviewed in
September.
Ms. Ray responded that, previously, no cycle tracks were shown on any streets other than
Riverside Drive.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that when this was before PZC, the Commission discussed their
desire to expand the size of the sidewalks. Is it staffs opinion that has been adequately
addressed in the plan being reviewed tonight?
Ms. Ray responded that in staffs opinion, and as it was back at that time, it has been
adequately addressed. There is a five -foot cycle track and a five -foot sidewalk is adjacent
to it — a total of 10 feet, and a two -foot, at -grade space that provides additional "wiggle
room." From an urban design perspective, a balancing act must be achieved with the
streetscape because a great deal needs to occur within an appropriately narrow area in
order to have a comfortable urban environment. They worked very hard with the applicant
and the consultants on the public realm projects for this area. Staffs recommendation is
that the plan is appropriate as shown.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that during previous discussions, Council was concerned not only
about the cycle track but also that there was sufficient room for the outdoor cafes and
pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Ray responded that the applicant has also relocated the garages in the project, which
allows more flexibility to place the buildings to give more space within their private
property for patio spaces.
Mayor Keenan inquired if the five -foot wide sidewalks were in the retail area. His
understanding was that a portion of the sidewalks was five feet in width, but some portion
was wider.
Ms. Ray responded that will range a bit within this area, given the fact that the building
placement and details are still being worked out. The area under discussion at this time is
essentially a five -foot cycle track and a five -foot sidewalk area. The cycle track is intended
to serve as a spillover zone. There will be signs and other directional information to
� ensure that cyclists know that if they are at the sidewalk level — the pedestrian level -- the
hierarchy is that pedestrians have priority. Cyclists can move to the street. The Bicycle
Advisory Task Force (BATF) indicated that they were comfortable with this arrangement.
Mr. Lecklider stated that with the garages relocated in the revised plan, it appears that the
patio spaces are located on private property.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special M eeting of Dublin City Council
Minutes of _ Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC, FORM NO 101 SFl
January 20, 2015 Page 6 of 29
Held
20_
Ms. Ray stated that the intent is that it feel seamless, as a continuation of the street and
that one is not aware of where the right -of -way begins. There will be adequate space to
allow for patios and seating areas.
Mr. Lecklider inquired the distance from the curb to the building front.
Ms. Ray responded that in most locations, the number would range from eight feet to 12
feet.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how Gay Street in Columbus, from High Street to Third
Street, compares to what is shown tonight.
Ms. Ray requested Mr. Meyer to respond, noting that other examples throughout the
Columbus region were reviewed to make sure that enough space is in this plan. Eight to
12 feet is sufficient for at least two rows of dining tables.
Darren Meyer, MKSK stated that the distance from the curb to the building face on Gay
Street in the portion between High Street and Third Street is between 14 and 16 feet. The
distance from the curb to the building face on Bridge Park Avenue as shown tonight
averages around 24 feet.
Ms. Ray noted that figure includes the right -of -way as well as the space on private
property.
Mayor Keenan inquired if that is true of both examples.
Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Gerber inquired how that compares to what PZC reviewed in October -- is it
wider or the same size?
Ms. Ray responded that it is somewhat wider in terms of the space that is available for
seating areas.
Mr. Gerber inquired the specific width.
Russ Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 555 Metro Place, stated that it is three to four feet wider,
approximately two feet on each side.
Ms. Salay stated that, previously, the plan provided that along Bridge Park, moving east
up the hill, the space was wider near the park. The buildings become closer together
moving further east. Is that what is now contemplated?
Ms. Ray responded that it is somewhat the same. Along the street section, there is still the
five -foot cycle track and the five -foot walkway plus the spillover area. Closer to the
intersection of Bridge Park and Riverside, there is more space because there is a shorter
intersection there. Due to the tightness of the intersection, there is opportunity to remove
the on- street parking in that segment. When the onstreet parking is eliminated, the
sidewalk widens to 7 -1/2 feet plus the additional space in the private area. This opens up
the view shed to the park, because the intersection is located near the landing of the
pedestrian bridge.
Ms. Salay stated that she has looked at examples of bicycle facilities over the internet, but
was unable to find an example of the proposed setup. Is staff aware of this type of facility
located elsewhere? If so, she requests that staff provide that information in the future.
Ms. Ray responded that information could be provided for the Preliminary Plat review.
Applicant Presentation
Brent Crawford, principal of Crawford Hoying and Crawford Hoying Development Partners,
stated that as a resident and business owner in Dublin, he is passionate about what this
City is today but also what it will be in the future. The other members of his team are also
Dublin residents, so they feel a responsibility to deliver a first -class project of which they,
their families, the City, and the City of Dublin residents can be proud. This development of
this area has been a long time coming — five years of community planning; two and a half
years of their planning; thousands of hours have been dedicated by their team over those
years; site design; and building design to reach this point. It has been worked on not only
by their team but professionals in the local market and out of this market — some of the
best - qualified people in the country. That has brought the project to this point today,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of Dubli City Council
Minutes of Meeting
IAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
January 20, 2015 Page 7 of 29
d 20
Nhich is the introduction of Phase 1 of Bridge Park. As will be seen, their plan fits nearly
dentically with the 2010 Vision Report, which accurately predicted the changes and
lemographics that are seen today -- their development meets those demands head on.
They applaud the City for being visionary on this front and preparing the City well for the
'uture. This plan created with the City and the community is meant to build upon what
exists in Old Dublin and connect it to the east side through the pedestrian bridge. The
)hysical connection will be through the bridge, but a connection also will be created with
:he businesses and residents who live, work and play on the east side of the river. There
Nill be significant relationships between the east and west side that are more than
)hysical and will be very important for the fabric of what they are trying to create in
Dublin. This is definitely not about one building or product type. It is about creating a
Destination — Dublin's destination. That is created through delivering the right mix in the
-fight location for the right market. They are confident that they are achieving that. This
development is about enhancing the assets the City already has, creating new ones and
connecting them so people can live, work and play in one location. That is an often over-
used phrase, typically because it is poorly executed or not executed at all. In this case,
however, the City of Dublin had the vision; they have the plan; and they are ready to
execute that plan. Their goal is to create a destination for families, residents, talented
workers, and visitors from inside and outside the market. It is also about keeping
residents and jobs in Dublin because of their desire to be part of a mixed -use
development. It will add new, fresh talent from outside the market who want to
experience this. This product currently does not exist in Dublin or in most communities like
Dublin within central Ohio. This experience will make it possible to access easily all that
Dublin has to offer — arts, cultural, economy and community. It is all within walking
distance — a destination location that they expect not only people from Dublin to enjoy.
They have tremendous interest from many groups, and they are excited about making
many announcements over the coming weeks. Cameron Mitchell Restaurants and similar
groups are the type of quality businesses expected to be part of this development. In
summary, the project is about enhancing what already exists in Dublin; building upon the
core of Old Dublin and the river; creating these new assets; making the connections. This
will create that special destination place desired. When people think of Dublin, they will
think of this heart and core of the City. They are excited to bring this forward and show
Council all the progress that has been made over the last two and a half years, particularly
in the last few months. [A video of their proposed vision, which they are showing in the
marketplace, was shared with Council.]
Nelson Yoder, principal of Crawford Hoying Development Partners, stated that he is a
lifetime resident of Dublin. The Bridge Street District map shows the location of the new
interchange on the western end of the downtown district and the new street grid
signature streets to create the connections between the different segments of the City.
Bridge Park is a large project being launched to help realize the vision that the City has of
a combination of public and private projects that will make up the District and create a
competitive edge to the City.
Bridge Park — Phase One
Mr. Yoder described phase one, noting it is a short walk from Historic Dublin over the
pedestrian bridge to the east side to Bridge Park. On the west side of the river is the new
parkland — the more natural of the two parks that will be created on the riverfront. It is a
space that engages with the water, utilizing the beauty of the Scioto River, which is under-
utilized at this point. On the east bank of the river is a park in which live performances
might occur. From there, one can reach Bridge Park Avenue, either by foot, bike or
vehicle. The signature streets are closely integrated with the City's planning efforts for the
District. Wayfinding maps will seamlessly integrate with the streetscape to help with the
pedestrian experience. They have been working with Kolar Design, which is also the City's
streetscape and wayfinding consultant. An example of the wayfinding in this plan is the
wayfinding kiosk. There are casual and formal dining destinations spread along the river
and along both sides of Bridge Park Avenue. There are four stories of office located over
one -story of retail with great views of the river and the park. The upper stories have
balconies from which the view can be enjoyed. On Bridge Park are many multi-
RECORD OF P OFJ',-DrNGS E Minutes of Special eeting of ubliity oul Meetinc,
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
1
leld
January 20, 2015 - Page 8 of 29
20
generational living options. Large floorplates for creative offices are in some of the
buildings, which will accommodate some growing Dublin businesses. This will also be the
"spine" for personal services — bank, spa, other casual dining places that are spread along
Bridge Park Avenue. The pedestrian is treated differently here, an area that is centered
around people, not the automobile. The Mews is one of four unique public open spaces
included in the first phase of the project. The Mews has a great deal of grade change with
interesting steps leading through the spaces. Using the spaces will be office workers
working from their laptops; residents and visitors eating lunch; bicycle traffic — as there
will be bicycle facilities off the open space; and streams of people in and out of this portal
to one of the public parking garages.
There are two, 850 -space parking garages in Bridge Park, which are designed to provide
the "best in class" parking experience -- open and airy from the inside, but at the same
time, canvasses for public art. From here can be seen residential balconies and residential
bridges overlooking the open spaces. As well as adding visual interest, they are key
components for making the project work. The bridges allow the first three floors of the
parking garages to serve the visitors to the restaurants and office spaces that are closer to
the street and have a more frequent turnover. The upper floors are accessed by a ramp
between levels four, five and six. Those will be utilized by employees of retailers and
residential parking. The intent is to pull the residents up out of the area of more frequent
coming and going traffic. This is an improvement over the previous iteration that had large
plates of below -grade parking -- people would park below ground and use an elevator into
their desired building without any interaction with the outside. With the new plan, it is
possible to sort the residential parkers from the retail parkers.
