Loading...
Ordinance 08-12RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dm1pn Lesul BLmk. Inc. 08 -12 (Amended) Ordinance No. Passed Fpm, No, 30043 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 388 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 808.7 ACRES FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT; R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -2, LIMITED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -12, URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT; HR, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; LI, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT; OLR, OFFICE, LABORATORY, & RESEARCH DISTRICT; CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; CCC, CENTRAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; AND PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT TO BSC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; BSC OFFICE DISTRICT; BSC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; BSC HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT, BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; AND BSC PUBLIC DISTRICT. (CASE 11 -021Z /ADM) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, J of its elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008242, 273 - 008249, 273- 008872, 273 - 008913, 273 - 009079,273- 009090,273- 009095, 273- 009096, 273 - 009124, 273 - 009149, 273 - 009150, 273 - 009323, 273- 011148, 273- 012062, 273 - 012064, 273 - 012065, 273 - 012066, 273 - 012067, 273 - 012068, 273- 012069, 273 - 012070, 273 - 012071, 273- 012072, 273 - 012138, 273 - 012149, 273- 012170, 273 - 012193, 273 - 012199, 273 - 012218, 273 - 012245, 273 - 012264, 273- 012285, 273- 012296, 273 - 012311, 273 - 012325, 273- 012342 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -R, BSC Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. S ection 2. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008244, 273 - 008245, 273 - 008246, 273 - 008247, 273 - 008381, 273 - 008802, 273 - 008827, 273- 008908, 273 - 008958,273- 008995,273- 008998, 273 - 009080,273- 009099, 273- 009101, 273 - 009155, 273 - 010154, 273 - 012295 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -OR, BSC Office Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. S ection 3. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008275, 273 - 008279, 273 - 008284, 273 - 008285, 273 - 008296, 273 - 008304, 273 - 008305, 273- 008306, 273 - 008307, 273 - 008308, 273 - 008309, 273 - 008310, 273 - 008311, 273- 008312, 273 - 008375, 273- 008805, 273 - 009145, 273 - 009146, 273 - 009147, 273- 009148, 273- 012175, 273 - 012176, 273 - 012181, 273 - 012182, 273 - 012183, 273- 012184, 273 - 012185, 273 - 012198, 273 - 012251 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -O, BSC Office District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. S ection 4. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000257, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000270, 273 - 000274, 273 - 000321, 273 - 000329, 273 - 000794, 273- 001348, 273- 001349, 273- 001350, 273- 001530,273- 001976,273- 002457,273- 002458, 273 - 002459, 273 - 002460,273- 002463,273- 003800, 273-008243,273- 008261, 273 - 008264, 273 - 008266, 273 - 008269, 273 - 008280, 273 - 008358, 273- 008361, 273 - 008831, 273- 008832, 273- 008833, 273- 008834, 273 - 008838, 273- 008856, 273 - 008857, 273 - 008858, 273 - 008859, 273 - 008867, 273 - 008868, 273- RECORD OF ORDINANCES Inc. 08- 12(Amended) Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. Passed . 20 008869, 273 - 008907, 273 - 008994, 273 - 009971, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009973, 273- 009974, 273 - 009975 273 - 012174, situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -C, BSC Commercial District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 5 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000002, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000005, 273 - 000007, 273 - 000008, 273 - 000012, 273 - 000014, 273- 000016, 273 - 000018, 273 - 000022, 273 - 000023, 273 - 000024, 273 - 000027, 273- 000028, 273 - 000029, 273 - 000032, 273 - 000034, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000036, 273- 000037, 273 - 000040, 273 - 000042, 273 - 000043, 273 - 000050, 273- 000051, 273- 000052, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000056, 273 - 000061, 273 - 000062, 273- 000063, 273 - 000066, 273 - 000068, 273 - 000069, 273 - 000070, 273 - 000071, 273- 000072, 273 - 000073, 273 - 000074, 273 - 000075, 273 - 000084, 273 - 000085, 273- 000086, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000088, 273 - 000089, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000093, 273- 000094, 273 - 000097, 273 - 000098, 273 - 000099, 273 - 000100, 273 - 000102, 273- 000104, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000107, 273 - 000111, 273 - 000112, 273 - 000138, 273- 000177, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000310, 273 - 001940, 273 - 001978, 273 - 002075, 273- 003680, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273 - 004079, 273 - 004080, 273 - 004081, 273- 009979, 273 - 012158, 273 - 012200, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012261 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HC, BSC Historic Core District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 6. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000013, 273 - 000015, 273 - 000019, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000039, 273 - 000045, 273- 000046, 273 - 000047, 273 - 000048, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000060, 273 - 000067, 273- 000078, 273 - 000079, 273 - 000080, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000083, 273 - 000090, 273- 000091, 273 - 000101, 273 - 000106, 273 - 000109, 273 - 000118, 273 - 000121, 273- 000123, 273 - 000125, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000127, 273 - 000128, 273 - 000129, 273- 000130, 273 - 000131, 273 - 000132, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000134, 273 - 000135, 273- 000136, 273 - 000139, 273 - 000141, 273 - 000144, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000262, 273- 000286, 273 - 000315, 273 - 000324, 273 - 000415, 273 - 001684, 273 - 003411, 273- 008206, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009733, 273 - 009734, 273 - 010207, 273 - 011175, 273- 012300, 273 - 012301 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HR, BSC Historic Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 7 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008257, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008327, 273 - 008328, 273 - 008329, 273 - 008330, 273- 008331, 273 - 008332, 273 - 008333, 273 - 008334, 273 - 008335, 273 - 008377, 273- 008811, 273 - 008813, 273 - 008957, 273 - 009030, 273 - 009035, 273 - 009043, 273- 009044, 273 - 009045, 273 - 009054, 273 - 009055, 273 - 009077, 273 - 009081, 273- 009082, 273 - 009083, 273 - 009084, 273 - 009085, 273 - 009086, 273 - 009088, 273- 009093, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009118, 273 - 009119, 273 - 009121, 273 - 009127, 273- 009128, 273 - 009129, 273 - 009130, 273 - 009152, 273 - 009153, 273 - 009154, 273- 009512, 273 - 010405, 273 - 010406, 273 - 010864, 273 - 012229 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -SCN, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 8 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000004, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000108, 273 - 000205, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273- 000208, 273 - 000209, 273- 000210, 273 - 000211, 273 - 000212, 273 - 000213, 273- 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000313, 273- 000785, 273- 000786, 273 - 000989, 273 - 001186, 273 - 005564, 273 - 005565 situated in the City of RECORD OF ORDINANCES 08- 12(Amended) Page 3 of 3 Ordinance No. Passed 20 Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HTN, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. S ection 9. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000344, 273 - 000788, 273- 000797, 273 - 001308, 273 - 002474, 273 - 002485, 273 - 002892, 273 - 002893, 273- 002895, 273 - 002897, 273 - 007473 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -IRN, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 10 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 212000129, 273 - 000001, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000020, 273 - 000025, 273 - 000038, 273- 000044, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000077, 273 - 000096, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000122, 273- 000124, 273 - 000137, 273 - 000143, 273 - 000170, 273 - 000405, 273 - 000787, 273- 003410, 273 - 003513, 273- 004507, 273 - 005566, 273- 008277, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273 - 008314, 273- 008315, 273 - 008316, 273- 008373, 273- 008820, 273 - 009322, 273- 009324, 273 - 009749, 273- 009750, 273- 009978, 273- 010936, 273 - 011235, 273- 011236 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -P, BSC Public District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 11. The application includes the list of affected property owners, the rezoning map and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 12. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this � day of 2012. Mayor - Pr siding Officer ATTEST: �4 '&- 0- ��� Clerk of Council Final Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Map As Adopted by Dublin City Council Effective Date: May 9, 2012 BSC Office BSC Indian Run BSC ❑ "i i tOn I � � anstlmp l BSC Public Commercial '.Y BSC Office no BS Publi �� a �BBC Commercial BSC Office a t BSC Residential � A w t \Commercial 1 �r Q Crty of Dublin Corporate Boundary y � Co orate Bounds 7j Adopted BSC Zoning Districts � 6SC Commercial 6SC Historic Cora f� l O esC Office O esC H istoric Resi 0 5no 1 000 C,000 A 0 asc Residential Dasc wsorma Toailmo Neighborhood BRIDGE STREET ®feel 0 asc Office aesaeoual 0 asc Indian aoo Neighborhood CORRIDOR Descvoelic esC Sawmill comer Neighborhood Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Prkway * City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410.4400 • Fax:b614 -0410 -4490 1090 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: April 5, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 08 -12 — Rezoning 388 Parcels Totaling Approximately 808.7 Acres from R, Rural District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District; R -4, Suburban Residential District; R- 12, Urban Residential District; HB, Historic Business District; HR, Historic Residential District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; OLR, Office, Laboratory, & Research District; CC, Community Commercial District; CBD, Central Business District; CCC, Central Community Commercial District; PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and PCD, Planned Commerce District to BSC Residential District; BSC Office Residential District; BSC Office District; BSC Commercial District; BSC Historic Core District; BSC Historic Residential District; BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District; BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District; BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District; and BSC Public District. (Case 11 -021Z /ADM) Update City Council postponed Ordinance 08 -12 to the April 9, 2012 meeting after introduction and first reading on February 13, with further discussion on February 27, 2012. Council members also received public comment from several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor requesting zoning district designations other than the City Administration's recommendations. These properties are primarily located along SR 161 /West Dublin- Granville Road east of the Scioto River. Most of these were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in their recommended Zoning Map, dated February 2, 2012. Background Ordinance 08 -12 rezones 388 parcels located within the area west of Sawmill Road, south and east of I -270, and north of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road. Parcels along the south side of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road, and all parcels in the Historic District, are included in this area rezoning. The proposed zoning to BSC zoning districts is intended to implement the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and position property owners to promptly respond to market opportunities for development and redevelopment. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Summary The proposed area rezoning was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 10 and December 8, 2011, and February 2, 2012. Public input included requests from several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor to move from one BSC zoning district to a different BSC zoning district, or to be excluded from the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Memo re. Ord. 08 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Area Rezoning April 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Public Comment Several property owners stated that the basis of their request to change BSC zoning districts, or be removed from the BSC area rezoning altogether, was primarily due to uncertainty about whether they would be able to continue their businesses and structures in their current state, and whether they would be able to expand. Having anticipated this issue, Planning worked with attorneys representing many of these interests to draft extensive and specific protections for those and other property owners in the Corridor. This led to the provisions for Existng Uses (Section 153.059 (A)(6)) and Existing Structures (Section 153.062 (B)(2)) which specifically designates all current uses and structures as conforming properties and allows significant expansions or modifications until the owners choose to redevelop the properties under the Bridge Street regulations. While the attorneys appeared satisfied with this language, several property owners remained skeptical and wished to have their requests approved. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission accepted all zoning change requests from property owners and incorporated them into the Commission recommended Bridge Street Corridor Districts zoning map dated February 2, 2012. StaffAnalysis Bsc sawmm ��_��� m The Administration continues to have concerns ice- e6C center MC Ree�aeeeei regarding several of the properties noted in the Commission's recommended map because they are inconsistent with the direction articulated in they Vision Framework for the Bridge Street Corridor '"°' °^' °•' :� (refer to pages 18 -51 of the Vision Report). BSc commemml The first area of concern is the recommended BSC roBsc Offme Commercial designations for approximately 10 acres along West Dublin- Granville Road, between 1, —. Shamrock Boulevard and the Shoppes at River Ridge. If approved, this could have the effect of changing the adopted Vision for the SR 161 corridor, which vlannin . g was originally planned as a premier, "address" street with a predominant BSC Office designation. A second area of concern is just west of Village Parkway as it curves to meet Tuller Road. The Commission's recommendation of Sawmill Center Neighborhood District dilutes the intended concentration of retail, entertainment, and service character. More importantly, however, it severely compromises a carefully planned residential area that extends south of Tuller Road to Tuller Ridge Drive. The Administration continues to recommend this area be removed from the Sawmill Center Neighborhood and returned to the BSC Residential District. David Dixon with Goody Clancy & Associates has reviewed the proposed BSC Districts zoning map to ensure consistency with the Vision Principles and Framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. Mr. Dixon's full comments are provided as an attachment. Memo re. Ord. 08 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Area Rezoning April 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Community Plan Should Council choose to modify any of the zoning district designations in accordance with the requests made by property owners, the Administration recommends ensuring that the future land use designations consistent with the intent and purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report be included in the updated Future Land Use Map when Planning prepares the update to the Community Plan. Additional Rezoning Requests Council has received correspondence related to 48 and 64 Corbin's Mill Drive (east side of Corbin's Mill) requesting a change in designation from BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood to BSC Commercial. Given the location and relative relationship to surrounding uses, Planning has no objection to this change should Council wish to entertain it. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 08 -12, with consideration of the changes requested in this memo. Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 Office Resi dential - 9o onda �o BSC Indian Run fiapz Neighborhood BSC � BSC Residefitltfl #n Office o e. zrogzon ng Residential 0 BSC Indian Run unmanyea Neighborhood BSC _ BSC Residential Historic cµ tlVVo Transition Public r BSC F ' a Office BSC Office "o � isa ,a, N N P t61 161 _ ° Public 6o e c ` ` \`Coromernial BSC Office gSC Office - BSC Residential BSC \ — xerxo x� x LL I l Historic esidential City foublln Coroorarn o,,,...,.._ of i Proposed BSC Zoning Districts R MBSC C..erde Mesc Hismne core �\ `� M ese omw I� BSC Hismnc Redaentii BRIDGE STREET o 500 1,000 2,000 w E M BSC Residanal BSO Hisinm TrnOcn Neighbofnooa Cos.,.. ®Pod O BSC Ofiw ftesiUenbal BSC Mm, RUn Neighbmhootl 8 _PUEIIC -BSC Sa H Cenin Neighborhood CnY Dp OBB� Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC DRAFT - February 2, 2012 Tn It, no Office BSC Indian Run ! P Jorti�j Neighborhood : Twe BSC Existing Zoning 1 u Nos 26 Re Office ial 'Saw hbr - Neighbor i 0�.. BSC Indian Run Unchanged ° °.e Oa BSC Residential — � Neighborhood i —._. BSC Historic Transition Public r BSC Commercial eeettt Public - 1 1 BW ^ ` Historic Residential 1 i 3 BSC Office Sawmill Center _ Neighborhood inertial I� i BSC Office � L — BSC Residential !� 7 CRYof CRY of C Proposed BSC Zoning Districts N - 85c Commercial - ERIC N "stab Core Recommended Changes ,\ 85c Cited esc Hadolic residential 0 Sao 1.000 ] ddo W E M esc R a r e � esc H am; r 'tan ma m lgbb000a BRIDGE STREET Cn umssn< ®e ea S,.✓ 0 ese once Residential ese moan Rannelghborrooa _eubcc - esc Sawmiu Center Neighborhood On'olighl Memo: January 12, 2012 To: Rachel Ray, Steve Langworthy Re: comments on proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning map File: Dublin Cc: Ben Carlson In response to your request, we have assessed the Bridge Street Corridor zoning map as prepared by Planning on November 10, 2011 and the changes recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission as noted in the zoning map dated December 8, 2011. As you suggested, we have not attempted to compare the two maps but rather to recommend changes that would apply to one or both maps that we believe would reflect the letter and spirit of the Vision Report adopted by Council. We have focused on the zones located along Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road and several parcels directly to the south and west of the Sawmill Center redevelopment area. The vision for the entire Bridge Street Corridor provides a clear statement of intent for the entire area: The Bridge Street Corridor is Dublin's centerpiece. Dublidshistorimland culturalheartis strengthened and balanced byhighly walkable districts and neifrborhoodsonbotb sides of the SdotoRiver. Exceptional green spaces preserve the outstanding natural features in the corridor and seamlessly connect each unique district along the corridor. Mixed -use &9&ictsbr1ng together complemeaM7arrangements oflivmg war kuW and recrea[ion in memorablesetirngs created bydistinciive, buman scaledambitectune and savetsthatinvite waildngandgatherhW Greatly expanded choices in housing, employment, activities, and transportation attract new generations of residents, businesses and visitors. The Bridge StreetCorridawr radiatesa diversityand vitalitythatma &kasaspecialplacenot only within Dublin, but within the region, nation and world. (Vision Report, Page 4) For most parts of the Bridge Street Corridor the proposed zoning succeeds in implementing the Vision Report's recommendations. We would, however, recommend the following modest changes to the maps prepared by Planning and the ARB and PZC. For clarity we have assigned numbers to the specific parcels or groups of parcels for which we recommend changes; these numbers are noted on the accompanying maps. 420 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 -3866 617.262.2760 fax 617.262.9512 www.goodyck�ncy. com 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 251, Washington, DC 20006 -5805 202.461.2208 Jean C. Canoes FAA R~ C. Cha Il AIA 'cCH1T ECTUHE G OOD N G Dame o. Dixon FAA NATION C Roger N. GoWSieln FAA L A N C LLv J. Howe Steven xlemrack AIA U..d Spillane AICR, RIBA Memo: January 12, 2012 To: Rachel Ray, Steve Langworthy Re: comments on proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning map File: Dublin Cc: Ben Carlson In response to your request, we have assessed the Bridge Street Corridor zoning map as prepared by Planning on November 10, 2011 and the changes recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission as noted in the zoning map dated December 8, 2011. As you suggested, we have not attempted to compare the two maps but rather to recommend changes that would apply to one or both maps that we believe would reflect the letter and spirit of the Vision Report adopted by Council. We have focused on the zones located along Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road and several parcels directly to the south and west of the Sawmill Center redevelopment area. The vision for the entire Bridge Street Corridor provides a clear statement of intent for the entire area: The Bridge Street Corridor is Dublin's centerpiece. Dublidshistorimland culturalheartis strengthened and balanced byhighly walkable districts and neifrborhoodsonbotb sides of the SdotoRiver. Exceptional green spaces preserve the outstanding natural features in the corridor and seamlessly connect each unique district along the corridor. Mixed -use &9&ictsbr1ng together complemeaM7arrangements oflivmg war kuW and recrea[ion in memorablesetirngs created bydistinciive, buman scaledambitectune and savetsthatinvite waildngandgatherhW Greatly expanded choices in housing, employment, activities, and transportation attract new generations of residents, businesses and visitors. The Bridge StreetCorridawr radiatesa diversityand vitalitythatma &kasaspecialplacenot only within Dublin, but within the region, nation and world. (Vision Report, Page 4) For most parts of the Bridge Street Corridor the proposed zoning succeeds in implementing the Vision Report's recommendations. We would, however, recommend the following modest changes to the maps prepared by Planning and the ARB and PZC. For clarity we have assigned numbers to the specific parcels or groups of parcels for which we recommend changes; these numbers are noted on the accompanying maps. 420 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 -3866 617.262.2760 fax 617.262.9512 www.goodyck�ncy. com 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 251, Washington, DC 20006 -5805 202.461.2208 Page 2 of 4 Recommendations • Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road Parcels 1 -3. We recommend that all of these parcels be zoned BSC Office District for the following reasons: • While Bridge Street is intended to be primarily an office address location, it is also intended to be —like all of the Bridge Street Corridor —a lively mixed -use area. Higher density housing should be permitted along with office, ground floor retail, and other appropriate commercial uses. • Based on the market research of Zimmerman Volk (housing) and W- ZHA (office and other commercial uses), it is highly likely that higher quality multifamily housing (e.g. lofts) will enjoy a much stronger marketthan office inthe nearer -term. In turn, office demand will be accelerated by the presence of additional nearby housing and the walkable retail that this housing would support. Zoning that discourages higher quality multifamily housing will likely slow desirable redevelopment on these parcels. • W -ZHA emphasized that creating a cohesive walkable environment, rather than piecemeal redevelopment, would spur new investment of office and related jobs-producing development —in effect, all property owners on and near Bridge Street will benefit from consistent zoning, appropriate zoning. • Issues related to existing, potentially non - conforming, uses can be resolved by grandfathering these uses and should not present an obstacle to putting zoning in place that implements the adopted Vision. In effect, the right long-term zoning should represent win for current property- owners, other property- owners in the Bridge Street Corridor, and for the City. • An assessment of BSC Office, Commercial, and Vertical Mixed Use districts indicates that both BSC Office and BSC Vertical Mixed Use are preferable to BSC Commercial. Because BSC Office zoning is proposed for most of Bridge Street/West Dublin- Granville Road, and we strongly bel ieve that the parcels in question should over time be developed in a consistent manner with those already proposed as Office, there is little reason to applythe BSC Vertical Mixed Use District at this time. This view is reinforced by the fact that, not surprisingly, BSC Office is moderately more appropriate for Bridge Street in terms of those uses and building types that are or are not allowed [see appended tables 1 and 2]. In light of these observations, we have compared the BSC Office and BSC Commercial zoning districts: • Desirable uses along Bridge Street/West Dublin - Granville Road that are allowed under BSC Office but not allowed under BSC Commercial: • Live -work dwellings • Multifamily dwellings • Conference center GOODY CLANCY Page 3 of 4 • More significantly, desirable building types along Bridge Street that are allowed under BSC Office but not under BSC Commercial: • Apartment building • Loftbuilding • Corridor building • Conversely, less appropriate uses along Bridge Street that are not allowedu rider BSC Office but are allowed under BSC Commercial: • Fueling /service stations • Sexually - oriented business establishments • Vehicle sales, rental and repair (note that existing establishments can be addressed through the Existing Uses provisions) • Less appropriate buildingtypes along Bridge Street that are allowed under BSC Commercial, but not BSC Office: • Commercial center • Large format commercial building Bridge Street /Dublin - Granville Road Parcel 4. We recommend that this parcel be zoned BSC Commercial as recommend by the Planning and ARB /PZC. At a future date it may also be desirable to revisit the zoning for this parcel given its prominent location along Bridge Street and the city's intent to conduct a planning study for the nea thy Metro Center /F rantz Road Corridor. Parcels 5 and 6located to the west of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. We recommend that these parcels be zoned BSC Residential until the city adopts a development plan for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, at which point rezoning may be appropriate, for the following reasons: • The Vision Report provides clear goals for the Sawmill Center redevelopment area: ' McSawmiffDistrictisaprimelaadon to estabhkh amajor wallablemkred- -use district owing to its p roximity to the 1 -270 interchange at Sawmill Road and the consolidated ownership of more than 50 acres of land on the current Dublin Village Center site. Thisdistrictmnceptdependsan the incnrporadon ofeaough mmplemiwft7acdPWesiniv a deas4 pedestrian - oriented nelrmrk ofmired -use buildings and bloda to Immaai mlmassthatisacdwweekdays ,eveningsandweekends alike'(Vision Report, page 46) • Because, due to its size and prominence, the character and quality of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District will have a significant impact on the ability to achieve the city's goals for the larger Bridge Street Corridor, zoning for adjacent parcels should depend on which zoning will contribute most effectively toward achieving the City's goals articulated above. GOODY CLANCY Page 4 of 4 • The critical issue that will determine whether the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District emerges as a "walkable mixed use district' is the ability to focus the relatively intense mix of uses in the core of this District sufficient to support walkab ility and vitality. Without a master development plan p repared by the property owner and adopted by the City, it would be preferable not to designate additional parcels as BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood Districtto avoid spreading development over a larger area in a mannerthat that maywell undercut the abilityto achieve the City's goals for this area. • Inthe future, following an adopted development plan that addresses one or more adjacent parcels and demonstrates that BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District zoning for these parcels would contribute to creating "a critical mass that is active weekdays, evenings and weekends alike" for the Sawmill District, then these parcels could be appropriately rezoned from BSC Residential to BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Parcel 7 to the south of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. We recommend that these parcels be zoned BSC Office District essentially for the same reasons noted for Parcels 5 and 6 above. BSC Office District is fully appropriate to achieve the goals adopted by Council. I hope these comments are helpful. Please call me on my cell (617 413 5077) if you wish to discuss or have any questions. Best, David Dixon, FAIA Principal in Charge of Planning and Urban Design Attached: • Map 1: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposed by Planning (Nov 10, 2011) • Map 2: Proposed B ridge Street Corridor Zoning p roposed by Planning (Nov 10, 2011) —GC Proposed Changes • Map 3: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposedbyARB and PZC (Dec8,2011) • Map 4: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposed by ARB and PZC (Dec 8, 2011) —GC Proposed Changes • Table 1: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate for Bridge Street allowed or not allowed under different zoning scenarios • Table 2: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate bWdinetvnes B ridge Street allowed or not allowed under different zoning scenarios GOODY CLANCY Map 1 Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 BSC Indian Run Neighborhood BS�ian Run F Neighborhood. Existing Zoning Unchanged w rs� BSC -- '— l ± «F.a ao Office Residential BSC L BSC Residential Office _, j Residential r cctea pI ee OR '1 - BSC BSC Residential Historic sL Transition a Public BSC m a - - ® a Office " o BSC Office iI _ o i II _ m — g.RI -0GF 51. •• - 161 a. t64 .A 161 BBC Hstetic Public t` - BSC BSC Office BSC O t ,, _m= ercial 11 HBIU c SC Residen ® - Fes. �.' Btial r 8eciaennai� _ .BSC McTgp pU R z historic 1 - o - -- Residential - -- lill City of Dublin Corporate Boundar P, - -City of Columbus Corporate Bound Proposed BSC Zoning Districts _ N - BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core BSC Office BSC Historic Residential BRIDGE STREET o 500 1,000 2,000 w E � I BSC Residential BSC H istoric Transition Neighborhood CORRII)011 Feet S.. -" BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public BSC Sawn ill C an ter N e igh bo rh do d CITY OF 008LPI Map 2 Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 GC Proposed Changes g` 5q BSC Indian Run DRAFT - December 27, 2011 Neighborhood- 1c, fe e es y Existing Zoning p BSC Indian Run unchanged t Neighborhood w e "D i I _j - -I BSC R 5 BSC Office Residential r" oIR (ER DGE o 6 ./ -- BSC BSC Residential , o Historic ��. s - Transition a Public BSC m a - Office p „ a BSC Office m "' ! Si m B5C H 16tErlc TunsI . BSC Office BSC Office Public - —�� Hi stor i c �,� _ BSC Residential r Rec l ,� BSC McTpe Ft R z Historic 1 '� ° - Residential a _ City of Dublin Corporate Boundar r" E rn o " City of Columbus Corporate Bound r — lw Proposed BSC Zoning Districts _ BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core ® BSC Office BSC Historic Residential BRIDGE STREET 0 500 1,000 2,000 W E O BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood CORRIDOR Feet BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood ® Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CON OF DIIBUN Map 3 �- Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning o Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC DRAFT - December 8, 2011 -- R - = �rDLL�_R Ro Office Re idential 4 —J r� r g BSC Indian Run — ' I_ c Neighborhood — .z w. vm - - - -- o � ao �'�° BSC — a Office y a ° - is Existing Zoning Unchanged 9 Residential - ; Tp ,LER RioGE BSC Indian Run BSC Residential r ! Neighborhood l AY9a pq g BSC Historic o Transition r BSC i Public U `Commercial BSCO,� - R � p onc BS C Sls Public r BSC Commercial - -- —� r Bsc - - - Residentia - R e l � — BSC BSG _ •�• YEr'o r P „� : Historic + Residential -- � _ , � City of Dublin Corporate Bounda - -City of Columbus Corporate Boundary � J Proposed BSC Zoning Districts M BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core Recommended Changes . _ N BSC Office BSC Historic Residential i) i G T1]ECT 0 500 1,000 2,000 BAILVL S 11Uili1 W E BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood CORRIDOR Feet $' BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood Err OF OIIBLIN Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC DRAFT - December 8, 2011 0 GC Proposed Changes e0p5a2' DRAFT — December 27, 2011 BSC Indian Run " Neighborhood Existing Zoning BSC Indian Run Unchanged Neighborhood Public uncnangs, BSC iI Office i I li Residential SV �LER RIDGE - -BSC Resident -BSC Historic Transition —� r 1 e 61 161 99 - -- EEC Historic 2 3 ' ` °° Public ' a rc' sac i W wat °rc � � BSC Residentia BSC BSC M ETRO p, R _ I'efl MAR rY -o R e sid en tia l — City of Dublin Corporate Bountla ', METRO P L _ , -- City of Columbus Corporate Bounda ; 1] 0 Proposed BSC Zoning Districts . _ N BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core Recommended Changes BSC Office BSC Historic Residential 0 ... "000 2,000 W E BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood BRIDGE STREET Feet CORRIDOR $..':: BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CrIY OF OIIBIIN Table 1: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate uses for Bridge Street allowed or not under different zoning scenarios 0 Desirable uses that contribute to intended character for each zoning district E Less appropriate uses that do not contribute to intended character for each zoning district TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BBC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) only C= Conditional S = Size Limited T= Time Limited BSC Districts Stantlartls See §753.059 (C) m c 0 2 y ¢ m U O 0 U S n u d E U 0 0 'x N x« , M N'x x fl? c n l- 0 'x a m M 5 o 'E ` U) $ k u 2L Use PRINCIPAL USES Residential Dwelling, Single- Family P P (1)(a) TJSss.31 &F3L. ifA+ .. P ;. :(. ee ' n,9� TCxarficuse e e :::: ee ee i eeee UM UHU a :::: eeee .Ne ee W $ e a :::. a �' aaa aaaaa .:::: ' Y)Ib5 Gneklro, I Vv 5'Slcrs P F P OEcl veiling. IJ�uiilpie .. ° windy - U U P P Group Residence. S P (1)(d) Civic/Publie/Institutional Cemetery P Community Garden P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Atlult or Chiltl P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C fp�p C ce C C (2)(d) HLira,ional FaciEity P P P - P P P Elementary or Middle School P P P P P P P P _ )1 only 11 d v i o `o 8 °- _ — _ _ g° _ i 4 € 8 0 .= 6 Aa �e j lc 4loss m) Liked, Hi A i us is a w(a) m10 -- -PH (2)(91 Pllq l 13111 anIR... wo 6 6 P 13110 3!.'�itNi".NAaS•••• ••• •••. .... ... ... 13110 ® c p/C Fec c (3110 Redin Sir. w 3119 drywymmild iii &flm.N:. 0 HU mm OR nO Hi DO QWj TABI-EI53.0AAA PEPM=ED AND CONDMONAL USES IN BAD P-P,mm,J o RAC _ T T T fl _ .0 ®KO_ . p _ _ p p p p — T T T p IN x=� m ALADI SIAN)RV AND TNAIPORARY USES w 4+e Jnemnm LROI T T T IONI myu e Al.k.FL DO) om0 p _, 0® 4)(.) K. P.ssvemA. Pfe .11e) LA p p HIIN )(9) o.p yors W T T (4)(h) p)m wm es FW s.+ B A InM ).)m s•°.�.. Pm ren�a�.� P Key differences highlighted: TABLE l :5+&: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL UOEOINBOC DIO TRI CTO P = Permitted B Ddwes U =Permitted on qp K k § k § ; U Specific C= om� S =G Limited — 2= 0 2 o c Q) � § c= Standards T =Time and f S ! [ \ § § \ $ ° {3A (C) 2 2 »c �■ % Use M 0 01 3 X 3 \ 0 J = CL Table 2: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate building types for Bridge Street allowed or not under different zoning scenarios g m - w 5 V UL E 6 6 6 =$ V Y a O F O o U S SZ NZ 4 S Single Fai Uelachetl Single Family Rtlarned Histonc Mean Use Building Hislum Collage Commercial Key differences highlighted: Civic BujkJing Parking Structure Blaugrund, Herbert, Kessler, Miller, Myers& Postala s Attorneys and Counselors at Law David S. Blaugrund J. Shawn Busken 300 West Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 100, Worthington, Ohio 43085 Christopher T. Cline Phone: 614/764 -0681 Fax: 614/764 -0774 Jonathan M. Gabel S. Scott Haynes John W. Herbert ctc@bhmlaw.com March 20, 2011 Steve Langworthy, Director Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43 016 re: 64 Corbin's Mill Drive (Franklin County Auditor's Parcel 273- 000258) Dear Steve: David S. Kessler Fazeel S. Khan Sharon L.R. Miller Marc E. Myers Stephen P. Postalakis Please be advised that I represent Merlin and Cynthia Moon, the owners of the property known as 64 Corbin's Mill Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017. The Moons are in contract to sell this property to Stavroff Land Development, Inc. With respect to the current Bridge Street Corridor rezoning effort, Kevin McCauley of Stavroff Land Development, Inc. has inquired whether the Moons would support a change of the designated zoning on the parcel from Bridge Street Corridor Historic Transition to the Bridge Street Commercial zoning category. I discussed the matter with the Moons and they are fully supportive of the Bridge Street Commercial category being applied to the property. As you are surely aware, due to the size of the parcel (1.115 acres) the anticipated commercial uses will be the same in either of the categories being considered. The differences involve flexibility in building type and layout. In my analysis, there are no negatives associated with the change for this parcel to Bridge Street Commercial and several positives. In summary, please consider this letter an endorsement to Mr. McCauley's request to amend the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Map to reflect Bridge Street Commercial for 64 Corbin's Mill Drive. Very Truly Yours (j 4 Christopher T. Cline CTC:pq cc: Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land Development, Inc. Dublin City Council, c/o Anne Clark, Clerk of Council MeTrom VIA REGULAR U.S. MAIL DELIVERY March 16, 2012 Steve Langworthy City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Rd Dublin, Ohio 43016 RE: BSC Zoning Map Change Dear Steve: On behalf of the listed property owners we are formally requesting that the properties located at 48 Corbin's Mill Drive and 64 Corbin's Mill Drive be zoned to BSC Commercial as part of the upcoming area rezoning. Please see the enclosed letters from the property owners requesting the same. As part of the BSC rezoning process these properties were originally planned to be zoned BSC Commercial as shown on the April 2011 Proposed Zoning Map. Later the proposed zoning was changed to BSC Historic Transition and is shown as BSC Historic Transition on the current February 2012 Proposed Zoning Map. Based on our conversation it is my understanding that staff does not oppose such a change in zoning. As we discussed, we plan to come forward with a project on one or both of the properties in the very near future which will require a BSC Commercial zoning. As such it seems only prudent to address the property zoning at this time prior to the rezoning rather then turn around and have to immediately rezone the property. In closing, we would ask that you please share this letter and our request with City Council at the Study Session planned for March 19, 2012. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate in contacting me at 614 -764 -9981. Thank you. Sincerely, Kevin McCauley Attachments: Letters from Owners Location Map Dublin City Council To Whom it May Concern: We are the owners of the property at 48 Corbins Mill Dr, Dublin, OH 43017 where we have operated Red Rooster Quilts since 2006. We also have lived in Dublin for over 23 years. We have been following the planning for the Bridge Street corridor over the previous couple of years and have always seen where our property at 48 Corbins Mill Dr. was due to be changed to a Bridge Street Commercial Zoning. We were in favor of this and believed it made the most since due to our location in a commercial area and not being close to the Historic area. We have been made aware that recent changes to the Bridge Street corridor Plan calls for our property to be changed from a Commercial Zoning to a Historic Transitional zoning. We feel this zoning is inconsistent with what is appropriate for our property. We believe a commercial zoning is appropriate and are asking that our property be maintained in the Bridge Street Commercial Zoning area. We feel our property and business has been a good business neighbor and contributed to the community. We also believe our property fits well with the commercial business community that our building has been a part of since its construction. We directly face the Commercial district of the Dublin /Kroger Plaza area, are adjacent to two Gas Stations and a car wash and have operated as a stand alone retail /business establishment since it was built. A transitional zoning may decrease our ability to grow in the future without returning to Planning, Zoning or Council for exceptions to the zoning. If we were zoned Commercial at this time it would still allow us to continue to be a good neighbor as well as give us the options for positive changes to our building in the future without the hurdles of requiring exceptions to be made or the lengthy rezoning process. We are expressing our desire to have our property placed in the new Bridge Street Commercial zoning area. We have authorized Ben Hale Jr. Esq. to speak on our behalf for this issue. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the contact information below. Thank you, Kevin & Karen O'Connor 48 Corbins Mill Dr Dublin, OH 43017 (614) 734 -9007 www.redroosterguilts.com email: kevinC@redroosterauilts.com Clarence E. Mingo, 11 Franklin County Auditor Property Report Generated on 02/23/12 at 05:10:39 PM Parcel ID Map Routing No Card No Location 273 - 000258 -00 273 -0108C - 001 -00 1 64 CORBINS MILL DR GIS BRIDGE ST S LOGE ST D E - i Fr Disclaimer This drawing is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this drawing are notified that the public primary Information source should be consulted for verification of the Information contained on this drawing. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this drawing. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. The information on this web site is prepared for the real properly mventory within this county. Users of this data are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for 1� verification of the information contained on this site. The county and vendors assume no Legal responsibilities for the information contained on this site. Please notify the Franklin County Auditor's Real Estate Division of any discrepancies. ORDINANCE 08 -12 1 St Reading (02 -27 -2012) MEETING MATERIALS FOLLOW Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 410-4400- Fax:b614 -0410 -4490 1090 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: February 23, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 08 -12 — Rezoning 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres from R, Rural District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District; R -4, Suburban Residential District; R -12, Urban Residential District; HB, Historic Business District; HR, Historic Residential District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; OLR, Office, Laboratory, & Research District; CC, Community Commercial District; CBD, Central Business District; CCC, Central Community Commercial District; PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and PCD, Planned Commerce District to BSC Residential District; BSC Office Residential District; BSC Office District; BSC Commercial District; BSC Historic Core District; BSC Historic Residential District; BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District; BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District; BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District; and BSC Public District. (Case 11 -021Z /ADM) Background The Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) area rezoning aligns the zoning designations for properties in the Bridge Street Corridor with the framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and its Vision Principles and the Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations (Ordinance 07 -12 and Case 11- 020Z /ADM). Ordinance 08 -12 rezones 388 parcels located within the area west of Sawmill Road, south and east of I -270, and north of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road. Parcels along the south side of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road, and all parcels in the Historic District, are included in this area rezoning. The proposed zoning to BSC zoning districts will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and will position property owners to promptly respond to market opportunities for redevelopment. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Summary The proposed area rezoning was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 10 and December 8, 2011, and February 2, 2012. Public input has included requests from several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor to move from one BSC zoning district to a different BSC zoning district, or to be excluded from the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Public Comment Several property owners stated that the basis of their request to change BSC zoning districts, or be removed from the BSC area rezoning altogether, is primarily due to concerns with being able to continue their businesses and structures in their current condition, and whether the new code provisions would inhibit their ability to expand. To address these issues directly, Planning drafted Memo re. Ord. 08 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Area Rezoning February 23, 2012 Page 2 of 2 provisions for Existing Uses [Section 153.059 (A)(6)] and Existing Structures [Section 153.062 (B)(2)] to protect these property owners and their investments into the community. These provisions allow properties to remain conforming and accommodate expansions or modifications until the owners choose to redevelop the properties under the Bridge Street regulations. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that all requests from property owners be incorporated into the Bridge Street Corridor Districts zoning map. These requests are reflected on the zoning map recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 2, 2012. StaffAnalysls The Administration continues to have concerns regarding several of the properties noted in the Commission's recommended map because they are inconsistent with the direction articulated in the Vision Framework for the Bridge Street Corridor (refer to pages 18 -51 of the Vision Report). The following areas are of particular concern. (See map) The Administration is concerned with the w 1 BSC Commercial Commission's recommended zoning of BSC [•95c orris .` Commercial for a wide area along West Dublin- Granville Road, between Shamrock Boulevard r - and the Shoppes at River Ridge. While the BSC , _ e,e„ey.,,�a me - Commercial District is appropriate in certain - -- areas of the Bridge Street Corridor, allowing an 1, i Planning Recommended Zoning overabundance of this land use is inconsistent with the findings related to the Vision Report and Community Plan objective of establishing a high - profile urban office corridor along this critical street. The Administration recommends this area be removed from the BSC Commercial District and returned to the BSC Office District. • A second area is just west of Village Parkway as it curves to meet Tuller Road. The Commission's recommendation of Sawmill Center Neighborhood District has the effect of diluting the Place making efforts of the Neighborhood, and encroaches into a carefully planned residential area. The Administration recommends this area be removed from the Sawmill Center Neighborhood and returned to the BSC Residential District. David Dixon with Goody Clancy & Associates was asked to review the proposed BSC Districts zoning map to ensure consistency with the Vision Principles and Framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. Mr. Dixon's full comments are provided as an attachment. Mr. Dixon's analysis upholds the Administration's recommendations for the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts (refer to the attached Planning Report dated February 2, 2012 for a full analysis of the recommended zoning districts). Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 08 -12 with the Zoning Map dated February 2, 2012 with the two changes as recommended by Planning and endorsed by Goody Clancy & Associates. RECORD OF ORDINANCES emnk. o,c. Ordinance No. III:Iwi Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 388 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 808.7 ACRES FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT; R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -2, LIMITED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, R -4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -12, URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT; HR, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; LI, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT; OLR, OFFICE, LABORATORY, & RESEARCH DISTRICT; CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; CCC, CENTRAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; AND PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT TO BSC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; BSC OFFICE DISTRICT, BSC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; BSC HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT; BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; AND BSC PUBLIC DISTRICT. (CASE 11 -021Z /ADM) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008242, 273 - 008249, 273 - 008811, 273 - 008872, 273 - 008913, 273- 009079,273- 009088,273 - 009090, 273 - 009096, 273 - 009119,273- 009121,273- 009124,273- 009149,273- 009150, 273 - 009152,273- 009323,273- 011148,273- 012062, 273 - 012064, 273-012065,273- 012066,273- 012067,273- 012068,273- 012069, 273- 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012138, 273 - 012149,273- 012170,273- 012193,273- 012199,273 012218, 273- 012245, 273 - 012264, 273 - 012285, 273 - 012296, 273 - 012311, 273 - 012325, 273- 012342 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -R, BSC Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008244, 273 - 008245, 273- 008246,273- 008247,273- 008381, 273 - 008802, 273-008827,273- 008908,273- 008958,273- 008995,273- 008998, 273 - 009080,273- 009095, 273- 009099, 273 - 009101, 273 - 009155, 273 - 010154, 273 - 012295 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -OR, BSC Office Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 3. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273- 008266, 273 - 008243,273- 008275, 273 - 008279, 273 - 008280,273- 008284,273- 008285, 273- 008296, 273- 008304, 273 - 008305, 273- 008306, 273 - 008307, 273- 008308, 273- 008309, 273 - 008310,273- 008311,273- 008312,273- 008327, 273- 008328,273- 008329,273 - 008330, 273- 008331, 273 - 008335, 273 - 008375, 273- 008805, 273- 008831, 273- 008832, 273 - 008833,273- 008834, 273 - 008838,273- 008856,273- 008857,273- 008858, 273- 008859, 273 - 008867, 273 - 008868, 273 - 008869, 273 - 008907,273 008994,273 009082, 273 - 009145, 273 - 009146, 273 - 009147, 273 - 009148, 273 - 009512, 273 - 010405, 273- 010406, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273- 012181, 273- 012182, 273- 012183, 273- 012184, 273- 012185, 273- 012198, 273- 012251 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -O, BSC Office District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 4 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273- 000270, 273- 000274, 273- 000321, 273 - 000329, 273 - 000794, 273 - 001348, 273 - 001349, 273- 001350, 273 - 001530,273- 001976, 273 - 002457, 273- 002458,273- 002459,273- 002460, 273- RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. II Ordinance No. 08 -12 Passed p age 2 of 3 2Q_ 002463, 273 - 003800, 273 - 008261, 273 - 008264, 273 - 008269, 273 - 008358, 273 - 008361, 273 - 009971, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009973, 273 - 009974, 273 - 009975 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -C, BSC Commercial District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 5. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000002, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000005, 273 - 000007, 273 - 000008, 273 - 000012, 273 - 000014, 273- 000016,273- 000018, 273 - 000022, 273 - 000023, 273 - 000024,273- 000027,273- 000028, 273 - 000029, 273 - 000032, 273 - 000034, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000036, 273 - 000037, 273- 000040, 273 - 000042, 273 - 000043, 273 - 000050, 273 - 000051, 273 - 000052, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000056, 273 - 000061, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000063, 273 - 000066, 273- 000068, 273 - 000069, 273 - 000070, 273 - 000071, 273 - 000072, 273 - 000073, 273 - 000074, 273 - 000075, 273 - 000084, 273 - 000085, 273 - 000086, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000088, 273- 000089, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000093, 273 - 000094, 273 - 000097, 273 - 000098, 273 - 000099, 273 - 000100, 273 - 000102, 273 - 000104, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000107, 273 - 000111, 273- 000112, 273 - 000138, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000310, 273 - 001940, 273 - 001978, 273 - 002075, 273 - 003680, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273 - 004079, 273 - 004080, 273- 004081, 273 - 009979, 273- 012158, 273 - 012200, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012261 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HC, BSC Historic Core District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 6. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000013, 273 - 000015, 273 - 000019, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000039, 273 - 000045, 273- 000046, 273 - 000047, 273 - 000048, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000060, 273 - 000067, 273 - 000078, 273- 000079,273- 000080, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000083,273- 000090,273- 000091, 273- 000101, 273 - 000106, 273 - 000109,273- 000118,273- 000121, 273 - 000123,273- 000125, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000127, 273 - 000128, 273 - 000129, 273 - 000130, 273 - 000131, 273- 000132, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000134, 273 - 000135, 273 - 000136, 273 - 000139, 273 - 000141, 273 - 000144, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000262, 273 - 000286, 273- 000315, 273 - 000324, 273- 000415, 273 - 001684, 273 - 003411, 273 - 008206, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009733, 273 - 009734, 273 - 010207, 273 - 011175, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HR, BSC Historic Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 7. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008257, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008332, 273 - 008333, 273 - 008334, 273 - 008377, 273- 008813, 273 - 008957, 273 - 009030, 273 - 009035, 273 - 009043, 273 - 009044, 273 - 009045, 273 - 009054, 273 - 009055, 273 - 009077, 273 - 009081, 273 - 009083, 273 - 009084, 273- 009085, 273 - 009086, 273 - 009093, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009118, 273-009127, 273 - 009128, 273 - 009129,273- 009130, 273 - 009153,273- 009154,273- 010864, 273 - 012229 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -SCN, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 8. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000004, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000108, 273 - 000205, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273- 000208, 273- 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000211, 273 - 000212, 273 - 000213, 273 - 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000257, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000313, 273- 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 000989, 273 - 001186, 273 - 005564, 273 - 005565 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HTN, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 08 -12 Page 3 of 3 Passed . 20 Sect ion 9. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000344, 273 - 000788, 273- 000797,273- 001308,273- 002474, 273 - 002485, 273 - 002892,273- 002893, 273 - 002895, 273 - 002897, 273 - 007473 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -IRN, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 10 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 212000129, 273 - 000001, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000020, 273 - 000025, 273 - 000038, 273- 000044, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000077, 273- 000096, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000124, 273 - 000137,273- 000143,273- 000170, 273 - 000405, 273 - 000787, 273 - 003410, 273- 003513, 273 - 004507, 273 - 005566, 273 - 008277, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273 - 008314, 273 - 008315, 273 - 008316, 273 - 008373, 273 - 008820, 273- 009322, 273 - 009324, 273 - 009749, 273 - 009750, 273 - 009978, 273 - 010936, 273 - 011235, 273 - 011236 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -P, BSC Public District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 11. The application includes the list of affected property owners, the rezoning map and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 12. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of . 2012. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager "I Date: February 9, 2012 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 08 -12 — Rezoning 388 Parcels Totaling Approximately 808.7 Acres from R, Rural District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District; R -4, Suburban Residential District; R -12, Urban Residential District; HB, Historic Business District; HR, Historic Residential District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; OLR, Office, Laboratory, & Research District; CC, Community Commercial District; CBD, Central Business District; CCC, Central Community Commercial District; PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and PCD, Planned Commerce District to BSC Residential District; BSC Office Residential District; BSC Office District; BSC Commercial District; BSC Historic Core District; BSC Historic Residential District; BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District; BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District; BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District; and BSC Public District. (Case 11 -021Z /ADM) Background The Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) area rezoning aligns the zoning designations for properties in the Bridge Street Corridor with the framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and its Vision Principles and the Bridge Street Corridor Districts regulations (Ordinance 07 -12 and Case 11- 020Z /ADM). Ordinance 08 -12 rezones 388 parcels located within the area west of Sawmill Road, south and east of I -270, and north of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road. Parcels along the south side of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road, and all parcels in the Historic District, are included in this area rezoning. The proposed zoning to BSC zoning districts will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and will position property owners to promptly respond to market opportunities for redevelopment. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Summary The proposed area rezoning was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 10 and December 8, 2011, and February 2, 2012. Public input has included requests from several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor to move from one BSC zoning district to a different BSC zoning district, or to be excluded from the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning (refer to the attached letters submitted by property owners). Public Comment Several property owners stated that the basis of their request to change BSC zoning districts, or be removed from the BSC area rezoning altogether, is primarily due to concerns with being able to Memo re. Ord. 08 -12 Bridge Street Corridor Districts Area Rezoning February 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 continue their businesses and structures in their current condition, and whether the new code provisions would inhibit their ability to expand. To address these issues directly, Planning drafted provisions for Existing Uses (Section 153.059 (A)(6)) and Existing Structures (Section 153.062 (B)(2)) to protect these property owners and their investments into the community. These provisions allow properties to remain conforming and accommodate expansions or modifications until the owners choose to redevelop the properties under the Bridge Street regulations. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that all requests from property owners be incorporated into the Bridge Street Corridor Districts zoning map, which are reflected on the zoning map recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 2, 2012. Staff Analysis The Administration continues to have concerns regarding several of the properties noted in the Commission's recommended map because they are inconsistent with the direction articulated in the Vision Framework for the Bridge Street Corridor (refer to pages 18 -51 of the Vision Report). In particular, the Administration is concerned with the Commission's recommended zoning of BSC Commercial for a wide area along West Dublin- Granville Road, where the Administration recommends BSC Office District. While the BSC Commercial District is appropriate in certain areas of the Bridge Street Corridor, allowing an overabundance of this land use is inconsistent with the findings related to the Vision Report and Community Plan objective of establishing a high - profile urban office corridor along this critical street. Other requested zoning designations are also inconsistent with the Vision Report, and those are also identified in Planning's analysis. David Dixon with Goody Clancy & Associates was asked to review the proposed BSC Districts zoning map to ensure consistency with the Vision Principles and Framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. Mr. Dixon's full comments are provided as an attachment. Mr. Dixon's analysis upholds the Administration's recommendations for the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts (refer to the attached Planning Report dated February 2, 2012 for a full analysis of the recommended zoning districts). Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 08 -12 at the second reading /public hearing on February 27, 2012 with the Zoning Map dated November 10, 2011 as recommended by Planning and endorsed by Goody Clancy & Associates. PROPOSED REVISION TO BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR ZONING CODE Cardinal Health The following language to be inserted following the first paragraph in Section 153.059(A)(12)(a) of the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the real property that had a Planned Unit Development (PUD) classification pursuant to Dublin City Ordinance Number 124 -98 immediately prior to its rezoning into the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District shall be permitted to be developed, at the election of the property owner or other applicant, in one of the following manners: (1) Pursuant to the terms of the zoning text that was approved in Dublin City Ordinance Number 124 -98, provided that if the approved zoning text is silent on any particular matter, issue, . restriction, or requirement then the Dublin Code as it existed immediately prior to the adoption of the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code shall provide the applicable zoning standard A property owner or applicant that desires to develop its property in accordance with this Section 153.059(A)(12)(a)(1) shall be required to file and obtain approval of a final development plan application as required under Section 153.053 of the Dublin Code; or (2) In accordance with the requirements of the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code, provided that in this circumstance the approved PUD zoning text for the property approved in City Ordinance Number 124 -98 shall not apply. A property owner or applicant that desires to develop its property in accordance with this Section 153.059(A)(1 2)(a)(2) shall be required to follow all of the procedures required for approval of development projects under the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code." LETTER FRC>M QWNEFR O F 155 S H I C3 H ST November 04, 2011 Rachel Ray Dublin Planning Department 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear Rachel, My name is Vito Checchio and I own a house at 155 South High Street Dublin. My house is in the Historic Core District of Dublin. It is currently listed as a residential property. I have been approached by several people who have shown interest in purchasing the property for business purposes. My wife and I are thinking of selling the property considering we are senior citizens and there is a lot of work maintaining the property that we currently rent. My question is how can I get the property classified for small business uses? If you have any information on how I could go about this, or knowledge of upcoming zoning changes I would appreciate the help. Please feel free to contact me with the information either by phone or email. Thank You, Vito J. Checchio 3565 Schirtzinger Road Hilliard, Ohio 43026 614 -876 -4133 vl4c@columbus.rr.com RECEIVED it -a ar O"M- NOV 0 7 10 1' CITY OF DUBLIN LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING www.smllhandhole.com 614/221 -4255 May 4, 2011 Mr. Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager I Economic Development Director City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Dana: I represent Village Square Retail LLC which owns Bridge Pointe Shopping Center. On April 14, 2011, Dublin announced its proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plan for what it has defined as the Bridge Street Corridor area east and west of the Scioto River. The Bridge Point Shopping Center, at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and State Route 33, has existed as a retail shopping center for approximately 30 years. Yet, in Dublin's plans, Bridge Pointe's location is designated as a Bridge Street Corridor ( "BSC ") Office District. According to Dublin's draft zoning regulations, general retail is neither a permitted nor a conditional use with the BSC Office District. In addition, uses such as Eating and Drinking and Personal, Repair, and Rental Services, while permitted, are size limited within the BSC Office District Thus, through its Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plain, Dublin seeks to dramatically change the nature of Village Square's 7 acre retail site. This zoning designation will further make the center and almost all of the uses in the center non - conforming. This is a serious issue in terms of the further viability of the center We are asking Dublin to do two things: first, designate the property BSC Commercial and second, add a section to the BSC code similar to Section 153.051 (attached) of the Dublin Code. This section would keep all previously approved zoning district use regulations in effect and any development that has occurred pursuant to the regulations of such districts would be considered conforming under the code. This property was purchased by its current owner in 2007 for $6.3 million with a reasonable expectation that existing zoning and use restriction would remain in place. In addition the owners have made substantial capital improvements to the center in reliance on the current zoning. The owners currently have plans to make further substantial capital improvements to the center and have new tenants who want to move into the center. Rezoning of this center to BSC Office will put all of these plans in serious jeopardy. SMITH & HALE l_LC JEFFREY L. BROWN HARRISON W. SMITH JR. GLEN A. OUGGER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1926 .2009 JACKSON 9 REYNOLDS I 1 3� WEST BROAD STREET NICHOLAS C. CAVALARIB Or COUNSEL DAVID L. HODGE IJLUMBUS. OHIO 43216 BEN W. HALE JR www.smllhandhole.com 614/221 -4255 May 4, 2011 Mr. Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager I Economic Development Director City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Dana: I represent Village Square Retail LLC which owns Bridge Pointe Shopping Center. On April 14, 2011, Dublin announced its proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plan for what it has defined as the Bridge Street Corridor area east and west of the Scioto River. The Bridge Point Shopping Center, at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and State Route 33, has existed as a retail shopping center for approximately 30 years. Yet, in Dublin's plans, Bridge Pointe's location is designated as a Bridge Street Corridor ( "BSC ") Office District. According to Dublin's draft zoning regulations, general retail is neither a permitted nor a conditional use with the BSC Office District. In addition, uses such as Eating and Drinking and Personal, Repair, and Rental Services, while permitted, are size limited within the BSC Office District Thus, through its Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plain, Dublin seeks to dramatically change the nature of Village Square's 7 acre retail site. This zoning designation will further make the center and almost all of the uses in the center non - conforming. This is a serious issue in terms of the further viability of the center We are asking Dublin to do two things: first, designate the property BSC Commercial and second, add a section to the BSC code similar to Section 153.051 (attached) of the Dublin Code. This section would keep all previously approved zoning district use regulations in effect and any development that has occurred pursuant to the regulations of such districts would be considered conforming under the code. This property was purchased by its current owner in 2007 for $6.3 million with a reasonable expectation that existing zoning and use restriction would remain in place. In addition the owners have made substantial capital improvements to the center in reliance on the current zoning. The owners currently have plans to make further substantial capital improvements to the center and have new tenants who want to move into the center. Rezoning of this center to BSC Office will put all of these plans in serious jeopardy. Financing for retail dev devastating recession. B el°Pment has become exception co anlcs and other lenders center n current loan co orming substantially have beco alIY difficult since center such as ores due Y reduces the o me extreme! the recent nr modeli n g a also will hinder i wner s ability to refin cautious. Makin center will have devastating g and tenant i is ability to f ance g this Public benefit Of the d own pact on Its prOVements. finance tether ' the center when its im v Needless to say the down zon unProv eInents to the zoning, the alue and viabilit . Y This d ing of this center inWthealSo have trouble damage far outweigh an N BSc area that did of recnding why y ghborhood zonin not reCejye BSC this center Commercial zoning. g The ShoppeS at was CO mmercial or BS C S out as the River 12idge directly sawmill Center shoppi There is Y across the street received BSC received. Re n rations basis f interest zoning this pro the differ, al treatment chang given the character a o of the area does not Sent Village Square's Bri dge Pointe C Ommerci o and that We therefore ask that th d 1 Bove Property has add Sho pping provisio desi mate rnme added t o the BSC Code to eccom°nforming I wi nid to Section OS]n Of the center plish this objective. You shortly Ian3 Which would make guage which can be Very truly yours, B WHjr /nct Ben W. Hale, jr. Enclosure mcdaniel.ltr (nct) 514111 F;Docs Page 74 of 229 has been filed shall not alter the applicability of the regulations contained herein. A preliminary development plan approved in accordance with these or previous regulations for a Planned Development District shall be binding upon the owners, their successors and assigns and shall limit and control the issuance and validity of all certificates of zoning compliance. (Ord. 75 -03, passed 5 -3 -04) § 153.051 STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. (A) .Existing Planned Development Districts. Planned Development Districts and all associated development plans and supporting documentation adopted prior to the effective date of these Planned Development District regulations shall continue in effect and be considered legally conforming under this code. The procedures for the implementation of those developments must conform to the regulations indicated in this code. Such planned developments include: (1) Planned Low - Density Residential Districts (PLR) and their development plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Low - Density Residential District regulations. (2) Planned Commerce Districts (PCD) and their composite plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Commerce District regulations. (3) Planned Industrial Park Districts (PIP) and their development plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Industrial Park District regulations. (4) Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD) and their preliminary development plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Unit Development District regulations. (B) Consistency of terms. For the purposes of this code, plans including all supporting documentation adopted at the time of rezoning shall be referred to as preliminary development plans, and plans including all supporting documentation approved subsequent to such rezoning shall be referred to as final development plans. (C) Changes to preliminary development plans. A change to an adopted preliminary development plan shall be considered to be a zoning amendment and shall be reviewed according to the procedures set forth in § 153.053 and the plan approval criteria set forth in § 153.055. (D) Final development plans. (1) A final development plan shall be required for each phase of development in a Planned Development District, including the Planned Low - Density Residential Districts. If the construction drawings for a particular phase have already been approved as of the effective date of this subchapter, the completion and submission of a final plat in accordance with Chapter 152, Subdivision Regulations shall complete that portion of the project. (2) An application for review of a final development plan for a Planned Development District established prior to the effective date of these Planned Development District regulations shall follow the procedural steps set forth in § 153.053, shall include the submission requirements set forth in § 153.054, and shall be evaluated according to the plan approval criteria set forth in § 153.055. 614/221 4255 May 5, 2011 Mr. Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager / Economic Development Director City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Mr. Steve Langworthy Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Dana and Steve. I represent Village Square Retail LLC which owns Bridge Pointe Shopping Center. On April 14, 2011, Dublin announced its proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plan for what it has defined as the Bridge Street Corridor area east and west of the Scioto River. The Bridge Point Shopping Center, at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and State Route 33, has existed as a retail shopping center for approximately 30 years. Yet, in Dublin's plans, Bridge Pointe's location is designated as a Bridge Street Corridor ( "BSC ") Office District. According to Dublin's draft zoning regulations, general retail is neither a permitted nor a conditional use with the BSC Office District. In addition, uses such as Eating and Drinking and Personal, Repair, and Rental Services, while permitted, are sire limited within the BSC Office District. Thus, through its Bridge Street Corridor "Zoning Plain, Dublin seeks to dramatically change the nature of Village Square's 7 acre retail site. This zoning designation will further make the center and almost all of the uses in the center non - conforming. This is a serious issue in terms of the further viability of the center We are asking Dublin to designate the property BSC Commercial. This property was purchased by its current owner in 2007 for $6.3 million with a reasonable expectation that existing zoning and use restriction would remain in place. In addition the owners have made substantial capital improvements to the center in reliance on the current zoning. The owners currently have plans to make further substantial capital SMITH & HALE LLC JEFFREY L BROWN HARRISON W. SMITH. JR GLEN A D. GGER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1926 2009 JACKSON B REYNOLDS 1 NICHOLAS C CAVALARIS 37 WEST' BROAD STREET OF COUNSEL DAVID HODGE COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 4199 BEN W HALE JR www srrt Ithandhale Lom 614/221 4255 May 5, 2011 Mr. Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager / Economic Development Director City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Mr. Steve Langworthy Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Dana and Steve. I represent Village Square Retail LLC which owns Bridge Pointe Shopping Center. On April 14, 2011, Dublin announced its proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plan for what it has defined as the Bridge Street Corridor area east and west of the Scioto River. The Bridge Point Shopping Center, at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and State Route 33, has existed as a retail shopping center for approximately 30 years. Yet, in Dublin's plans, Bridge Pointe's location is designated as a Bridge Street Corridor ( "BSC ") Office District. According to Dublin's draft zoning regulations, general retail is neither a permitted nor a conditional use with the BSC Office District. In addition, uses such as Eating and Drinking and Personal, Repair, and Rental Services, while permitted, are sire limited within the BSC Office District. Thus, through its Bridge Street Corridor "Zoning Plain, Dublin seeks to dramatically change the nature of Village Square's 7 acre retail site. This zoning designation will further make the center and almost all of the uses in the center non - conforming. This is a serious issue in terms of the further viability of the center We are asking Dublin to designate the property BSC Commercial. This property was purchased by its current owner in 2007 for $6.3 million with a reasonable expectation that existing zoning and use restriction would remain in place. In addition the owners have made substantial capital improvements to the center in reliance on the current zoning. The owners currently have plans to make further substantial capital improvements to the center and have new tenants who want to move into the center. Rezoning of this center to BSC Office will put all of these plans in serious jeopardy. Financing for retail development has become exceptionally difficult since the recent devastating recession Banks and other lenders have become extremely cautious Making this center non - conforming substantially reduces the owner's ability to refinance the center when its current loan comes due and also will hinder its ability to finance further improvements to the center such as remodeling and tenant improvements. Needless to say the down zoning of this center will have a devastating impact on its value and viability. This damage far outweighs any public benefit of the down zoning. We also have trouble understanding why this center was singled out as the only shopping center in the BSC area that did not receive BSC Commercial or BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood zoning The Shoppes at River Ridge directly across the street received BSC Commercial zoning. There is no rational basis for the differential treatment Village Square's property has received. Rezoning this property to BSC Office does not serve any legitimate government interest given the character of the area. We therefore ask that the designation of the center be changed to BSC Commercial. Very truly yours, en . Ha e, J . BWHjr /nct cc: Steve Smith Melanie Wollenberg Aaron Heath mcdaniel Itr (nct) 5/5/11 F Docs equity,, Q't*A StWior 8' Development - Construcuon • Brokerage • Property Management October 28 2011 Mr. Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager /Economic Development Director City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings road Dublin OH 43016 Dear Dana: Thank you for the recent communication with regard to the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning public hearings. I am writing to re- iterate our strong objection to Bridgepoint Shopping Center being classified on the map as BSC Office. As you know, we recently received approval from Planning and Zoning Commission to give the center a complete facelift, replacing the facade, as well as other substantial site improvements. The completion of those substantial improvements will continue the practical designation of Bridgepoint as a retail center and the high end tenancy that will accompany these improvements will likely be there for the foreseeable future. We are making those improvements with continued reliance on our current zoning status. However, in the current draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Plan, Dublin seeks to dramatically change the nature of this retail center, which was purchased by us for over $6.3 million with the full expectation that the existing zoning would remain in place as long as the project had useful life. This is of particular concern with regard to the two remaining undeveloped outparcels (one of which is a former restaurant and one of which was a bank which has since been demolished), as the building of those under the Office Classification would severely limit the amount of retail and require a second story above, which is both inconsistent with the market at this busy intersection, as well as requiring a higher than market cost, which of course would translate to higher- than - market rent. This will prevent us from being able to develop those two buildings. 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 800 Columbus, Ohio 43235 614.802.2900 • Fax 614.802.2901 www.equity.net I would respectfully suggest that a projected future demand of office users that will want to be in this 161 corridor does not help us meet the current obligations of this property, especially given the additional investment we are about to make to improve the center's appearance. As the Bridge Street Code is a form based code, no matter what the property is classified, the development of the property will need to follow the code. I would also re- iterate a section from Ben Hale's May 4, 2011 letter (attached) that states "the down zoning of this center will have a devastating impact on its value and viability. This damage far outweighs any public benefit of the down zoning. Rezoning this property to BSC Office does not serve any legitimate government interest given the character of the area. We therefore ask that the designation of the center be changed to BSC Commercial." As an aside, we have offered to sell both the outparcel and the center at a very reasonable price to the City, and assume Dublin has no interest in that as we've not gotten a response. Thank you for your consideration of this very serious matter, given all the reasons stated, and especially in light of the substantial improvement to the appearance of the center that will benefit us all, including the citizens of Dublin. Respectfully yours, Melanie B Wollenberg, CCIM SIOR Executive Vice President Equity cc. Ben Hale, Bruce Ingram, Steve Langworthy, Marsha Grigsby, Members of Planning Commission Stockamp • Attorneys at Law June 9, 2011 BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Gary Gunderman Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 Re: Acura Columbus — 4340 Dublin- Granville Road Dear Mr. Gunderman: I represent Century Motors of Columbus, Inc., doing business as Acura Columbus, and the Elizabeth C. Connelly & Larry J. Brueshaber Partnership I. I am writing in response to the Public Meeting Notice recently received by my client regarding a potential zoning code amendment and area rezoning. Acura Columbus is located at 4340 Dublin- Granville Road. The Elizabeth C. Connelly & Larry J. Brueshaber Partnership I is the owner of the real estate located at 4340 Dublin - Granville Road. Acura Columbus has been operating as an Acura franchised new automobile dealership at this location since 1986. My clients have always been proud to be part of the Dublin community, and have tenured histories of successfully operating in the City of Dublin. While my clients certainly appreciate the City's effort to maintain development quality and economic competitiveness in Dublin, such aspirations should not include the rezoning of 4340 Dublin - Granville Road. The subject real estate is currently zoned commercial. The proposed zoning for the subject property is "BCS Office." My clients have properly utilized this property within its existing zoning classification for 25 years. This rezoning effort will place significant limitations on my clients' existing building with regard to the type of use that is permitted. Of equal importance, the proposed rezoning would preclude my clients from utilizing this real estate for its highest and best use in the future. phis presents an immeasurable detriment to the value of my clients' business and real property. On behalf of Acura Columbus and the Elizabeth C. Connelly & Larry J. Brueshaber Partnership 1, I am requesting that the City of Dublin remove the above referenced parcel from the rezoning consideration and that such zoning considerations not apply to 4340 Dublin - Granville Road. 5 100 Parkcenter Avenue • Suite 100 -Dublin, Ohio 43017 • (614) 761 0400 • Fax (614) 761 -0303 My clients look forward to continued success operating in the City of Dublin. If you would like to meet to further discuss this issue. please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely -t A ftdd AI 0RMEYS June 9, 2011 VIA CERTIFIED & ELECTRONIC MAIL Dublin City Council c/o Dana McDaniel Deputy City Manager 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 Scott D. Phillips Member 513.870.8206 (t) 513.870.0999(0 sphillips @fbtlaw.com Re: Notice of Opposition to Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Rezoning of Property Located at 4300 West Dublin Granville Road Dear Dublin City Council Members: This firm represents Joseph Management Group ( "JMG ") as it pertains to the City of Dublin's (the "City ") potential rezoning of property owned by JMG and located at 4300 West Dublin Granville Road, Dublin, Ohio (the "Property ") as part of the City's proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code (the `BSC Development Code "). This letter serves as JMG's formal notice of opposition to both the presently proposed rezoning of the Property and to the extraordinarily expedited timing of the text and map amendment processes currently contemplated by the City. As background, JMG owns, operates, or otherwise is closely affiliated with approximately 17 automotive dealerships in the greater Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky, Dayton, and Columbus areas. Specific to the Property, JMG owns and operates the Joseph Auto Center of Columbus, formerly known as Hummer of Columbus. JMG bought the Property in 2003 for $2,350,000.00 based on the long- standing history, success, and generally favorable treatment of automotive dealerships by the City in the Bridge Street Corridor. In 2010, General Motors permanently discontinued production of its Hummer vehicle brand, severely affecting JMG's business viability and sustainability on the Property for the future. As a result, JMG executed a multi- million dollar asset purchase agreement for Germain Cadillac of Dublin, LLC, with the intention of rebranding and moving the Cadillac dealership to the Property in late Fall 2011. This asset purchase agreement, presently pending but not yet consummated, may fall through for no other reason than the City's proposed rezoning. Presently, the Propehty is located in the City's CC Community Commercial District (the "CC District "), as well as the CDD Corridor Development District Overlay (the "CDD Overlay "). Motor vehicle dealers (new and used vehicles) are permitted as a matter of right in both the CC District and CDD Overlay. The dimensional restrictions applicable to the Property, i.e., building height, setbacks, parking location, etc., are fairly typical for the type of suburban 9277 Centre Pointe Drive I Suite 300 1 West Chester, Ohio 45069 -4866 1513.870.8200 1 frostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia Dublin City Council June 9, 2011 Page 2 area within which the Property is located. However, under the proposed BSC Development Code, the City is moving toward a much more urbanized, higher - density feel for the Bridge Street Corridor as a whole. Specific to the Property, under the BSC Zoning Map, the Property is to be rezoned to BSC Office. Motor vehicle dealers will be prohibited in the BSC Office District. The three building types that will be permitted in the BSC Office District will be (i) "Corridor Building"; (ii) "Live /Work/Loft," and (iii) "Civic Building." Of noteworthy importance, buildings located in the BSC Office District must be located at or near the front property line, cover at least 75% of the total front property line, and be at least 1.5 (Civic Buildings) to 3 stories tall (Corridor Buildings). Parking must be located in the rear. JMG's opposition to the substantive merits of the proposed rezoning is twofold. First, and most basic of all, the City and its consultants have failed in their presentations, studies, etc. to articulate any justifications whatsoever for why motor vehicle dealers must be outright prohibited in the BSC Office District generally, let alone specifically on the Property. Under the BSC Development Code, motor vehicles dealers are at least conditionally permitted in the BSC Commercial District, to which the property directly across the street and to the South is proposed to be rezoned. Motor vehicle dealers have been thriving and contributing to the Bridge Street Corridor's success without uneaningfid complaint for many years, including along West Dublin Granville Road. In the absence of any documented justifications supporting the City's prohibition, JMG asserts the City's failure to permit or at least conditionally permit motor vehicle dealers on the North side of West Dublin Granville Road and, specifically on the Property, constitutes an invalid, arbitrary and capricious exercise of the City's police powers, wholly unrelated to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Second, while the May 24, 2011 version of the BSC Development Code somewhat improves the City's treatment of existing uses and structures from the earlier April 14, 2011 version, significant issues still exist. Most obviously, despite use of the phrase "existing" structures and uses, the Property's uses and structures will still technically be considered "nonconforming." Therefore, short of making any structural changes that would necessitate a building permit or change in the use to something that is not otherwise permitted as a matter of right, no zoning permit approval is presently required. However, under the BSC Development Code, any such change, even if permitted, would require City staff approval,' which, in turn, would be appealable to the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission ") and, in turn, to City Council ( "Council "). Given the subjective nature of many of the involved standards, staff approval is not guaranteed. Moreover, even if obtained, City staff approvals can equally be appealed to the Commission and, in turn, Council by a disgruntled neighbor or competitor. 