Down at Riverside Drive is another open space called "The Pavilion," which is a great out-
door concert venue, created in one of the public open spaces between two buildings.
Here, interaction can be seen between outdoor patio spaces, the river and the park.
Outdoor public space has been created for almost every plate of office within the project.
Each of the office floors has an outdoor balcony that overlooks the river and park; the top
floor has a larger balcony. An outdoor terrace is provided for the residential building,
which has a view of the river, in addition to all the residential private balconies. There will
be a variety of open spaces that can engage the park and river, tying that back to the rest
of the project.
Timing Details
This plan has evolved since September 2012. During that time, the City has also been
working on its own planning efforts — relocation of Riverside Drive and the Dale - Tuller
connector, etc. They have worked in tandem with the City to gear toward the start of
construction in the spring of 2015. The goal of the phasing is to minimize the disruption to
Dublin residents. The phasing schedule provides for most of the "heavy lifting" in their
project to take place at the same time that Riverside Drive is being relocated and people
are being routed around the area. Phase 1 is geared for a summer 2016 occupancy. Their
work began in earnest in November 2014 at their own risk. They have already cut a
portion of this site to grade. Preliminary grading was done under two buildings with the
goal of getting ahead of winter so they will be able to hit the desired dates. They had also
made a commitment to Council of being able to get in the ground at the end of last year,
and they were able to do that. Block 1A and Block 16 are comprised of eight buildings,
which Council will review tonight.
There are other phases, which he will describe briefly, that will be presented to Council for
review in a few months. Phase 2A and 2B have condominiums, additional retail, mixed -use
buildings with residential, a proposed theater, and parking. Phase 2C is the hotel, event
center and an office building. This will occur later in 2016. Phase 3, in the spring of 2017,
will be owner - occupied condominiums. Phase 3A and 3B are contemplated to include a
larger format grocery store with residential above, another mixed -use building along the
river, and parking. That is the overall schedule. More details on the future phases will be
presented later to Council.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting o f Dublin City Council
Meeting
2015 Page 9 of 29
20
Public Realm and Open Spaces
Darren Meyer, MKSK, stated that the main street east and west through the center of the
site is Bridge Park Avenue. Streets in this District are for more than moving cars. They are
for bikes, pedestrians, outdoor dining, leisure and recreation. There should be no
distinction between right -of -way and non right -of -way, between private and public open
shape. Everything outside of the buildings is seamless, urban public space. Similar to BriHi
-- from the corner of High and Bridge Street back into the district is a seamless
environment of urban space — that is the effect they want to create. Bridge Park Avenue is
a signature street, and as such, merits the use of higher -grade materials to have the
benefit of longevity and warmth in appearance from a pedestrian's standpoint. Brick
sidewalks will flow through the shopping corridor both on Riverside Drive and Bridge Park
Avenue. From the two parking structures, people will exit at two lobbies. The quality
material, the brick that is used in the street, will also be used to encompass the entrances
from the parking structures to the street. The brick will also be used to blur the line
between the right -of -way and the open spaces.
Urban open spaces, different from parkland, serve many more functions:
• Accommodate service deliveries and trash removal for the retail it backs
• Serve as a courtyard for residences
• Solve practical circulation problems by providing bike parking and bike racks
• Move pedestrians through open spaces
• Provide space for social functions for office workers, residents and visitors
• The greenspace within the open space provides shade, green and stormwater
function. The stormwater roof runoff will be accommodated.
Architecture
Russ Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 555 Metro Place, stated that the building designs have
evolved since the first renditions in 2013. The original plan had parking under the
buildings, which complicated some things, but as the design evolved, Bridge Park Avenue
moved so it was possible to create a street that had two sides — a complete main street.
Information from the October 22, 2013 public presentation has guided them in the
evolution of the design. Initially, the buildings lacked detail with a rigid repetition. Today,
the buildings appear as though they could have been designed by different architects.
Moody & Nolan brought designers in from every one of their offices, who provided fresh,
different input. Elimination of the underground parking also freed up the first floor of the
buildings and allowed for more design flexibility, to tie what is happening on the ground
floor into the upper floors. They looked at how to add more outdoor space and how to
embrace six -story urban buildings and make them special. This is the Basic Site Plan,
which begins to show some of the detail. The Final Site Plan will provide a great deal of
building details. Building highlights include:
l
Building C1— fronts Riverside Drive, is on the northernmost part of Phase 1. It has
retail and restaurant on the ground floor and four stories of residential above. In
this phase, it is the corner that is seen when traveling southbound on Riverside
Drive. In subsequent phases, more will be built there. It is a U- shaped building
with a courtyard for the residents in the middle. It overlooks the river and the park.
The open space called "The Pavilion" is on the south side of the building. The
ground floor of this building is 20 feet in height. They tried to raise the ground
floor for the retail somewhat to allow variety in the kinds of spaces that restaurants
and retailers can develop. For the Final Site Plan, window, sill and railing details
will differ between the buildings to differentiate the identity.
Building C2 - It has primarily office in the top four stories, with retail and
restaurant on the ground floor. The most prominent piece of the building is the
tower element, which is to acknowledge that this is the gateway to Bridge Park
Avenue. Across the street, Building B2 has a tower element, too, but that one is
more secondary. The swoop of the bridge landing focuses the view on the tower
of Building C2, so this will be the heart, or beacon, that will draw into the
development. The building has "The Pavilion" open space on the north side of the
building. There are balconies on every floor for the offices, both on Riverside Drive
and on Bridge Park Avenue.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting o Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, . INC., FORM NO. 10148
January 20 - 2015 Page 10 of 29
Held 20
Imo'
Building C3 — Turning the corner onto eastbound Bridge Park Avenue, the building
provides retail and restaurant on the ground floor, office and commercial on the
second floor, and three stories of residential above that. Because this is a long
building and on the main street, special attention was paid to the use of materials
and massing to make sure it maintains the "Main Street" character. There is a
grade change from the east to the west side of this site, moving toward the river —
about eight feet. That allows them to increase the height of the first floor for the
restaurant tenant; it would be possible for a restaurant to have a mezzanine in that
space. There will be some unique masonry details — a corduroy brick pattern, a
contemporary look. A different material will also be used for the balcony railing.
Building C4 — This building has the parking garage and residential that wraps two
sides of the parking garage. The residential in the building wraps the Mooney
Street side and the open space that is between Buildings C3 and C4. This is done
to maintain an open, naturally ventilated garage that provides a quality experience.
Two sides needed to be kept open; two could be wrapped. A visitor to the District
could enter the garage at the first level at Longshore Street or at the second level
at Tuller Ridge. A resident would take a speed ramp to the fourth floor. On that
floor, there is a resident lobby that connects to the elevated pedestrian bridges.
Those bridges are designed so that only residents of Bridge Park can access them.
There will be a large, glass elevator stair tower at the main entrance that opens up
to the welcome mat, open space area. That is the place that a visitor would
enter /exit the garage. The screening for the two garages will be unique, intended
to provide best in class, garage experience. For this garage, we have looked at
metal perforated panel, introducing them into the openings into the garage, using
variations in height, color and light. On the ground floor plain — the Longshore
Street elevation, introduction of planters and lighting, doing everything possible to
ensure that remains a strong pedestrian experience. Because the open side of the
garage faces Longshore Street, there would be an opportunity later in the process,
if the market dictated, to add more restaurants and services. The garage is
designed so that it is possible to make some of it, or all, space that could be leased
out if desired in the future.
Building B1— This is on Riverside Drive, on the southern edge of Phase 1, closest
to the block that will have the hotel and conference center. This is retail and
restaurant on the ground floor; larger office footprints on the second floor;
residential on the top four floors; balcony for offices on the second floor; courtyard
for residents on the third floor. There is an open space between this building and
Building B2, called "The Plaza." It is a smaller space, mostly hardscape. The
restaurant spaces will flow in and out of that space. The building has been stepped
back a little to allow more light into that space, because it is one of the tighter
open spaces on the project.
Building B2 — This is located on the south side of the intersection of Bridge Park
Avenue and Riverside Drive. This building has the secondary architectural tower
feature. There is retail and restaurant on the first floor; office on the second level;
and four levels of residential above that. This is an L- shaped building, similar to the
one next to it, with large outdoor spaces on the third level, covered areas for patio
and dining along Riverside Drive. It also has an additional space on the sixth floor
for residents that will overlook the river. The building will have different masonry
details and railings to achieve a contemporary design and a unique character.
• Building B3 — This is the Bridge Park Avenue elevation. It has retail and restaurant
on the ground floor and four levels of residential above. This is referred to as the
warehouse building; it has remained in much the same form since the beginning of
the process. Through the use of windows and architecture, this warehouse format
does allow some different residential environments. There are larger windows and
taller ceilings. The grade change is about seven feet on this side of the block and
opens the restaurant space on the west side of the building to a potential
mezzanine. There is an amenity on the roof on the west side — a tenant would be
able to go up to a roof outlook of Bridge Park Avenue. The back of the building
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Council
LEGAL BLANK, INC.. FORM NO. 10148
Held
January 20, 2015
Meeting
Page 11 of 29
20
overlooks a linear open space. Every one of the buildings overlooks some portion
of open space.
Building B4 — This is the last building. It has the second parking garage. It is
naturally ventilated, lined on two sides with residential. The open space is lined to
enhance it, but they lined the residential on Longshore. This was done because if
the theater comes online, there will be another parking garage to accommodate
high parking counts. They did not want the experience along Longshore from one
end to the other to be a mirror image of parking garages. It makes more sense for
this side of the building to have a residential liner and let the garage open on the
other two sides. However, the vehicular circulation for the parking garage in this
building is similar to that of the other building. The entrance for commercial users
would be from Banker Street on the first level and from Mooney Street on the
second level. On the fourth level, there would be a residential lobby that connects
to pedestrian bridges. They are looking at the use of metal mesh for this building.