1 Staff approval of nonconforming structures will be predicated on the following four standards: Q) the change in the nonconforming structure must meet all height, area, and/or parking and loading provisions that were applicable to the property immediately prior to the rezoning, (ii) the change must be limited to the same parcel on which file nonconforming structure is located, (iii) the change may not interfere with the use of other properties in the vicinity, and (iv) the change or enlargement may not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of the structure as it existed at the time of rezoning. BSC Development Code § 153.059A(1 1)(b). 9277 Centre Pointe Drive 1 Suite 300 1 West Chester, Ohio 45069 4866 1513.870.8200 1 frostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia Dublin City Council June 9, 2011 Page 3 Further, BSC Development Code § 153.059(A)(11)(d)(1) provides that should 60% of any structure be destroyed by an act of God, e.g., fire, flooding, etc., the structure must be rebuilt in complete compliance with the new BSC Development Code rather than the existing City Zoning Code. Such "acts of God" provisions make obtaining bank financing or selling the property extremely difficult. As a result, property values typically decrease for properties made nonconforming on account of a rezoning. Naturally, JMG is gravely concerned with and will take all legal steps necessary to protect against the Property being rezoned such that its use and structures become nonconforming. In addition to and as a direct result of JMG's above, substantive concerns, JMG is also adamantly opposed to the extraordinarily expedited timing of the text and map amendment processes currently contemplated by the City. Based on our attendance at the May 24, 2011 Joint Work Session and the information available on the City's website, it is our understanding that the BSC Development Code text and map amendments may be both recommended for approval by the Commission and actually adopted by Council at the June 20, 2011 Joint Work Session. To do so, the City apparently may attempt to waive the second reading requirement and/or adopt the entire BSC Development Code as an "emergency" measure. JMG strongly cautions the City against attempting to adopt the BSC Development Code in such a manner. To, in essence, hold parallel meetings of both the Commission and Council, to have the Commission recommend adoption of the rezoning, and to have Council accept the recommendation and, in turn, actually adopt the proposed rezoning all within a matter of minutes of each other is grossly unfair and counter to the Ohio Revised Code's generalized scheme for proposed rezonings. The most recent version of the BSC Development Code was only made public two weeks ago, coincidentally the same day as the second Joint Work Session where at no public comment was permitted. Accordingly, all meaningful opportunity for the general public and interested property owners to evaluate and have their concerns heard and addressed by Council will drastically, and potentially illegally be cut short. While JMG values its historically amicable relationship with the City thus far and looks forward to continuing this relationship when hopefully siting the new Cadillac dealership on the Property in the Fall, JMG is gravely concerned with the proposed BSC Development Code generally, and the ultimate effect it will have on the Property and JMG's consummation of its asset purchase agreement. Should JMG and the City not be able to agree to fiurther, necessary revisions to the BSC Development Code, JMG will likely have no alternative but to take legal action challenging the proposed rezoning and to seek damages for the potential failure of the executed asset purchase agreement. 9277 Centre Pointe Drive I Suite 300 1 West Chester, Ohio 45069.4866 1513.870.8200 1 frostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia Dublin City Council June 9, 2011 Page 4 Should you have questions as to the above or wish to discuss this matter in person, please contact me at your convenience. Very truly yowl, FROST BROWN TODD LLC Scott D. Phillips SDP:bjy cc: Steve Langworthy WCHI.ibrory 0108552.0586049 1574802 9277 Centre Pointe Drive I Suite 300 ( West Chester, Ohio 45069 -4866 1513.870.8200 1 frostbrowntodd.com Offices In Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia A June 12, 2011 Oakland Nursery 1156 Oakland Park Avenue Mr. Steve Lan Orth Columbus, Ohio 43224 y 614-268-3511 Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Mr. Langworthy, Oakland Nurseries, Inc., the landowner, requests that our property (Parcel #273 - 008266) remain commercially zoned after reviewing the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning map. A change in zoning to a Bridge Street Corridor office district along with the restrictive codes would certainly diminish our opportunity to grow and expand our business. We have put a great deal of money and effort into the remaking of this previously distressed.property. Our operation at its Dublin location is a highly viable business and the people of Dublin and the surrounding areas have responded well to our efforts. We do not need more obstacles to our success. The entire Bridge Street Corridor South of 161 between Shamrock Boulevard and the Scioto River should be commercial with the small Bridge Street Corridor residential exemption, as it is now. A change in zoning would affect our future and decrease our property values. We would certainly expect to be compensated along with a decrease in property taxes. Our company has never asked for any tax relief, inducements or abatements from the city and we provide Dublin with a sizeable revenue stream. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely.yours, Paul S. Reiner President and Owner Cc: Marsha Grigsby -City Manager Dublin City Council - Council members Stephen Smith -Law Director May 31, 2011 Ms. Marsha Grigsby City of Dublin 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 -1090 RE: Bridge Street Corridor District ( "BSCD ") Dear Marsha: I am writing to formally request that you remove CF Limited Partnership (owner of LaScala Italian Bistro and Villa LaScala Apartments from the following: 1) Bridge Street Corridor District ( "BSCD "); 2) the related Study; 3) the creation of a new form based code for this District and; 4) any rezoning or overlay efforts for those properties defined to be within the Bridge Street District While we are certainly proud of our community and the efforts The City of Dublin makes to keep Dublin above its rivals, we are concerned of the financial impact of this rezoning. As a lifelong Dublin resident, property and small business owner we believe this will adversely affect our livelihood and what we have worked so hard to create. As a small family operated business, the Ciotola's have invested their entire life to this community and our small business. Our site has been the same restaurant for 40 years and now The City of Dublin is indirectly saying that retail is NOT the sites highest and best use. That the site we would better served by de- classifying it as office. I am having a difficult time following this logic. This is very similar to the principles of an eminent domain hearing, where value is taken, only in this case the land owner is not being compensated. The current draft is much too prescriptive and calls for a very specific type of development with little to no flexibility to respond to an evolving commercial marketplace. Implementing the BSCD for our properties would be detrimental to both the property owner and the City as a party interested in its vitality and economic success. 1 would ask that you would share this letter with all City Council Members and that it would be made part of the record as it relates to the BSCD and the contemplated form based code. Once again, thank you for your patience and consideration. We remain committed to The City of Dublin and kindly ask that you share the same sentiment. Si ely, n Ciotola cc: Steve Langworthy Oct 11 11 05:41p Jay DuRivage 614 -793 -4827 p.3 .r www.byersauto.com W. Dana McDaniel Deputy City ManageMredor of Economic Development City of Dublin 5800 Shire Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 -1236 RE: Bridge Street Corridor and Byers Realty LLC May 3, 2011 Dear Dana: M company, Byers Realty LLC, owns the 10+1- acre tract at 6801 Village Parkway. The site is currently zoned PCD which permits commercial development. Since 1989 an automobile dealership with new and used automobile sales as well as service has occupied this site. The proposed Bridge Street Corridor plan removes all commercial rights from my developed site and proposes a Bridge Street residential classification for the property. The roadway plans for the study also indicate a new collector street which runs along the property. From the scale of the map l cannot determine if the proposed roadway is on the site or just to the side. if the roadway takes part of our sine, the loss of that ground will have a negative impact on our remaining site. The proposed change in zoning represents a regulatory taking. The commercial site is developed and the proposed residential classification removes all commercial uses. The site has been used as an automobile dealership for over twenty years. It is reasonable for an owner to expect that this zoning and permitted uses would continue. This change in zoning classification Will negatively affect any refinancing of the site, funding or zoningtuse approval fnr any improvements and the potential resale of the site because the current development will now become non - conforming. Given that there is no adverse affect on the neighboring properties from the current use of the property, where is the health, safety and welfare rationale for the proposed zoning changes? In addition, a review of the proposed zoning map would show that all the automobile dealerships but ono has been placed in a noncommercial zoning classification. The one p0 Box 16513 • Columbus, OH 43216 6513 `D Oq "MW + CUS�saf TOYOTA UIEInOW ��fT Oct 11 11 05:41 p Jay DuRivage 614 - 793.4827 p.4 Mr. McDaniel May 3, 2011 Page 2 remaining dealership is proposed to be placed in the Sawmill Center neighborhood district where the automobile use is now a conditional use. The Bridge Street Corridor also limits "vehicle sales to those establishments existing on the effective date of this ordinance, which may not be enlarged beyond their size or boundaries on the effective date of this ordinance." Ile proposed actions by the city appear to represent an attempt to eliminate automobile dealerships from the city limits. With an investment of over ten million dollars in our site we cannot allow the city to place us on "endangered species list" on our way to zoning extinction. Byers Realty LLC hereby objects to the proposed residential classification and requests that either Bridge Street Commercial or the Sawmill Center neighborhood zoning classification on its site. As for the future roadway we ask that it be located so that the roadway does not impact our she. Please contact me at 7934850 at your earliest convenience to confirm receipt of this letter and to discuss these matters. Sincerely, J Vice - president DJD/lap S -ONE, LLC October 11, 2011 Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner City of Dublin Land Use & Long Range Planning RE: Infiniti of Columbus - Requested Change of Use Dear Claudia, As you know, we are currently planning a renovation for the Infiniti of Columbus Dealership at Tuller Rd. (Case Number 11- 056V). Pursuant to conversations with the City of Dublin and our architects, Ford & Associates, we feel it would be in our best interests to have our zoning fall under the Sawmill District Center. That said, please accept this letter as our request to change the proposed zoning for this project to the Sawmill District Center, instead of the Office classification we are currently under. As always we appreciate your help and support as we proceed with our project. Best regards, S -ONE, LLC B Stanley H. Shayne, Man R. G. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES Commercial Real Estate a ad ass a f t a![/ 995 Goodale Blvd. Columbus, Ohio 43212 Phone: (614) 280 -9200 Fax: (614) 280 -9244 E -mail: rgkl(a )rrohio.com Web: http: / /www.rgkassociates.com January 19, 2012 Rachel Ray Planner I City of Dublin 5800 Shier Rings Rd Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Dear Ms Ray, I am the broker that represents Interra (Dublin) LLC, the owners of the property at 6465 Sawmill Rd, Dublin, Ohio. I have been trying to sell this property for some time, and recently found a ready, willing and able buyer for this asset. Chris Christoff, of the Christoff Group has recently engaged my client in purchase negotiations for the property. After meeting with Justin Goodwin and Gary Gunderman from the City of Dublin, and being told of the proposed zoning change, I was shocked to learn of some of the restrictions that Dublin will be adding to the development standards for this property and the adjacent properties. When I heard that Dublin was requiring a second story to be built on all new development in this district, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Sawmill Rd is clearly a retail corridor with over 20,000 ADT. The only occupants of second floor space are office users. Office users can find space in the Dublin market from $7.00 to $14.00 psf. These rents are not achievable for retail space on Sawmill Rd. Retailers will pay $25.00 psf for frontage on Sawmill, which a developer needs to achieve in order to profit on Sawmill Rd development projects. Forcing Mr. Christoff to build a second story, and therefore the need for office users for the second floor severely reduces the ability for him to come up with reasonable development numbers, and thus allowing him to purchase our asset. Interra originally bought this property as one of four pieces that were being assembled for a Walgreens development. Unfortunately, soon after the property was acquired Walgreens put new development on hold, and Interra was left sitting on this piece. I have had the listing for the past 4 years, and have had a wide range of individuals who have inquired about this asset. I have had palm readers, used car lots, and a wide variety of individuals who wanted to lease the ground on weekends to sell rugs. I have informer Interra not to bother with these types as it would not fit with the fabric of Dublin, and Dublin would either block the use, or would not be happy with Interra allowing the use. Now, along comes a developer who has plans to knock down a complete eyesore of a building, lay out the building so that it fits in the overlay /zero setback district, agree to the building materials preferred by Dublin, work with the parking R. G. Kennedy & Associates • 995 Goodale Blvd. Columbus, OH. 43212 • Phone 614 - 280 -9200 • Fax 614- 280 -9244 . E -mail rgklCa Mohio.com Retail Leasing / Site Acquisition / Investment Properties / Dispositions ratios, adhere to the new sanitary requirements, pay the green space fee....all to be told that he has to build a second floor /office space, which would prohibit him from developing the site. What a shame. It is my hope that the City of Dublin reconsider this issue that would require new development to have a second story. I would also ask the City to name one building on the Dublin side of Sawmill Rd, south of 270 that has a second floor... other then Water Beds n Stuff. There is a reason for this. Two story developments on Sawmill Rd do not work given the economic /development factors that office users I) Don't necessarily want/need to be on Sawmill Rd in order to watch the 20,000 cars per day pass by 2) They can't afford the rent that a developer needs to recoup the cost of development 3) The highest and best use is clearly retail. I am sure the City would love to see the dilapidated house knocked down, just as much as Interra would like to see a new retail structure approved for this site, so that we may complete our transaction with the Christoff Group. Please consider our concern that forcing a second story on all new developments will greatly diminish our ability to sell this asset. With all of this being said, I would like to request that the property at 6465 Sawmill Rd fall under the Bridge Street Code Sawmill Center, rather than the Bridge Street code Office zoning. I would be glad to appear before any committee to discuss further, if the City so desires. Sincerely, Jeff J Mattingly R. G. Kennedy & Associates • 995 Goodale Blvd. Columbus, OH. 43212 • Phone 614- 280 -9200 • Fax 614- 280 -9244 • E -mail rr kI ,,rrohio.com Retail Leasing / Site Acquisition / Investment Properties / Dispositions Memo: January 12, 2012 To: Rachel Ray, Steve Langworthy Re: comments on proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning map File: Dublin Cc: Ben Carlson In response to your request, we have assessed the Bridge Street Corridor zoning map as prepared by Planning on November 10, 2011 and the changes recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission as noted in the zoning map dated December 8, 2011. As you suggested, we have not attempted to compare the two maps but rather to recommend changes that would apply to one or both maps that we believe would reflect the letter and spirit of the Vision Report adopted by Council. We have focused on the zones located along Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road and several parcels directly to the south and west of the Sawmill Center redevelopment area. The vision for the entire Bridge Street Corridor provides a clear statement of intent for the entire area: The Bridge Street Corridor is Dublin's centerpiece. Dublidshistorimland culturalheartis strengthened and balanced byhighly walkable districts and neifrborhoodsonbotb sides of the SdotoRiver. Exceptional green spaces preserve the outstanding natural features in the corridor and seamlessly connect each unique district along the corridor. Mixed -use &9&ictsbr1ng together complemeaM7arrangements oflivmg war kuW and recrea[ion in memorablesetirngs created bydistinciive, buman scaledambitectune and savetsthatinvite waildngandgatherhW Greatly expanded choices in housing, employment, activities, and transportation attract new generations of residents, businesses and visitors. The Bridge StreetCorridawr radiatesa diversityand vitalitythatma &kasaspecialplacenot only within Dublin, but within the region, nation and world. (Vision Report, Page 4) For most parts of the Bridge Street Corridor the proposed zoning succeeds in implementing the Vision Report's recommendations. We would, however, recommend the following modest changes to the maps prepared by Planning and the ARB and PZC. For clarity we have assigned numbers to the specific parcels or groups of parcels for which we recommend changes; these numbers are noted on the accompanying maps. 420 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 -3866 617.262.2760 fax 617.262.9512 www.goodyck�ncy. com 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 251, Washington, DC 20006 -5805 202.461.2208 Jean C. Canoes FAA R~ C. Cha Il AIA 'cCH1T ECTUHE G OOD N G Dame o. Dixon FAA NATION C Roger N. GoWSieln FAA L A N C LLv J. Howe Steven xlemrack AIA U..d Spillane AICR, RIBA Memo: January 12, 2012 To: Rachel Ray, Steve Langworthy Re: comments on proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning map File: Dublin Cc: Ben Carlson In response to your request, we have assessed the Bridge Street Corridor zoning map as prepared by Planning on November 10, 2011 and the changes recommended by the Architectural Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission as noted in the zoning map dated December 8, 2011. As you suggested, we have not attempted to compare the two maps but rather to recommend changes that would apply to one or both maps that we believe would reflect the letter and spirit of the Vision Report adopted by Council. We have focused on the zones located along Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road and several parcels directly to the south and west of the Sawmill Center redevelopment area. The vision for the entire Bridge Street Corridor provides a clear statement of intent for the entire area: The Bridge Street Corridor is Dublin's centerpiece. Dublidshistorimland culturalheartis strengthened and balanced byhighly walkable districts and neifrborhoodsonbotb sides of the SdotoRiver. Exceptional green spaces preserve the outstanding natural features in the corridor and seamlessly connect each unique district along the corridor. Mixed -use &9&ictsbr1ng together complemeaM7arrangements oflivmg war kuW and recrea[ion in memorablesetirngs created bydistinciive, buman scaledambitectune and savetsthatinvite waildngandgatherhW Greatly expanded choices in housing, employment, activities, and transportation attract new generations of residents, businesses and visitors. The Bridge StreetCorridawr radiatesa diversityand vitalitythatma &kasaspecialplacenot only within Dublin, but within the region, nation and world. (Vision Report, Page 4) For most parts of the Bridge Street Corridor the proposed zoning succeeds in implementing the Vision Report's recommendations. We would, however, recommend the following modest changes to the maps prepared by Planning and the ARB and PZC. For clarity we have assigned numbers to the specific parcels or groups of parcels for which we recommend changes; these numbers are noted on the accompanying maps. 420 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 -3866 617.262.2760 fax 617.262.9512 www.goodyck�ncy. com 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 251, Washington, DC 20006 -5805 202.461.2208 Page 2 of 4 Recommendations • Bridge Street /West Dublin - Granville Road Parcels 1 -3. We recommend that all of these parcels be zoned BSC Office District for the following reasons: • While Bridge Street is intended to be primarily an office address location, it is also intended to be —like all of the Bridge Street Corridor —a lively mixed -use area. Higher density housing should be permitted along with office, ground floor retail, and other appropriate commercial uses. • Based on the market research of Zimmerman Volk (housing) and W- ZHA (office and other commercial uses), it is highly likely that higher quality multifamily housing (e.g. lofts) will enjoy a much stronger marketthan office inthe nearer -term. In turn, office demand will be accelerated by the presence of additional nearby housing and the walkable retail that this housing would support. Zoning that discourages higher quality multifamily housing will likely slow desirable redevelopment on these parcels. • W -ZHA emphasized that creating a cohesive walkable environment, rather than piecemeal redevelopment, would spur new investment of office and related jobs-producing development —in effect, all property owners on and near Bridge Street will benefit from consistent zoning, appropriate zoning. • Issues related to existing, potentially non - conforming, uses can be resolved by grandfathering these uses and should not present an obstacle to putting zoning in place that implements the adopted Vision. In effect, the right long-term zoning should represent win for current property- owners, other property- owners in the Bridge Street Corridor, and for the City. • An assessment of BSC Office, Commercial, and Vertical Mixed Use districts indicates that both BSC Office and BSC Vertical Mixed Use are preferable to BSC Commercial. Because BSC Office zoning is proposed for most of Bridge Street/West Dublin- Granville Road, and we strongly bel ieve that the parcels in question should over time be developed in a consistent manner with those already proposed as Office, there is little reason to applythe BSC Vertical Mixed Use District at this time. This view is reinforced by the fact that, not surprisingly, BSC Office is moderately more appropriate for Bridge Street in terms of those uses and building types that are or are not allowed [see appended tables 1 and 2]. In light of these observations, we have compared the BSC Office and BSC Commercial zoning districts: • Desirable uses along Bridge Street/West Dublin - Granville Road that are allowed under BSC Office but not allowed under BSC Commercial: • Live -work dwellings • Multifamily dwellings • Conference center GOODY CLANCY Page 3 of 4 • More significantly, desirable building types along Bridge Street that are allowed under BSC Office but not under BSC Commercial: • Apartment building • Loftbuilding • Corridor building • Conversely, less appropriate uses along Bridge Street that are not allowedu rider BSC Office but are allowed under BSC Commercial: • Fueling /service stations • Sexually - oriented business establishments • Vehicle sales, rental and repair (note that existing establishments can be addressed through the Existing Uses provisions) • Less appropriate buildingtypes along Bridge Street that are allowed under BSC Commercial, but not BSC Office: • Commercial center • Large format commercial building Bridge Street /Dublin - Granville Road Parcel 4. We recommend that this parcel be zoned BSC Commercial as recommend by the Planning and ARB /PZC. At a future date it may also be desirable to revisit the zoning for this parcel given its prominent location along Bridge Street and the city's intent to conduct a planning study for the nea thy Metro Center /F rantz Road Corridor. Parcels 5 and 6located to the west of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. We recommend that these parcels be zoned BSC Residential until the city adopts a development plan for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, at which point rezoning may be appropriate, for the following reasons: • The Vision Report provides clear goals for the Sawmill Center redevelopment area: ' McSawmiffDistrictisaprimelaadon to estabhkh amajor wallablemkred- -use district owing to its p roximity to the 1 -270 interchange at Sawmill Road and the consolidated ownership of more than 50 acres of land on the current Dublin Village Center site. Thisdistrictmnceptdependsan the incnrporadon ofeaough mmplemiwft7acdPWesiniv a deas4 pedestrian - oriented nelrmrk ofmired -use buildings and bloda to Immaai mlmassthatisacdwweekdays ,eveningsandweekends alike'(Vision Report, page 46) • Because, due to its size and prominence, the character and quality of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District will have a significant impact on the ability to achieve the city's goals for the larger Bridge Street Corridor, zoning for adjacent parcels should depend on which zoning will contribute most effectively toward achieving the City's goals articulated above. GOODY CLANCY Page 4 of 4 • The critical issue that will determine whether the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District emerges as a "walkable mixed use district' is the ability to focus the relatively intense mix of uses in the core of this District sufficient to support walkab ility and vitality. Without a master development plan p repared by the property owner and adopted by the City, it would be preferable not to designate additional parcels as BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood Districtto avoid spreading development over a larger area in a mannerthat that maywell undercut the abilityto achieve the City's goals for this area. • Inthe future, following an adopted development plan that addresses one or more adjacent parcels and demonstrates that BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District zoning for these parcels would contribute to creating "a critical mass that is active weekdays, evenings and weekends alike" for the Sawmill District, then these parcels could be appropriately rezoned from BSC Residential to BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Parcel 7 to the south of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. We recommend that these parcels be zoned BSC Office District essentially for the same reasons noted for Parcels 5 and 6 above. BSC Office District is fully appropriate to achieve the goals adopted by Council. I hope these comments are helpful. Please call me on my cell (617 413 5077) if you wish to discuss or have any questions. Best, David Dixon, FAIA Principal in Charge of Planning and Urban Design Attached: • Map 1: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposed by Planning (Nov 10, 2011) • Map 2: Proposed B ridge Street Corridor Zoning p roposed by Planning (Nov 10, 2011) —GC Proposed Changes • Map 3: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposedbyARB and PZC (Dec8,2011) • Map 4: Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning proposed by ARB and PZC (Dec 8, 2011) —GC Proposed Changes • Table 1: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate for Bridge Street allowed or not allowed under different zoning scenarios • Table 2: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate bWdinetvnes B ridge Street allowed or not allowed under different zoning scenarios GOODY CLANCY Map 1 Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 BSC Indian Run Neighborhood BS�ian Run F Neighborhood. Existing Zoning Unchanged w rs� BSC -- '— l ± «F.a ao Office Residential BSC L BSC Residential Office _, j Residential r cctea pI ee OR '1 - BSC BSC Residential Historic sL Transition a Public BSC m a - - ® a Office " o BSC Office iI _ o i II _ m — g.RI -0GF 51. •• - 161 a. t64 .A 161 BBC Hstetic Public t` - BSC BSC Office BSC O t ,, _m= ercial 11 HBIU c SC Residen ® - Fes. �.' Btial r 8eciaennai� _ .BSC McTgp pU R z historic 1 - o - -- Residential - -- lill City of Dublin Corporate Boundar P, - -City of Columbus Corporate Bound Proposed BSC Zoning Districts _ N - BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core BSC Office BSC Historic Residential BRIDGE STREET o 500 1,000 2,000 w E � I BSC Residential BSC H istoric Transition Neighborhood CORRII)011 Feet S.. -" BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public BSC Sawn ill C an ter N e igh bo rh do d CITY OF 008LPI Map 2 Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 GC Proposed Changes g` 5q BSC Indian Run DRAFT - December 27, 2011 Neighborhood- 1c, fe e es y Existing Zoning p BSC Indian Run unchanged t Neighborhood w e "D i I _j - -I BSC R 5 BSC Office Residential r" oIR (ER DGE o 6 ./ -- BSC BSC Residential , o Historic ��. s - Transition a Public BSC m a - Office p „ a BSC Office m "' ! Si m B5C H 16tErlc TunsI . BSC Office BSC Office Public - —�� Hi stor i c �,� _ BSC Residential r Rec l ,� BSC McTpe Ft R z Historic 1 '� ° - Residential a _ City of Dublin Corporate Boundar r" E rn o " City of Columbus Corporate Bound r — lw Proposed BSC Zoning Districts _ BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core ® BSC Office BSC Historic Residential BRIDGE STREET 0 500 1,000 2,000 W E O BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood CORRIDOR Feet BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood ® Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CON OF DIIBUN Map 3 �- Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning o Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC DRAFT - December 8, 2011 -- R - = �rDLL�_R Ro Office Re idential 4 —J r� r g BSC Indian Run — ' I_ c Neighborhood — .z w. vm - - - -- o � ao �'�° BSC — a Office y a ° - is Existing Zoning Unchanged 9 Residential - ; Tp ,LER RioGE BSC Indian Run BSC Residential r ! Neighborhood l AY9a pq g BSC Historic o Transition r BSC i Public U `Commercial BSCO,� - R � p onc BS C Sls Public r BSC Commercial - -- —� r Bsc - - - Residentia - R e l � — BSC BSG _ •�• YEr'o r P „� : Historic + Residential -- � _ , � City of Dublin Corporate Bounda - -City of Columbus Corporate Boundary � J Proposed BSC Zoning Districts M BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core Recommended Changes . _ N BSC Office BSC Historic Residential i) i G T1]ECT 0 500 1,000 2,000 BAILVL S 11Uili1 W E BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood CORRIDOR Feet $' BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood Err OF OIIBLIN Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC DRAFT - December 8, 2011 0 GC Proposed Changes e0p5a2' DRAFT — December 27, 2011 BSC Indian Run " Neighborhood Existing Zoning BSC Indian Run Unchanged Neighborhood Public uncnangs, BSC iI Office i I li Residential SV �LER RIDGE - -BSC Resident -BSC Historic Transition —� r 1 e 61 161 99 - -- EEC Historic 2 3 ' ` °° Public ' a rc' sac i W wat °rc � � BSC Residentia BSC BSC M ETRO p, R _ I'efl MAR rY -o R e sid en tia l — City of Dublin Corporate Bountla ', METRO P L _ , -- City of Columbus Corporate Bounda ; 1] 0 Proposed BSC Zoning Districts . _ N BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core Recommended Changes BSC Office BSC Historic Residential 0 ... "000 2,000 W E BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood BRIDGE STREET Feet CORRIDOR $..':: BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CrIY OF OIIBIIN Table 1: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate uses for Bridge Street allowed or not under different zoning scenarios 0 Desirable uses that contribute to intended character for each zoning district E Less appropriate uses that do not contribute to intended character for each zoning district TABLE 153.059 -A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN BBC DISTRICTS P = Permitted U = Permitted on upper floor(s) only C= Conditional S = Size Limited T= Time Limited BSC Districts Stantlartls See §753.059 (C) m c 0 2 y ¢ m U O 0 U S n u d E U 0 0 'x N x« , M N'x x fl? c n l- 0 'x a m M 5 o 'E ` U) $ k u 2L Use PRINCIPAL USES Residential Dwelling, Single- Family P P (1)(a) TJSss.31 &F3L. ifA+ .. P ;. :(. ee ' n,9� TCxarficuse e e :::: ee ee i eeee UM UHU a :::: eeee .Ne ee W $ e a :::. a �' aaa aaaaa .:::: ' Y)Ib5 Gneklro, I Vv 5'Slcrs P F P OEcl veiling. IJ�uiilpie .. ° windy - U U P P Group Residence. S P (1)(d) Civic/Publie/Institutional Cemetery P Community Garden P P P P P P P P P (2)(b) Day Care, Atlult or Chiltl P P P P P P P (2)(c) District Energy Plant C C C C fp�p C ce C C (2)(d) HLira,ional FaciEity P P P - P P P Elementary or Middle School P P P P P P P P _ )1 only 11 d v i o `o 8 °- _ — _ _ g° _ i 4 € 8 0 .= 6 Aa �e j lc 4loss m) Liked, Hi A i us is a w(a) m10 -- -PH (2)(91 Pllq l 13111 anIR... wo 6 6 P 13110 3!.'�itNi".NAaS•••• ••• •••. .... ... ... 13110 ® c p/C Fec c (3110 Redin Sir. w 3119 drywymmild iii &flm.N:. 0 HU mm OR nO Hi DO QWj TABI-EI53.0AAA PEPM=ED AND CONDMONAL USES IN BAD P-P,mm,J o RAC _ T T T fl _ .0 ®KO_ . p _ _ p p p p — T T T p IN x=� m ALADI SIAN)RV AND TNAIPORARY USES w 4+e Jnemnm LROI T T T IONI myu e Al.k.FL DO) om0 p _, 0® 4)(.) K. P.ssvemA. Pfe .11e) LA p p HIIN )(9) o.p yors W T T (4)(h) p)m wm es FW s.+ B A InM ).)m s•°.�.. Pm ren�a�.� P Key differences highlighted: TABLE l :5+&: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL UOEOINBOC DIO TRI CTO P = Permitted B Ddwes U =Permitted on qp K k § k § ; U Specific C= om� S =G Limited — 2= 0 2 o c Q) � § c= Standards T =Time and f S ! [ \ § § \ $ ° {3A (C) 2 2 »c �■ % Use M 0 01 3 X 3 \ 0 J = CL Table 2: Comparison of desirable and less appropriate building types for Bridge Street allowed or not under different zoning scenarios g m - w 5 V UL E 6 6 6 =$ V Y a O F O o U S SZ NZ 4 S Single Fai Uelachetl Single Family Rtlarned Histonc Mean Use Building Hislum Collage Commercial Key differences highlighted: Civic BujkJing Parking Structure RECORD OF ORDINANCES emnk. o,c. Ordinance No. III:Iwi Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 388 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 808.7 ACRES FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT; R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -2, LIMITED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, R -4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; R -12, URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; HB, HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT; HR, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; LI, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT; OLR, OFFICE, LABORATORY, & RESEARCH DISTRICT; CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; CCC, CENTRAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; AND PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT TO BSC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; BSC OFFICE DISTRICT, BSC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; BSC HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT; BSC HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BSC HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; BSC INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; BSC SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT; AND BSC PUBLIC DISTRICT. (CASE 11 -021Z /ADM) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008242, 273 - 008249, 273 - 008811, 273 - 008872, 273 - 008913, 273- 009079,273- 009088,273 - 009090, 273 - 009096, 273 - 009119,273- 009121,273- 009124,273- 009149,273- 009150, 273 - 009152,273- 009323,273- 011148,273- 012062, 273 - 012064, 273-012065,273- 012066,273- 012067,273- 012068,273- 012069, 273- 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012138, 273 - 012149,273- 012170,273- 012193,273- 012199,273 012218, 273- 012245, 273 - 012264, 273 - 012285, 273 - 012296, 273 - 012311, 273 - 012325, 273- 012342 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -R, BSC Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008244, 273 - 008245, 273- 008246,273- 008247,273- 008381, 273 - 008802, 273-008827,273- 008908,273- 008958,273- 008995,273- 008998, 273 - 009080,273- 009095, 273- 009099, 273 - 009101, 273 - 009155, 273 - 010154, 273 - 012295 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -OR, BSC Office Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 3. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273- 008266, 273 - 008243,273- 008275, 273 - 008279, 273 - 008280,273- 008284,273- 008285, 273- 008296, 273- 008304, 273 - 008305, 273- 008306, 273 - 008307, 273- 008308, 273- 008309, 273 - 008310,273- 008311,273- 008312,273- 008327, 273- 008328,273- 008329,273 - 008330, 273- 008331, 273 - 008335, 273 - 008375, 273- 008805, 273- 008831, 273- 008832, 273 - 008833,273- 008834, 273 - 008838,273- 008856,273- 008857,273- 008858, 273- 008859, 273 - 008867, 273 - 008868, 273 - 008869, 273 - 008907,273 008994,273 009082, 273 - 009145, 273 - 009146, 273 - 009147, 273 - 009148, 273 - 009512, 273 - 010405, 273- 010406, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273- 012181, 273- 012182, 273- 012183, 273- 012184, 273- 012185, 273- 012198, 273- 012251 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -O, BSC Office District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 4 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273- 000270, 273- 000274, 273- 000321, 273 - 000329, 273 - 000794, 273 - 001348, 273 - 001349, 273- 001350, 273 - 001530,273- 001976, 273 - 002457, 273- 002458,273- 002459,273- 002460, 273- RECORD OF ORDINANCES Blank, Inc. II Ordinance No. 08 -12 Passed p age 2 of 3 2Q_ 002463, 273 - 003800, 273 - 008261, 273 - 008264, 273 - 008269, 273 - 008358, 273 - 008361, 273 - 009971, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009973, 273 - 009974, 273 - 009975 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -C, BSC Commercial District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 5. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000002, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000005, 273 - 000007, 273 - 000008, 273 - 000012, 273 - 000014, 273- 000016,273- 000018, 273 - 000022, 273 - 000023, 273 - 000024,273- 000027,273- 000028, 273 - 000029, 273 - 000032, 273 - 000034, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000036, 273 - 000037, 273- 000040, 273 - 000042, 273 - 000043, 273 - 000050, 273 - 000051, 273 - 000052, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000056, 273 - 000061, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000063, 273 - 000066, 273- 000068, 273 - 000069, 273 - 000070, 273 - 000071, 273 - 000072, 273 - 000073, 273 - 000074, 273 - 000075, 273 - 000084, 273 - 000085, 273 - 000086, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000088, 273- 000089, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000093, 273 - 000094, 273 - 000097, 273 - 000098, 273 - 000099, 273 - 000100, 273 - 000102, 273 - 000104, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000107, 273 - 000111, 273- 000112, 273 - 000138, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000310, 273 - 001940, 273 - 001978, 273 - 002075, 273 - 003680, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273 - 004079, 273 - 004080, 273- 004081, 273 - 009979, 273- 012158, 273 - 012200, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012261 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HC, BSC Historic Core District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 6. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000013, 273 - 000015, 273 - 000019, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000039, 273 - 000045, 273- 000046, 273 - 000047, 273 - 000048, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000060, 273 - 000067, 273 - 000078, 273- 000079,273- 000080, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000083,273- 000090,273- 000091, 273- 000101, 273 - 000106, 273 - 000109,273- 000118,273- 000121, 273 - 000123,273- 000125, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000127, 273 - 000128, 273 - 000129, 273 - 000130, 273 - 000131, 273- 000132, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000134, 273 - 000135, 273 - 000136, 273 - 000139, 273 - 000141, 273 - 000144, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000262, 273 - 000286, 273- 000315, 273 - 000324, 273- 000415, 273 - 001684, 273 - 003411, 273 - 008206, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009733, 273 - 009734, 273 - 010207, 273 - 011175, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HR, BSC Historic Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 7. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 008257, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008332, 273 - 008333, 273 - 008334, 273 - 008377, 273- 008813, 273 - 008957, 273 - 009030, 273 - 009035, 273 - 009043, 273 - 009044, 273 - 009045, 273 - 009054, 273 - 009055, 273 - 009077, 273 - 009081, 273 - 009083, 273 - 009084, 273- 009085, 273 - 009086, 273 - 009093, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009118, 273-009127, 273 - 009128, 273 - 009129,273- 009130, 273 - 009153,273- 009154,273- 010864, 273 - 012229 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -SCN, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Sect ion 8. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000004, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000108, 273 - 000205, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273- 000208, 273- 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000211, 273 - 000212, 273 - 000213, 273 - 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000257, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000313, 273- 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 000989, 273 - 001186, 273 - 005564, 273 - 005565 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -HTN, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 08 -12 Page 3 of 3 Passed . 20 Sect ion 9. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000344, 273 - 000788, 273- 000797,273- 001308,273- 002474, 273 - 002485, 273 - 002892,273- 002893, 273 - 002895, 273 - 002897, 273 - 007473 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -IRN, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 10 . That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 212000129, 273 - 000001, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000020, 273 - 000025, 273 - 000038, 273- 000044, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000077, 273- 000096, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000124, 273 - 000137,273- 000143,273- 000170, 273 - 000405, 273 - 000787, 273 - 003410, 273- 003513, 273 - 004507, 273 - 005566, 273 - 008277, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273 - 008314, 273 - 008315, 273 - 008316, 273 - 008373, 273 - 008820, 273- 009322, 273 - 009324, 273 - 009749, 273 - 009750, 273 - 009978, 273 - 010936, 273 - 011235, 273 - 011236 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -P, BSC Public District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 11. The application includes the list of affected property owners, the rezoning map and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 12. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of . 2012. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council U o Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning a — Recommended Changes from ARB & PZC "` W DRAFT - February 2, 2012 DR i u �e_Rp Offi e e idential may _ v SC indi 6 Neighborho Washington BSC .A Unchange Go BSC Sawmill Center Office � Neighborhood m ❑ E Z on i ng 9 Residential a Unchan ed cE oR ��� ❑ BSC Indi n Run �__ 3 Neighb hood BSC Residenti9� Mi ❑ , Histori ra ltii 1 o ff:' -a�E� 1 nso "��' Public BSC _ % i G - Commerce BSC Office o `. rhood 161 w A - 161 161 -- d I; 161 1� s Publi� y� BSC Commercial BSC Office BSC Residential BSC R ME TR0 z O" g n MAR .r -. o: L City of Dublin Corporate Boundary --City of�C t>Corporate Bounds ; �\ mum Proposed BSC Zoning Districts -N - BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core Recommended Changes - BSC Office 0 BSC Historic Residential c 0 500 1,000 2,000 W E 0 BSC Residential 0 BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood BRIDGE S TREET Feet CORRIDOR 0 BSC Office Residential 0 BSC Indian Run Neighborhood 0 Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CITY OF DOBUN u a Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning a Recommended for Approval by Planning wY y W DRAFT - November 10, 2011 OR d a � 4 J°R -RP <— GF$G�ndl 6 0 0� °9 o �— aot ti Neighborho washingtcn O .A Unchange BSC /�� Office 5 / i 9 Residential p, Existing Zoning g T a Unchanged < BSC Indi n Run �- 3 Nei hb hood YQS BSC BSC 1 � CI Historic _ ' A C Public J T ransition m BSC fi � U � Ofce r w of e o aron 161 161 alt Do a 161 33 d � B is ricL BSC ransi1 Publl I � Commercial o i �� y e R W W p METRO PL N rm. - ME TR0 n BSC BSC Office N = 161 161 161 161 BSC BSC Office BSC Office Office BSC Residential f M BSC 161 Commercial AR 'V 5 Ci of Dubli Corp orate Boundarv/ W Proposed BSC Zoning Districts N - BSC Commercial - BSC Historic Core - BSC Office BSC Historic Residential BRIDGE STREET 0 500 1,000 2,000 W E BSC Residential BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood CORRIDOR Feet BSC Office Residential BSC Indian Run Neighborhood $. 