How it is mounted and the use of lighting can make it a work of art.
r
I
Residential Bridges
The design attempts to keep the bridges light and open, to avoid the feel of hermetically
sealed containers. Users can still feel the air and hear sounds from the street -- and
therefore still feel connected to the community.
Sustainabilitv
Bridge Park is sustainable by its very nature.
• In these more dense communities, there is less reliance on the automobile.
Whether the people live or work there, having most of their needs filled within
walking distance will encourage foot traffic. There will be no need for a car.
Theater and grocers added to the mixed -use communities encourage less use of
cars.
• There is also less energy consumption with shared roofs, walls and floors. This is
within an urban service area with existing City utilities and services.
• What makes this work is the structured parking. Adding these six -level parking
structures eliminates over 20 acres of surface parking by stacking the parking. In
addition, having rain run -off from two parking garage roofs rather than 12 surfaces
means eliminating 10 million gallons of polluted stormwater from running into the
river over the course of a year. All of the stormwater that is captured on the roofs
of each building is funneled into the open spaces and used as a design feature.
This is especially noticeable on the east side where there is a grade change. During
a rain event, the stormwater will cascade off the building and down a series of
biodetention.
• Multimodal transport. Bike facilities will be placed in many locations, making them
completely natural to this development, not only for visitors but for residents.
There is both public and private bike parking; cycle tracks are integrated into
Bridge Park Avenue. Efforts continue to re- connect COTA here. There might be
shuttle service for those who live here but work in Metro Place or somewhere else.
• Other considerations they are researching include:
- Zero grid lighting, which is low voltage lighting in areas that are lighted
24/7, such as parking garages, or common corridors in residential and
office areas. Powering the lighting through either solar or wind would pull
no energy from the grid.
- Use of smart water heater thermostats that can communicate with the grid
to provide heating at times less taxing for the electric grid. Crawford Hoying
has pilot programs testing this in some of their smaller developments to see
if this could be implemented at Bridge Park.
- Power and heat co- generation for the hotel building, where there are areas
that always need power or heat — one generates the other. They are
working with IGS energy on the options.
Mr. Yoder thanked Council for their patience as the presentation was longer than
anticipated. It has been a long process to get to this point. He thanked Council for their
Minutes of
Held
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Sp ecial Meeting of Dublin City Coun
anuary 20,
Meeting
Page 12 of 29
20
continued partnership and asks for their support to move forward. They hope to be back
before Council in 5 -6 weeks to continue moving the project forward in order to transform
that side of the river by summer 2016.
Council Questions/ Discussion
Mr. Lecklider asked how these buildings compare in terms of height to other building
examples in central Ohio, such as in Harrison West, the Short North, Grandview Heights
and Columbus Commons?
Mr. Hunter responded that Grandview Yard is probably the best example with buildings
one level shorter. The Short North is a great example, as is the Arena District with
buildings that are one or two levels higher in some cases. The Short North has developed
over such a long time that there is a great deal of variety.
Mr. Lecklider inquired about the height of newer residential buildings in that area.
Mr. Hunter responded that the newer residential buildings in the Short North top out at
eight stories, but in the Short North, some of the buildings have stories that are stepped
back. The buildings may go up five stories, then step back so that the last three stories
would be 20 -30 feet off the front. That maintains a comfortable feel of a 100 -110 feet
height, building to building.
Mr. Lecklider inquired the height of a five -story building.
Mr. Hunter responded that it would be 60 -70 feet in total height.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the typical two -story building in Dublin is 35 feet at its peak.
Ms. Ray confirmed that is correct.
Mr. Lecklider stated that, for the most part, these buildings are then approximately twice
the height of existing residential in Dublin.
Ms. Ray responded that they are a little higher than that.
Mr. Lecklider stated that an example of the proposed streetscape exists in downtown
Columbus, in the vicinity of the new County Courthouse, on Town Street, Rich Street,
Front Street, etc. He is referring to the curbs and sidewalk treatments. Although it is more
expensive, contrast that to the Short North's use of concrete — whenever they re -do those
curbs, it will likely not be with concrete.
Staff Recommendations
Ms. Ray stated that the Administrative Review Team (ART) made their recommendation to
Council on January 8. The report in the Council packet contains includes discussion on the
big picture elements — the development agreement, the principles of walkable urbanism,
architecture, open spaces, etc. The purpose of the Basic Plan Review is to determine if the
big picture elements are in the right spot; are the streets in the right places; are the
buildings sized appropriately; and are the open spaces going to contribute appropriately to
the urban development. In the ART's opinion, the major project components are
determined to be appropriate and consistent with the principles of walkable urbanism, as
well as the Bridge Street District Area Plan and the Community Plan. The upcoming
applications — the Final Development Plan and the Final Site Plan are going to help
determine the ongoing success of this project. A high level of coordination and exacting
attention to detail will characterize the next levels of review. At this point, however, the
ART's opinion is that the big pieces are in the right place.
Much of the open space information that Crawford Hoying shared this evening is fairly new
information, emerging as early as last week. The opportunities that will be created
between these buildings is exciting. The buildings that are framing the edge of these
spaces really need to be special, have a lot of visual details, not feel like service areas, but
define the spaces in a three - dimensional sense. There must also be vertical elements that
will draw pedestrians in and through those spaces. Their report has a detailed review of
how all the buildings measure up against the Code requirements and some of the
consistent themes on which they will continue to work with the applicant in the next level
of review. The applicant has worked very hard with the ART and staff on the architectural
character to achieve the results shown in the plan. Some items Council could comment on
tonight to guide the discussion include: architectural character, proposed building
materials, resident pedestrian bridges, street sections and the proposed waivers.
Minutes of
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeti o f Dublin City C ounc il Meeting
January 2 - Page 13 of 29
3eld
Five Council actions are requested this evening. The ART recommendations for each
waiver follow.
Development Plan
Two (2) waivers, relating to the street network and the block framework.
1. Maximum block size Seven of the blocks meet the requirements; two exceed the
maximum block size. The reason the Code has maximum block size requirements is
to ensure there are no super blocks; that there is adequate distribution of traffic as
well as pedestrian permeability. In these two cases, there are unique
circumstances. One relates to the spacing between John Shields Parkway and
Tuller Ridge Drive. Because this is Riverside Drive, it is not desirable to add
another street intersection along that roadway, if it can be avoided. There is also
an 80 -foot greenway along the north side of this block. Because the Code
measures block size from right -of -way to right -of -way, ART recommends approval
of the larger blocks.
Ms. Salay inquired if the waiver would be needed if the greenway were to be removed.
Ms. Ray responded that the waiver would still be needed.
2. Designation of front property lines The Code requires that all blocks have two
front property lines; the other sides are corner side property lines. This prioritizes
where the front door is located and where the vehicular access is located. The
Code states that if there is a principal frontage street — the signature streets, then
that is the front door — the address street. It is desirable to ensure that there is
building frontage and great pedestrian spaces that are not interrupted with
driveways or surface parking lots. There are front property lines at Riverside Drive
and Bridge Park Avenue. That means that all the other property lines are corner
side property lines. That causes an issue with two blocks where there is only one
front and three corner sides. That is due to the parking structures on those two
blocks, some grade changes and the pattern of front property lines with Bridge
Park, Riverside Drive and Dale Drive. This is a technical waiver, and ART
recommends approval.
Mr. Peterson requested clarification of the significance of a front property line.
Ms. Ray stated that a good urban pattern is established by prioritizing special streets as
having the front doors. The front door streets are Bridge Park Avenue, Riverside Drive,
and Dale Drive. The others are more secondary streets, where service, vehicular
circulation and garage access occurs.
Basic Development Plan — 30.9 -acre area
ART recommends approval with six conditions as outlined in the materials.
Basic Site Plan
Three (3) waivers are requested. These are applicable only to certain buildings. They are
bigger picture elements, and the applicant would like feedback this evening.
1. Front property line coverage This is related to the previous waiver, but essentially
applies to the buildings fronting Riverside Drive. The Code has front property line
coverage requirements to make sure that along the whole length of a development
site that there is either building or open space or some other high quality
pedestrian- oriented environment. This is another technical waiver. If all those
buildings were on separate parcels, the requirement would be met; however, they
are on shared parcels. This lot is the same as the block, with an intervening open
space between. Because that takes up some of the front property line, this is a
technical waiver. ART recommends approval of the waiver.
2. Horizontal Fagade Divisions These are designed to enhance the pedestrian
environment. The Code requires a horizontal fagade division, which could be a
change in building materials with an architectural feature at the top of the first
J floor to ensure that there is not a giant glass fagade, for example, which would
make an uncomfortable pedestrian environment right up against the street.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10140
January 20; 2015 Page - 1 - 4 - 6f 29
Held 20—
These three buildings, by nature of the fact that they have retail and commercial on the
first floor and office above, set up a base /middle /top architectural character, where the
division occurs at the top of the second floor. This sets up an appropriate relationship
between the first two floors and the upper stories. They will work with the applicant to
ensure that there are awnings, canopies, elements that will bring the building down to a
pedestrian scale. ART recommends approval of the waiver.
Mayor Keenan inquired if that means that there be awnings, canopies, etc. in the later,
more detailed plan.
Ms. Ray responded that they would be included in the Final Site Plan review.
3. Ground Story Height Four buildings on Mooney Street are impacted by the change
in grade that occurs between Mooney and Longshore Street. The height of the
ground floor at the top of the hill meets Code requirement. Down the hill, the same
ground story height is carried, but the floor progressively lowers. For those four
buildings, ART recommends approval of the waiver.
Mayor Keenan inquired if there should be another future project of similar size and scope
located elsewhere in the District, should waivers be anticipated as a normal part of the
process?
Mr. Ray confirmed that is correct.
Mayor Keenan noted that most of the Code requirements have been complied with and
relatively few technical issues need to be addressed.
Ms. Ray noted that they relate more to the site than to anything else. ART recommends
approval of these three waivers for the Basic Site Plan.
Basic Site Plan (a four -block area) — ART recommends approval with the total of eight
conditions as outlined in the materials.
Public Comment
Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend, Dublin stated that the Vision for the Bridge Street District
calls for creating a dynamic, economically viable, human - scale, live -work area that inter-
relates with Historic Dublin, draws focus on the Scioto River and defines the core of Dublin
for the next century. It's a bold and dramatic framework that will benefit generations of
Dubliners. To date, the City has invested tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, issued and
sold millions of dollars in bonds, created a TIF agreement with the Dublin City Schools,
established development agreements and committed hundreds of millions of private
investment dollars to that vision. Council has changed the fundamental relationship
between Dublin and its development community; re- ordered the allocation of public funds;
and re- molded City Code to ensure that the vision becomes reality. The question is, given
all that effort, does this current application live up to the expectations of the community?
Does it create a truly special place, a uniquely Dublin place? Does this application make
the years of effort to get to this point worth it? He supports the fundamental vision of the
Bridge Street District, but the current application fails to live up to that vision. It fails to
live up to the high quality standards that Council itself has articulated for the District. This
application, the first major project to come through, will serve as a foundation for the
District, and will be the application by which all other projects are judged. The bar by
which this project should be judged should be set very high. The fundamental elements of
this plan that are being reviewed tonight include: building placement, open space
arrangement; and a variety of elements that will create the look and feel of the District.
Getting those elements right is critical. After all the time, effort and expense put into the
process to date, this body is compelled to set a standard worthy of that investment.
From the outset, this application calls for five waivers from the specifically created Bridge
Street District Code. Five waivers from which the very Code that was tediously worked
through by City staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and the residents of
the community to ensure that the development community had predictability and certainty
about what was required within the District. Why should we expect that each and every
future project coming forward will not ask for a waiver rather than add to the quality of
the individual project by bring a level of detail and specialness and vision by the Council?
The waivers requested tonight have to do with the size of City blocks, the manners in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes -of Special Meeting of Dublin City Co uncil
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148
January 20, 201
Held
Page 15 of 29
which buildings are oriented to the street, and the way the building facades are created.
In each case, the need for waivers is not because the empty ground that exists today
cannot be shaped to fit the Code, but rather because the developer would be required to
invest more into the project than they are willing, at this point. Is that the standard by
which each project should be measured? So many projects have come through Dublin
over the years that have only been approved because the developer chose to meet the
standards set forth by the City. Several projects have gone above and beyond what was
set forth by law -- Dublin Methodist Hospital, IGS Energy, Cardinal Health, the MAG
campus. In those cases, the developer chose to make a statement in Dublin. This
developer and this application reverses that history, and reverses that history in the face
of a significant public investment and the success of their project. The least the City
should ask of the developer is to meet the fundamental basics of the Code and deny their
request for waivers.
Another significant departure in this application from the Vision Plan for the District is the
way in which the principles of walkable urbanism are articulated. The intent of the
principles is to create a District that is vibrant, a District that provides ample opportunities
for neighbors to meet on the street, gather in coffee shops, walk to work, and create a
fabric for the community. The principles attempt to define ways in which communities can
embrace pedestrian - friendly developments to build a rich and deep sense of place. The
Short North is a perfect example of a district that is developed with walkable urbanism
concepts. Retail shops face the street, casual interactions happen on the street and
corners, and people exit their homes and enter the public realm to meet others in the
same realm. Contrast that with the traditional urban living where we exit our homes to our
private space and our car to continue to the private space of a drive - through before we
finally arrive at our final destination -- never stepping foot in the public realm but, rather,
travelling through it, isolated. The Bridge Street District was originally envisioned to have
underground parking facilities that were physically disconnected from the living units
contained in the District, but because of the expense, the developer moved the parking
facilities above ground into two sizable garages. Then sky bridges were added to make it
more convenient for residents to get to and from their cars. This application brings
forward a vision of 887 residents leaving their homes to the private space of their car to
continue to the private space of a drive - through before arriving at their final destination.
Does that sound familiar?
He asked Council to have the courage of their convictions. They should hold this applicant
to the standards that Council articulated to the people of Dublin. Don't allow this applicant
to use sub - standard materials like EIFS, vinyl and stucco; to make buildings too massive,
under - mining the walkability of blocks and blocks; to hide open spaces where they have
never been used and are economically advantageous. Don't comprise City standards now,
while there is still the opportunity to get the development promised.
Chris Amorose Groomes, 5896 Leven Links Court, Dublin stated that she was not aware
the public comments would be time limited. She has two items to address. She requested
Ms. Ray pull up the 6t�' or 7t' slide that lists the review process that has occurred for this
project thus far. Mr. Lecklider inquired earlier if the plan had received approval at every
step of that process. She wants to clarify that there have only been two approvals that this
project has received -- one from the Planning and Zoning Commission and one from City
Council. Both of those approvals were with regard to the plat exclusively. The applicant
has abandoned that plat and is now applying for a new plat. So, in fact, this application,
as seen today, has no approvals.
The Bridge Street District is indeed a transformative initiative in the City of Dublin, one
that she welcomes. It continues the City's long and rich commitment to bold thinking. At
its core, it fulfills the vision principles that this body adopted on October 25, 2010. Those
principles are fivefold: enhance the economic vitality; integrate the new center into
community life; embrace Dublin's natural setting and celebrate commitment to
environmental sustainability; expand the range of choices available to Dublin and the
region; create places that embody Dublin's commitment to community. At best, this
proposal fails to meet three of those objectives. It could be argued that it fails to meet all
five. This development does not integrate itself into community life; it does not embrace
ng
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Council
- ON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 16766
- January 20, 2015
Held
Meeting
Page 16 of 29
20
the natural setting; nor does it create places that embody Dublin's commitment to
community.
With respect to integration into community life, this development is highly outer
dependent; does not provide an attractive public realm; and does not encourage multi -
modal forms of transportation. For a sense of community, interaction is critical. Here,
residents are encouraged to park their cars and proceed directly to their living quarters
without ever interacting with the street or the community in which they live. There are six
sky bridges that are designed to allow residents to travel from building to building without
contributing to the vitality of the street network below. According to Andreas Doumy, the
country's foremost expert of walkable urbanism, skywalks rob sidewalks of pedestrian life
and hurt retail business. The successful urban environment is one that creates an
experience. To create that experience, the proper ingredients must be present in exacting
precision. There must be architecture that is interesting and captivates attention. There
must be a sense of energy created by the people in the public space. There must be
something to draw those people in. Those elements simply will not be present in this
place. Attention must be given to various forms of travel. There are no transit stops
planned, and once this application leaves Council tonight, there will not be space available
to provide transit stops and structures that would not impede the little public realm that is
left. Cycle tracks, too, have been compromised to the point that they are no longer
effective forms of transportation.
With respect to embracing Dublin's natural setting in celebration of commitment to
environmental sustainability, this development is in no way sustainable because it will not
pass the test of time. The best opportunities our residents will have to interact with the
Scioto River from the east and experience its beauty is to create a tunnel that will pass
under six lanes of asphalt. This is certainly not the celebration of the natural setting that
we set out to engage, but rather, a barrier to its access. The applicant is requesting
waivers to ensure that they do not have to integrate into the natural topography of the
land, but rather ignore it to place their fagade at a higher elevation in order to avoid the
expense of integration. The Community Plan specifically calls for terracing to tuck parking
below buildings. The architecture selected is what she refers to as "2010 construction." As
she travels the country on a regular basis, these are the style of buildings being
constructed in virtually every city, largely due to the affordable nature of its design. They
are not environmentally sustainable as they are not convertible spaces that can serve
different uses over the course of time, a requirement of the Code. The "stick" construction
on Floors 3 — 6 eliminates the convertibility of the structures, yet it does provide a very
cost - effective means of construction for the developer.
With respect to creating places that embody Dublin's commitment to community, this
development has compromised walkability, variety and vitality. The requirement is to have
a clear 12 feet of sidewalk in the shopping corridor. To try to create the illusion that it
meets this standard, the tree wells and cycle tracks have been added into the sidewalk
calculations, certainly not living up to the intent nor the letter of the law. The Code is clear
— 12 feet of sidewalks, not a mixture of tree wells, cycle tracks and sidewalks to achieve
12 feet. Sidewalks are the single most important part of any urban area.
She asks that Council honor the tradition of this community and the efforts of its
taxpayers, who have to date spent in excess of $30 million to create this blank canvas
upon which the vision of the Bridge Street District will be painted. She asks that Council
require the applicant to bring forth an application that is worthy of our efforts and an
asset to our community's future.
Amy Kramb, 7511 Riverside Drive, Dublin stated that staff is recommending that Council
vote "yes" tonight on the Basic Development Plan, which is basically the streets. She urges
Council to vote "no" until the developer can show a higher conformity to the vision
principles, Community Plan, and principles of walkable urbanism.
The application fails review criteria #4, #8 and #9 as they pertain to transit. Walkable
urbanism and vision principle #2 speak about integrating the District into the community
with transit connections. Yet none of the street designs accommodates transit. If Council
approves this tonight, the right -of -way will be set, and it will be too late to widen these
streets for any bus pull -ups, bus stops or shelters. Just like cycle and pedestrian
accommodations, transit elements need to be designed at this stage of the plan. Trying to
�7
Minutes of
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10148
Held
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Specia Meeting of Dublin City Council
January 20, 2015
Meeting
Page 17 of 29
E
find space after buildout will only degrade the quality of this environment by lessening or
removing other elements, such as on- street parking, the cycle track or the five -foot
sidewalks.
This application fails criteria #5 — these buildings are not appropriately sited. The
application allows the developer to occupy two blocks of prime real estate with parking
garages. The Community Plan states the District will use existing topography to terrace
buildings with parking tucked below to maximize use towards the river. Why are we
compromising this vision? These blocks should contain multi -use buildings, not parking
garages, and high -end condominiums not studio apartments. Staff also recommends that
Council approve the Basic Site Plan; she urges Council to vote "no." This Basic Site Plan
should establish the walkable urban environment. It will be the bar against which
subsequent reviews will be based. The Code requires that the applicant ensure that any
subsequent site plan is substantially similar to the plan Council is voting on tonight. The
developer will be held to the building locations, heights, uses and materials approved by
Council tonight.