0 Public - BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood CITY OF DUBLIN I of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 DRAFT The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Proposal: An area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us Affected Parcels: 273- 000016, 273- 000071, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000797, 273 - 000040, 273- 00102, 273 - 000088, 273 - 002457, 273- 009973, 273 - 011148, 273- 009093, 273 - 000028, 273 - 004081, 273 - 000027, 273 - 004079, 273- 004080, 273- 009147, 273- 008995, 273- 000104, 273- 000093, 273- 000094, 273 - 000039, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009124, 273 - 005565, 273- 000068, 273 - 000042, 273- 000073, 273 - 000107, 273- 000048, 273- 000012, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000024, 273 - 002459, 273 - 009044, 273- 010405, 273 - 000086, 273 - 012325, 273 - 000108, 273 - 002485, 273- 000029, 273 - 000123, 273- 000415, 273- 012260, 273- 012261, 273- 008868, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000099, 273 - 012295, 273 - 009088, 273- 000794, 273 - 002460, 273- 000321, 273 - 000121, 273- 009734, 273- 000109, 273 - 000079, 273 - 009155, 273 - 008958, 273 - 008280, 273- 000106, 273 - 009119, 273 - 009971, 273 - 008872, 273 - 008329, 273- 000020, 273 - 008373, 273- 000037, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000787, 273- 000143, 273 - 003513, 273 - 005566, 273 - 008309, 273 - 009322, 273- 009324, 273 - 009749, 273- 009978, 273 - 009979, 273- 012181, 273- 012182, 273 - 012183, 273 - 000002, 273 - 000018, 273 - 000111, 273- 000310, 273 - 000208, 273 - 008277, 273 - 003680, 273 - 008316, 273- 010936, 273 - 011236, 273 - 012066, 273 - 012067, 273 - 012068, 273- 012069, 273 - 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012200, 273- 009055, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273 - 000032, 273- 000098, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000038, 273 - 004507, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273 - 008314, 273 - 008315, 273- 009750, 273- 007473, 273 - 002895, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000025, 273- 000077, 273- 000096, 273 - 000113, 273- 000044, 273- 000008,273- Page 1 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Affected Parcels: 000089, 009030, 008333, 000022, 001350, 000078, 009035, 009099, 009150, 008308, 000007, 000023, 000329, 012193, 008330, 000074, 000051, 000134, 012285, 009975, 000083, 000063, 000138, 000214, 000101, 000130, 000118, 001308, 000788, 008361, 009043, 000004, 001530, 008335, 008306, 000084, 000019, 000050, 009082, 012138, 012170, 273 - 008242, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008377, 273 - 008257, 273 - 000061, 273 - 009077, 273 - 000001, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000124, 273 - 000270, 273 - 000274, 273 - 001348, 273 - 008261, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000031, 273 - 008327, 273 - 008328, 273 - 000034, 273 - 000069, 273 - 008998, 273 - 000013, 273 - 000128, 212 - 000129, 273 - 009079, 273 - 000072, 273 - 008279, 273 - 012251, 273 - 008312, 273 - 012184, 273 - 012185, 273 - 001940, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000136, 273 - 009086, 273 - 012245, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000112, 273 - 000005, 273 - 008827, 273 - 009081, 273 - 009101, 273 - 012296, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000097, 273 - 000315, 273 - 008305, 273 - 010154, 273 - 000080, 273 - 000047, 273 - 008859, 273 - 008334, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000139, 273 - 000100, 273 - 001684, 273 - 000129, 273 - 008284, 273 - 008310, 273 - 008311, 273 - 012062, 273 - 012064, 273 - 012065, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000324, 273 - 011175, 273 - 010864, 273 - 000131, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 009090, 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000257, 273 - 001978, 273 - 008246, 273 - 009146, 273 - 008802, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000313, 273 - 000092, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273 - 005564, 273 - 002458, 273 - 002463, 273 - 000091, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000060, 273 - 008304, 273 - 008307, 273 - 008375, 273 - 012198, 273 - 000090, 273 - 012149, 273 - 001976, 273 - 000286, 273 - 002892, 273 - 002897, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273 - 009095, 273 - 009512, 273 - 000066, 273 - 009732, 273 - 008296, 273 - 009323, 273 - 000125, 273 - 008908, 273 - 008247, 273 - 008249, 273 - 008813, 273 273 - 008332, 273 273 - 008867, 273 273 - 001349, 273 273 - 000067, 273 273 - 010207, 273 273 - 000127, 273 273 - 009096, 273 273 - 008285, 273 273 - 009145, 273 273 - 008275, 273 273 - 000015, 273 273 - 003800, 273 273 - 008907, 273 273 - 000014, 273 273 - 008245, 273 273 - 000132, 273 273 - 000046, 273 273 - 009974, 273 273 - 009149, 273 273 - 009084, 273 273 - 012342, 273 273 - 000211, 273 273 - 000205, 273 273 - 012199, 273 273 - 000052, 273 273 - 008266, 273 273 - 000344, 273 273 - 009148, 273 273 - 000056, 273 273 - 000262, 273 273 - 000989, 273 273 - 012229, 273 273 - 012158, 273 273 - 000036, 273 273 - 002893, 273 273 - 008957, 273 273 - 000070, 273 273 - 009733, 273 273 - 012311, 273 273 - 008811, 273 Page 2 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 2, 2012 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Affected Parcels: 000075, 008244, 000043, 003410, 008831, 008856, 000045, 000144, 000085, 009054, 009152, 008331, 273 - 000135, 273 - 002075, 273 - 009080, 273 - 008381, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000137, 273 - 003411, 273 - 008820, 273 - 008832, 273 - 008833, 273 - 008857, 273 - 008858, 273 - 012264, 273 - 000212, 273 - 008206, 273 - 008264, 273 - 009118, 273 - 009121, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009128, 273 - 009153, 273 - 009154, 273 - 012218, 273 - 010406 273 - 009083, 273 - 008358, 273 - 000405, 273 - 011235, 273 - 008834, 273 - 008869, 273 - 000213, 273 - 008805, 273 - 009127, 273 - 009129, 273 - 009085, 273 - 008269, 273 273 - 002474, 273 273 - 000170, 273 273 - 008243, 273 273 - 008838, 273 273 - 008994, 273 273 - 000141, 273 273 - 001186, 273 273 - 009045, 273 273 - 009130, 273 273 - 008913, 273 MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of the Area Rezoning map dated February 2, 2012 and titled "Proposed BSC Zoning Map Recommended Changes from ARB and PZC Area Rezoning with one condition: 1) That the six parcels on the north side of W. Bridge Street, west of North Riverview Street (addressed 17 -53 North Riverview Street and 40 North Blacksmith Lane) be rezoned to the BSC -HC, BSC- Historic Core District. VOTE: 6 -1 RESULT: Approval of this Area Rezoning is recommended to City Council. .1;10101.1014 BILT161 d 4-1 Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb No John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Page 3 of 3 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 DRAFT 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning 11 -O21Z Area Rezoning Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application which involves an area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said the Planning and Zoning Commission will review and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed zoning map amendments. Rachel Ray said there was no formal presentation, but asked if there were any questions regarding the Planning Report. She pointed out one additional property owner had submitted a letter since the previous review of the area rezoning map on December 8"', 2011. She said the property is located on Sawmill Road indicated on the map as #11, the former residence just north of Dent Magic, just south of the Waterbeds property. She stated the property owner was requesting a change from the BSC Office as recommended by Planning to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District which is included on the map the Planning and Zoning Commission was recommending. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed the property owner's request was in line with the Commission's recommendation. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak with respect to the area rezoning application. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Columbus, said she represents Bridge Pointe Shopping Center. She said she agrees with Mr. Reiner and appreciates the Commission considering a more sensible area rezoning map that takes into consideration property rights and the investment the property owners have made in Dublin. She asked for further information regarding the study of a roundabout at the Riverside Drive and the 161 intersection and the impacts to the Bridge Pointe site. Ms. Wollenberg restated her request for BSC Commercial District zoning for the Bridge Pointe site and the reasons for the request, which include the long term uncertainty of a site with an existing use in conflict with the proposed zoning district, the inability to construct the outparcels as desired under the proposed code and the significant value it takes from their property, and the onerous building requirements under BSC Code for their retail shopping center. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were anyone else that would like to speak with respect to this application. Jeff Brown, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, 43215, thanked the Commission for all their effort and time. He said his applicants liked the Commission recommend map better than the map proposed by Planning. He said his firm was contacted by the Speedway property owners at the corner of 161 and Sawmill Road whom expressed concern the existing use was not permitted within the proposed Bridge Street Code. He asked the Commission to consider Bridge Street Commercial for the Speedway site on the corner, because it is the only classification in the new code that would allow the existing use. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any other comments regarding the proposed area rezonings. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarity regarding the two different area rezoning maps provided within the packet. Mr. Langworthy said the Commission will need to state which map they are voting on within their motion. He stated the proposed area rezoning map dated February 2 nd is version that includes the modifications requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said it is the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended Changes from ARB and PZC Draft February 2, 2012 which is also being displayed on the screen. Mr. Langworthy said there is one change that needs to be made to the proposed map recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is to include the six properties located along North Riverview within BSC Historic Core. He said the Commission expressed a desire to include these six properties within the Historic Core, but the map does not accurately reflect this change. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what the other changes were. [There were none.] Ms. Kramb said the Commission has tried to accommodate property owners' requests and it is only fair to accommodate the request to permit the Speedway as BSC Commercial, because the property owner has used the same argument as other properties. Mr. Hardt said he respectfully disagrees with Ms. Kramb and said the other properties where he supported a change was largely based on what was appropriate for those properties in the long term. He said with regards to the Speedway site the present use of the site and the proposed Code adequately provide the property owner the ability to maintain the gas station for as long as they choose. Mr. Budde agreed with Mr. Hardt and said they can continue to operate in perpetuity, but the long term vision the City is creating with the Code and zoning map is for 30, 40, or 50 years from now. Mr. Fishman said he wanted to ensure the Code does not prevent the property owner from remodeling and upgrading in the future. Ms. Readier said the property owner can maintain their existing use. Mr. Hardt said the property owner can maintain and remodel the existing structure and expand it up to 50 percent. Mr. Brown said gas stations have a certain life and are typically demolished and rebuilt, which would not be permitted under the Sawmill Center requirements within the proposed Code. He said with the BSC Commercial District the property owner could obtain a conditional use. Mr. Zimmerman agreed the Speedway site should remain Sawmill Center. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed it would fracture the map. She said other modifications to map were to to incorporate parcels into surrounding districts rather than singling one parcel out. She said she has a hard time singling out this parcel as a standalone piece. Mr. Taylor said it should remain Sawmill Center. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for other comments as it relates to the proposed area rezoning. Ms. Kramb said she likes the Planning and Zoning Commission map to recommend to City Council; however, she did not support rezoning any properties until the Vision Plan is updated and until the Commission hears City Council's feedback about the proposed BSC Code. She said rezoning these properties is premature and too expansive given the properties will be reviewed under a brand new code that has not been used. Mr. Langworthy said the Commission is only making a recommendation to City Council for the proposed rezoning map. He said City Council review the proposed BSC Code first and then they will review the proposed rezonings. He said if City Council identifies issues with the proposed Code they will have the opportunity to table Code and /or the rezoning map. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Mr. Fishman said he tended to agree with Ms. Kramb because he does not think they accommodated every existing business and he worries about the property owner's ability to remodel and expand existing businesses. He said he would support the area rezoning as it is only a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Husak said the motion should refer to the map date and title, and the six properties on North Riverview Street addressed as 17 — 53 North Riverview Street and 40 North Blacksmith Lane be zoned to the BSC Historic Core District. Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made a motion that the map titled Proposed BSC Zoning Recommending Changes from ARB and PZC draft February 2, 2012 with one condition the six properties known as 17 — 53 North Riverview Street and 40 North Blacksmith Lane be rezoned to the BSC Historic Core District be recommended to City Council with their recommendation of approval. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, no; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 — 1.) Mr. Langworthy expressed appreciation from the staff and the administration for all the hard work the Commission has done. He said he has worked with dozens of Planning Commissions over his career and he cannot think of many that have worked as hard as they have to pour their way through this difficult Code. He said we really appreciate the work and effort the Commission has put into it the review of the Code and stated we could not have created this Code without this level input and it is very much appreciated. He said the discussions between Planning and the Commission have made the Code better. He said the staff is very appreciative of all the Commission's efforts. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked him and staff. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they are going to take a short break and will resume at 9:00 pm. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission City of Dublin Planning Report L-M Ru a u F�� Thursday, February 2, 2012 55CO 9,L. -RkirA Ruud DWfn. Ohio 4301 &1236 Mnmf Il]D:61"1h 46 Zoning Map Amendment — Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Fox: 6 we' &w.w .Oibfin.oh.w Districts Case Summary Agenda Number 2 Case Number 11- 021ADM Location Located west of Sawmill Road in the area south and east of I -270 and north of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road and including the parcels along the south side of that road and all parcels in the Historic District. Proposal Rezoning 388 parcels comprising an area of approximately 808.7 acres of land from R, Rural District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District; R -4, Suburban Residential District; R -12, Urban Residential District; HB, Historic Business District; HR, Historic Residential District; Li, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office & Institutional District; OLR, Office, Laboratory, & Research District; CC, Community Commercial District; CBD, Central Business District; CCC, Central Community Commercial District; PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and PCD, Planned Commerce District to BSC Residential District; BSC Office Residential District; BSC Office District; BSC Commercial District; BSC Historic Core District; BSC Historic Residential District; BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District; BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District; BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District; and Public District. The purpose of this area rezoning is to encourage coordinated development in the Bridge Street Corridor while recognizing the need for flexibility and the ability to transition the character of the Corridor over time a mixed use area with higher commercial and residential densities. Another purpose of this rezoning is to place properties within the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts where the code requirements emphasize walkability, urban vitality, and mixed use development as principal objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. By zoning these areas in advance of development the City will allow sites to be positioned to quickly and efficiently redevelop as market opportunities allow. Affected Parcels See final two pages of this Report. Request Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Map amendment under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contacts Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information (614) 410 -4656 1 rray @dublin.oh.us City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 2 of 18 Planning Recommendation Recommendation of Approval of the Proposed Zoning Map for the Bridge Street Corridor Dated November 10, 2011. Planning recommends approval of the proposed BSC zoning districts as depicted on the draft Zoning Map dated November 10, 2011 following a recommendation on Zoning Code Sections 153.057 -066 (the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code). Proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Recommended for Approval by Planning DRAFT - November 10, 2011 aa ey+a� BSC Indian Run Neighborhood cP N ¢'- BSC Indian Run v ^e^^ ^ere Neighborhood s_ BBC Office Residential BSC BSC Residential Office Resi&rbal ^ BSC Residential BSC Him.ric Transition Public (i Public BBC xislxnr Residents f BSC � office BSC Office R OW C BSC Office BSCO \ as£ rnerclal � t BSL R= sidenl -al L. 1 _.a 1 _ asaii Cal or publln c........._ Proposed BSC Zonft Districts x �sse e.mmer..I ssc xlemne eme M.. .. . e na.l \ $RIDGE STREET o Sao tom ;aaF W E ®ase ae:merea _ em . ea. x.... C 11— ®e^ sac oien evae.aai n an a eeldm.n,.m S � w ue m Bsc sermui cenmmeasanm.m am atno x City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 3 of 18 Update PZC Special Meeting FAtthe December 8, 2 011 December 8 2011 map for the Bridge chitectural Review full comments are provided as an attachment to this Planning Report. meeting, Commissioners discussed the recommended Street Corridor and the modifications recommended by Board. The Commission also considered requests presented by several Bridge Street Corridor property owners to switch BSC zoning districts, or be removed from the area rezoning. Since the December 8 meeting, David Dixon with Goody Clancy & Associates has reviewed the proposed zoning map and provided his recommendations. Mr. Dixon's Facts & Background This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Map amendment involving 388 parcels comprising an area of approximately 808.7 acres that includes a variety of zoning districts, as noted in the Case Summary. The proposal will rezone properties into 10 newly created Bridge Street Corridor Districts, consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan; the BSC Residential District, BSC Office Residential District, BSC Office District, BSC Commercial District, BSC Historic Core District, BSC Historic Residential District, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District, BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District, BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and the BSC Public District. An 11"' district, the Vertical Mixed Use, is included in the code, but no properties are proposed to d I be zoned into the district with this approval. The parcels to be rezoned comprise the area designated within the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, generally located in the area west of Sawmill Road, south and east of I -270, and north of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road. Parcels along the south side of Bridge Street /West Dublin- Granville Road, and all parcels in the Historic District, are included in this area rezoning. While the area description includes two existing residential neighborhoods (the Indian Run Estates located on Indian Run Drive west of North High Street, and five residential lots located north of the Indian Run Estates subdivision), these properties are notincluded in the proposed Bridge Street Corridor rezoning and will remain in the R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, based on a commitment made to these property owners that their properties would not be directly affec by the Bridge Street Corridor zon ing. Proposal City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 4 of 18 Facts & Background Zoning The parcels identified for rezoning are currently in a variety of residential, commercial, office, and planned development zoning districts, as identified on the Existing Zoning Districts map. The purpose of this area rezoning is to encourage coordinated development in the Bridge Street Corridor while recognizing the need for flexibility and the ability to transition the character of the Corridor over time to a mixed use area with greater commercial and residential densities. The purpose of this rezoning is also to place properties within the Bridge Street Corridor into zoning districts where the code requirements emphasize walkability, urban vitality, and mixed use development as principal objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. By zoning these areas in advance of development, the City will position sites to quickly and efficiently redevelop as market opportunities allow. Existing PUDs Several Planned Unit Development Districts (PUDs) are included in this application. The following table summarizes their locations, status, and validity (in terms of whether the PUD has expired in accordance with Zoning Code Section 153.050. Bolded text indicates PUDs that have not been constructed): Waterford Waterford Dr FDP approved PUD Expired Commons and SR 161 Cardinal West of Dublin July 1999 zoning approved (text No Expiration Health South Rd. & South of waives FDP submission Date I -270 requirements) Bridge & High Bridges & High FDP approved Project Complete fete Town Center I Bridge & High FDP approved Project St. Complete Town Center II Bridge & FDP approved Project Franklin St. Complete Sycamore Ridge Tuller Ridge FDP approved Project Dr. Complete Cooperstone FDP approved, individual units Greystone Mews Dr. &Village pending Active Pkwy. Kumon NW corner of Zoning approved, FDP pending Learning SR 161 & since 2010 June 29, 2013 Center David Road AIIIIII Byers Village Pkwy. (PCD) FPD approved, project Project complete Complete AEP Substation Shamrock (PCD) FDP approved, project Project Blvd. complete Complete Shamrock SR 161 & Crossing Shamrock 2006 zoning approved PUD Expired Blvd. Subarea A SR 161 & Project (Leo Alfred) Shamrock FDP approved, project complete Complete Blvd. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 5 of 18 Facts & Background Surrounding Zoning Given the area covered by the rezoning, surrounding uses vary greatly. On the east and Uses side of the Corridor across Sawmill Road, uses in Columbus are primarily auto - oriented, large- format commercial centers. North of I -270, premier office development sites, with new office - oriented development north of I -270 east of Riverside Drive, are expected after the final phase of Emerald Parkway is completed. Adjacent uses south of the Corridor range from hotel and office uses in the Metro Center PUD west of Frantz Road, commercial uses and the Corbins Mill and Carrowmoor townhomes east of Frantz Road, and single family neighborhoods south of the Historic District and south of the Corridor east of the Scioto River. Subarea B SR 161 & October 20, (Heartland) Shamrock Rezoning /FDP approved 2014 Blvd. Subarea C SR 161 & (vacant) Shamrock 2006 zoning approved PUD Expired Blvd. Subarea Banker Dr. & Project (Germain) ) Shamrock FDP approved Complete Blvd. Shamrock , Active (while Sunrise Senior FDP approved building permit Living Stoneridge s valid) Lane Stoneridge SR 161 2004 zoning approved, FDP PUD complete Medical Center withdrawn Stoneridge SR 161 FDP approved Project Medical Complete SR 161 & Project JALL Stoneridge FDP approved Complete Lane National Church Stoneridge Ln. Project Residences & Dublin FDP approved Complete Center Dr. SR 161 & Project Germain Lexus Dublin Center FDP approved Complete Dr. Sportmart Sawmill & (PCD) FDP approved Project Martin Roads Complete Surrounding Zoning Given the area covered by the rezoning, surrounding uses vary greatly. On the east and Uses side of the Corridor across Sawmill Road, uses in Columbus are primarily auto - oriented, large- format commercial centers. North of I -270, premier office development sites, with new office - oriented development north of I -270 east of Riverside Drive, are expected after the final phase of Emerald Parkway is completed. Adjacent uses south of the Corridor range from hotel and office uses in the Metro Center PUD west of Frantz Road, commercial uses and the Corbins Mill and Carrowmoor townhomes east of Frantz Road, and single family neighborhoods south of the Historic District and south of the Corridor east of the Scioto River. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 6 of 18 Facts & Background Case Background Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 50 -10 on October 25, 2010 regarding the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, which included a Vision Statement, five Vision Bridge Street Corridor Principles and an Implementation Strategy as a guide for the future of the Bridge Vision Report Street Corridor. Analysis efforts within the Corridor included transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater modeling. The implementation strategy called for the creation of development regulations and an associated area rezoning that would allow the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor to be implemented in a cohesive manner and allow development to occur with market opportunities. The development regulations allow existing property owners who have made significant investments into their properties to remain until they decide to redevelop, in recognition of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision as a transformative plan, implemented over many yea rs. Recommendations from the Commission on the Bridge Street Corridor Code provisions (Zoning Code Sections 153.057 through 153.066) and the area rezoning will be forwarded to City Council. Case History Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Code Provisions At a series of regular and special Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held between October 13 and December 8, 2011, Commission members reviewed draft materials and received public comment on the October 6, 2011 draft Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) amendments to the Zoning Code and proposed area rezoning map for the Corridor. Commission members completed their thorough review of the October draft of the Code at a special meeting held on December 8, 2011. The Commissioners received a revised document in December and began their review of the final draft of the Code and area rezoning map at regular and special y I meetings held on January 5, 12, 19, and 24, 2012. Following the initial publication and subsequent drafts, Planning met with numerous Corridor land owners and other interested stakeholders to identify and address their concerns where appropriate and consistent with the Vision Report. The subsequent draft of the Code was available for public review on October 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission completed their initial review of the October 6 draft at the December 8, 2011 meeting. A revised draft incorporating the comments made by the Commission and stakeholders since the October 6, 2011 draft was published on December 16, 2011. The Commissioners began their review of this draft on January 5, 2012, and are scheduled to complete their review of this draft and make a recommendation to City Council by February 2, 2012. Bridge Street CoriidorArea Rezoning The Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning is intended to align the zoning designations for properties in the Bridge Street Corridor with the framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and Vision Principles and the BSC code requirements. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 7 of 18 LSC Zoning Districts Ove rview Proposed BSC Districts The Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts are based on the District Framework of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report (see pages 16 -51 of the Vision Report dated October 25, 2010). The purpose of the Framework is to allow development regulations to be adapted to the unique conditions present in each area of the Corridor and make certain that each specific area contributes to the overall objectives of the Vision Plan. The five Vision Principles articulated in the Vision Report (see pages 4 -15) ensure the creation of a cohesive area based on the concepts of walkability and urban vitality to support the quality of life for residents of all generations. Although each zoning district is unique, these Principles are incorporated into the intent of each V I BSC zoning district. The BSC districts are described below. BSC Neighbors The three Neighborhood Districts (BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood, BSC Historic Districts Transition Neighborhood, and BSC Indian Run Neighborhood) are intended to create signature places consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. The BSC Sawmill Center three neighborhood districts have areas with a greater mix of uses and the highest BSC Historic commercial and residential densities. As a result, these BSC districts require special Transition attention to the location and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces to BSC Indian Run accommodate well defined districts with larger scale, coordinated development and redevelopment that accommodate a variety of uses. The development regulations for the BSC neighborhood districts are designed to emphasize placemaking elements related to open space character and distribution and other urban design elements while accommodating long -term phasing plans, transitional development conditions, and the need for adaptability to future market needs. General BSC Districts BSC Residential BSC Office Residential BSC Office BSC Commercial BSC Vertical Mixed The "general" BSC districts are intended to support and complement the neighborhood districts by providing higher concentrations of residential and office uses, with lower- density commercial uses in appropriate areas, consistent with the market studies completed for the Corridor. Despite their concentrations of particular uses in these general BSC districts, each BSC district incorporates a variety of uses. Use The BSC Residential District is intended to accommodate single - family, two- family, townhouse, live -work, and multiple - family uses in mid -rise development. This district integrates existing and new residential developments to create true neighborhoods, while adding to the population base needed to help support nearby commercial development. The BSC Residential district is concentrated east of the Scioto River, west of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood and along the southern boundary of the Corridor. Based on the Commission's comments during their initial review of this district, the range of uses permitted in the BSC Residential district has been expanded to ensure that more opportunities for mixed uses are available. The BSC Office Residential and BSC Office districts are intended for larger buildings and greater commercial densities creating visibility and access for office uses along signature streets. These districts are on the east side of the Scioto River generally along the I -270 and West Dublin- Granville Road frontages. The BSC Office Residential District is recommended for the propertie south of I - 270 because this City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 8 of 18 BSC Zoning Distric Ov erview area represents an area of great flexibility; while the visibility and proximity to I- 270 make this an area that would be desirable for office uses, residential uses are also desirable in this area to help create the critical population mass necessary to support the higher intensity mixed use development proposed in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. The BSC Commercial District applies to retail centers and allows a variety of low - rise commercial uses, and areas that may develop at greater densities and in a more coordinated fashion at the eastern and western edges of the Corridor. Once areas in the Corridor have established a clear development direction, the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District may apply to properties in the BSC Commercial and BSC Office Districts to introduce even greater mixed uses and densities. BSC Historic Districts The BSC Historic zoning districts are intended to apply to the historic center of Dublin to reinforce its unique character as a centerpiece of the Bridge Street BSC Historic Core Corridor. These districts focus on ensuring sensitive infill development and BSC Historic redevelopment, provide an improved environment for walking, and appropriately Residential accommodating vehicles. The district will accept building types consistent with the historic development pattern and uses that support a highly walkable setting. The BSC Historic Core District replaces the Historic Business (HB), Central Business (CB), and Central Community Commercial (CCC) districts. The BSC Historic Residential District is a unique area with established historic development patterns and existing residential uses. While this district is intended to replace the existing Historic Residential District, the BSC requirements are the same as the existing district. This will ensure that the scale and placement of new or modified buildings remain compatible with the historic character of the existing residential uses and streets. Architectural Review The draft BSC regulations will maintain the Architectural Review Board's approval Board Authority authority over all new development and modifications to existing sites and structures for properties in the Architectural Review District. This includes the properties in the BSC Historic Core and BSC Historic Residential districts, along with properties proposed for the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood and Public districts that fall within the Architectural Review District boundaries. BSC Public The BSC Public District is intended to apply to a variety of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to schools, parks, open spaces, and places that could accommodate more intensive recreation, such as outdoor entertainment venues. It also applies to lands in and adjacent to rivers and creeks on which development is limited due to inclusion in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain, or lands that have special cultural or environmental sensitivity. J City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 9 of 18 Planning Analysis Overview At their initial review of the draft zoning map for the Bridge Street Corridor, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommended that several properties recommended for a particular zoning district by Planning should be switched to a different BSC zoning district. The Commission also heard requests by several properties owners to switch BSC zoning districts, and generally agreed with the property owners. Several property owners have stated that the basis of their request to change BSC zoning districts, or be removed from the BSC area rezoning altogether, is primarily due to concerns with becoming nonconforming. Planning has met with a number of Bridge Street Corridor property owners throughout the duration of the process, and through these meetings, Planning drafted provisions for Existing Uses (153.059(A)(6)) and Existing Structures (153.062(B)(2)) to protect these property owners and their investments into the community. These provisions allow properties to remain conforming and even accommodate certain expansions or modifications to existing structures until the owners choose to redevelop the properties. Following is Planning's analysis of each site recommended for a different BSC zoning district by the Commission and t ARB. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommenda West Dublin- Granville Road Commercial Sites PZC Recommended District Planning Recommendation 1. 4115 W. Dublin Granville Rd. (Leo Alfred Jewelers) BSC Commercial District 2. 4199 W. Dublin- Granville Rd. (La Scala Restaurant); 3.4261 W. Dublin- Granville Rd (Oakland Nursery); 4. 42694285 W. Dublin - Granville Rd. (Tommy's Pizza); 5. 4300 W. Dublin- Granville Rd. (Joseph Auto Group); 6. 4340 W. Dublin- Granville Rd. (Acura Columbus); BSC Office District PZC Comments The Commission recommended that the properties along West Dublin- Granville Road east of the Scioto River be zoned BSC Commercial District as requested by property owners. Planning Ana /ysis Although the names of the BSC zoning districts may suggest an emphasis on a particular use, each district in reality permits a wide mix of uses — in fact, the uses in most districts have been expanded since the Commission's initial review of the draft code in response to this concern. 7.4351 Dale Drive (Dublin Unlike the current Zoning Code, the provisions related to the Bridge Street Imaging and Sports Corridor are intended to work in concert. This is especially evident in how the Medical Office) individual districts are established. These code provisions cover a wide area, and therefore being able to accentuate the development character of each portion of the Corridor is critical to make sure that each district feels distinct yet complementary to adjacent districts. Accordingly, the intent statements for each district (Section 153.058) must be read in concert with the uses, building types, and other requirements that are specific to each district. Each is used to form the districts' character. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 10 of 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations West Dublin- Granville These two districts, in particular, are intended to have distinctly different Road Commercial Sites characters; one as multi -story buildings providing strong employment centers 1.4115 W. Dublin Granville with limited and complementary retail and services uses, the other to be used in Rd. (Leo Alfred Jewelers) select locations to concentrate larger scale retail and commercial uses. Each are 2.4199 W. Dublin- Granville encouraged to include residential components. These distinctions must be Rd. (La Scala maintained to allow the City to express its development intent, consistent with Restaurant); the Vision Report. 3.4261 W. Dublin- Granville Rd (Oakland Nursery); The market analysis completed for the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report 4.4269-4285 W. Dublin- suggests that opportunities will emerge over time for small- and mid -size office Granville Rd. (Tommy's and hotel development capitalizing on the high visibility along West Dublin - Pizza); Granville Road, with complementary housing and retail reinforcing the expected 5.4300 W. Dublin- Granville pedestrian- oriented environments north and south of West Dublin- Granville Road. Rd. (Joseph Auto Group); The Dublin- Granville Road "character" district (District 5) is intended to serve as 6.4340 W. Dublin- Granville an employment center to complement higher concentrations of mixed -use Rd. (Acura Columbus); development in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District and higher residential densities interior to the Corridor. 7. 4351 Dale Drive (Dublin Imaging and Sports Medical Office) The Vision Report and market analysis also called for more concentrated retail and entertainment centers, developed as neighborhoods, rather than as traditional linear, or "strip" centers common to suburban development patterns. Acquiescing to the individual requests of property owners for commercial zoning directly contradicts the Vision Report both in intent and character and creates the potential for a commercial strip catering to an automobile oriented character and lacking the desired urban, walkable environment. In addition, during the 2007 Community Plan Update discussions, City Council strongly and specifically cautioned against allowing an overabundance of future retail development following this pattern. As the existing retail market is struggling in this and other areas of the Bridge Street Corridor, this highly linear retail pattern would diminish the ability to achieve the synergy that a consolidated, critical mass of retail development can create. Planning continues to recommend that these sites remain in the previously proposed BSC Office District to remain consistent with the BSC Vision Report. This is with the understanding that significant effort has gone into protecting existing buildings and uses in the Corridor. Goody CiancyAnaiysis and Recommendation: BSC Office "While Bridge Street is intended to be primarily an office address location, it is also intended to be —like all of the Bridge Street Corridor —a lively mixed -use area, and higher density housing should be permitted along with office, ground floor retail, and other appropriate commercial uses... W -ZHA [commercial market analysis consultant] emphasized that a creating a cohesive walkable environment, rather than piecemeal redevelopment, would spur new investment of office and related jobs - producing development —in effect all property owners on and near Bridge Street will benefit from consistent zoning, appropriate zoning." City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 11 of 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations West Dublin- Granville Road Office & Commercial Sites PZC Recommended District II Planning Recommendation BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District IE_ 1. 6555 Dublin Center Dr. (vacant parcel south of Lowe's); 2. 6505 Dublin Center Dr. (Mellow Mushroom restaurant); 3. 3800 W. Dublin- Granville Rd (Fifth Third Bank; 2 parcels); 4. 3750 W. Dublin- Granville Rd. (Speedway gas station; 2 parcels); 5. 6451 — 6495 Sawmill Road (Dent Magic, Waterbeds N Stuff, Piada; vacant commercial property) BSC Office District PZC Comments Commission members commented that development along the north side of West Dublin- Granville Road near the intersection with Dublin Center Drive should relate more to development in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District to the north as a gateway from State Route 161, and that these parcels seem less suited to the recommended BSC Office District development along this roadway. Planning Ana /ysis However, the intent of this neighborhood district is to allow larger - scale, coordinated development sites to develop over time as part of a larger Development Plan for these areas. Further, the neighborhood districts are intended to establish relatively concentrated areas of a critical mass of mixed use and commercial development in a walkable area. The more dispersed these areas become, the less likely it is that a true neighborhood center can emerge. Given the objective of the Vision Plan to establish West Dublin- Granville Road as a distinctive office "address" street and to ensure that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District remains relatively compact and walkable, Planning recommends BSC Office District for the parcels along West Dublin- Granville Road south of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. There may be opportunities to achieve the Commission's objectives but remain in the BSC Office by using development methods to maximize visibility to the entertainment and shopping- oriented mixed use development anticipated in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District north of State Route 161. Goody ClancyAnalysis and Recommendation: BSC Office "[The Vision Report provides clear goals for the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District: The Sawmill District is a prime location to establish a major walkable mixed -use district, owing to its proximity to the I -270 interchange at Sawmill Road and the consolidated ownership of more than 50 acres of land on the current Dublin Village Center site. This district concept depends on the incorporation of enough complementary activities into a dense, pedestnan- oriented network of mixed -use buildings and blocks to form a critical mass that is active weekdays, evenings and weekends alike.' [emphasis added by Goody Clancy] appropriate to achieve the goals adopted by Council." "Because, due to its size and prominence, the character and quality of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District will have a significant impact on the ability to achieve the city's goals for the larger Bridge Street Corridor, zoning for adjacent parcels should depend on which zoning will contribute most effectively toward achieving the city's goals articulated above]... BSC Office is fully City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 12 of 18 Village Parkway Commercial Sites Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations 1. 6801 & 6851 Village Parkway (Byers Dealership); 2. 