This application also fails Criteria #10 — the plan is not consistent with the vision
principles, Community Plan, or walkable urbanism. Walkable urbanism calls for a wide
range of high - quality architectural styles on buildings that contain easily convertible
spaces. The architecture should reflect Dublin's commitment to enduring character. The
buildings depicted by the applicant are not unique from each other and other buildings
under construction in urban areas. This is evidenced by visiting any recent urban renewal
project or conducting a quick internet search on the last urban apartment complexes.
The developer is already asking for waivers to Code requirements that exist to ensure high
quality, such as the 80% minimum primary building material. These frame buildings are
not easily convertible. When Council approves these building types tonight, it will be
guaranteeing apartments that, in the future, will not be convertible into "for purchase"
condominiums or office space. If Council approves this, it will be setting a very low bar for
future developers. The plan does not represent the best high quality development Dublin
should expect for its prime riverfront property.
Vision principle #5 demands the creation of a development with Dublin's commitment to
walkability, variety and vitality. This plan lacks variety. The buildings are all of similar size,
scale, massing and design. One of these buildings standing alone may be acceptable, but
together, these buildings create a monotonous symmetrical wall. Tonight Council will vote
on several waivers. These waivers are exceptions and should only be granted because of
extraordinary situations when granting the waiver would result in a greater quality
development. It is premature to grant these waivers. The present application does not
show a unique, high - quality design that warrants waivers. There is no need to grant these
waivers. The policy allows the applicant to bring the waivers at the development and site
plan review stage when the applicant can show more detail design and prove that these
are magnificent, high - quality buildings that warrant an exception. Should Council entertain
the idea of voting on these waivers, there are a few other points:
• The applicant is asking for less front property line coverage on two blocks.
• No horizontal fagade divisions on three of the eight buildings
• Greater ground story height on four of the eight buildings
These Code requirements were written to ensure designs meet the principles of walkable
urbanism. The purpose of the first -story fagade division and ground -story height
requirement is to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Windows, doors, awnings
and details should be kept to 12 feet or lower to engage pedestrians at street level and
diminish the overall, overwhelming feeling of the six -story buildings. The applicant is
asking to build ground -floor elevations as tall as 22 feet on four of these eight buildings.
This is an increase of 10 feet, 55% greater than the Code requires. She urges Council to
vote "no" on tonight's application. Further discussion is needed between the developer,
the reviewing body and the public to inspire original, thoughtful and high - quality design
deserving of this prime riverfront property in the heart of the City. The applicant needs to
return with a design that meets Dublin's Vision, Community Plan and the principles of
walkable urbanism.
Scott Haring, 3280 Lilymar Court , stated that he addressed Council in November 2013 on
this matter. Again, he asks, why does the City need to be so involved in this project? He
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of Dub C C ouncil
Minutes o� Meeting
_ D AYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
!i January 20, 2015 Page 18 of 29
Field 20
respects the right of property owners to develop their land. He is not opposed to some
sort of development but is always nervous when he hears a government is paying for the
improvements. Tonight, he heard the figure of $17 million to facilitate what he saw — 371
apartments and over a thousand parking spaces. That is a tremendous amount of money
and translates to $2,600 per apartment unit. He has lived in Dublin for 18 years and has
attended Council meetings and PZC meetings. Overall, the theme has been how to attract
corporate citizens because they generate revenue for the City. He has always heard that
residential properties are a cost to the City. That is part of the reason he has objected to
the Bridge Street Corridor and this massive attempt to build all of these apartments. This
weekend, in preparation for tonight's meeting, he watched the video of the January 5
meeting. He was surprised to hear a Council member state that this is a way for the City
to "provide" housing for senior citizens and young people. This same Council member also
made some remarks about misinformation. It seems there is misinformation. He has
attended at least six meetings over the last four years, and never before has he heard the
City was setting out to "provide... ". When he saw the meeting packet that was distributed
last week about all these waivers, he couldn't begin to comprehend this — that over the
past five years, all this planning for this development — the Bridge Street Corridor was
carved out as a special section, with a special, totally new zoning written for it. Over and
over, he heard "urban walkability." Tonight, with the first sizable project, there are many
waivers requested. The question arises of whether the zoning lousy, or the proposal is
lousy. It doesn't make sense to him that there should be a need for such significant
waivers. He believes one of the slides stated that the maximum block length is 500 feet.
The applicant's request is to have 640 feet — that is a huge percentage. He does not
understand why that can't be resolved on the front end. His thought is that Council should
modify the zoning, then the applicant can come back and comply with the zoning. He
believes this topic should be tabled for at least 90 days to allow some of these things to be
worked out. He agrees with many of the remarks of the previous speakers.
Don Spangler, 3614 Jenmar Court Dublin stated that he is a 17 -year resident. He was
somewhat horrified looking at all Council is doing to that area. He is disappointed with
what has been changed in Dublin. He is concerned about the public transportation. It was
explained to him that this whole area would be a walkable area. He questions how one
can cross Riverside Drive, from one side to the other, and survive. It puzzles him how it is
possible to walk across that many lanes of traffic with no traffic signal. He doesn't
understand that the City is developing this area for an American generation that likes to
use public transportation, yet there is no provision for public transportation. Dublin had a
park and ride bus lot in the District, but it is being moved. He doesn't understand why it is
essential to make so many changes to the City's Code just to accommodate this
development. Is there a problem with the Code language or the development? Everyone
else has to comply with the Code and what is special about this development? If he were
young, single and wanted to move some place, there is nothing about this that would
appeal to him. He would go to Columbus, near a stadium or a busy district. Is the City
planning to turn this into the Short North or the area around the hockey rink? What will
this become five years out? He is disappointed in the change.
Randy Roth, 6897 Grandee Cliffs Drive, stated that he is the president of the East Dublin
Civic Association. The members voted at their meeting to set up a subcommittee to be
constructively engaged in an effort to help the City. Many members are present tonight. In
past years, he served as vice chair on a City Transportation Task Force; Vice Mayor Gerber
was the Chair of that task force. He noted that the City clearly needs a multimodal
transportation hub somewhere in this area. The Task Force in the 1990s believe at the
time that, even at lower densities, the City really needed to have a place for buses, where
the multifamily was concentrated.. The Task Force believed that good sites would be at
Dublin Village Center and Perimeter, near the hospital. COTA would interact with the City
at those sites, and Dublin would provide circulator buses moving between those sites. In
the Bridge Street District, affordable housing is not being created. There will be a lot of
people working in Dublin who can't afford to live in this District, but people who do live
there will need transportation. This is a good time to think about this issue.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
_Minutes o Special Meeting of Dublin City Council Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148
January 20, 2015 Page 19 of 29
Held 20
Rachel Hughes, 5819 St. Ann's Court, stated that the Bridge Street District seems like a
great idea, but when compared with German Village, the Short North, Downtown
Columbus and all the new builds in those locations— realistically, Dublin does not have the
same incentives to attract young professionals. She graduated from college in May, and
this is not a place that she would likely move. The other areas are more central to friends
and colleagues. She has learned that living in Dublin precludes her participating in certain
social events with her friends who live downtown. People want to live near their friends,
work, and have access to places like the Convention Center and the Arena. Dublin doesn't
have those amenities. There are also financial incentives, such as tax abatements for
properties downtown, and Dublin does not offer these. The majority of young
professionals cannot afford these apartments on their limited salaries -- it is not a viable
option for them. She is concerned that the City is making a massive investment in this
project, promoting a migrational pool of young people and this District cannot compete
with those other areas. Taxpayers do not have enough return on investment for this
project.
Council Discussion
Mr. Lecklider stated that in the record provided for this case, there was a reference to
building material that he is not familiar with -- Arriscraft. Is it on one of the display
boards?
Mr. Hunter responded that it is on most of the boards [he pointed it out.]. There are
different versions of the material on all the buildings. Some are smooth; others more
roughhewn. They are the base materials used for a majority of the buildings; some does
reach into upper stories. It is used as a design element; it replaces cast stone, because it
is a more stable material. When detailed properly, it will hold up at the ground plain to
water and other contact. It is a solid, durable material for the ground plain. They use brick
in other locations, as well. It provides some variety.
Ms. Ray stated that in the Code provisions, it is considered to be a cast stone, which is a
permitted primary building material. It is a common material, used frequently in Dublin.
Arriscraft is a name brand.
Mr. Yoder added that one reason it is used is that it comes in a variety of unit sizes, in
different textures and different colors, which can create a variety between the buildings. It
is also one of the most expensive materials they have on the project, in an effort to make
it durable, high quality, and with variety.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if it is more expensive than brick.
Mr. Yoder responded affirmatively.
Mr. Lecklider inquired the composition of the material.
Mr. Yoder responded that it is calcium silicate, a mixture of sand and calcium.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if it is intended to be used as a foundational material.
Mr. Yoder responded that it is, and it can be seen on the lower levels of these buildings. It
is durable, but warm. Brick would be a downgrade in variety and in cost.
Mr. Lecklider noted that one of his concerns is with respect to the use of EIFS. He recalls
15 -20 years ago, when he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission, EIFS was not
favorable viewed. It may have been due to the extent that it was being used in some of
the office buildings in Dublin, rather than because it was an inferior material. There has
been a substantial use of EIFS, as evidenced on many of the office buildings that exist in
Dublin today. In many if not all the buildings, they do not seem to meet the minimum
requirements for use of the approved materials -- brick, stone and glass.
Ms. Ray responded that staff would continue to work with the applicant on this. The
applicant's goal is to have interesting colors and textures to lend variety to the
streetscape. For that reason, they are looking at other applications of different types of
materials. They will continue to test for the Site Plan review.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he may ultimately be persuaded. He does appreciate the fact that
in virtually every instance that this material is used in combination with metal panels, it is
used in the upper elevations. He also appreciates the fact that it creates some diversity.
His compliments to the applicant's staff and City staff for this latest iteration, which
achieves some distinction between each building. However, the metal panels conjure up a
negative image because of its use in other places. Although he is not 100 percent opposed
RECORD OF PROF yGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin ity ouncil
D AYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
1� - - - -- — January 20, 2015
Held
Meeting
Page 20 of 29
20
to its utilization in this project, he has some concern. The vinyl windows, as well, have a
negative image for him. He requested justification for their use.
Mr. Yoder responded that the vinyl windows that are proposed in the residential buildings
are a higher -end product than used in any previous project; that is due to Dublin's
requirements. The warranties available on these windows are the same as on aluminum
windows — 25 years. With these windows, it is possible to create a warm color on the
outside; they are operable; they are a higher value window than an aluminum window
that would satisfy the requirements. They are looking holistically at the material for its
warranty, R value, energy star rating. Rather than a low quality metal window that meets
the requirement, they can spend the same amount or a little more on a vinyl window that
meets all the sustainability and aesthetic requirements of the project. There are many
locations in the building where, to add to the variety of the buildings, aluminum is used at
all the ground floor levels and commercial spaces. Part of the variety of textures and
materials that will be achieved between the different floors of these buildings includes
integration of the various window types.
Mr. Hunter stated that when people think of vinyl windows, they expect the typical
builder -grade window in a choice of white or beige; it is a negative image. However these
windows not only provide higher R values and energy efficiency, they are high quality with
welded seams and available in any color. As an example, NRI just installed the exact
window at Grandview Yard that they are proposing for Bridge Park. Online, you can see
the construction process. The windows were custom - colored, which they are proposing to
do with this project, so the windows were matched to the trim pieces or composite panels.
This window product will provide performance and design flexibility.
Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Reiner, who is not present tonight, would likely inquire about
the height of the proposed buildings compared to the typical residential two story, which is
35 feet to the peak. A building height estimate of 70 feet was mentioned, but is that a
sufficient height to accommodate something more than an eight -foot ceiling in the interior
of these units? In the presentation, a ceiling height of 9 to 10 feet was mentioned.
Mr. Hunter responded that the residential units have a minimum ceiling height of nine feet
throughout the project. The upper floors, some penthouse units, have 10 -foot ceilings; the
warehouse building has 10 -foot ceilings. This is actually a market standard; they must
provide that to be competitive.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he appreciates the diversity in the buildings, as they can appeal
to different tastes. His overarching concern is with the quality, particularly with the parking
garages. He appreciates the creativity that has been employed, but he is concerned about
its sustainability over time and how it fits within the overall District.
With respect to the bridges incorporated within the design — as they are described,
including utilization, he is not concerned. The street sections also appear to be fine.
Mr. Lecklider stated that throughout the Bridge Street District, over time, he believes that
any large -scale project will involve waivers. At the outset of the discussion with this Code,
it was always contemplated that, given the very prescriptive nature of the Code, that
waivers would be more than likely. Every waiver request should not necessarily be
approved, but he has no issue with any of these waivers requested.
He essentially agrees with the ART comments and recommendations. He compliments
Planning staff and the ART members. The high standards to which ART has held the
applicant certainly meet his expectations. One of the speakers tonight pointed out a
question he had asked staff earlier this evening. At its August meeting, PZC approved the
Basic Plan. It is true that subsequent changes have altered that application. His point is
that since the time of PZC's 7 -0 approval, the plan has improved a great deal. He
anticipates the application will continue to improve as it moves forward.
Mr. Peterson asked if the five waivers would be voted on as a group or separately.
Ms. Ray responded that either way Council prefers would be fine.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Mee ting o Dublin City Council
LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148
- - - January 20_,20_1
Meeting
Page
20
Mr. Peterson asked what would be entailed with adjusting the roads so the block complies
with Code. Is the proposed block 50 feet wider than required?
Mayor Keenan inquired if that issue relates to the lots.
Ms. Ray responded that the waiver applies to two lots, where there are unique factors –
the defined locations of future roadway connections -- Tuller Ridge Drive and John Shields
Parkway. That has driven the definition of the greenway along there and how those two
blocks are shaped.
Mr. Peterson stated that this is therefore more of a pragmatic waiver. Does it benefit the
developer financially?
Ms. Ray responded that she does not believe it has a financial impact for the applicant.
The block will likely be developed with internal vehicular access. There will still be
pedestrian connectivity through the block, which achieves the goals.
Mr. Peterson responded that there may be more room for wider sidewalks through there,
or more space between buildings.
Mr. Peterson indicated the front property line is logical, so he has no issue with that
waiver. In regard to the front percentage waiver, does that not meet the Code because of
the separation of two buildings with greenspace between?
Ms. Ray responded that is correct. If Buildings C1 and C2, and B1 and B2 were on
individual parcels, there would be no issue; however, the applicant is proposing one lot
shared by two buildings with a greenspace between them.
Mr. Peterson stated that the front percentage is less because of the open space added
between the buildings.
Ms. Ray responded that is correct. They are being provided by means of public access
easements, so the public can use the spaces as well as the people living and working here.
Mr. Peterson inquired about the waiver for the horizontal fagade division. He is not an
architect, but if he understands the picture shown, the first floor is retail; the second floor
is office space; the third floor and up are residential. The fagade division would be
between the office and the residential, as opposed to above the first floor. However,
awnings will be placed where the Code would require it.
Ms. Ray responded that is correct. There will be awnings or canopies to help keep the
scale down for pedestrians despite the extra floor.
Mr. Hunter added that what drives this architecturally is the windows. The sizes of the
windows on the second floor relate more to the size of the retail windows below. This is a
more natural architectural division than the prescribed position. It would end up being a
four -part building, rather than a three -part building. Some element will be introduced at
that location instead to achieve the pedestrian scale.
Mr. Peterson inquired if the applicant is requesting the waiver because it would cost more
to comply with Code.
Mr. Hunt responded that the purpose is for a better design.
Mr. Yoder stated that the Bridge Street Code did not contemplate the fact that there would
be a second floor of office in many of the uses. It contemplated retail on the ground floor
and two or three floors of residential or office above. These are unusual buildings; there
aren't many around with ground floor retail, second floor office, and additional residential
floors above. The intent is to achieve a proportional breakdown of the front fagade, but
with a six -story building, placing the fagade break that low and making everything above it
a different material would make the ground story look "squished." It does not achieve a
good proportion between the commercial space and the residential space. There is
another reason, namely -- as different commercial tenants come forward, they will update
the fagade to identify the space as their own. Different tenants will, through the use of
different materials, add a lot of variety to the streetscape from fagade to fagade as well as
vertically.
Mr. Peterson stated that the last waiver requested relates to ground story height. Because
the ground slopes, the ground story height is lower at the higher elevation than at the
lower elevation.
Ms. Ray stated that is correct -- the height change is due to the ground floor following the
slope of the ground.
Mr. Peterson stated that actually the floor is lowering; the ceiling is staying the same.
Mr. Yoder stated that the Code requirement is 12 feet, which is really low for some
commercial spaces, such as a restaurant that may want to have live music. For some
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting o f Du blin City Council
FORM N O 10148 __
Held
Meeting
January 20, 2015 Page 226f 29
20
retail, 12 feet is adequate, but for other users 20 -22 feet is needed. They are trying to
capture the unique topography of the site to create some great variety in these buildings.
There can be a live music venue at the bottom and a retailer, such as a bank branch, at
the other.
Mr. Peterson stated that even if this were a two -story building and not a six -story building,
a waiver would still be needed because of the slope of the ground.
Ms. Ray stated that would probably be true, although it might be possible to "Step" the
building.
Mr. Hunter stated that if the building were stepped on the second level, the office level
would have steps, which means it would not be the flexible space needed for tenants who
will come and go. This waiver will allow them to keep that floor plate flat.
Mr. Peterson stated that he has some questions, based on testimony tonight. Is there
anything in the information presented tonight that would adjust, alleviate or relax any City
building code requirements?
Mr. Hunt responded that there is not. They meet with their architect on a weekly basis to
review code issues to ensure that they are in line with building codes.
Mr. Peterson inquired if Council is being requested to approve any materials not consistent
with code.
Ms. Ray responded that they are not. As Mr. Lecklider pointed out, there are required
percentages that are not yet met. Staff will be working with the applicant further on this
issue, and it may be addressed as a future waiver, if needed.
Mr. Peterson inquired who is responsible for maintenance of the common areas — the City?
Ms. Ray responded that will be worked out through the development agreements. At this
point, the areas are owned by the developer and they have a public access easement.
Mr. Yoder stated that it is their intent to maintain the spaces, or at least to contribute to
the maintenance, and pass those charges through to their tenants. If the City wants to
take a role in maintaining the quality of the surfaces within that space, that is possible, but
they are not looking to avoid the expense of maintaining those spaces.
At this point, there was a question from the audience about greenspace allocation.
Ms. Ray referred to the greenspace as shown on the applicant's presentation. These are
not submitted for Council's review tonight. This is the diagrammatic greenspace allocation,
but these concepts are evolving. The presentation depicts the general location and
character.
Mr. Peterson inquired if the greenspace is a completely pedestrian area.
Ms. Ray responded affirmatively.
Mr. Peterson, referring to the ART report, stated that there was discussion concerning
compliance with Code of the mechanicals on the roof. When would issues such as that be
addressed?
Ms. Ray responded that screening is a Final Site Plan issue.
Mr. Peterson stated that in summary, he likes some buildings more than others. He is
concerned about the sky bridges. He does not like them particularly, although he
understands their need.
Ms. Salay complimented staff and the applicant on the amount of detail provided in this
report.
She believes that Council needs to learn more or see more regarding the parking garages.
The applicant has provided some photographs or renderings to PZC that she would like
staff to forward in a Council packet and provide at the website. She is interested in the
aspect of the parking garages providing a canvas for public art. She agrees that beauty is
in the eye of the beholder, but what she believes is missing in terms of architecture is
curves. Well- placed curves can be pleasing to the eye. In the sky bridge, there is an
archway. The tower at the terminal vista might be a place where a round element could
be added. She does not know where it should be added, but believes adding a curved
element would enhance the beauty of the buildings.
In terms of building materials, she is concerned about the EIFS and the metal panels.
Council took cementitious siding off the table, but that was not necessarily the intent. She
wanted to limit the use of cementitious siding to a lower number; the more Arriscraft and
brick used, the better. She would need to be convinced about EIFS and metal panels.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of D ublin C ity Council
BLANK, INC., FORM NO -10748
-_- -- _ January 20, 2015
Held
Meeting
Page 23 of 29
20
She appreciated the explanation about the vinyl windows, but are there any places that
casement windows might be contemplated? It might be nice somewhere overlooking some
streets.
Mr. Hunter responded that they have looked at different windows. For the warehouse
building, for example, they looked at the copper -style windows. Those windows do provide
the opportunity for a different opening; that might be a possibility.
Regarding maintenance, Ms. Salay stated that she needs to understand more about the
long -term maintenance of the materials. There is a prominent hotel in Dublin that is
beginning to show aging, although a top quality material was used. The appearance is
deteriorating, and she is not aware of how that might be addressed. She recognizes that
the issue is not only about the materials, but also about how they are installed. She does
not know how to achieve a quality level of contractor installation in the field, but it is
important to have expectations met.
In regard to street sections, Ms. Salay believes this plan is an improvement. She inquired
how many sky bridges were proposed.
Mr. Yoder responded there are five sky bridges.
Ms. Salay stated that if underground parking had been used, there would have been
express elevators from the parking garage to the residences.
Mr. Hunter stated that with underground parking, residents would walk to an elevator
lobby that would connect to the correct building and then to the desired floor. There
would be no interaction with the street. That was a part of the plan that was approved by
PZC. The revised parking plan is certainly an improvement over that plan in terms of
interacting with the street. With people outside on a bridge, there will be more activity in
terms of using the grocery stores and restaurants. The access between the stores and the
residential units is improved with this type of parking. The sky bridges can be an
interesting feature, and can integrate some branding and personalities into the bridges. It
can actually be a trademarking or branding element for this project, building upon the
brand of the bridge in Bridge Park.
Ms. Salay stated that she likes the details of the open spaces and anticipates they will be
used by the pedestrians, and she doesn't oppose the bridges as they interact with that
space. Perhaps some plantings on them would be a nice amenity.
She noted that comments were made about enhancing the economic viability. Another
speaker commented that he wasn't aware the City was "providing" housing. That was
simply a choice of words by Mr. Reiner. Extensive studies have been done about what will
make the Dublin community relevant going forward, and that informed all of the decisions
about Bridge Street. With regard to what young people want, staff has spent an extensive
amount of time, the economic development team has spent a lot of time with corporate
residents who essentially enable Dublin to have a quality community. Those corporate
residents have indicated that it is absolutely necessary to attract the next generation of
workers and it is important to have an environment that will do that. Many young
professionals currently employed with these companies were interviewed. All of that has
informed the direction that Council is taking with regard to Bridge Street.
Mayor Keenan noted that there are many young folks who live at Craughwell Village
primarily because they can walk to the grocery store, dry cleaner and many other facilities
available in the vicinity. That is a good case in point, and he is confident that this new
project will further address that need.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that she was critical the first time this plan was brought
forward, and believed that the developer needed to do much more work on the plan.
There has been substantial progress, but she does not believe the developer has met the
expectation yet. Even though different materials have been used on the buildings and
there is a little more architectural interest, it is not enough. It is not "uniquely different."
She does not want Dublin to look like downtown Columbus. Columbus has done a
wonderful job with their recent development, but theirs is an urban setting. Dublin has the
opportunity to be more interesting and less conservative. Even though the rest of the
Dublin community has a particular style throughout, this is a unique area of the
community and an opportunity for something different because of the population it is
intended to serve.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes _of Specia Meeting of Dublin City Council
DAYTON LEGAL BLAN INC., FORM NO, 10148
Held
7
January 20, 2015
20
In terms of skywalks, she is conflicted about them; personally, she doesn't like them. In
downtown Columbus and other cities, over time, they have been removed. The open sky
bridge has a better feel than the closed bridge, and the closed ones have been torn down
more frequently than the open bridges. It would be helpful to view photos from around
the country where these open bridges have been used effectively. She is not totally
opposed to them, but is conflicted.
Transportation was commented on by a couple of speakers. It is a big issue that has been
discussed regularly over the years in this area. It does appear that the plan provides
provides bicycle, vehicle and pedestrian opportunity, but what about the ability to have
buses, even small buses to serve the District?
Ms. Ray stated that this project will provide the critical mass and density that make more
transit options feasible. Although nothing is proposed tonight, the applicant is considering
transit. In fact, one of the plans considered where a bus stop could be located. There are
no details associated with it yet, so it is not possible to provide a recommendation at this
time. In the short term, the City needs to work with COTA; it will require significant
coordination. This has been discussed with the applicant, and will continue to be
addressed with this project.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her vision may not be a COTA style of transportation,
but perhaps more of a streetcar. The C -bus in downtown Columbus is the type she
envisions for this area. To meet the interests of both the older and younger generations
and integrated living arrangements, as well as accommodating the outdoor activities, that
type of transportation makes more sense than a COTA bus. Users need to be able to hop
on, hop off such transit. If Dublin is really trying to encourage people to work within the
community, that type of transportation would permit them to leave their cars behind,
versus driving to a corporate office in Dublin. More space is needed to accommodate that
mode of transit, but maybe less buildings are needed so that it is possible to incorporate
the transportation options that people might be able to enjoy. Dublin does not want this
area to be the same as what other cities are doing. Other communities in the region are
now developing urban /suburban concepts. Dublin's should be "uniquely different" from
what others have done or are doing. To her, there is nothing overly unique about these
buildings -- they are deluxe apartment buildings. They are unusual for the Dublin
community, but she does not believe they would be viewed as unusual by the population
the City is trying to attract. More work needs to be done on the gathering spaces that the
population would want to use, even within the building. The internal spaces of the
buildings are not being addressed today, but perhaps going forward, it could be an
attraction to future residents. In summary, the applicant has made much progress, but the
plan is not yet what she envisions it can be.
Vice Mayor Gerber concurred with Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher's comments. When he served
on the Planning and Zoning Commission, he always envisioned gateway features. This is a
new gateway for the City, and he is looking for something that is extraordinary, that
stands out. He doesn't see that with this plan. The words that have been referenced are,
"a destination place" — but what is the attraction? They mentioned future restaurants
locating in this development, but that also brings cars and traffic related to the use. The
plan is also for 371 residential units, and the related traffic. In addition, the cycle track
and sidewalk are set up in a way that will result in conflict between cyclists and
pedestrians. He would like to consider some options for safety barriers between the two.
This area should be walkable and also bicycle friendly.
In terms of sky bridges, he is somewhat undecided. In many areas of the country, such
sky bridges are being torn down. However, if he resided in these buildings, he would
consider them necessary for carrying groceries home during inclement weather.
In regard to transit, he stated this was envisioned as the new 21s* century, hip place to be
with new ideas. In his mind, transit options are one of the top three things that should be
considered.
He noted that with the vote tonight, Council is setting parameters. If a building is too big
or the setbacks are not adequate, and if the other items discussed cannot be
accommodated, then what? Approving this tonight will establish the parameters going
forward.
Meeting
Page 24 of 29
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Council Meeting
1L BLANK, INC., FORM NO 10119
January 20, 201 - 5 Page 25 of 29
i 20
GIs. Ray responded that is correct. Council will in essence be giving the applicant the
guidance needed to move forward with those greater levels of detail.
lice Mayor Gerber stated that if there is not space in the plan for transit options for the
uture, it will be too late to address it.
GIs. Ray responded that transit is being considered. With the street sections and right -of-
vay, they have tried to strike a balance -- having enough space for flexibility for everything
hat needs to happen without the street feeling too wide and no longer urban. They will
:ontinue to work on that aspect.
Mayor Keenan stated that he supports Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher's concept of a shuttle.
lice Mayor Gerber stated that nearly 20 years ago, the Transportation Task Force studied
hose options, and more recently, CSAC discussed options.
Mayor Keenan stated that there are more areas in need of connectivity — the Ohio
University campus, for example.
Ms. Salay inquired if it is possible to eliminate some on street parking to provide a transit
stop.
Ms. Ray responded affirmatively.
Ms. Salay clarified that the opportunity is not eliminated. It is a matter of reconfiguring
the public space to accommodate it — perhaps a smaller circulator bus. The plan provides
for a large amount of on street parking; if some of those spaces are eliminated, a potential
transit stop can be accommodated. .
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would not be a matter of simply giving up two parking
spaces. There is the transition space the transit system needs to move in and out, as well.
It would require more space.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that it might be difficult to retrofit in the future.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that in subsequent phases, there will be more condominiums as
well as apartments. A substantial number of apartments have been built in central Ohio in
the last five years. Where is the "bubble" in terms of the need — is it now past that point?
Mr. Meyer responded that he expects condominiums in certain locations to pick up. The
condominiums on the west side of Columbus have been very well received. But for those
who will be attracted to this area in Dublin, it would not be well suited to have all
condominiums. That is not the market being pursued and is not what all the studies
indicate is needed for the next 30 -40 years. There is a condominium need as well, so
there can be a mix with some for -sale options. But all the studies indicate that apartments
need to be a predominant part of that. Many apartments have been built recently, but the
supply is only now reaching the level that should be built. During the years of 2008 to
2010, only a very few apartments were built. In Dublin, essentially no apartments have
been built, so Dublin has a tremendous demand for this type of housing.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he is trying to understand the market and the options. He is
being told by financial experts that the buildings financed by TIFs will commit the City to
having those as apartments for the 30 years of that TIF. Because it is impossible to
envision 30 years out, he is trying to look for options with respect to those housing needs
should they change.
Mr. Meyer stated that they have reviewed the studies that have been done, including
studies commissioned for this particular development that considered the needs over the
next 30 years. No one can exactly predict what they will be; one can only rely upon what
the studies indicate today. He had a meeting today with a Dublin business owner. They
have been able to meet dozens of business owners — office users, restaurants, and
potential tenants both for rental and ownership. The office user he met with today has a
tech company located in Dublin with an office located in downtown Columbus. Both leases
expire next year. Their decision is simply this — to move everyone downtown or move into
a development like Bridge Park. It is not an option to remain in their current office -only
development. This office user indicated that the decision is not being made by him; it is
being made by his employees. They want to work in a walkable urban area. They
followed up further and had discussions about the rents at the development. A comment
was made earlier tonight that the rents would be unaffordable. They discussed the rents
for each type of unit. The business owner had already had these conversations with his
employees. He and his partner stated that the proposed rents would be in line with what
they are accustomed to paying already in different markets. Now, they would be able to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ _ Special Meeting of Dublin City Council Meeting
D AYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC. FORM NO. 1014
January 20, 2015 -_ Page 26 of 29
Held _20_
live and work in the same location, so it would be affordable. He also stated that his
employee base is about 40, and he is expecting to grow to 100 employees. About 50% of
his employees are current renters. The age of their employee group continues to be
younger, so he is expecting that group to increase to about 75% renters. He expected
that a large majority of those would want to live in the same building or a building next
door to the office.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he is concerned with the issue of flexibility, and 30 years is
a very long time commitment.
Mr. Meyer stated that from a physical perspective, the way these units are being built,
they could be converted to condominiums. But whether or not that would result in issues
with the TIF would be a separate issue.
Mr. Yoder stated that, typically, the ground and second floor of most of these buildings is
concrete construction on a podium building, which means they are completely flexible. In
the case of the two office buildings and the hotel along Riverside Drive, all those buildings
are five stories that are scaled to be completely convertible to other uses.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that waivers are sometimes variation of a theme, sometimes
they actually raise the bar. The use of the word "waiver" does not necessarily connote
something negative or positive. He was not aware that the City had issued a lot of bonds
related to the District — this seems to be misinformation. One reason he did not support
Ordinance 114 -14 was for this very reason tonight. Council has not yet reviewed an
economic development agreement related to the Bridge Park project. He had hoped that
when the developer came to Council, Council would have the opportunity to review a
concept plan with some details, have a presentation such as tonight's, and provide
constructive feedback to keep the discussion moving forward. If he is being asked to vote
tonight, committing taxpayer dollars to support this plan, he wants to see what it will
ultimately look like. That is good business; it is being prudent. The difficulty and the angst
he is experiencing tonight is that, although there are a lot of good things included in this
plan, there are many things that he is not yet comfortable with. The applicant is asking for
an affirmative vote tonight, but giving that will result in not having another opportunity to
provide input. It will proceed to the next reviewing body and not return to Council.
Mayor Keenan stated that he likes the changes made in the architecture. He also agrees
with the comments that there needs to be a "wow" factor. If there is a way to make that
happen - -maybe a curved feature would help, as the architecture does seem "boxy."
There may be some elements that could be added to alter that on a couple of the
buildings. The materials and detail are difficult to discern on some of the renderings, but
this iteration is a big improvement over the previous ones.
He emphasized that there are no bonds related to this project. His understanding is that
the project infrastructure will be paid for by the project.
Initially, he was concerned about the vinyl windows, but the applicant's explanation has
addressed that concern.
In regard to the parking garages, there is parking on the top deck. Presumably, that will
be screened somehow, and he would like to see more detail on that aspect.
Mayor Keenan stated that it is clear that there is a tremendous amount of passion with
respect to this project. Some people do not want any development in this area; some
people have very different visions; and there are many that embrace the Planning staff's
work on this and the developer's view. It is noteworthy that this Council has fully
embraced this project at every step. Council continues to see improvement in the plans,
and expects to see that continue going forward.
Mr. Lecklider commented in regard to the transit discussion. The C -bus uses downtown
stops in three lanes at the posted locations. It does not require any otherwise dedicated
space.
Vote on Recommendations
Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher requested clarification of what an affirmative vote tonight would
mean. What is the level of flexibility after that vote?
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Meeting of Dubl City C ouncil
Minutes-of Meeting
DAYTON LEGA BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 40148
Held
i
January 20, 2015 _ - —
Page 27 of 2
20_
Ms. Ray responded that an affirmative vote on the Basic Plan and the Basic Site Plan
authorizes the applicant to move forward with the additional detail. At this point, the
applicant is making sure that the big pieces are coming together and that they understand
Council's concerns and feedback before exploring the additional details of the project. The
affirmative vote on the Basic Development Plan and the Basic Site Plan allows the
applicant to move forward with the Final Development Plan, working out the streetscape
details and the Final Site Plan, which explores all the details of the buildings and explores
different concepts for those. Council brought up many concerns and provided suggestions.
The ART has also noted many in their report. The ART completes a very exhaustive
analysis based on the Code, so the applicant is well aware of the issues that they need to
continue to work on -- both from the form -based perspective and also from the big picture
character perspective. The next step is the Final Development Plan and the Final Site Plan.
Those are required to be substantially similar to what Council has reviewed tonight with
the Basic Plan review, but are not required to be identical. If there are addition items that
Council requests, Council can either add as a condition, or reflect them as part of the
record. This information can be passed along to the applicant for the next levels of
review.
Vote on the Waivers
Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the following Basic Development Plan waivers related to:
a. Maximum Block Size
b. Front Property Lines
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes;
Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the Basic Development Plan with the six conditions
recommended by the Administrative Review Team (ART).
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Vice Mayor
Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has voted yes, but is focused on the feedback from
the applicant to Council's concerns and comments. In the next round of reviews, she will
not approve this if they return with the same exact plans. Council has invested significant
time in tonight's review, and the applicant should seriously consider all the comments that
Council and the citizens have made before coming back for the next stage.
Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the Basic Site Plan waivers related to:
a. Front Property Line Coverage
b. Horizontal Fagade Divisions
c. Ground Story Height
Ms. Salay seconded the motion. She noted the expectation that the applicant and staff
would work together to have the first level with awnings delineated appropriately.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Vice
Mayor Gerber, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider.
Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he has voted in support of this, but echoes the comment
regarding the expectations of Council as this project goes forward.
Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the Basic Site Plan with the eight conditions recommended
by the Administrative Review Team (ART).
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor
Keenan, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher moved to designate Planning and Zoning Commission as the
required reviewing body for Final Development Plan Review, Final Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use, and Master Sign Plan applications for the Bridge Park mixed -use
development.
Vice Mayor Gerber seconded the motion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
_-Minutes of Special Meeting of Dublin City Council Meeting
LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
Held
January 20, 2015
Page 28 of 29
r�
Vice Mayor Gerber noted that there will be a related development agreement for this
application. Before approving that agreement, is there is an opportunity for Council to
review this plan again? As the Code is written, when PZC approves the final plans, that is
the end of the review process. He is confident that PZC will do a great job with their
review, but before Council makes the financial commitment, he believes it is essential to
review that final plan again, prior to approving a development agreement.
Ms. Readier stated that the development agreement will be brought forward to Council in
the near future, and provides Council an opportunity to give more direction. Council has
given substantial direction tonight that PZC, if so designated, can use in their reviews.
Certainly, nothing prohibits informal reviews or updates to Council to which Council can
provide input to inform the PZC decision.
Mayor Keenan asked about the anticipated timeline for the development agreement
review. It seems that the developer would not proceed until the agreement is in place.
Ms. Grigsby stated that staff and the developer have continued to meet regarding this
agreement. There was a staff meeting this afternoon to discuss some of the key issues in
the general terms of the agreement. Some items remain to be worked out with the
developer. There is a March 22 deadline to be met that relates to the use of a New
Community Authority for this project. The expectation is that at one of the upcoming
Council meetings, an update will be provided to Council on the timeframes for the New
Community Authority — what needs to be set up and when; and the Community
Reinvestment Area — what needs to be set up, and when that legislation will be brought
forward. Staff and the applicant continue to work on finalizing the terms, and anticipate
bringing something forward to Council in February.
Mr. Gerber stated that some of this might be a situation of "the chicken and the egg" in
terms of timing. He is very hopeful that the applicant takes all of Council's comments and
those of the citizens tonight into consideration.
Mr. Keenan stated that he does not believe it is possible for Council to sign off on a
development agreement without all of the information available. How will that be
handled?
Mr. Lecklider pointed out that the option exists for Council to retain review jurisdiction for
this case. That is not the motion on the floor, but that is an option in the Code as
amended.
Mr. Gerber stated that he has no objection to the motion as stated, because he would
prefer that PZC work on this going forward. They are familiar with the detailed review
process and will advise Council of their recommendations.
Mayor Keenan stated that the next iteration will have to be very close to final before he
will be comfortable approving a development agreement.
Ms. Readier stated that staff and the applicant will have to work on the timing.
Subsequent applications that are authorized under this will come after the development
agreement timeline, or very close in time, so that there is a good idea of what the
subsequent renderings are at the time of the development agreement.
Mr. Gerber stated that he is voting to support this motion with the intention of moving this
along, but if the plan does not meet Council's expectations, there are no guarantees at the
end.
Mayor Keenan commented that everyone is learning how this form -based Code works with
this first major project. Mr. Gerber had made suggestions at a previous meeting about
how Ordinance 114 -14 could be amended to meet the needs of Council. It may be
necessary to address that in the future.
Ms. Grigsby stated that, typically, development agreements have contingencies. The
financial terms can be agreed upon for the most part, but if items remain with regard to
architectural issues and final approval of the plan — that is a contingency that would be
included in the agreement itself.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Me eting of Dublin City Council
Minutes of _ Meeting
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
Held
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
- The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
J
— Presiding
January 20, 2015 - - Page 29 of 29
20
Clerk of Council