6671 Village Parkway (Charles Penzone Salon); 3. Parcel 273 - 009121 (Parking lot); 4. Parcel 273 - 009152 (Stormwater Retention) PZC Recommended District L Planning Recommendation BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood BSC Residential District District ]E PZC Comments Some Commissioners commented on the amount of residential development shown in the area recommended for the BSC Residential District. The Commissioners also requested that more commercial uses be permitted in this residential district to reinforce the mixed use character of all portions of the Bridge Street Corridor. The Commission recommended the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District for the existing commercial properties west of Village Parkway to address these concerns and better accommodate the existing property owners, and to allow commercial uses to better coordinate with development on both sides of Village Parkway. Planning Ana /ysis A critical mass of residential development is necessary for the Corridor to succeed. Without it, the Corridor lacks the vitality and sense of community needed to create the character called for in the Vision Report. It is also important to preserve areas that are predominantly residential in character, with a complementary mix of service uses to enhance the daily quality of life for the residents. The BSC Residential District allows higher residential densities to support the commercial and mixed use development in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District to the east and the BSC Office District to the south. Some of the available zoning is taken up by existing residential neighborhoods (Greystone Mews and Sycamore Ridge), but these projects lack the necessary density. While the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District recommends a mixed use character, preliminary concepts for potential redevelopment of this neighborhood show mixed residential development on the west end of the district to support the more intense development within the shopping corridor and adjacent areas. Planning therefore continues to recommend BSC Residential for these parcels. Goody Clancy Analysis and Recommendation: BSC Residential (Refer to West Dublin- Granville Road Office and Commercial sites, above, page 11 of 19) City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 13 of 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations Tuller Road Offices J I 4353 Tuller Ridge PZC Recommended District Planning Recommendation �I Drive property be zoned BSC Residential District to preserve some of this zoning district, since the Commissioners recommended that other districts recommended for BSC Residential District along the west side of Village Parkway be zoned BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. BSC Residential District BSC Office Residential District PZC Comments At the December 8 2011 meeting the Commissioners recommended that this Planning Ana /ysis Although this zoning district would contribute to the critical mass of residential development in the Corridor, this property is currently developed with a single - story office campus. The BSC Office Residential District is recommended for this property because it will allow flexibility in the future for residential development, should the owners decide to redevelop this site, but the existing office development, or future commercial development on this site, serves as a transition from commercial development located on the east side of Riverside C Bridge Pointe Shopping r Center 1. 6494 — 6548 Riverside Drive (multiple parcels); 2. 6490 Riverside Drive (Tim Horton's Restaurant) PZC Recommended District Planning Recommendation BSC Commercial District BSC Office District PZC Comments The Commissioners questioned the recommendation of BSC Office District for this existing shopping center given its existing use, and considering the parcel across West Dublin- Granville Road is recommended for the BSC Commercial District. Planning Analysis The Bridge Pointe shopping center is located at a critical intersection for establishing the development character for the Bridge Street Corridor, Riverside Drive and the city as a whole. City Council recently approved the further study of a roundabout solution for the Riverside Drive and SR 161 intersection. Accordingly, this property is more likely to have a greater presence on and relationship to Riverside Drive. `I This means that there are important opportunities associated with this site to make connections to the smaller -scale commercial and residential uses in the Historic District to the west across the Scioto River and to other residential and office related uses that will be developed north along Riverside Drive. The BSC Office District will reinforce the function of this site as a critical gateway into the Historic District and Riverside Drive, and will set the tone for the land use char acter of adjacen areas. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 14 of 18 B North Riverview Street Residential Lots 1. 17 — 53 North Riverview Street; 2. 40 N. Blacksmith Lane Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendations As noted earlier, the Existing Uses (153.059(A)(6)) and Existing Structures (153.062(B)(2)) provisions of the BSC regulations will accommodate the existing development until the owner chooses to redevelop the property. These regulations were originally requested by this owner to accommodate this particular property. Planning had at one time considered changing its recommended zoning for the Shoppes at River Ridge to BSC Office. Ultimately this was not carried forward for several reasons, such as the age of the center, its topographic separation from Riverside Drive, and its ability to serve as a smaller retail and service center. Planning recommends BSC Office District for this site. Goody ClancyAnalysis and Recommendation: BSC Office (R efer to West Dublin- Granville Ro ad Commercial sites, above) Architectural Review Board Recommendations ARB Recommended District — Planning Recommendation B SC Historic Residential District I BSC Historic Core District ARB Comments The Architectural Review Board commented that the six homes located on these lots are important to preserving the historic scale and character of the Historic District, and that these lots should be zoned BSC Historic Residential District to ensure that these structures remain. PZC Comments The Commissioners acknowledged the Architectural Review Board's desire to preserve the existing residential structures as an important element of preserving the unique scale and character of the Historic District. However, the Commissioners commented that there are important opportunities for redevelopment of these parcels, which have been consolidated under the ownership of a single entity, and the potential redevelopment of these lots could lend vibrancy and activity to the Historic District provided the development is appropriately scaled and designed to respect the historic context. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends BSC Historic Core District for these parcels. Planning Ana /ysis There are competing views for these properties, each with valid arguments. The historic inventories for these properties produced by Historic Preservation consultants generally state that, taken individually, there is little to distinguish these structures either historically or architecturally. However, when taken as a whole, these properties along North Riverview Street are representative of the small scale village character that is a part of Dublin's history. Additionally, given the relatively small area of Historic Dublin, the preservation of existing structures City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 15 of 18 Architectural Review Board Recommendations that provide a connection to Dublin's past takes on an increased importance. The Architectural Review Board noted this in supporting their recommendation that these existing residential properties should be recognized and preserved through a residential zoning classification. Alternatively, as these residential properties are 'cut -off from the rest of the historic residential properties south of Bridge Street they may be more closely associated with the commercial land use character north of Bridge Street in the future. As the properties have currently been assembled under a common ownership, they possess the potential for significant development opportunities that are not presently available elsewhere in Historic Dublin. Under a careful, contextually scaled redevelopment scenario, these consolidated parcels could contribute a critical mass of coordinated commercial and residential uses that would enhance the vitality of Historic Dublin. This is the view envisioned in the 2007 Community Plan and the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan for this area. Additionally, with the BSC Historic Core and BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood districts recommended for the parcels to the north and west of these lots, the BSC Historic Core District is more appropriate than the BSC Historic Residential District (which only allows low - density residential land uses) to better relate to the adjacent districts. As with other existing development in the Bridge Street Corridor, the Existing Use provisions of 153.059(A)(6) and Existing Structures provisions of §153.062(6)(2) of the BSC Code would permit the existing uses and structures to be continued and expanded in accordance with these sections. Additionally, all applications within both BSC Historic Residential and BSC Historic Core Districts are under the purview of the ARB, and all proposed demolitions of structures in these districts must meet criteria set forth in §153.176 of the ARB Code. Planning recommends the BSC Historic Core District for these parcels. 155 South High Street c ARB Recommended District Planning Recommendation (Checchio Residence) BSC Historic Residential BSC Historic Residential Planning Ana /ysis The parcels designated BSC Historic Residential district have existing residential uses and are intended to ensure new development is compatible with the historic character of these uses and to minimize impact on adjacent residential development not within the Bridge Street Corridor. John Wright Lane, north of this site, has been considered as the limit for commercial development to ensure that it does not encroach into adjacent residential areas. The Architectural Review Board agreed with Planning's recommendation for this site, and therefore the BSC Historic Residential District is recommended for this City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 16 of 18 Analysis Zoning Map Amendment Process Code Section 153.232(B) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to review amendments to the zoning map and to the zoning ordinance and make a recommendation of action to Council. The Commission should review the proposed amendment, provide input where necessary, and vote on the proposal. The draft Zoning Map amendment will be forwarded to City Council for final review and action. Compatibility with Future Land Use applicable land use Although the 2007 Community Plan was adopted prior to the commencement of policies the Bridge Street Corridor planning efforts, the Sawmill /SR 161 Area Plan identifies the portions of the Bridge Street Corridor east of the Scioto River for a coordinated mix of office, retail, and mixed residential uses. The Plan also emphasizes establishing a strong sense of place that facilitates pedestrian - oriented environments, and providing an enhanced approach to Historic Dublin, all of which is consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. The proposed rezoning will achieve these objectives, with a coordinated approach to land use, transportation network considerations, and open space character, through the comprehensive vision for the areas within the Sawmill /SR 161 Area Plan, the Historic Dublin Area Plan, and the areas to the west and north of the Historic District that were not included in an area plan. Bridge Street Corridor Vision The plan for the Bridge Street Corridor is to create a vibrant, walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types. The Vision for the Corridor reinforces the City's long -term competitiveness and promotes fiscal health and adaptability by creating new environments and amenities that will help retain, expand and attract the next generation of residents, employees and businesses to Dublin while remaining a center of community for all Dublin residents. The proposed zoning into BSC zoning districts will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Stre Corridor Visio r_ Recommendation Approval to City Council for Zoning Map Amendments II (Map Dated November 10, 2011) Approval Planning recommends approval of the proposed BSC zoning districts as depicted on the draft Zoning Map dated November 10, 2011 following a recommendation on Zoning Code Sections 153.057 -066 (the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code). City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 17 of 18 Bridge Street Corridor Area Rezoning - Affected Parcels 212 - 000129, 273- 000001, 273 - 000002, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000004, 273 - 000005, 273 - 000007, 273 - 000008, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000012, 273 - 000013, 273 - 000014, 273 - 000015, 273 - 000016, 273 - 000018, 273 - 000019, 273 - 000020, 273 - 000022, 273 - 000023, 273 - 000024, 273 - 000025, 273 - 000027, 273 - 000028, 273 - 000029, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000032, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000034, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000036, 273 - 000037, 273 - 000038, 273 - 000039, 273 - 000040, 273- 000042, 273 - 000043, 273- 000044, 273 - 000045, 273 - 000046, 273 - 000047, 273 - 000048, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000050, 273 - 000051, 273 - 000052, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000056, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000060, 273 - 000061, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000063,273- 000066, 273 - 000067, 273 - 000068, 273 - 000069, 273 - 000070, 273 - 000071, 273 - 000072, 273 - 000073, 273 - 000074, 273 - 000075, 273 - 000077, 273 - 000078, 273 - 000079, 273 - 000080, 273 - 000081, 273- 000083, 273 - 000084, 273 - 000085, 273 - 000086, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000088, 273 - 000089, 273 - 000090, 273 - 000091, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000093, 273 - 000094, 273 - 000096, 273 - 000097, 273 - 000098, 273 - 000099, 273 - 000100, 273 - 000101, 273 - 000102, 273 - 000104, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000106, 273 - 000107, 273- 000108, 273 - 000109, 273- 000110, 273 - 000111, 273 - 000112, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000118, 273 - 000121, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000123, 273 - 000124, 273- 000125, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000127, 273 - 000128, 273 - 000129, 273 - 000130, 273 - 000131, 273 - 000132, 273 - 000133, 273- 000134, 273 - 000135, 273 - 000136, 273 - 000137, 273 - 000138,273- 000139, 273 - 000141, 273 - 000143, 273 - 000144, 273 - 000170, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000205, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273- 000208, 273 - 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000211, 273 - 000212, 273 - 000213, 273 - 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000257, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000262, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000270, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000274, 273 - 000286, 273 - 000310, 273 - 000313, 273 - 000315, 273 - 000321, 273 - 000324, 273 - 000329, 273 - 000344, 273 - 000405, 273 - 000415, 273 - 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 000787, 273 - 000788, 273 - 000794, 273 - 000797, 273 - 000989, 273 - 001186, 273 - 001308, 273 - 001348, 273 - 001349, 273 - 001350, 273 - 001530, 273 - 001684, 273 - 001940, 273 - 001976, 273 - 001978, 273 - 002075, 273 - 002457, 273 - 002458, 273 - 002459, 273 - 002460, 273 - 002463, 273 - 002474, 273 - 002485, 273 - 002892, 273 - 002893, 273 - 002895, 273 - 002897, 273 - 003410, 273 - 003411, 273 - 003513, 273 - 003680, 273 - 003800, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273 - 004079, 273 - 004080, 273 - 004081, 273- 004507, 273 - 005564, 273 - 005565, 273 - 005566, 273 - 007473, 273 - 008206, 273 - 008242, 273 - 008243, 273 - 008244, 273- 008245, 273 - 008246, 273 - 008247, 273 - 008249, 273 - 008257, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008261, 273 - 008264, 273 - 008266, 273 - 008269, 273 - 008275, 273 - 008277, 273 - 008279, 273 - 008280, 273- 008284, 273 - 008285, 273 - 008286, 273 - 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008296, 273 - 008304, 273 - 008305, 273 - 008306, 273 - 008307, 273 - 008308, 273 - 008309, 273 - 008310, 273 - 008311, 273 - 008312, 273 - 008313, 273 - 008314, 273 - 008315, 273 - 008316, 273 - 008327, 273 - 008328, 273 - 008329, 273 - 008330, 273 - 008331, 273 - 008332, 273 - 008333, 273 - 008334, 273 - 008335, 273 - 008358, 273 - 008361, 273 - 008373, 273 - 008375, 273 - 008377, 273 - 008381, 273 - 008802, 273- 008805, 273 - 008811, 273 - 008813, 273 - 008820, 273 - 008827, 273 - 008831, 273 - 008832, 273 - 008833, 273 - 008834, 273 - 008838, 273 - 008856, 273 - 008857, 273 - 008858, 273 - 008859, 273 - 008867, 273 - 008868, 273 - 008869, 273 - 008872, 273 - 008907, 273 - 008908, 273 - 008913, 273 - 008957, 273 - 008958, 273 - 008994, 273 - 008995, 273 - 008998, 273 - 009030, 273 - 009035, 273 - 009043, 273 - 009044, 273 - 009045, 273 - 009054, 273 - 009055, 273- 009077, 273 - 009079, 273 - 009080, 273 - 009081, 273 - 009082, 273 - 009083, 273 - 009084, 273 - 009085, 273 - 009086, 273 - 009088, 273 - 009090, 273 - 009093, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009095, 273 - 009096, 273 - 009099, 273 - 009101, 273 - 009118, 273 - 009119, 273 - 009121, 273 - 009124, 273 - 009127, 273 - 009128, 273 - 009129, 273 - 009130, 273 - 009145, 273 - 009146, 273 - 009147, 273 - 009148, City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 11- 021ADM I Zoning Map Amendment Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Area Zoning Thursday, February 2, 2012 1 Page 18 of 18 273 - 009149, 273 - 009150, 273 - 009152, 273 - 009153, 273 - 009323, 273 - 009324, 273 - 009512, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009750, 273 - 009971, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009973, 273 - 009979, 273 - 010154, 273 - 010207, 273 - 010405, 273-011148, 273 - 011175, 273 - 011235, 273 - 011236, 273 - 012066, 273 - 012067, 273 - 012068,273- 012069, 273 - 012138, 273 - 012149, 273 - 012158, 273 - 012170, 273 - 012181, 273 - 012182, 273 - 012183, 273 - 012184, 273 - 012199, 273 - 012200, 273 - 012218,273- 012229, 273 - 012261, 273 - 012264, 273 - 012285, 273 - 012295, 273 - 012311, 273 - 012325, 273 - 012342. 273 - 009154, 273 - 009155, 273 - 009322, 273 - 009733, 273 - 009734, 273 - 009749, 273 - 009974, 273 - 009975, 273 - 009978, 273 - 010406, 273 - 010864, 273 - 010936, 273 - 012062, 273 - 012064, 273 - 012065, 273 - 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273 - 012185, 273 - 012193, 273 - 012198, 273 - 012245, 273 - 012251, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012296, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301, City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www. dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF DISCUSSION JANUARY 24, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.065 Site Development Standards (Parking and Loading, Landscaping and Tree Preservation, Fencing Walls and Screening, Exterior Lighting, and Signs) and 153.066 Review and Approval Procedures. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Absent Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director 7 11 ity uf Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Red Ci C 43016 1236 deal 614410 400 He 614410 4747 PLANNING JOB ZONING COMMISSION [ i MEETING MINUTES JANUPRY 24, 2012 AGENDA 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11 -020ADM Pilministrative Request Char Chris Amomse Groomes called the meeting to order at630 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance Other Commission members present were Richard Taylor, Amy Kamb, Todd Zimmerman, Joe Butltle, and John Hardt Warren Fishman was absent City representatives were Jennifer Readier Steve Langworthy, Claudia Husak Jonnlfer Rauch, Rachel Ray, Eugenia Martin Justin Goodwin, Gary Gunderman, Jeannie Willis, Eagan Foster, Tina Wawszkiewi¢ and Flora Rogers . Motion and Vote Richard Taylor made a motion to accept He documents Into the record as presented Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motlon. The vote was as fidlesa'. Ms. Amomse Groomes, yes, Ms. Kamb, yes, Mr. Hai yes, Mr. Butltle, yes, Mr. Zimmerman, yes, and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 -0) Pilmmistrafive Business Rachel Ray reminded the Commissioners Hot He American Planning Association National Conference Is scheduled April Fo through April 1i and If any of He Commission members planned to attend, they should contact Flora Rogers Jorge the February F6 early bird registration deadline. Steve Langworthy stated that the Planning Commissioner Joumal that the Commissioners receive in their packets recently announced thatthey are going to cease publication. Me Amended Groomes noted that she had heard discussion at the previous Cm Council meeting about a possible update to the sign regulations of the Zoning Code. Pipe asked Mn LangwoMy what was planned with regard to this modiFlcation, Mn LangwoMy reported that at the previous Councl meeting, Planning was asked to prepare a memo with information about how to teatslgn colors and secondary Images. He said Hat Planning had dratted coo describing how signs are regulated in the innovation districts (EAZ), what is proposed ter Bridge Street and what exists in the remainder of the Zoning Code, in addition to requirements ter the various PODS with separate sign provisions throughout the city. He reported that Council had instructed staff to puttorward a proposal that is similar to the first part of the sign regulations proposed ter Bridge Street with respect to the logo areas counting as one color with two additional colors, as long as the logo Isles Han 20 percent of the sign area He stated that the modification would be brought forward to he Commission at the .February 16 meeting Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She announced that there is only one case on the agenda and public comment would be taken following each section reviewing landscape, signs, and process. 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Commission would begin their review with Code Section 153.065, Site Development Standards. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (B) Parking and Loading John Hardt asked if a shared parking agreement were to end, would the property be required to be brought into compliance, and if so, if there should be a time limit within which compliance should be required. Steve Langworthy said that the compliance would not be treated as a strict enforcement issue, but the property owner would be contacted and they would be given a reasonable time to comply. Rachel Ray pointed out that the Code allows various provisions for reducing the overall required parking, whether it occurs through a parking plan, shared parking arrangement, or transportation demand management, and the owner would have the opportunity to pursue a reduction in their overall parking need before they would have to provide more parking. Amy Kramb suggested adding "within a reasonable time as determined by the Director." Mr. Langworthy agreed to the modification. Mr. Hardt noted that the bulk of page 80 deals with parking reduction, with the exception of transportation demand management activities, "off peak work scheduling." He asked what effect, if any, transportation demand management and off peak work scheduling has on parking. Mr. Langworthy said that it is one of the most effective measures, because if an employer can manage their shifts, it will lower demand at any given time. He commented that it probably works better in office environments. Richard Taylor referred to the parking reduction due to transit proximity, and said that he understood the idea about the transit stop and the reduction of off street parking spaces, but transit could include several different modes, including COTA, and he knew that their transit stops could be moved. He wondered if the last line was appropriate, because the odds of the stop location changing were probably pretty good. He recalled that they had previously discussed deferred parking arrangement allowing for smaller parking areas as long as the original site plan allows space to provide the full parking arrangement, even if it was not constructed initially. He was concerned that if the transit stop went away, there may be no way to increase the parking. He asked if something similar should be contemplated here. Justin Goodwin said that could be an option, but it could be a draw back if they approach densities at some point in the future that suggests that they could depend on a transit line, and saving space for deferred parking may unnecessarily limit density, but he noted that if that is the case, they could change the Code in the future as well. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Hardt asked if it would be reasonable to allow the parking reduction as long as the site is located along a transit line. Mr. Taylor pointed out that a transit line could move. Mr. Goodwin noted that the intent was to avoid penalizing someone for something that is out of their control, such as if the transit stop moved, but it was intended to be based on current conditions at the time of development, and the idea was that there would be a reasonable expectation that there would be transit and although the line may shift, given the size of the area, the impact of the transit line moving would be minimal. Mr. Taylor requested that the language be reviewed to ensure a property owner could still fulfill parking requirements if the conditions changed. Mr. Goodwin said Planning would look at the language originally drafted for deferred parking. Todd Zimmerman confirmed with Mr. Hardt that the requirements for bicycle racks allowing for U -locks had been adequately addressed in the Code. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the width of the entrance for parking structures can only have a single entrance lane in certain districts, but the limitation is not required in other districts. She asked why it would not be desirable in the other districts as well. Mr. Goodwin said that there had originally been a variety of provisions that were specific to the neighborhood districts, but many of them have been generalized to all of the districts, and perhaps this is one that should be generalized as well. Mr. Taylor commented that on page 85, he would like to add a restriction that loading docks could not face any residential districts. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the landscape requirements on page 86 and asked why only 50 percent of the landscape beds were required to be covered within 4 years, and why a higher requirement was not required. Jeannie Martin said there are some cases where there are rain gardens that are not entirely covered by plant material, and there will be mulch to help the water percolate into the ground. She noted that there are other areas where rock may be used, and that is why the requirement is 50 percent at a minimum. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Code should then call out the areas where lower coverage would be appropriate, and requiring higher coverage elsewhere. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked regarding Table 153.065 -D, if there is an existing survey of street trees in the Bridge Street Corridor of the spacing of street trees and if the table is consistent with that. Ms. Martin said that Planning worked with the City Forester to develop these requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the requirement on page 88 stating, no persons shall by any type of construction reduce the size of a tree lawn orstreetscape planting zone without prior written approval to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 DRAFT the City Engineer. She suggested adding a requirement limiting wire or light attachments for more than 4 months at a time. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the requirement on page 89 stating one tree and five evergreen or deciduous shrubs shall be provided for every 25 lineal feet of boundary lot line. She said that they had previously discussed how the Commission did not want shrubs and plant material to be spaced evenly, but that they should be clustered instead. Ms. Martin said that Planning had tried to capture that intent on page 88 in the intent section. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that additional language be provided to state that the landscaping be appropriate to the design. Ms. Martin agreed to elaborate on the intent statement. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that at least a five -foot wide landscape buffer with a two and half overhang is required for the perimeter buffering. Ms. Martin said that requirement specifically relates to perimeter landscape buffering, and vehicle overhang area is the edge of the parking area, where the intent is to allow for car bumper overhang. Ms. Amorose Groomes said where there is overhang, the landscape bed should then be larger with a five foot clear plant bed, exclusive of the overhang area. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why the large deciduous trees with a seven foot clear height would be eliminated from Table 153.065 -13, because she thought in the parking areas and buffering the canopy provides a lot of buffering. Ms. Martin said they were trying to soften the look of walls and fences but could add or deciduous trees and eliminate ornamental trees. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that all parking lot islands and peninsulas should be required to provide structural soil, and a requirement about the soil specifications should be provided in the applicant guide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why turf was not a permitted material to be used in landscape islands. Ms. Martin said that Planning was concerned with maintenance issues resulting from larger mower decks jumping the curb and scalping the turf, and that was why it was only recommended for larger landscape areas. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that on page 92 the Code is still using the timber term of diameter at breast height rather than caliper and she was not sure why they would want to use a logging term in the landscape section. Ms. Martin said that diameter breast height is defined in the existing Zoning Code and the city utilizes for existing trees to determine tree replacement. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that anyone in the industry would have less clarity with diameter at breast height because it is not a term used in the landscape industry. Ms. Martin suggested changing to the six inch caliper as measured at the diameter breast height. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said Planning would talk with the City Forester about the wording Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to page 93 and asked if they had fixed the hole in the Code that would potentially allow a property owner to clear their property before submitting an application for development. Jennifer Readier said that it would be difficult to prevent someone from clearing a site before there is a development application to trigger tree preservation and replacement, due to private property rights. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (E) Fencing Walls and Screening Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the prohibited materials for fences or walls and suggested that they be limited to materials used for fencing, and not materials not otherwise intended to be used for a fence to clarify the issue with the recycled materials. Mr. Hardt said it appears that the Code would prohibit the use of chain link fencing during construction, but they would need to be able to secure a site against theft. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that retaining walls should be measured from the elevated side. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that stacked stone street walls with the book shelf top should be encouraged throughout the Corridor, but required in the BSC Historic Core District. Mr. Taylor pointed out that on page 94, unfinished CMU is listed for dumpster enclosures, and stated that it should be changed to allow decorative CMU. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the solid hedge and post street wall, and stated that for a solid hedge, she would like to strike vines, because that will not get them the desired result. She said the ground on the street side of the hedge wall shall be landscaped with ground cover exclusive with grass only if it is less than 18 inches wide, if it is more it could be a combination of ground cover or turf. Ms. Amorose Groomes said on page 95, utility box doors should be oriented to open towards buildings or the least visible side. Mr. Hardt referred to the off street loading area requirements on page 95 and suggested that the language be changed to the same primary materials, finish and level of detail as the principal structure and that access doors should be required to be self - closing. 153.065 Site Development Standards; (F) Exterior Lighting Mr. Hardt asked if there are any types of lighting that should be prohibited, such as sodium vapor, and if there is anything they want to encourage, such as LED. Ms. Ray said Planning would check the rest of the Zoning Code for consistency with the types of lighting, and noted that they have changed how they calculate light levels from watts to lumens, which is heading that direction in terms of LED. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they were finished with the landscaping section and asked if there was any public comment. [There was none.] 153.065 Site Development Standards; (H) Signs Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said he had forwarded material to Planning regarding the sign requirements, but much of it had to do with encouraging more creativity in signs and looking at making sure that they are seeing signs in the Bridge Street Corridor as something very unique and different. He said there is a lot of restriction on size, number spacing, color, but not much to encourage quality and creativity. He had suggested to staff to make stronger statements about the expectations in terms of character and quality. He said there were a lot of examples of good sign plans that he had found, and that he had forwarded the requirements for Crocker Park to incorporate language to regulate quality and would like the reviewing bodies to have a sign standard that is high with a wide open door for sign opportunity. Mr. Taylor said he would like added to Intent and General Purpose section, "ensure that signage used by individual businesses will contribute to the vital ty interest and uniqueness of the Bridge Street Corridor, ensure that signage encourages pedestrian activity and recognizes the critical importance of signage at multiple scales to enhance that activity, ensure that signs adhere to a high level of design and construction quality'. Mr. Taylor said under the General Provisions section, under Master Sign Plans, that Master Sign Plans should be required for all projects with multiple tenants, for all projects with two or more signs, and for all projects required to submit a Development Plan or a Site Plan. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be the reviewing body for all the master sign plans. Mr. Taylor said under section 4, Site Design and Lighting, he is concerned about internally illuminated signs and that the requirement should be changed to read, "Internally illuminated pan channel signs individual letters may be allowed only if the applicant demonstrates a commitment to the maximum of creativity and the highest quality of materials and fabrication', which gives them a lot of flexibility to judge that sign for quality. Mr. Langworthy said if a master sign plan is required for all projects with multiple tenants that would mean two tenants would have to have a master sign plan. Mr. Taylor said it wouldn't be much of one, but a plan would be needed to ensure compatibility of the individual signs. Mr. Langworthy said the suggested language would require all projects or every building to have a master sign plan. Mr. Taylor said the point is to show the importance of the signs in this area. Mr. Hardt said they are talking about the initial development of the building, not every time a sign is changed out. Mr. Taylor agreed and said the changing of the signs would be incorporated into the procedures for the process. Mr. Langworthy suggested building the sign plan into the Basic Plan Review so an applicant would not have to come back to the Commission just for a sign plan. Mr. Taylor said his intent is that an applicant would establish an overall plan to establish sign locations and quality in the beginning, and that would apply for all future signs as tenants switch out. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the sign requirements. [There was none.] 153.06 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment before the Commission began their review of the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Suite 480, said that his comments for the procedures are related to Dublin Village Center specifically, which is within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. He explained that they have a reciprocal easement on their property that prohibits them from doing certain things at this time, although they are working to eliminate this easement with the adjacent property owner of the former BYs property. He stated that in the agreement that is on the title and on record prohibits both properties from developing in certain ways, such as multi - family and it even has very specific locations for buildings and they cannot be situated where buildings have their backs to other buildings. He said they are stuck with this agreement and they have to work with it. He stated that if the Bridge Street Corridor zoning is placed on their property, they will have extremely limited options since they would not be able to adhere to the Code because they are locked out by the reciprocal easement. He said they have been stripped of their property rights and asked for an alternative means of approval through the PUD process. Mr. McCauley said he can see how limiting this Code is and if he owned the Oakland Nursery property, under the new Code he stated that all new development would be required to be up on the street with two stories, and he would not be able to do that on the Dublin Village Center property because of the limitations on the development. He said that, as a result, they would have to continue making small improvements but would not be able to redevelop. He stated that everyone should have an alternative means of development if they do not want to or cannot adhere to the Code requirements, or if the market will not accept that type of development, or if they want to do something different. He said that the market driven projects are likely going to include things we could not think of today. He said that a few years ago, everyone wanted a Barnes and Noble or a Border's in their stores or malls, and that is a thing of the past today, because now with the internet, you do not know if an anchor will succeed because things are changing so fast. Mr. McCauley pointed out that two new malls were built in Columbus in 20 years and no one thought that would happen. He said that this is a 40 year plan, or longer, and this zoning is too limited because there are no avenues to pursue other opportunities. He said he does not know where the market is going and he is busting it every day and doesn't know how a consultant or staff can say, but this is what is it with this economy. He said that the City says they want to be market driven, but there is so much detail in the Code for them as a developer to try to follow that there will definitely be things they are not aware of today or know what they are doing because things change and the sites are different. He said that although there are waivers and minor modifications in there today, that is not enough. He said they will not be able to react to what they need to and the Code is cumbersome and difficult to read and hard to follow and there is a lot of going back and re- reading chapters and flipping around. He said he understands the current Zoning Code and he can go to a site and know what he can do with layout and development. He said that with this Code he would not be able to do that, he would need to sit down with architects and attorneys and make sure he can do his development or building. Mr. McCauley said that he would love to do all of it if they could, and in fact they have a plan that shows how the phasing could occur that they are going to share, that he believes is responsive to the market and is in fact a greener plan because they can reuse some of the buildings. He said he did not believe that the Bridge Street Corridor Code would not allow them to do this phasing plan. He said there are certain things in the Code that require certain things such as a parking garage for any building over certain sizes. He said his concern is that the density is not there. Mr. McCauley commented that they need alternatives to the Bridge Street Code that would include a process similar to the PUD. He said they have an example of the phasing plan, but he said that he is aware that they have a lot of work to do on their site yet. He said they have not had the opportunity to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 DRAFT go through the Code in detail, and he wondered if anyone has tried to design a building under the new code to see if it can be designed to work on a price per square foot basis. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she appreciated Mr. McCauley's concerns and she wondered if they should start by reverse engineering from what can be afforded, and then see what the project looks like, or if they should start with what they would like a project to look like and see if they can afford it in the end. She said that the Commission's charge is to come up with an outstanding urban code, and they have not been asked at this point to think about whether someone could afford to do it, but it is an important point and a decision that needs to be made. Kerry Reeds, MSI, stated that he had drafted a plan very quickly that was not intended to be the plan, but just an example of a potential plan for Dublin Village Center. He said they took a step back and noted that there are a lot of buildings and infrastructure that have a serviceable life still, and it is unlikely that someone will come in and scrape a 60 -acre site clean and start from scratch in one fell swoop. He said the property has tenants that have an interest and this is simply an approach to look at how this site can evolve over time. He thought this plan is closer to the Code, but does not meet the Code. He said there has been some interest in developing multi - family on this site which is illustrated in the north west corner of the site presented on the screen. Mr. Reeds presented a plan showing a proposal to straightening the roadway from Tuller Road south of the BJs site, because there is interest in a three to four story office building approximately 150,000 square feet in area, with surface parking lot located to the north. He said there is an existing building that could be re- purposed into a school, and the theater /family entertainment would be relocated to the BJs site with the existing surface parking lot and potentially outlot restaurants. He said that would be all for the first phase. He said the balance of the site stays as it is, with the existing commercial center, surface parking lot, bank, existing tenant buildings along Sawmill and the existing Applebee's. Mr. Reeds stated that the second phase focuses on the southeastern corner of the center, because they have interest in convenience retail on this portion of the site. He said there is a potential need for a drive - through for a potential drug store with at least short term surface parking. Mr. Reeds stated that the third phase would focus on the center with new retail, multi -story retail /office or multi - family built around the core with an existing drive adjacent to the building that would continue through to the office with a possible parking deck along the west, with a new retail tenant and possible refacing of the existing retail. Mr. Reeds said that the fourth phase would be to add an additional parking garage with the old drive tc get new buildings adjacent to it and the potential for additional office space with an additional parking deck that can service the office as well as the theater. He said there is a need to extend Snouffer Road through this site, which is really important to this development. Mr. McCauley said the extension of Snouffer Road is something that potential tenants have indicated would make a different to this site if they had that connection to Sawmill Road, and they would love to be able to do that on day one. Mr. Reeds said that in all likelihood, this plan, even though it is conceptual, it does adhere to the grid street network and ultimately the streets need to be laid out on a very simplistic format that is very understandable. Mr. McCauley said with not knowing what the future holds, they are asking for an avenue to allow them to go through a process such as the PUD that will not unnecessarily limit them. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. McCauley and Mr. Reeds have provided the Commissioners with quite a bit to think about, and although they had hoped that they would have had a chance to consider Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 DRAFT this a few months ago, late is better than never. She thanked Mr. McCauley and Mr. Reeds and asked if there is anyone else that would like to speak with respect to the Code. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, said that the arrangement that Mr. McCauley described was not unusual for a shopping center, because in fact, in most shopping centers, the major tenants own their own buildings such as Sears, Lazarus, and Macy's, so the easement he is talking about is very common in malls and large shopping centers. Mr. Hale agreed that there is a need for some sort of outlet or exception procedure that would allow applications to come before the Planning Commission. He said they need a way to accommodate the creativity of architects and developers, who are very inventive people that will need a mechanism to allow for those exceptions. He said in Westerville for example, the Planning Commission can give a minor exception, while major exceptions go to their City Council. He thought that waivers and exceptions should not be taken lightly and that developers should need to demonstrate why it is necessary, and ensure that it will not undermine the overall vision. Mr. Hale said that Westerville rezoned all of their vacant land to PUD without any plans, and when developers come in they need to determine if changes are major or minor, and then they go through the review process. He thought that a similar process could apply here. Mr. Langworthy said that Waivers do have to follow the Code, because they have to comply with the spirit and intent of the Vision Report, and they need to demonstrate that the request is caused by unique site conditions or conditions of surrounding properties, but they cannot allow any use, building type, or open space that is not otherwise permitted in the district. Mr. Hale said if you cannot change the building type, than there has to be a mechanism to change anything, when he reads that language. Mr. Langworthy said perhaps if they loosen the waiver language it would solve Mr. Hale's concern. He said that it should be flexible enough that a discretionary reviewing body such as the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to make those alterations. Mr. Hale agreed. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity, owner of the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, said she is all for a predictable, timely, reasonable, and responsible process and thought that the Commission achieved that this past summer when they reviewed the architectural modifications to the Bridge Pointe shopping center. She said she was very pleased with the timeliness and the fact that the Commission was not overreaching. She thought it was a reasonable exchange, that they did some things that they did not want to do, but the Commission had a right to ask for them. She said she likes the current process that is in place because the Commissioners are in the marketplace every day and understand the practicality of the request. Ms. Wollenberg said this is an onerous code that infringes on property rights, and she agreed with many of Mr. McCauley's comments regarding the market and the difficulty of the Code. She said this Code dictates use, and she did not think that anyone could predict use. She said that there was a time in Dublin that it was not a reasonable or predictable process, and if they go back there again, then maybe there is a need for an overhaul. She said this goes to the other extreme, and if she had her choice, she would keep things such as the existing zoning and parking requirements and densities and the current approval process. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that her opinion is that the current process is relatively predictable, efficient in terms of time, and that it is friendly to the development community. Ms. Wollenberg agreed and said that her circumstances are probably different from other developers, but she was pleased with staff with helping her through the process and pleased with the Commission. She Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 DRAFT said they were asked to do things and go further than she would have liked to, but she never felt they were overreaching or making up requirements as they went along or were asking for unreasonable things within a reasonable time frame and she thought she got that with predictable answers. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Wollenberg her thoughts on a middle ground. Ms. Wollenberg said she thought that taking the Commission out of the process is a mistake because they gave real time marketplace perspective, and experienced input was needed. She said that as she looks at the Code and what they would be imposed upon with BSC Commercial or Office, it would be much worse if they were BSC Office, but the construction cost will prohibit them from building market rate buildings, so they would be in the situation Mr. McCauley is talking about, where they couldn't do anything because they would be prohibited by the Code to build the building the market would be willing to pay for, and would be required to build the building that they couldn't lease at market rates because they could not build it at a market cost. She stated that there is a direct connection to cost and rent and this Code disconnects those two and she doesn't think they can predict years the costs associated with the architectural form they are trying to achieve. Mr. McCauley said he has had different experiences through the PUD process and the pains he had during that review and it speaks volumes for him to still say he prefers that process as an option, and it would be his choice to do it. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled Mr. McCauley's recent experience with the skilled nursing facility in the Shamrock Crossing PUD, and asked if that last application was the highest quality of all his applications and did it work out better in the end than it maybe would have in the beginning had it not gone through the Commission's review. Mr. McCauley agreed but thought the applicant was caught in the middle with the Bridge Street Corridor coming down the path and they were trying to do one thing but once they understood the direction that it really was the qualities of the BSC that the Commission was looking for then they were able to adhere to it 95 percent and then it went through real quick, but it took them a long time to get there because it was not clear up to that point. He said that the concept plan allowed them to go through that process, but this last review involved a disconnect, but once they got on the same page at the end they got a better product because of the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak with respect to this application. [There was no one.] Mr. Langworthy requested a five minute break at 9:09 p.m. Ms. Amorose Groomes resumed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission would continue their review with Code Section 153.066, Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Mr. Hardt commented that the discussion this evening has been very interesting. He said his concerns are global in nature and are not new. He said that he still maintains a level of discomfort with this portion of the Code. He stated that this Code is radically different from anything else that has ever existed in Dublin before, with the densities and parking requirements and building heights, and so on. He said that going through the exercise of reviewing the 117 pages of Code has made it clear to him that different people read this Code differently and make different interpretations of the requirements. He said that because of the different interpretations and the fact that it is such a significant departure, he has always maintained that the approval procedures that have been in place all these years ought to remain in place to some Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 DRAFT degree until we know what the outcome will be. He said the market is going to change and evolve, and the Code is untested and is written to be very prescriptive in nature, so he struggles with looking for a way to provide a level of comfort that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public can keep their eyes on the process and make sure they are getting the results that they want while keeping in mind the desire to shorten the process or expedite the process where it is appropriate to do so. Mr. Hardt suggested an option where there is a Basic Plan Review, where developers come in and present a conceptual level of detail to this Commission, and then it goes through the ART. He said in many cases, that will be fine, but in others, that will not work. He said that there are going to be projects that are big and messy and do not fit neatly within all of the boxes and maybe ought to stay on a PUD- like track, where a developer can come to the Commission and negotiate. He said that he would like to see a process written into the Code where a Basic Plan Review occurs, and at that review, the Commission discusses the proposal with the applicant and everyone including the public and staff will look at the project and determine whether it is simple and straight forward or if it is more complex and should come back to the Commission for final approval. He said that would give the developer the opportunity to choose the review. Mr. Hardt said he believed that there is a happy medium in there that if all the interested parties can engage in that dialog very early in a project to have the opportunity to go through one track or another and make that determination early on. He said a similar option could be available in the Bridge Street Corridor to make a determination that a given project is appropriate for the ART track or the Planning and Zoning track with the developer being an active participant in that dialog. He said the Code is as good as it can be and he is proud of the work that has been put into it by everybody involved, but until the development community tries to design a building, they will not know what is going to happen and he is not comfortable with not reviewing some of these projects. Mr. Taylor said he couldn't improve on Mr. Hardt's comments, and he agreed that much of what Mr. Hardt suggested makes a lot of sense. He said the suggestion allows for things they have not thought of yet and it allows the developer to choose to make the process simple and quick or they could propose to risk it and go for something more complex or different and go before the Commission to make their case and allow the public to have input in the process. He said that this would allow the City to promote the new development in the Bridge Street Corridor, and promote the process as being predictable and speedy and allow developers to explore new ideas that may or may not fit the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was also intrigued by what she had heard from the public. She agreed with Mr. Hardt's and Mr. Taylor's concerns with the projects that big and complicated, and she did not feel that at the Basic Plan Review, the City could not have enough information for the public, residents, and corporate citizens to really evaluate what a project will mean for them and their community. She said that the projects that are more difficult should allow the community the opportunity to participate in a longer period of the review process, and she though t that the Planning and Zoning Commission provides that opportunity. She said that she is not yet ready to see if this will work yet, because there is too much at stake. She commented that even though the Bridge Street Corridor is a very small percentage of the city's land area, it is a very important part of the city and the impacts are tremendous. She said that there needs to be a safety valve, and to claim that they have nothing left to learn and that they have figured everything out is a mistake. She said this has been an enormous process and the hours that staff has put into it shows and they have done a fantastic job. She said that the Code is very good, and she is proud of the body of work that went into it, but she is fearful of what she does not know or has not yet considered. She said to stay relevant they have to stay engaged, and that is what this Commission has to be to stay relevant for this Code to remain relevant so they can along the way see the pitfalls and be in a position to fix them along the way. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said Mr. Hardt's suggestion of the Basic Plan coming before the Commission to determine the process is a great idea. Mr. Hardt said it would not be that drastic of a fix, it would be changing the diagram of the process, and he suggested switching the track at the Basic Plan Review which would result in the project working with staff to finalize the details before filing a Development Plan application and then coming to the Commission for approval instead of the ART and then following the permit process. Mr. Taylor said this could be a waiver -Ake review process. Mr. Hardt said page 107 describes the criteria for which the ART can elect to forward a Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission if the application raises complex issues, and the same criteria could be what the Planning and Zoning Commission uses to keep the project or send it on an ART track. Mr. Zimmerman said this is a working document and feels that until this is up and running they don't know how it will work and the document will constantly change, and they should anticipate changes. Mr. Hardt said he agrees and suggests that they put something in the Code that gives applicants options to allow them to review applications the way they do now or on a case by case basis. Mr. Zimmerman said if the developer wants to go through ART all the way through, then they should be able to that as long as it follows the criteria. Joe Budde said if a developer wants to comply with the Code they could go on through the ART process, and thought that is what the developers have said they would like in place, but if it does not comply with everything, then the review stays with the Commission. Mr. Hardt said he heard that the development community might want to request the Commission review if there is some aspect of the Code they can't meet. Mr. Budde said he heard from the consultant, Don Elliott, that this document will continually evolve and he agreed that the Commission will have the opportunity to provide input. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the only problem is if staff came back and said they have experienced a problem with a Code requirement, her concern is that if she had not experienced the concern, she would not be in the best position to know best to address the concern. Mr. Hardt said if the Code is implemented, and issues are discovered at the ART stage, and the Commission does not have an active role in the review of those projects, then when they get a report back from staff saying that the Code did not work right, they would not have the first hand knowledge of understanding of the issues. Mr. Budde said he thought staff would be able to share insight on the issues very well as they have in previous presentations, and the Commission will have an opportunity to learn about the issues. Mr. Taylor said he always appreciates Mr. Fishman's background on projects, because he always seems to remember what happened years ago, and that intimate knowledge of projects will have a lot of value in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Commissioners finish their review on the rest of this section now that they had provided their general concerns with this section. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Mr. Hardt said he thought of a Waiver as a small deviation from the Code, but if the Code requires a parking garage and the development community says the market doesn't support a parking garage, that no longer seemed like a waiver to him. He said that there needed to be an alternative route to deal with that issue. Mr. Langworthy said the name may be wrong, but the effect is the same. He said either way, it allows the Planning Commission to change an element of the Code by not changing the language of the Code itself, but only as it applies to that particular property. Mr. Hardt said on page 107 under review procedures should be changed to any reviewing body, depending on which way an application goes. Mr. Hardt pointed out that on page 110, under Minor Projects, multiple buildings that are eight units or less does not seem like a minor project to him. Mr. Langworthy said he would clarify the language to state eight units in a sin le bui /ding. Mr. Hardt said that redesigning fences does not seem like it would be a minor modification that should be approved administratively. Ms. Ray stated that the language could be modified to not allow the change to apply to street walls, but if it is just a fence on a property in the rear yard of a residential lot, it is probably not something that should come before the Commission every time, as long as it was within the buildable portion of the lot and met Code in terms of height, material, etc. Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any progress made with respect to identifying the submission requirements for the various types of applications. Mr. Langworthy said they will have that before the applicant guide is finished, and they are already working on it, but it would be similar to what is submitted now and would certainly not be less. Ms. Ray said they were working on a check list and would likely require the applicant to provide information up front demonstrating that all requirements had been met, such as transparency, building materials, etc. Mr. Langworthy said their goal is once they go through our process, they only have to go to building permit, and at that point, the only things they need to review are the Building Code elements and all the other issues will have been resolved by the ART. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy about the next steps, now that they had concluded their review of the Code, and asked if the Commissioners should expect a complete, revised Code by Friday. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide the Commissioners with a revised draft by Friday. Claudia Husak said that the Clerk's office has advertised that the ordinance for the area rezoning and the Code will be introduced at City Council on February 13"' and they are getting ready to send out over 500 notices to the property owners for that meeting, so a vote on the code and area rezoning should be scheduled for the meeting next Thursday, February 2r Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that Mr. Langworthy email the revised Review and Approval Procedures and Sign requirements as soon as they are ready to allow the Commissioners as much time as possible to review those sections before the meeting on the 2 rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. I of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin., Ohio 43016 -1236 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410 sa.g ov www.dublino hiou RECORD OF DISCUSSION sa.g JANUARY 19, 2012 DRAFT' The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: S. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.062 Building Types (Tables), 153.063 Neighborhood Standards, 153.064 Open Space Types, and 153.065 Site Development Standards (Parking and Loading, and Stormwater Management). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Absent Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Absent Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 DRAFT S. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Dan Phillabaum stated that at the previous meeting, the Commission had requested that the building types graphics and tables be made consistent across all building types, and that the positions of the letters be corrected. He said that Planning is currently working on this for the next draft. Richard Taylor asked if 'A' would then always refer to the same thing for each building type, and so forth. Mr. Phillabaum said that was the intent. Amy Kramb noted that on the Building Type Tables, under RBZ Treatment, the first word is always "Landscape;" and she asked what that was intended to mean. Rachel Ray explained that in the landscape section of the Code, there are different RBZ treatment options, including "landscape," "patio," and "streetscape." She said that for single - family detached building types in particular, it means the RBZ is required to be treated with lawn and other landscaping, instead of all patio or sidewalk with fencing. Mr. Taylor said that he would like the reference to the Residential Appearance Standards (153.190) to be struck from the Code. Mr. Phillabaum said that Planning would check all of the cross references to make sure that the BSC Code addresses all of the relevant requirements in the Residential Appearance Standards, but he thought the overall reference could be eliminated. Ms. Kramb asked about the difference between the fagade requirements, since one references transparency, while the other references genera /transparency. Mr. Phillabaum explained that one regulates transparency for building elevations with street frontage, while the other includes transparency requirements for non - street fagades. Ms. Kramb said that she thought the word "general" should be struck then, and the requirements should state street frontage and non - street frontage transparency. Mr. Hardt said that on page 36, the last item on the left column, refers to occupied space 15 feet deep. He said that, with respect to single - family detached dwellings, it appears as though this is requiring the front room of a house to be 15 feet deep. He recalled that there had been some concern from the development community that indicated that this was deeper than it needed to be. Mr. Phillabaum said that the depth for single - family attached building types, the required depth of occupied space had been reduced to 10 feet of depth in response to this concern. Mr. Hardt asked Mr. Taylor if a 15 -foot depth requirement for the front room of a house is typical. Mr. Taylor said that as he understood the requirement, it would prohibit the home from being less than 15 feet deep before reaching the garage or backyard. Ms. Ray said the requirement is primarily concerned with the location of the garage. She said that the 15- foot depth does not mean that a single room has to be 15 feet deep, it just needs to be occupied space in lieu of a garage or otherwise unoccupied storage or utility area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Hardt asked what the depth has to do with the occupied space requirement. Ms. Ray said the intent of the dimension was to allow enough space to allow activity to occur Mr. Taylor referred to number three, principal entrance location, and noted that a porch is required. He asked if a porch or stoop could be recessed and still be considered a porch or stoop entrance. Mr. Phillabaum said the requirements is for open porches, and he referred to the language on page 31. He said there could be a roof over the porch or stoop, but it could not be enclosed by walls greater than 24 inches above the porch level. Mr. Taylor pointed out that there are houses with steps out front that have recessed entrances, and the walls would end up being taller than 30 inches. Steve Langworthy said it would be acceptable as long as it was not an entirely enclosed space. Mr. Hardt said that he had a comment that applies to all of the building type graphics. He noted that there is a red area on each indicating "parking within building" that should instead be labeled "permitted parking within building,' since parking is not requiredto be provided wherever the red area is shown. Ms. Kramb said that on page 38, under building entrance, the requirement should read "a minimum of one per unit" for number of entrances. She said that, with respect to number four, vertical increments, the requirement is one for every two units or 40 feet. She asked if the requirement is intended to be at ieastevery 40 feet, at a maximum. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that was the intent and agreed to modify the table. Mr. Taylor referred to (b), Height, and stated suggested that height be required at "2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevation " rather than from. Mr. Hardt referred to the apartment building type on page 40, and said that with respect to the fagade materials, brick, stone, wood and fiber cement siding are permitted, which seems to require traditional building types. He suggested that glass be permitted as an additional primary building material. Ms. Kramb referred to the loft building type and noted that the building entrance requirement states "where ground story dwelling units or tenant spaces are incorporated, one [entrance] per full 30 feet." She suggested that this be modified to "a minimum of every 30 feet." Mr. Langworthy said that this change was specifically requested by a potential applicant because they were unclear if an entrance would be required if they only provided an additional 25 feet. He said that an additional entrance would only be required only when a full 30 -foot increment had been provided. He preferred to leave the requirement as it was written. Ms. Kramb referred to the building height requirements for the corridor building type on page 44, and asked why Riverside Drive and I -270 were the only two streets mentioned where an additional two stories could be permitted. She said that s she reads the requirement, corridor building types could be five and a half stories tall, unless they have frontage on Riverside Drive or I -270, and in that case, an additional two stories could be added as long as there is an eight foot setback. Ms. Ray said that was correct, because the requirement was intended to allow views of the Scioto River along Riverside Drive. She noted that the proximity to I -270 was noted instead of Tuller Road because Tuller Road may not stay within its current alignment forever. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor referred to the historic cottage commercial building type and asked how the 70 -foot maximum building length or depth requirement was derived. Mr. Phillabaum said that the consultants who initially drafted the Code took an inventory of the existing buildings in the Historic District, and that was how this building type was created. Ms. Kramb referred to the parking structure requirements and pointed out that in the parking and loading requirements on page 83, the Code requirement states that the opening to parking garages can only be 24 feet wide if it is for a double entrance, and on the table, it states that entrances shall not exceed 30 feet. Ms. Ray explained that the 24 -foot width requirement is intended to be measured at the sidewalk, while the driveway itself could widen a little bit to 30 feet at the actual entrance to the building. Mr. Hardt referred to the permitted fagade materials and suggested adding glass to this building type in addition to brick and stone. He referred to the provision near the bottom of the right hand column that states that towers are permitted on parking garages at terminal vistas. He asked why a parking garage should be permitted at a terminal vista at all. Ms. Ray noted that towers are permitted, but not required, and stated that parking structures could be located along a smaller local street. Mr. Hard said he was not sure that he would even want a parking structure at a terminal vista. Ms. Ray noted that parking structures are conditional uses, which require the Commission's approval. Mr. Hardt asked if there has been any more thought about creating a separate building type for buildings with podium -style parking structures. Mr. Phillabaum said there will be another building type for a podium apartment building, and Planning is currently working on the details for that building type to include in the next draft. Mr. Taylor referred to the intent statements at the beginning of the Neighborhood Standards requirements, and thought that the wording was awkward. He confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that the requirements for the BSC Historic Residential District are identical to the requirements for the existing Historic Residential District, included the 50% lot coverage. Ms. Kramb referred to the access provisions (153.063(C)(3)(c)) which states "Refer to 153.060 and 153.061 for existing and planned principal frontage streets within the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District and acceptable block access configurations." She said that she was not sure if acceptable is the correct word to use. Justin Goodwin said that this is intended to refer to both the street network map and the diagram in lots and blocks that show typical alley configurations. He agreed to take a look at the wording. Ms. Kramb suggested potential instead of planned principal frontage streets in the same paragraph. Ms. Kramb asked why the commercial buildings are limited to Village Parkway and Sawmill Road. Ms. Ray said this requirement references the commercial center building type, which is the lowest density building type that allows some outparcel development up front to meet the front property line coverage Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 DRAFT requirements. She said that Planning recommends limiting this building type to occur only along Sawmill Road to help transition into the Corridor and along Village Parkway. Mr. Hardt referred to block length, which specifically lists 500 feet which is also mentioned in the table back in Lots and Blocks. He asked if this paragraph should just refer to the table. Ms. Ray said that could be done. Ms. Kramb asked if the maximum block length is 500 feet, then why is that not listed in Table 153.063 -B? Ms. Ray said the table shows the minimum required length for a shopping corridor, which is required to be at least 300 feet. She said shopping corridors are supposed to be the smaller more pedestrian oriented blocks where more mixed use development would occur. She explained that at least one 300 - foot shopping corridor would be required in these neighborhood districts to make sure we are creating a critical mass of mixed use development in these neighborhood districts. Ms. Kramb noted that if the development is over five acres, it requires a 600 -foot shopping corridor. She said 600 feet exceeds the block length limit. Ms. Ray said that the shopping corridor does not have to be continuous; it could cross streets and turn corners. Mr. Hardt referred to the gateways on page 63 and stated that he would like to see something that requires gateways to be pedestrian scaled, since "gateways" can mean different things to different people. Mr. Taylor stated that, with reference to the master sign plans, he preferred that the Planning and Zoning Commission shaiireviewall master sign plans. Ms. Kramb pointed to page 64, regarding street types, and asked if someone wanted to build a greenway on a non principal frontage street, why they should not be permitted to do so, because she read the requirement as stating that greenways are not permitted on non - principal frontage streets. Ms. Ray said that the regulation was intended to require that any street that has frontage along a greenway shall be treated as a principal frontage street, regardless of whether it is specifically designated as a principal frontage street on the street network map, for the purposes of site and architectural design of adjacent development fronting along that portion of the same street. She agreed to reword the requirement so the intent was clearer. Mr. Taylor noted that the Historic Transition Neighborhood District is the only district that encompasses two different zoning districts, with property to be zoned Historic Transition Neighborhood and Public. He said that the distinction between the two needs to be made clear. Ms. Ray agreed and stated that the school site is currently recommended for zoning to the Public District based on its current use. She said if it were to redevelop, it would go into the Historic Transition District. Ms. Kramb referred to the first part of the Indian Run Neighborhood District requirements and noted that "pursuant to" was used twice in the same sentence, and that the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraphs are fragmented and unclear. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the language, but indicated that it had been specifically requested by a property owner. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said that there are two places where there is a greenway fronted by a road against residential properties in the Indian Run Neighborhood. He asked how close the buildings could be to the residences of Indian Run Estates. Mr. Langworthy said the exact distance will not be known until we know the final alignment of the road, but there could be a pocket of residential where the road allows for a greenway off to the side. Mr. Taylor said the text states that if pervious pavement is used, the size of an outdoor patio can be increased for a restaurant. He pointed out that even if a patio were a good distance across the ravine, from the back of a residential property the potential noise from the patio could become an annoyance. Mr. Langworthy said that section will be reviewed closely. Ms. Kramb stated that she had provided Planning with notes about some of the open space requirements that are really definitions instead of requirements, and that Planning had agreed to look into the changes. Mr. Taylor announced that since the Commission had reached the Site Development Standards, they would proceed no further with their review than the parking and loading requirements. He asked if any of the Commissioners had any specific questions or comments about this section. Mr. Hardt said he did not have any major issues with this section. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Justin Goodwin pointed out that Planning would like to revise the required parking for hospitals in the parking table, because there is a wide variety of types of hospitals and assisted living that would all fit into this category. He said the requirement that is currently shown in the Code could even end up requiring more parking than would be appropriate. He suggested adding a separate category for specialty hospitals, but since Planning tried to keep the uses in the parking table consistent with the uses in the use table, Planning would probably recommend stating "per an approved parking plan" instead. Mr. Hardt asked how the Code would differentiate between a hotel and an apartment building Mr. Langworthy said if a hotel were in a permitted district, it could potentially occur in an apartment building type; if both were permitted uses, we would not have to distinguish except for parking requirements. Mr. Taylor pointed out that a hotel could be a denser use than an apartment building. Ms. Ray stated that Planning would determine whether each use was permitted in the BSC district, and then it would be required to meet the building type and site development standards, which include parking and landscape requirements. Mr. Langworthy said that in order to qualify as residential dwelling unit it would have to have housekeeping facilities, each one would have to have a kitchen, bath and other specific amenities. Mr. Taylor announced that the next meeting on Tuesday, January 24, the Commission would review the site development standards and the review and approval procedures. He confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that a clean copy of the Code should be expected prior to the Commission meeting on Thursday; February 2. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any comments or questions up to this point that would need to be researched before the meeting on Tuesday, January 24. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 DRAFT Mr. Taylor stated that he had several concerns with the sign regulations as drafted, and he had provided Planning with some specific comments and suggested modifications that he would like to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the Commission is still planning to vote on the Code and area rezoning on Thursday, February 2. Mr. Langworthy said that was the schedule, and stated that he would like the code to be the first vote of the meeting, followed by the area rezoning. He said that if there are additional changes or suggestions that come up during the meeting on February 2, those changes can still be noted and will be provided to Council with the final draft. Mr. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.d ublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 12, 2012 DRAFT The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061 Street Types, 153.062 Building Types (General Requirements). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 1 of 17 DRAFT 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification Administrative Request 11- 020ADM Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of a proposed amendment to the Zoning and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). make recommendations to City Council on the final public comments first. Code to establish a number of new zoning districts She explained that the Commission will review and draft. She said that the Commission would receive David Brown, 5100 Parkcenter Drive, representing Acura of Columbus, said that the Acura site was originally planned for BSC Office zoning, but the Commission was recommending that the parcel and others along State Route 161, east of Riverside, Drive be zoned BSC Commercial. He conveyed support on behalf of Acura to maintain the designation of BSC Commercial. He said they had been a dealership operating since the mid- 1980s, and the parcel was purchased for retail, commercial purposes. Mr. Brown said although they understand and appreciate the fact that the zoning text reflects that if the use is continued arguably and theoretically in perpetuity, that the use can continue for retail automobile purposes; however, there are scenarios which play out that could effect his client's ability to use the land in a retail capacity, and therefore they would recommend and support that parcel designation as BSC Commercial in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that it was the Commission's recommendation in an effort to try to protect businesses like Acura. She encouraged Mr. Brown to stay engaged because the Commission does not have the final say. Warren Fishman asked if an auto dealership ceased and was abandoned for a year, would it become a nonconforming use? Steve Langworthy explained that the parcel would be considered conforming as long as the criteria for abandonment had not been met. Mr. Brown explained that part of their concern was that, as a retail franchised authorized dealer, if a scenario plays out where they sell the Acura franchise and an entity that purchases the site wants to relocate the dealership to the outerbelt for example, his client is probably stuck with a piece of property whose highest and best use is retail automotive; however, there is such a saturation in the Columbus market with manufacturers having their own locations for their car dealerships, evidenced by the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, whereas Byers Chevrolet and Byers Dublin Dodge were pulled because those manufactures said they did not need representation in those particular areas. He said it was a concern for them that the use would discontinue and they would not be able to use it in that capacity. Mr. Fishman said that was even a bigger reason to keep those lots BSC Commercial. Max Machuta, 957 Egret Court, Westerville, said he was just a concerned citizen, not representing any one. He said he was concerned with what was going on in the Dublin area along this Corridor in the area where he worked. He said he had attended several of these meetings and he was impressed with the interest that the Commission has shown and the courtesy that has been demonstrated to all of the property owners that have spoken at these meetings. Mr. Machuta said he respected the great amount of work that staff had completed to come up with the plan, but he wanted to wholly support and agree with everything that Mr. Brown just said. He said he was most concerned with how much vacant office space currently exists in Dublin, and questioned why we would want to have more areas designated for office when there is a glut of available office space now. He reiterated that he supported everything that the Commission has done and agreed with the conclusion that the group has appeared to have come to the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 2 of 17 DRAFT conclusion that it would be in the best interest to keep these properties zoned BSC Commercial, contrary to what Plannina has recommended. Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, said he had worked closely with the staff on a number of issues, and they have been very cooperative. He said he worked with them on the language trying protect those property owners whose zoning would change. He said he supported the BSC Code because he thought there were always details, but he did think that in this area there is a terrific opportunity in Dublin, and that we all are going to be pretty happy with what is going to happen there. Mr. Hale said he thought something needed to be done relatively radical in this area, and this is a radical plan and a radical Code. He said he read the BSC again recently, and the lawyer in him was bothered that a section in the preamble talked about zonings of these properties, and essentially, it said today that if you want to rezone a property in the Bridge Street Corridor, the only thing you can do is zone it from one Bridge Street Corridor zoning district to the other. He said it specifically said you cannot file to establish a PUD and do something different. He said that bothered him, although he understood why it was that way because of the possibility of lawyers like him. He said he believed that if an applicant was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on going through the PUD process, they ought to have the opportunity to do so. He said that section should at least allow someone if they are willing to go through the process, but otherwise, an applicant could default to the Code and the underlying development standards. Mr. Hale said that applicants should default to the Bridge Street Code, and ask for very specific differences where necessary. He said he thought there was a Code process where the reviewing body could make minor changes, and another if more significant changes were sought, involving Commission review and approval. He said that when you have an administrative review, you have to have administrative standards, and you can use administrative discretion, but you cannot give people something that is not basically in keeping with the BSC Vision, because that is not what administrative bodies do when they are giving variances or exceptions. Mr. Hale thought there ought to be some outlet to allow someone, if they want to do it, to come to the Commission and City Council and ask for the opportunity to do something different. He said however, he also understood why there was a concern with allowing PUDs at any time, because if the expectation is that we want to achieve the BSC Vision, most applicants should develop that way in most cases. He said however his experience over the last 40 years is that the world changes and people come up with new ideas, and sometimes they are good, and there should be some mechanism to allow good, new development. Ms. Amorose Groomes said Mr. Hale made a great point and that there were certain sites that would lend themselves to that sort of activity better than others. She said she really thought that they were going to have that in the BSC at some point before they were finished with it. She said they were all thinking in the direction that there would be some avenue for another process, and she did not know if they would call it a PUD process necessarily, but certainly an alternative process to the BSC Code, but the understanding would be that the standards are going to be very high and it would likely look a lot like the BSC Code, but perhaps for varying reasons, there might be some deviations. Richard Taylor said he thought a lot of progress had been made, but he agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. Amy Kramb said her concern was for the person that came and asked for and paid for a lot of waivers. She asked why they could not just have them come in and ask for one PUD instead of a bunch of waivers. Mr. Hale said waivers should be arduous, and not handed out easily and often. He said that applicants should have to prove their point if they are asking for something that is not minor if they can convince Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 3 of 17 DRAFT the Commission that it is necessary and would not change the basic intent of the Code and the BSC Vision Plan. Mr. Taylor said they would review that later, but probably not tonight. He said the current iteration of this Code allows for an application to deviate from one or more of the requirements, so that you can package more than one waiver together. Aaron Underhill, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, referred to Planning's January 12"' memorandum regarding the BSC modification request to accommodate podium -style parking facilities. He said he was representing a developer who wanted to remain nameless, but different property owners throughout the community have come to know what it is going to mean for them when marketing their properties. He said there is a developer very interested in developing a product of this type and probably in more than one place. Mr. Underhill said it was a very real project that could happen quickly, and they have decided that rather than going through some arduous PUD process or asking for a number of waivers that could be accommodated by a code revision at this point, that it was best to bring it up now, despite the fact that it is coming in fairly late in the game. Mr. Underhill said it was a project that he thought involved real ingenuity. He said that when a Code is drafted that is so comprehensive, it is basically a prediction of the future and what is going to happen. He said they were pointing out things that, in with conjunction with Planning, who have been very accommodating, they believe with tweaks to the Code make them able to accommodate the project. He said from the City's and the developer's standpoint, a project like this makes a lot of economic sense as opposed to building a separate parking garage, which is very expensive. He said by integrating this sort of parking into a building, it saves the developer costs which is money that can be used to enhance the design of their project. He said from the City's standpoint, it does not use valuable land elsewhere that could be used for additional development. Mr. Underhill explained why they thought this was a good product. He said most of the issues they were talking about were design issues that would not meet the current Code just because this was not contemplated originally. He said some of the things that need to be done to park in the lower level of a structure do not necessarily jive with making things pedestrian - friendly in terms of allowing people to walk inside and out of a garage like this, because of security reasons, and the fact that this is going to be someone's home, and they do not want to have people walking in and out freely. Mr. Underhill said that they thought many of the design requirements, as have been suggested, can be met as long as they have the ability to retain some privacy with gates, codes, and things to get into these areas. Mr. Underhill said he would stay in case the Commission had specific questions later. Steve Langworthy said Mr. Underhill was told that the BSC Code was still in progress and that was something that could still be built into the text. He explained that they were very close in language and the idea and they agreed with most of what the developer wants to do and how it wants to do it. John Hardt confirmed with Mr. Underhill that the buildings were residential. He said most large scale residential buildings have other non - residential components, such as community rooms, fitness centers, and leasing offices. He asked if the developer realized those kinds of uses would be available as opportunities to keep activity on the ground floor. Mr. Underhill said he thought almost all of those uses would be above the ground floor, but he was sure they could investigate that layout. He said he did not know enough about the detail and design of the building to say definitively. Mr. Taylor suggested adding to the list a public entrance, elevator /stair lobby, and other items that could have a presence on the street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 4 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was great to get something like this included in the Code. Amy Kramb said she did not want to see something like at Creekside, where there is a very noticeable parking garage below the apartments. Ms. Ray explained that the Code currently allows podium parking, but the problem is that the Code also has occupancy requirements on the sidewalk, which require 15 or 20 feet of occupied space. She said the request that the developer has made is to not require that occupied space. She said that Planning is suggesting that the architectural requirements and landscaping help obscure any exposed parking or vents to help mitigate the appearance of the garage. She said however, they would like to maintain entrances on the sidewalk to enhance pedestrian activity. She said that was the nature of the Code modifications recommended in the memo. Ms. Kramb asked if an entrance to a parking garage would be allowed on a principal frontage street Ms. Ray explained that the vehicular access would be required from an alley or a side street. She said it would not be permitted on the principal frontage street. Ms. Kramb referred to Creekside where the two main entrances are on the main street where pedestrians are crossing and have to dodge cars. Mr. Underhill said they would agree with that. He said another thing they were trying to accomplish was the transparency requirement on the first floor. He said they did not want to have it there because it would be unattractive to the residents to pass by. He said he hoped they could enhance everything architecturally, but with an opaqueness there on the first floor instead of transparency into the garage. Mr. Hardt said he could support this in principal, but he would like to see attempts made to put whatever functions could be made down at street level. He said his fundamental concern would be the architectural treatment of the first floor along the public street. He said he, and probably the residents, would not want to see portals every 20 feet where they look in and see vehicles. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see some kind of architectural treatment, even louvers or shutters, that limits the limits the view into the garage. Mr. Hardt suggested that instead of a variety of different exceptions to allow this type of parking facility that a separate building type should be considered instead. Mr. Langworthy said Planning had considered whether they should create a separate type, but were considered about all of the potential iterations that could result from each building type. He agreed to take a look to see if a new building type would be a possibility. Mr. Hardt said he understood, and agreed that they would not want to create a building type every time something new came along. However, he said as they look at the building types that have been defined, one of the fundamental characteristics of each that differentiates them from each other is where the parking is allowed to be. He said in fact, on the diagrams, red indicates where the parking can and cannot be located. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commission was generally in favor of the proposed modifications, and she invited further public comments regarding the memorandum. [There were none.] Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the review of the Code would begin on page 14 with Lots and Blocks. Ms. Kramb said that she had already given her comments, which were mostly grammatical, to Ms. Ray earlier, to save time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 5 of 17 DRAFT Section 153.060 Lots and Blocks Mr. Hardt said it was his understanding that the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District was not intended to exist on day one, because it is intended to be brought online later. He asked then, why the block dimensions were being defined separately, because if it is zoned later on, it likely have already established lot and block where it is intended to be zoned. Justin Goodwin agreed with Mr. Hardt's comment, and said that Planning had struggled with how this district actually will get implemented, and because they have increased some of the blocks in other districts, he agreed to make the maximum block dimensions consistent for this district as well. Mr. Hardt referred to the mid -block pedestrianways requirements on page 16 and pointed out that one subsection said theyshall be aligned and the other says theymaybe staggered, which seemed to conflict unless where it states, theymaybe staggered was intended to refer to the trees. Mr. Goodwin confirmed that the trees may be staggered within the design of the mid -block pedestrianway. Mr. Taylor referred to the same subsection and said that he was still not in favor of purposefully requiring that mid -block pedestrian crossings align perfectly, only because that means the first person that builds the building gets to determine the alignment of the second one. He suggested the sentence be changed from "...shall align to facilitate to facilitate continuous pedestrian pathways to "...as nearly as practicable." Mr. Taylor said he had difficulty understanding (6)(b), as it was written. Ms. Kramb said she had suggested the rewording "Mid block pedestnanways shall be publicly accessible at all times and shall be located within the middle -third of a block accessed from any side of the block exceeding 400 feet. " Mr. Goodwin explained that the intent was that if the block was 450 feet by 300 feet, a mid -block pedestrianway would be required on the longer side of the block that is 450 feet long. He said it did not have to be on both axes of the block, and that could be clarified. Section 153.061 Street Types Mr. Hardt asked if the intent was to include the street type illustrations or any information about the street types in the Code, or if that was expected to be referenced elsewhere. Mr. Langworthy said they have that noted to include in the applicant guide. Mr. Hardt referred to Existing Streets and asked if a developer constructed a project along an existing street, if there is anything to indicate who is responsible for upgrading the sidewalks, the frontage, and the front of the street. Mr. Langworthy explained that was not typically done through the Code, because they are generally worked out on an individual basis, sometimes by the applicant and sometimes by the City. He said it depended upon the circumstance that created the need for those modifications to happen. Mr. Goodwin said as part of the Site Plan Review process, they would be working closely with the applicant to determine what the appropriate design details would be, regardless of who is responsible for constructing them. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 6 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Taylor referred to the graphic on the bottom of the page on the right. He said his comment applied to paragraph (a) and also to similar paragraphs on some of the diagrams included. He said his concern was that we are at the same time saying this is not what we really intend as the final street network pattern, and yet it is our desired pattern. He said it went on to say, it was not intended to locate precise locations of streets. He said it seemed as though they were being specific and non - specific at the same time. He said he would rather see removed in every case, the part stating representative of the desired development pattern.' He said he did not know if we had enough information on what the desired development pattern is at the street level yet. He said that, and the fact that he still had questions as they got further into this about significant areas on the street network map. Mr. Goodwin suggested "representative of a general development pattern." Mr. Taylor suggested "a general development pattern" because the street network did not necessarily represent everyone's "desired" street pattern. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirement at the top of page 19 stating that all lots, blocks, and associated development with frontage along a street or street segment which also has any open space type frontage shall be required to meet the applicable principal frontage street requirements. He asked if this would require any property to conform where ever open space exists or is provided on a street. He said the first time he read it, he thought it said that any development along any street which has some open space frontage would require all developmentto meet principal frontage street requirements. Mr. Goodwin explained that the key phrase was street segment, which would require the City to make a determination of how much of that overall street is impacted by the open space type presence. He said if the street segment was one long block and there is open space frontage on the opposite side of the block, whatever is on the other side of the street across from the open space would now be required to be developed as though it had frontage along a principal frontage street. Mr. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Goodwin that street segment will be defined the way Planning thinks is appropriate, which might not refer absolutely to the segment of a street between two intersecting streets. Ms. Kramb referred to the crosswalks requirements on page 20 and reiterated that she disagreed with any requirement for mid -block crosswalks, and she preferred that they be minimized. She said a maximum block size is 500 feet for most of the Corridor, and 200 feet in the Historic District. Ms. Kramb said she thought it would be reasonable to expect pedestrians to walk an additional 250 or 300 feet to an intersection to cross instead of having to cross mid - block. She said that people should not be encouraged to cross in the middle of a block. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Ms. Kramb in principle, but people will walk across streets whenever they can, regardless of whether there is a crosswalk, so we might as well do all we can to make those crossings safe because it will happen anyway. Mr. Langworthy agreed that Engineering typically did not like mid -block crossings either, but ultimately, they discussed that if they were going to be provided, that they should be made safe. Ms. Kramb referred to the requirement stating "Crosswalks shall be required at mid -block locations for areas with heavypedestrian traffic;' and said she did not agree that they should be required. Mr. Goodwin said that the language could be generalized so that it is less of a requirement. However, he pointed out that there is a big difference between a mid -block crosswalk on a four -lane arterial and a mid -block crosswalk on a small, tight, densely developed two -lane retail shopping corridor where pedestrians are going to be walking and will likely cross whenever and wherever they feel comfortable. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 7 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Kramb reiterated that she did not think they should be encouraged, and that pedestrians should be forced to cross at intersections. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that it said "as determined by the City Engineer; so the placement would really be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Ms. Amorose Groomes commented that one of the values of a crosswalk is that it alerts the driver that pedestrians are crossing in the general vicinity. Warren Fishman agreed that they encouraged pedestrian connectivity. Ms. Kramb reiterated that she thought crosswalks were unattractive and unsafe. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that some crosswalks give people false sense of security when crossing. Mr. Taylor referred to the street network map on pages 22 and 23 and said that he had previously commented that he did not understand the conceptual street network shown on the school site, which does not make sense to him since with the proposed area rezoning, that site would be zoned BSC Public. He thought it was a huge missed opportunity to not develop that area for a purely public community /town center -type of use, which he thought would be a wonderful thing to have in the city and happens to be sorely missed. He believed a town center would be one of the things that pulls the whole plan together over the long term. Mr. Taylor said he still had not from anyone, either on staff or City Council, a satisfactory explanation why the whole Indian Run Estates is completely left out of the planning for the whole Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Goodwin explained that in the earlier stages of the planning process for the Corridor when Goody Clancy began to reach out to property owners, particularly residents within the Corridor, there was quite a bit of input from residents that live in that neighborhood who recognize that the area is changing and is going to change around them. He said the residents generally commented that they are pretty pleased with the planning for the Corridor as long as nothing is shown that indicates that their neighborhood should not be there in the future. Mr. Goodwin said they have tried to respect existing residential areas, of which there are not very many in the Corridor. Mr. Taylor stated that his argument against that reasoning is that the neighborhood is left out, but then several major district connector streets are shown surrounding their neighborhood basically on four sides. He said at the point where the area surrounding the neighborhood on all sides becomes highly developed, it will not be a very viable neighborhood. Mr. Taylor said he absolutely understood the residents' concerns; however, he was aware of several properties on Avery Road whose owners did not sell to the Tartan Fields developers, and so the development went on around them. He said that when those property owners decided to sell, the properties were nearly worthless because of the way the streets were developed, around them, and they could not be developed an extension of Tartan Fields. He said he was concerned that by purposely going around this neighborhood, there might not be very much we can do with it later on in the event that the owners decided to redevelop because we have not figured out how it fits into the plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission has identified from the start of this process the extremely high public value of the Indian Run, and that includes the side that the residences are on, and he would hate to see a situation be created where the opportunity to engage both sides of the Indian Run as a real amenity for the city be lost. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 8 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Fishman recalled that in the beginning, they had earmarked the Indian Run as a green space that would continue through the city to eventually cross the river, and that had disappeared from the map. Mr. Langworthy clarified that this map was the street network map and not an open space map. He said there was a provision in the Code that states that when a road goes along the Indian Run, that there cannot be any buildings on that side of the street, requiring access and frontage along a greenway. Mr. Goodwin referred to Mr. Taylor's comment regarding the school site, shown on the map with a conceptual street layout, and said that this site was similar to the way they are dealing with the other neighborhood districts, deliberately showing a general framework of streets entering the area, but not really showing a detailed grid through those sites, because they do not know how it will develop. He said this was one depiction and there were pros and cons to this approach, but that they were trying to paint a picture without being too specific. Mr. Goodwin explained that what they were trying to achieve in the area of the school site in the Historic Transition Neighborhood District is specify where the major open space corridors would go, how other types of open space would be integrated into the area, preferably including some type of significant open space of community value. He pointed out that when looking at this map, people using the Code would need to keep in mind that they would need to refer to multiple sections, specifically the neighborhood districts, and understand how those two sections work in tandem. Mr. Taylor said his concern was simply that a street network was drawn on the map, because he had seen things that had been drawn, and it is very difficult to erase from people's minds what has been drawn. He said if the intent is to put streets on the school site on this map, he was totally against that. He said to take it one point further, it was well known that he believed this site should be used for some sort of community gathering space, and that is not happening with this layout. He was concerned that it is still being left up the planners and developers to see how the streets will evolve over time, and while he thought that was okay for everything on the east side of the Scioto River, Historic Dublin and the areas surrounding it are a community asset. He stated that the City needs to put their foot down and say what that the school site is going to be, and that will be open and accessible and usable by and for the public. Mr. Langworthy commented that they have been very hesitant with talking about the school site for other reasons, but he thought it was clear that whatever happens on that site would be some sort of public /private partnership where the City would have the opportunity to have significant input into the way that site were to redevelop. He did not necessarily think that redevelopment of that site would be a completely private project by the time it reached the point of redevelopment. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the grid portions of the street network could be removed from the street network map, and that the area be labeled with something else instead, such as "to be determined through a public /private development partnership." Mr. Goodwin agreed that some type of label could be applied to the map, but perhaps not as specific as stating a "public /private partnership." He suggested generalizing the street network even more in this area, because he understood the concern that the grid in this area in particular appears to be more detailed than elsewhere in the Corridor. He stated that the map does however show a major district connector street that could potentially conned to a bridge, and that was pretty important to include based on the implications for the larger Corridor street network model, but he believed that the map could be generalized to a greater extent. Ms. Kramb commented that she did not like to see all of the potential future roads intersecting with Riverside Drive, and she did not like the roads dead - ending north of Tuller Road before I -270. She said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 9 of 17 DRAFT she did not think all of those intersections should be encouraged on Riverside Drive over such a short distance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that many roads would be disruptive to that scenic route. Ms. Kramb stated that Riverside Drive was a major road corridor and was not just a Dublin street. She pointed out that there is a huge amount of travelers along that road that are not familiar with the Bridge Street Corridor and what they are trying to build here. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was less concerned with the streets shown to be intersecting with Sawmill Road because she did not think the area would develop that way anyway. Ms. Kramb agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes and said that her issue was that she did not understand why we would put streets down on a map that she highly doubted would ever develop that way. She thought that we would end up with terrible access management issues if we have this many blocks with streets intersecting with Sawmill Road, which is within the City of Columbus' jurisdiction anyway. She said showing the map this way would give developers the sense that they could have an intersection every 500 feet on Sawmill Road, and that did not seem right to her. Jeannie Willis said that with regard to the access points shown on Riverside Drive, if they were full access points, she would agree with Ms. Kramb's concerns, but the intent was to have those intersecting streets be restricted to right -in /right -out. She said some of the street type sections that would be applicable to Riverside Drive in this area would include medians or boulevards that would provide a physical restriction to left turns. Ms. Willis explained that some of this has to do with how the street types and street families interact with the street family diagram and how those pieces fit together. She acknowledged that the street types and street families would need to be finalized soon to best understand how everything fits together. Ms. Kramb pointed that the map does not clearly indicate that the intersections will be right -in /right -out, and she did not like right -in /right -out intersections. She reiterated that just looking at the map would give a developer the understanding that they could have full access every 500 feet along this major road. She suggested not showing the intersecting streets. Mr. Langworthy requested that Ms. Willis comment on the number of streets shown, and why they are important for the purposes of traffic distribution. Ms. Willis said the purpose of a street grid is to manage traffic more effectively with an inner - corridor trip capture rate of up to 40 percent. She explained that even though the streets are smaller and traffic speeds will be quite a bit slower than what we have seen in suburban Dublin up to this point, we could 40 percent fewer trips within Corridor because of the traffic distribution and the number of new routes provided. Mr. Taylor commented that he did not know that anyone disagreed with the concept of the grid and the advantages of traffic dispersion, but he thought Ms. Kramb's comment related more to a concern with changing the character of Riverside Drive. Ms. Kramb agreed and stated that she was concerned that when developers submit their development plans, one of the review criteria that the Commission is required to consider is whether the proposal is consistent with the street network map, and she did not want to be put in the position of having to explain that the graphic did not necessarily allow them to have full access. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 10 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what would happen if a developer came before the Commission today before anything was done to Riverside Drive, and there is no street boulevard. She asked how the access would be managed in that situation. Mr. Langworthy noted that there would likely be a temporary condition where that situation could certainly occur. He said that Planning and Engineering had already discussed that, and stated that there would be the understanding that a road may need to be built knowing that eventually, the access and alignment could change depending on what happens with Riverside Drive. Mr. Hardt said he was not as concerned with all of this because this is a highly conceptual and diagrammatic drawing in a zoning document. He said that anyone coming in with a Development Plan or Site Plan would have to go through an engineering review, and all of their access points and roadway alignments would be subject to much more scrutiny than you ever will find in a diagram such as this. Mr. Taylor said he disagreed. He said he understood that this was all up in the air to a certain extent, but the label states that this is the desired street network for the Corridor. He said that he did not desire this layout and Ms. Kramb does not desire that the character of Riverside Drive be changed. Ms. Kramb pointed out that several bridge crossings are shown across Scioto River, yet I -270 is a complete barrier with dead end streets north of Tuller Road. Mr. Langworthy said that street access north of I -270 was beyond the scope of what they were dealing with on the street network map, but he did not think that Planning and Engineering would forget that a future street connection to the north could be desirable at some point in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes said certainly as Emerald Parkway is completed, it would be nice to have another bridge over I -270 providing access to the Dublin Village Center area, taking traffic pressure off of Sawmill Road. Ms. Kramb commented that I -270 was not any more intensive of a barrier than the Scioto River, where there are more environmental issues. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think anyone disagreed with Ms. Kramb, but he thought the issue currently was that that was not something that should be addressed at this time since it was not within the scope of the Bridge Street Corridor transportation analysis. Ms. Kramb said at the very least, they should plan to avoid creating a large wall of buildings along I -270, because then a future connection would never happen across I -270. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commission was in favor of seeing something more general on the school site, and that there should be a note referencing the access points along the major roadways. Mr. Hardt pointed out that part of the Commission's issues with the map may relate to the way the graphic is drawn, and perhaps it felt too much like a map. He suggested the use of fuzzier lines to allow it to feel more like a diagram than an official map. Mr. Goodwin agreed to make the changes requested by the Commission. Section 153.062 Building Types Mr. Hardt referred to the General Building Type Requirements, Existing Structures, where there is a discussion of nonconforming structures. He asked if there would be such a thing in the Bridge Street Corridor, after all of their discussion about Existing Structures and avoiding the creation of nonconformities. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 11 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said that there is a difference between Existing Structures that would be created after the adoption of the Bridge Street Code, and nonconforming structures that could result later on after future Code modifications, but he agreed to take a look at the language again. Mr. Hardt noted that there is a reference to the Administrative Review Team, in the same section, but everywhere else, that had been changed to required reviewing body. Mr. Langworthy explained it was deliberate, since this is one of the few places where the ART is expected to make that determination. Ms. Kramb referred to the requirement on the right side of page 24 stating that if a property or building owner demolishes more than 50 percent of the gross square footage of an Existing Structure, then all of the improvements on the property must be brought into conformance with the Code. She said as she read this, if someone demolished more than 50 percent of an existing building on a property, then all improvements on that property, not just that existing building, must be reconstructed and brought into compliance. She asked if that was truly the intent. Mr. Langworthy said that was the intent. Ms. Kramb clarified that the way it reads, if there are three buildings on the property, and they demolish 51 percent of one building, then all three buildings would need to be brought into conformance. Mr. Langworthy said that they could clarify that only the improvements associated with the demolished structure would be required to be brought into conformance. Mr. Taylor referred to Determination of the Bui lding Type. He noted that the ART may designate an Existing Structure as consistent with a specific building type. He asked if a building that was nonconforming could be an Existing Structure. Mr. Langworthy explained that if any improvements were made to that building, they would have to comply with improvements applicable to the determined building type. Mr. Taylor referred to the reference to the Residential Appearance Standards on page 25 and said that he would like to delete it. He said he was not a fan of the Residential Appearance Standards, and he thought if there were going to be standards for roof pitch, roof materials, details, window locations, size of windows, etc. in the BSC, it should be right here and a Code that he hoped would disappear someday should not be referenced. Dan Phillabaum said he did not think that would be a problem, because he thought it was included to ensure that there was nothing in the Residential Appearance Standards that would be left out that would be desirable. He said the BSC Code would have to be silent on an item for the Residential Appearance Standards to be in effect, but he thought there would be very few areas like that. Mr. Taylor said he knew the intent of the Residential Appearance Standards was to make buildings better and different, but they end up requiring a developer pick two or three bland houses and repeat them over and over because they are approvable. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to review the Residential Appearance Standards and determine whether there is anything else that should be addressed in the Bridge Street Code if that reference is deleted. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 12 of 17 DRAFT Ms. Ray pointed out that on the table of permitted building types on page 25, Planning would like to add the single - family Attached building type to the Sawmill Center Neighborhood since it was permitted in the other two neighborhood districts. Ms. Kramb asked if the reason they did not allow the Historic Cottage Commercial in the Historic Transition Neighborhood was because buildings that height were not desired in that district. She thought they could be appropriate along the borders of that district. Mr. Phillabaum said the objective of the Historic Transition Neighborhood is to be slightly more intensely developed with a slightly larger scale than the Historic District. He explained that the potential building relationships with three -story buildings across the street or next door to a single -story building could create some difficult urban design situations. Ms. Kramb said that there already will be issues with that because you could already put a three -story building next to a one -story cottage in the Historic Core. She said in the Historic Core now, there are one - story buildings, and in the Historic Transition Neighborhood she thought there should be the choice to do a one -story building. Mr. Phillabaum said it related to the character of the area. He said that the Historic Transition Neighborhood is intended to be transitional, because development is getting more intense as it moves to the west toward the Indian Run Neighborhood District, and the slightly larger scale helps preserve the smaller, more quaint character of the existing Historic District by not allowing the smaller cottage -type commercial buildings. Mr. Hardt reiterated his preference that the podium -style parking facility be a separate building type. Mr. Hardt referred to (D) Roof Type Requirements on page 26. He suggested that the height of a parapet roof be modified to specify that the height is measured from the highest point of the adjacent roof deck. He said if there is a complicated building form, the parapet is really relevant to the one immediately adjacent to it, not some other roof on the other side of the building. Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement stating that "parapets shall be no less than two feet and no more than six feet high, except as necessary to screen rooftop mechanical equipment." He said that told him that if he had a giant piece of rooftop mechanical equipment, he could make his parapet as high as necessary but he did not think that was what they wanted. He suggested adding a statement requiring that in instances where six feet is insufficient to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, then alternate screening techniques must be used. Mr. Hardt referred to (1)(b) Horizontal Shadow Lines and suggested deleting "to create the shadow line," since the title of the paragraph infers that intent. Mr. Hardt stated that as a general comment, the term "building type" should refer specifically to the building types defined in the Code, while elsewhere, the style of the building should be referenced differently, such as "the character of the building style" or "the building's architecture." Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had taken note of that as well. Mr. Hardt suggested that with respect to pitch measure for pitched roof types, the requirement should state ...unless determined by the reviewing body. Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(b)3: A pitch greater than 3:12 is required on roofs, storm roofs, and said the type vs, style appears there. He said the last sentence, Eyebrow roofs are acceptable for these locations, and sloped to drain in all directions is not necessary. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 13 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(c) Parallel Ridge Line, .- Perpendicular ridges /fins or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof as appropriate, and said the rest of the paragraph was not needed. Mr. Hardt referred to (2)(e) Gable Ends, An architecturally appropriate elementsuch as a vent, window or other decorative element is required on a street - facing gable end. He said to stop the paragraph at that period. Mr. Taylor referred to the top right of the page 27. He said he did not know how to resolve it, but his intent was to avoid the appearance of the building on High Street of Bri Hi Square that, when viewed from the south, looks very unfinished and incomplete when the gables do not come together. He said perhaps something should require that although you do not have to close that you do not have to have a closed ridge, but it has to look like you have a closed ridge. Ms. Kramb referred to (E), Materials, on page 28 and asked if it was appropriate to call out where secondary materials should be applied, or if that would be too restrictive. Mr. Hardt said elsewhere in the Code we enumerate what primary materials are permitted, and we say that you have to have a certain percentage of primary materials, so by definition, as far as he was concerned, everything else could apply a secondary material. Mr. Phillabaum asked if the two concern related to the list of permitted secondary materials, or if it had to do with specifying where those materials can be used. Mr. Hardt said he was more concerned with trying to specify where they can be applied. Mr. Phillabaum confirmed that the Commissioners were okay with listing the secondary materials, and then leaving it open to state that they can use them wherever they feel is appropriate is along as it does not exceed 20 percent. Mr. Hardt agreed, but commented that EIFS not being permitted in the Historic Core was a separate issue that should be addressed separately. Mr. Hardt referred to (3), Flat Roofs, on page 28 and said he renewed his objection to requiring flat roof eaves to have a minimum depth of 14 inches. He said if they are talking about flat roofs, then they are talking about flat roofs and the notion of an eave of 14 inches or so is he thought was just a random and baseless requirement. Mr. Phillabaum said it was probably not a huge issue to take out the requirement, but if they kept it, their thinking was in talking with Building Standards, when less than 14 inches are provided, the eave really does not function as an eave anymore because it no longer provides the functional aspects of an eave. Mr. Hardt said he understood and agreed, but that is a building detailing issue in terms of managing where water goes, and he did not think it belonged in the Zoning Code if that was the concern. Mr. Phillabaum said they would delete the sections referencing eaves for flat roofs. Mr. Hardt referred to Tower Height and Tower Width on page 28 and said he realized that although this section had been amended based on his and Mr. Taylor's feedback, he thought that what was left is not necessary. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 14 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Phillabaum said he wanted to make sure that they were able to define what a tower is, which is generally more vertical than horizontal in proportion, but he appreciated that most architects will understand that and do that anyway. Mr. Taylor agreed and said that it did not hurt to include it. Mr. Taylor recalled the Commission rewording the use of other materials as long as they were used in comparable climates, but he was not sure that he was happy with it. He suggested that comparable climates be deleted. He said he understood someone could come in saying that this is high - quality adobe and it gives us a chance to say that is not from a comparable climate, but he thought the objective was simply to approve good examples of materials. Mr. Hardt said he had suggested comparable climate and said the rationale for it was that someone could come in with a lot of pictures and brochures about something that was absolutely wonderful, but if every single installation was in Key West, there is no guarantee that it will hold up here in Dublin, and it could end up looking bad. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that it was important to have it in a like climate. Mr. Taylor referred to (f), regarding tower roofs, on page 28 and stated that the requirement should read towers maybe capped by any permitted roof type. Mr. Taylor referred to (E), Materials, on page 28 and stated that 'full modular brick' suggests a particular size and shape of brick. He asked if that is the intent. Mr. Philabaum said the intent is to prohibit thin brick veneer as a permitted primary material, rather than list all of the permitted materials and excluding a very specific type material that is not full modular dimension. Mr. Taylor said modular brick is a certain kind of brick, so the term "thin brick' should be use Mr. Zimmerman (4), Color, on page 29 and said that he has a problem with stating that the colors can be selected from anyhistoric color palette, because that could result in some bizarre colors. Mr. Hardt suggested, select from historic color pallets from any major paint manufacturer. Mr. Zimmerman said that would work. Mr. Hardt referred to (2), Fagade Material Transitions, on page 29 and thought it should say Vertica transitions in facade materials. Mr. Hardt stated that on the same page, under (3), Roof Materials, it should say roof gardens instead of green roofs. Mr. Hardt referred to (F), Entrances and Pedestrianways, and stated that entrance design should specify location within a bay of unique width. He said he understood that the intent is to make the entrance stand out from the rest of the building. Mr. Taylor referred to (2), Recessed Entrances, and said that could occur when the building is on the property line, except when you define what an entrance, there is a lot listed. He said that could be construed that the porch or stoop while others can be recessed. He suggested adding entrance doorto be clear. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 15 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that on page 30, (H), Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies, for windows, Low E glass is not a tint - it is a coating. He said window makers are starting to use triple glass to meet the energy credit requirements, so it ends up being is three pieces of glass with coating on it. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the wood window requirement, and asked if the intent was for a// wood window. Mr. Phillabaum said the Architectural Review Board had noted that many of the commercial buildings currently have aluminum windows; therefore the requirement will be eliminated as a result of their comment on this requirement. Mr. Zimmerman said old wood windows are first generation lumber which do hold up, but they are now being made of third generation lumber and do not have the same integrity. Mr. Zimmerman referred to (f) regarding window proportions in residential buildings, and stated that he did not want to see horizontal windows prohibited. Mr. Phillabaum suggested limiting horizontally - proportioned windows to non - street - facing fagades. He explained that vertically- oriented windows help create balance, while horizontally- oriented windows can create more awkward building fagades. Mr. Hardt referred to (H), Windows, Shutters and Awnings, on page 30 and asked if the reference to canopies should just say canopies should be clad in g lass, metal or wood. Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement limiting tinted or spandrel glass, because allowing clear glass would be in contrary to our sustainability and green initiatives. He agreed that we do not want heavily tinted glass, so he said asked if there is a number of tint percentage that we could require. Mr. Phillabaum stated that Planning would look at whether spandrel orsimi /ar /y tinted g lass could work. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirements for mid - building pedestrianways at the top of page 30 and asked if the articulation along the pedestrianway is intended to be required to keep the walls from being blank walls. Ms. Ray said that was part of the intent, in addition to safety and visibility. Mr. Taylor referred to the requirements for shutters on page 30 and commented that wood shutters are the least desirable from a maintenance standpoint. He suggested shutters shall be wood or engineered wood. Mr. Hardt referred to (I), Porches, Stoops and Balconies, on page 31 and stated that the text that relates to Juliet balconies should be relocated. Mr. Fishman asked why balconies should be limited to six feet deep. Mr. Taylor pointed out that six feet is the minimumstandard in order to end up with usable space. Mr. Hardt said (b), Connection to Building, and asked why it was not okay to have pairs of balconies. Mr. Phillabaum said we are trying to avoid balconies sharing a support to the ground. Mr. Hardt referred to (J), Treatments at Terminal Vistas, and suggested, If the terminus does not occur at an open space type.... Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 16 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Taylor commented that for (L), Vehicular Canopies, on page 32 paragraph two and three, he does not agree with the 22 -foot canopy roof height maximum, because he thought that was comparable to requirements for gas stations. He suggested aligning the maximum heights with the permitted ground story heights for each building type. Mr. Taylor said he was trying to understand how a hotel would fit with a building zone set back far enough so that they could have a porte- cochere at the front of the hotel. He said that a vehicular drop - off area would be desirable for a hotel. Mr. Phillabaum said that vehicular drop -off area presented a difficulty for accommodating that type of structure while encouraging the type of building siting that the Code requires. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph 6 at the top left of page 33 and stated that there should be something that states that building components that hang over the side cannot interfere with requiring landscaping. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph (d) under (2), Height, on page 33 and requested clarification. Ms. Ray stated that it means that each building type is required to have a minimum and maximum story height, and the required minimum has to be located within the RBZ. She said if they do have a step back it does not have to fall within the RBZ. She said that can be clarified. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph 2 under (e), and stated that he does not agree with the last part that states to the tallest point of the ceiling on parapet and flat roofs. He said the front facade that can be seen from the street is where the story height should be measured. He said the paragraph could read to the eave line on pitched roofs and to the tallest point of the roof deck on the front facade. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the intent was to avoid punishing people for roof trusses being included in the floor height. Mr. Taylor asked if the goal was to get as much height as possible for the upper story. Ms. Ray said that was not necessarily the case; rather, Planning was trying to determine the best way to determine how to measure height from the exterior of the building and its overall appearance. Mr. Hardt said it is the overall physical presence of the building whose height we are trying to determine. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested checking codes from other cities to see how they have addressed this issue. Mr. Phillabaum said he had spoken to Jeff Tyler, the Chief Building Official, who confirmed that there are just so many different roof types and interior ceiling treatments, but Planning would give this some more thought. Mr. Hardt referred to (b), Fagade Divisions, at the bottom of page 34 and stated that it should read surface of the facade. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners did not have any further comments on the Building Type requirements. Mr. Hardt asked when the next draft would be provided that includes the Commission's comments on this round of the review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 — Minutes Page 17 of 17 DRAFT Mr. Langworthy said that Planning is correcting as we go, so as soon as the Commission finishes their review. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed with Mr. Langworthy that the Commission would have revised, clean copies by Friday, January 27 if the expectation would be to potentially vote on the Code on Thursday, February 2 She stated that the Commission would then plan to review the area rezoning on February 16' h . Mr. Langworthy said he have to check with Council and the City's administration on that in order to maintain the schedule that they provided to City Council. Ms. Kramb stated that she thought the intent of postponing the vote on the area rezoning was to let the public absorb the fact that the properties going to be rezoned, and to understand what that means for them. Mr. Langworthy said he understood Ms. Kramb's reasoning, but at this point, property owners in the Bridge Street Corridor are very well aware of the process and the timing, and those that are concerned have remained very engaged throughout the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there are two readings at City Council as well to assist with the timing and to allow property owners more time to understand the implications of the Code and area rezoning. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. I cityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION JANUARY S, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request- Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission reviewed Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses) of the revised draft of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and requested minor changes. The review will continue at the January 12, 2012 meeting. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes stated that this is an administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She stated that the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once the Commission completes their review and is satisfied with the final product. She stated that no recommendation or vote would be taken on this item this evening. She said the Commission will review Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses). Matt Stavroff, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, Suite 480, Dublin, said they own 50 or 60 key acres within the Bridge Street Corridor and would like to have the opportunity to come and show examples of what they are considering for their property that they feel would capture most of the spirit and intent of the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. He stated that he would also like to demonstrate why they agree with 80 or 90 percent of the principles, but that it would be impractical or impossible to adhere to 100 percent of the code as it is written today. He said he thinks there is a better way to do it, and would like the opportunity to show the Commission. He said he would like to do that at the next meeting or two with two or three development plans that he believes would not be able to be approved with the code as written today. He said he would hate to see the code and area rezoning approved without properly thinking this through, but he thought that with tweaking, they could all get there. Mr. Stavroff said their property at Sawmill Road and I -270 is subject to a reciprocal easement agreement with a neighboring property owner that explicitly prohibits the type of development that the Bridge Street Corridor is proposing. He said that the good news is that they are working diligently with a cooperative property owner out of Dallas, Clearview Development, and he is positive that they will be able to overcome that easement agreement shortly. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that this is a project in motion, and the sooner they can get their illustrations in, the more expeditious they can be to get what they feel is necessary into the Code. She said the Commission is being very methodical about their review of this Code and certainly share Mr. Stavroff's concern that the code be thoroughly thought through; however, the Commission has been charged to finish their review of the code. She said they look forward to hearing what they have to say. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Stavroff and review the plans to determine whether or not the development could be done through the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Stavroff agreed to schedule a time to meet with staff. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission has been through every word of the Code once, and this review will be their second review. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that a memo highlighting the changes to the Code recommended by the Architectural Review Board was included in the packet. Sections 153.057 (General Purpose), 153.058 (Districts Intent) and 153.059 (Uses). John Hardt asked if the Commissioners should begin by reviewing the definitions. Mr. Langworthy said that the Commissioners should begin their review of the Code first. Amy Kramb pointed out that the acronym, "BSC," is not consistently used throughout the text, since sometimes the full "Bridge Street Corridor" is spelled out. She recommended that this be applied more consistently. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Langworthy noted that BSC is used to describe the Bridge Street Corridor as a geographic area, and also as a prefix to the BSC zoning districts. Mr. Hardt said he would like to reiterate that he would prefer that the Vision Report be updated to include information that has been acquired and discussions that have taken place to date. Mr. Langworthy said that October 25, 2010, as stated in the code, was the adoption date of the Vision Report by City Council. He said the update to the Vision Report is on Planning's work plan for 2012, and Planning will come back and take a look at that along with the amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Hardt said under Section C, subparagraph 2, the text starts out by stating that these districts are further intended, and in the middle of the paragraph there is a phrase that says providing designs that honor human scale in its details, he thought it should be in "their details" because the details are part of the designs. Mr. Hardt pointed out that there are two references to sections 153.058 through 153.066 and wondered if it should include section 153.057 should also be included. Mr. Langworthy said it was not necessary because 153.057, General Purpose, is not regulatory. Mr. Hardt said the "Intent" in all of the subparagraphs for the Districts Intents all start with, This district is intended to... and while that language makes sense now, these districts will be in place, and therefore the present tense should be used. Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Hardt said that in subparagraph 9, the second paragraph on page 3, there is a sentence that says these regulations are intended to establish natural and created open space patterns.. he said he was not sure what "created" open space patterns were, and wondered if "man made" was a better word. Rachel Ray said that was the intent, and that the wording could be changed. Mr. Hardt said that in subparagraph 5 and 6, there is a distinction being made between Existing Structures and Existing Uses, which makes perfect sense now that he has read the minutes from the ARB discussion, but prior to reading those minutes, he did not get the distinction. Mr. Langworthy said that the code deals with Existing Structures and Existing Uses separately, because the two do not mix and match. He said that they needed to look very closely at what the regulations are for Existing Structures and then look at use and take care of use how they need to be reconciled. Mr. Hardt said that as he was going through the pages, he was trying to flip back to the cross reference sections to make sure that they tie together, and he found it confusing. He said on page 6, there is a table, Table 153.059 -A, which is located in Section 153.059(8), and throughout the Code there are instances where a table shares the numerical and letter designations to a section that it is not in. Mr. Langworthy said the numbering conventions are different for tables and figures than sections. Mr. Hardt said he had a question about the intent of the Existing Uses provisions. He said that in the middle of the paragraph, it states that an existing use maybe extended throughout any building orparts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption. He asked that this be clarified. Mr. Langworthy said there may be buildings that have spaces that aren't occupied at the time the code is amended, but there may be other parts of the building with an Existing Use in operation that are Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 specifically designed to be occupied in that way. He said if the space is designed for the Existing Use, it can expand into the unoccupied space. Mr. Hardt asked that the language be reviewed, because it seemed to him that they would want to allow a business to expand into any available space within the same building. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Langworthy said that he would look at the text, but it may be limited to a percentage of expansion of an Existing Use, because the intent is to ensure that the business becomes consistent with the code at some point. Mr. Hardt said they have consistently told property owners that they can continue to using the buildings they have. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that there is nothing in the code that changes that. Mr. Taylor asked if he were to add employees to his business and wanted to move them into offices across the hall from his existing office, but the office across the hall was a different use, would that be allowed under this provision? Mr. Langworthy said it may be allowed, but that has to do with the "designed or arranged" part. He said that if they need to remove a wall to design and make it function as one space that, as of the date of this amendment, is not designed to be one tenant, then that is designed to be two tenants. Jennifer Readier said this language is commonly used and is similar to the language used for non- conforming uses. Mr. Taylor said that in paragraph 7, the sentence that begins with this provision shall apply only to planned developments where no construction has commenced, is confusing. Ms. Readier said it intended to for any existing planned districts where there is a text, but there is no construction or that nothing has happened to implement that planned district. Mr. Hardt said then the planned district text remains enforce. Ms. Readier agreed and said it was a concession for the development community. Mr. Hardt said that, with regard to the Use Table, in light of the conversation with the ARB, should parking structures within the BSC Historic Core simply be a conditional use? Ms. Ray said that as the Code is currently written, parking structures would require a conditional use, which would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, if they are not wrapped by a building, and would also require Architectural Review Board approval just for the architecture and site modifications. Ms. Kramb referred to the Use Table and said that she did not understand why they would not allow Banks in the BSC Office Residential District. She also did not understand why they would not allow a bed and breakfast within the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District. Ms. Ray said the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District relates to the building types that are permitted in that district, and that district currently does not allow single family building types. She said that a bed and breakfast would most likely occur in a single family style building as opposed to a single family attached or apartment building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Kramb said she thought that a hotel in the upper stories of the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District should also be permitted on the ground floor, since that is where the entrance would be. Ms. Ray said the intent of the BSC Vertical Mixed Use District is for more intensive mixed use districts that do not currently exist, and that is why they are not recommending this district be applied to any properties yet. She said that the intent was to make sure the first floor was a highly active pedestrian oriented use, as opposed something like a hotel which would be less conducive to creating an active pedestrian atmosphere. Ms. Kramb asked why all the parking lots are conditional uses. Mr. Langworthy said that parking lots need to be sensitively placed and treated when they are stand alone parking and not associated with a use. Mr. Hardt asked about the use of renewable energy such as solar panels and other sustainable energy devices. He asked the other Commissioners if they wanted to allow them on every building because they are not always done well. Mr. Langworthy said he didn't want to discourage anyone from being energy efficient. Ms. Ray suggested changing the language to require them be architecturally integrated into the building. Mr. Taylor said he liked the suggestion to require that they be architecturally compatible. Mr. Hardt said under fueling stations, subparagraph 3 says where pumps are facing anystreet, the owner shall install.. He thought the code should not dictate who installs something, since it may be a tenant responsibility. Mr. Langworthy said that would be changed. Mr. Hardt asked for an explanation of "accessory parking." Ms. Ray said accessory parking is all parking that is required to be provided for a use on a property, so that it is not operated as a for - profit parking lot. Ms. Kramb said she was confused with the requirement stating that vehicle rental facilities shall be located at least 60 feet from a street intersection. Ms. Ray said the Commission had previously discussed a desire to limit these types of facilities from being located on corner lots. Warren Fishman suggested that the code restrict where the cars are stored, rather than limit the office portion of the use, which are common in higher density areas. Ms. Ray agreed to review the text. Mr. Hardt requested that outdoor speakers be a conditional use in all districts initially, and as density occurs and it becomes less of a concern, perhaps the code could be changed to allow them only in specific districts. Mr. Langworthy agreed to change the language. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the Commission would conclude their review for the evening, and that they will pick up again on page 14 with Lots and Blocks at the next meeting on January 12. Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes said they had scheduled a Planning and Zoning meeting on January 26', and at that time, she did not realize that she will be out of the country on that day and asked if they could Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 change the special meeting date from January 26"' to January 24 Ms. Kramb said she would only be available for about an hour and a half on Tuesday, January 24 th . Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made a motion to move the special meeting from Thursday, January 26 to Tuesday, January 2e. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Faax: 14 - 10 -44 9 0 10 9 0 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: December 12, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update of December 8, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background The Planning and Zoning Commission completed their initial review of the draft Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code and area rezoning following discussions at a series of regular and special meetings held on October 13, October 20, November 3, November 10, December 1, and December 8, 2011. A final draft of the BSC Development Code incorporating the Commission's comments made at these meetings will be delivered to Commission members on Friday, December 16. Schedule At the meeting on December 8"', the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed their preferred schedule for review and recommendation to City Council for the final draft of the BSC Development Code and the proposed area rezoning. Discussion was held on meeting alternatives. An additional 4 meetings are planned to complete final reviews and make recommendations to City Council. Meeting Date January 5 (Regular PZC Meeting) January 12 (Special PZC Meeting) January 19 (Regular PZC Meeting) January 26 (Special PZC Meeting) Monday, February 13 Monday, February 27 Purpose of Meeting Begin review and discussion of final Code draft. Finish review of final Code draft. Review final changes to Code draft; receive additional public comment on proposed area rezoning. Potential vote on Council recommendation for code provisions. Recommendation to City Council for BSC Code (if not completed on January 19) and Area Rezoning. City Council Vt Reading — BSC Code and Area Rezoning. City Council 2n Reading /Public Hearing — BSC Code and Area Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission Chair has expressed a desire to adopt the code provisions at one meeting and the area rezoning at a second meeting. December 8 PZC Special Meeting The Commission's comments from this meeting are listed below and grouped by code section. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion regarding these comments. 5153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria (final section of BSC Code) The Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section of the Code was modified since the October 6 publication date in response to some of the Commission's comments regarding the process. A new draft was distributed at the November 10 meeting, for which the Commission provided comments at this meeting. - The Commission suggested that all types of applications and /or review processes be listed at the beginning of the section for clarity. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code December 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Noted that no application will be accepted, and no review procedure will begin, until all required application materials are submitted to the City. This requirement is in the code. - Recommended that applications for development in the Historic District also be eligible for the initial Basic Plan review by the Architectural Review Board if desired by the applicant or recommended by the ART. - Requested that public notices be sent to adjacent property owners for any application reviewed by any public body, including the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and /or Board of Zoning Appeals. - Agreed that Basic Plan Reviews should expire after one year without filing for Development Plan and /or Site Plan review. - Commissioners clarified the waiver and elective review processes by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The Commission discussed allowing applicants the choice to receive feedback from the Commission on full applications, rather than limiting the review to the requests to waiver from specific code provisions as a method of resolving broader community issues. - The Commission asked for clarification regarding the circumstances in which administrative departures may be approved by the Administrative Review Team, and when the requests are more appropriately approved through the Development Plan and /or Site Plan Waiver process. Commissioners requested clarification on the types of requirements that cannot be waivered from (allowing uses and building types not otherwise permitted in a BSC district), which would require variance approval or rezoning. - Commission members discussed the types of projects that would qualify as minor projects that would go straight to review by the Administrative Review Team rather than first requiring Basic Plan Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commissioners were concerned that multiple - family developments with up to 24 dwelling units was too much and should require Basic Plan Review, and that additions and exterior modifications not exceeding 25% should be reduced to 10% or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less, in order to qualify as a minor project. BSC Area Rezoning In addition to the review of the BSC Code, Commissioners also discussed the recommended zoning map for the Bridge Street Corridor and the modifications requested by several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor. Although Planning continues to recommend the draft zoning map originally presented to the Commissioners and the public on November 10, Planning also provided a draft zoning map showing the changes requested by a number of the property owners and agreed to by the Commission at the initial review of the map on November 10, with recommendations for each property. Commission members continued to support the requests made by property owners that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin- Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River, where Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners also continued to recommend that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Planning noted to the Commission that it would be forwarding its recommended zoning to City Council along with the Commission's recommended map. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the final draft of the Code on Thursday, January 5, 2012. 7 c l ityof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410 4747 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION DECEMBER 8 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal- To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Review and -make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code (Zoning Code Sections 153.057- 153.066) based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments on the October 6, 2011 code draft. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft development code for the Bridge Street Corridor and commented on Sections 153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061 Street Types, 153.062 Building Types (General Requirements). COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde STAFF CERTIFICATI Steve wo I Y Planning Direct r 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes stated that the following is an administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She stated that the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once the Commission had completed their review and was satisfied with the final product. She stated that no recommendation or vote would be taken on this item this evening, since the Commission will be concluding their review of the Code with Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that the review of Code Section 153.066 would begin on page one of 18. She explained that she would call out each section of the proposed Code for the Commission members to comment on or ask questions. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (B) Required Reviews Amy Kramb recommended that the required reviews be listed up front, so that it would be easier to understand to an applicant picking up the Code for the first time. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (D) Basic Plan Review Ms. Kramb confirmed that the purpose of the Basic Plan Review was to look at the application only in terms of its consistency with the General Purpose of the Bridge Street Corridor. She asked what the point of that would be, since the application would be too basic to get a sense of what is being proposed at that point. Steve Langworthy stated that the intent is to make sure that the application is on the right track and will be consistent with the General Purpose and Districts Intent of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. He explained that additional details would be considered later in the process. John Hardt said that he appreciated the inclusion of the Basic Plan Review, because it seems to address some of the fundamental issues that he has had with this process, and he commended the selection of the name "Basic Plan Review." He said that the Basic Plan Review will give the Commission the ability to identify which projects are simple and straight forward, and which ones will be more complicated. He noted that he did not see any mechanism that would give the Commission the ability to make a binding recommendation regarding which review "track" a more complicated application should take, since he thought the Commission should review more complicated applications later in the process as well. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Basic Plan Review gives the Commission an opportunity to provide non - binding feedback, because the proposal would be very preliminary and could be pretty conceptual. Mr. Hardt confirmed that there would be public notice of the Basic Plan Reviews, and asked what would be done with the Commission's comments and any comments received from the public. Mr. Langworthy said that the ART would not ignore the comments. He said that the Code states that the ART should take any of the comments received at the Basic Plan Review into consideration as the development moves forward. Richard Taylor stated that he had to read this section several times before he was able to make sense of it, and he asked if there was a simpler way to word this section to make it clearer that the review period does not start until all of the application materials are submitted. He suggested eliminating most of the paragraph and simply making a reference to Section 153.066(L)(1)(C) on page 15. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 14 Mr. Langworthy agreed to take a look at the wording Mr. Taylor asked whether the Basic Plan Review is binding, because he thought it should not be, because he was not sure that there would be enough information at that early stage to make binding requests. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the review is not binding; however the Commission's comments should be considered during later reviews. Mr. Langworthy explained that even though the Basic Plan Review was not called a "concept plan," it was intended to be conceptual and typically the same level of detail that the Commission would see with Concept Plans for planned developments. Mr. Taylor said he imagined that most of these Basic Plan Reviews would be fairly straight - forward, but the situations where perhaps additional discussion would occur would be in situations where there is a borderline use or building type, maybe something entirely different from what the Code currently imagines or allows. He thought the Basic Plan Review would help determine which applications would be fairly routine, and which would be more controversial, although the review would still be fairly high level. Mr. Langworthy noted that the Commission may end up seeing some of those applications later on if there are waivers requested. Mr. Taylor said he hoped that Basic Plans would already have gone through the review by the Administrative Review Team before it even becomes a Basic Plan Review application and is reviewed by the Commission. He expected that Planning would try to identify some of the potential issues and bring those forward for the Commission's consideration early on, so that if, for example, someone wanted to do purple brick on a building, that would come up early rather than later in the process and the Commission can make a high level recommendation at that time. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the ART would review Basic Plan applications, and that they planned to identify potential Administrative Departures and Waivers as early as possible. Todd Zimmerman said his general comment over the entire Code is to make sure that it is clear that when abbreviations such as ART, ARB, BSC, and PZC are used, that it clearly states what those letters stand for. He thought it would be particularly unclear for people picking up the Code for the first time. Mr. Langworthy agreed to make sure that the abbreviations were more clear. He pointed out that in this most recent draft of the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Section, they have recommended a "drop dead" date of one year after a Basic Plan Review has occurred before a Development Plan or Site Plan Review application must be filed. He said that if the applicant had not filed the application after a year, they would be required to submit another Basic Plan Review and begin the process again. Warren Fishman asked how far into the process an applicant could get before they would no longer be required to start over. Mr. Langworthy stated that once the Development Plan or Site Plan Review application is submitted, all of the time limits stated in the Code would apply. He said that the only time the strict time limits would not apply is if both the City and the applicant agreed to a time extension in writing. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that although the change had not been made yet in this draft of the Code, he would like the Commission to consider allowing the Basic Plan Review procedure for applications in the Architectural Review District to be at the option of the applicant or the Administrative Review Team. He said that as it is currently written, it is the applicant's option, since all applications are required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board anyway, and this just makes the process potentially longer Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 3 of 14 for simpler applications; however, in some circumstances, either the applicant or the ART may feel that the Architectural Review Board should have a preliminary look at a proposal. The Commissioners agreed to the change. Ms. Kramb asked if public notices would be sent out for all applications that are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Langworthy said that as it is currently written, there would not be a public notice for Basic Plan Review Applications for applications reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Kramb asked if there would be public notice of Development Plan or Site Plan Review applications when those applications go before the ARB. Jennifer Readier said there would be public notice of the meeting and the agenda items, but there would be no notices to the individual property owners surrounding the site. Mr. Langworthy explained that the way that the process is set up, it is essentially an administrative approval by the ARB, just as the Commission had requested. Mr. Taylor said that it was unclear to him whether Basic Plans would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission first before going to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Langworthy explained that there is only one review process to go through whether someone is in the Architectural Review District or not. He said that if the site is in the Architectural Review District, then it would go before the Architectural Review Board; otherwise, applications would go through the other process with the Administrative Review Team and Basic Plan Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that he would make sure that the separate review procedures for applications in the Architectural Review District would be more clear. Ms. Kramb confirmed that, for example, the Commission would no longer review development proposals such as the redevelopment project on North Riverview Street. Mr. Langworthy agreed and stated that an application of that type would fall within ARB review. Mr. Hardt said that as long as it would be reviewed by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Architectural Review Board, he would be okay with the process. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners if they thought that the ARB would be familiar enough with the type and amount of review that some of these applications would require. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the ARB is familiar with the intricacies and specifics of Historic District to the extent that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. He said that he had read the ARB's comments on the North Riverview Street project, and he felt that they were well reasoned regardless of whether he agreed with them. He said he would be comfortable with allowing the ARB to review projects within the Architectural Review District if the Commission would not be reviewing them. Ms. Kramb said that she agreed with Mr. Taylor and thought it would be important to the residents of the Historic District to have an opportunity to comment on such projects. She reiterated that she believe that public notice would be important for any application that would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Commissioners agreed that public notice should be required for any type of application going before a Board or Commission. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 4 of 14 Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (E) Development Plan Review Ms. Kramb said that under section 153.066(E)(1)(b), the conditions in which a Development Plan application would be required may not be inclusive enough. She suggested that there be a size requirement, since one structure could be quite large, or a development on less than five acres could still be significant. She thought a square footage criterion be added regarding the size of a building. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Commission may want to consider the square footage of the building when they get to the Site Plan Review application procedures. He clarified that the Development Plan Review is less building- oriented than it is site - oriented, in that the site is created through establishing the street network, blocks, and lots. Ms. Kramb noted that if there was a lot of traffic, then they need to consider the building's impact on the street network. Mr. Langworthy stated that he believed that a developer would have an idea in mind of what type of development was anticipated at the Development Plan Review stage anyway, and thought that criterion number 3, requiring a Development Plan application with the design or construction of new streets or a realignment of existing streets, would address Ms. Kramb's point. Mr. Hardt said that he had previously be critical of the distinction between the Development Plan Review and the Site Plan Review applications, because he thought a 4.9 -acre site with one large building on could still have a big impact. He said that after he re -read the section several times, he finally understood that the Development Plan Review is more of a 50,000 -foot view of a site, where the streets and the road network are established to create the site, while the Site Plan Review is more about the building and the architecture and all of the site details. He thought that the names might be somewhat backward, but he compared the process in some ways to the preliminary development plan and final development plan procedures that the Commission considers for planned districts. Mr. Hardt said that his general comment for both the Development Plan Review and the Site Plan Review is that he would like to see a list of the submission requirements for each to understand the nature of the process a little better. Mr. Langworthy said he understood, but stated that the final list might not be ready prior to the Code being finished. He said Planning would make that information available to the Commission when they arrived at that point. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the flow charts that Mr. Langworthy had presented would be included in the Code. Mr. Langworthy said they would be included in the Code, and probably in the materials that are provided to applicants as well. Ms. Kramb asked if new streets would be public or private streets. Mr. Langworthy said that by definition, if streets are part of the street network, they are required to be public. Mr. Hardt referred to the Development Plan Elective Review procedures, which states that if the ART cannot reach a final determination on an application, then it is "kicked up" to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said it was unclear whether the applicant has the option of "kicking" themselves up to the Commission, because he thought that it someone wanted to do something that is truly unique and special and feel strongly about it but it does not neatly fit into the Bridge Street Code, then they should have an opportunity to make their case to the Commission. Mr. Taylor asked if that was the purpose of the Waiver Review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 5 of 14 Mr. Langworthy said the Waiver Review was intended to be applicant to make a request of the Commission to allow them to He said that the Commission would only review the elements Waiver. a review process that would allow an not follow a specific Code requirement. for which the applicant is requesting a Mr. Hardt asked if, for example, an applicant were to work with Planning and they arrived at a disagreement, if the ART would have the option of kicking up the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before the application is simply disapproved. He said that he wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to obtain the Commission's opinion first before it's just disapproved. Mr. Langworthy explained that the applicant's options included Planning and Zoning Commission review through the Waiver process for specific requirements, or to file an Administrative Appeal to an administrative decision made by the ART, which would be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Kramb asked if an applicant had 20 issues, would they have to get 20 Waivers separately? Mr. Langworthy said the applicant would not be required to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission 20 different times, they could all be reviewed at once. He compared the Waiver process as similar to the Variance process, only it is reviewed by the Commission instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hardt asked if a project had a myriad of issues with the Code, could the process be expedited by going for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and having the whole project reviewed at once, instead of looking at each Waiver request separately? Mr. Langworthy said that he would not recommend that, because it would simply be an excuse to avoid having to meet the Code because everyone would try to see if they could just make a better argument to the Planning and Zoning Commission than the ART. He said that he would rather they require the applicant to go through the Waiver process, because there are criteria that they would be required to meet in order to receive approval for a Waiver. He explained that the ultimate objective is for everyone to meet the Code and not simply allow anyone to avoid having to meet the Code simply by asking a different Board or Commission for their approval. Mr. Taylor agreed that the Waiver process should not necessarily be easy, but there should be options. He thought that if an applicant is unable to resolve an issue with the ART, they could complete a Waiver Request and go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that he believes that most of the potential Waivers will be identified even before the Pre - Application Review phase. Mr. Taylor stated that that is one of the things that he likes about the process as it is written, because there is an opportunity at the very beginning to resolve issues, which puts the applicant is in a position in which, if they have something that they are really passionate about, they will have a high hurdle to clear if they are serious about it. He said it would require the applicant to make a good case to the Planning and Zoning Commission if they are really committed to the idea about why the development should not be required to meet a specific Code requirement. He thought that as long as there is the option of making that case, then he would be okay with the process, because he thought that the Elective Review and the Waiver Review procedures would give the Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to have a higher level of review in special circumstances. Ms. Kramb asked Mr. Langworthy to clarify the difference between a Waiver and an Administrative Departure. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 14 Mr. Langworthy explained that the approval criteria are Administrative Departures, while the Waiver criteria are a not meet the criteria for an Administrative Departure, Waiver. He thought that there would be things that would thought that Waivers would probably be more obvious and different, because they are fairly limited for little broader. He stated that if something does it would automatically qualify for requiring a be clear departures later in the process, but he identified early in the process. Mr. Taylor said that he would like to eliminate from the sentence that reads, Rather than reaching a final determination under the provisions of 153.066(E)(2) the ART may elect to forward any Development Plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a decision it if concludes that the application raises complex issues, such as the need for major infrastructure improvements and other neighborhood or community -wide effects, that would benefit from a Commission decision, the portion from "raises complex issues" to "community -wide effects." He said that he wanted to eliminate the list of issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Mr. Taylor. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there are some consistency issues among different sections of Code that are essentially stating the same thing, but are worded differently. She thought that the wording should be the same. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (F) Site Plan Review Ms. Kramb suggested adding the word "approved" before "Development Plan" in subsection 153.066(F)(2)(b) just to make sure that it is clear that the ART should ensure that the Site Plan Review application is consistent with an approved Development Plan. Mr. Hardt pointed out that under subsection 153.066(F)(4)(e)2, it states that a Site Plan Waiver cannot be used to authorize any use, sign, or building type not permitted in that BSC district. He asked if a use that is not permitted in a specific BSC district might be an example of something that someone might seek a Waiver for. Mr. Langworthy said that Waivers are only intended to go so far, and that they cannot be used to completely disregard the Code in any circumstance. He said that the Director could consider uses that are not listed in the Code and determine which listed use it would most closely resemble; however, to authorize a new use, rezoning to a different BSC district or a Code modification would be required. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (G) Minor Projects Mr. Hardt said that multiple - family developments with 24 units and 20,000- square -foot buildings would not strike him as "minor" projects. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission would continue to review all Preliminary and Final Plats, and that the Commission currently does not review every single single - family home. Mr. Hardt said that he thought that additions of 25% of the gross floor area could potentially be pretty significant. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that even additions would be required to meet the Bridge Street Code, and if they could not, they would have to go through the Waiver Review process anyway. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that a maximum square footage would be appropriate, such as 10,000 square feet. Mr. Langworthy agreed to make that change Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 7 of 14 Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (J) Other Applicable Reviews Ms. Kramb recommended that the "provided that" be removed from the Conditional Use, Zoning Map or Text Amendment, and Zoning Variance subsections. Section 153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA (L) General Provisions Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that Mr. Langworthy had indicated that an architect would be on the ART. Mr. Langworthy said that there would be an architectural consultant to advise the ART, but that consultant will not be a member of the ART because that person will not be a staff member. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how the consultant would be selected. Mr. Langworthy said the current process would be used, and Planning expected to contract approximately three architects to have available at any time, in case there is a conflict of interest with anyone. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to comment on this application. [There were no one.] 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that the Commission would review the proposed area rezoning and make a recommendation to City Council of the proposed land use map amendments; however, the Commission will not be voting on this application at this meeting. She noted that property owners would be notified when the vote is scheduled and they will have the opportunity to comment at that time as well, in addition the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Steve Langworthy stated that Planning did not have a formal presentation prepared. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that Mr. Taylor was not present when the proposed area rezoning was reviewed on November 10, and asked if he had any questions of staff. Richard Taylor requested clarification regarding the draft zoning maps dated December l it and November 10"'. Rachel Ray clarified that the map dated November 10"' includes Planning's recommendations with respect to the area rezoning, while the map dated December l it reflects the discussion of the Architectural Review Board who reviewed the area rezoning proposed for the Historic District, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommended changes. Mr. Taylor stated that he was trying to obtain a better understanding of the differences between the areas along West Dublin- Granville Road recommended for BSC Office or BSC Commercial Districts, and whether the existing property owners would still be able to maintain their current uses regardless of the BSC zoning. He said he was not sure he understood the objections of the some the property owners. Mr. Langworthy presented a slide showing the draft zoning map dated November 10"' and noted that the concern related to the type of character that will be created in this area. He reiterated that form -based zoning is much more integrated than convention zoning regulations, with streets being considered first, and then the development site, and then how the building relates to the adjacent street network. He explained that the uses and permitted building types work together to establish a development character for an area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 8 of 14 Mr. Langworthy presented a map of the Bridge Street Corridor and described the character areas in different parts of the Corridor that were used to create the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts. He stated that with respect to the east side of the Corridor, Planning considered four broad categories of issues. He listed first the address corridor along State Route 161, with taller buildings expected to be located closer to the street, creating a place where people would want to live close to and work from. Mr. Langworthy said the second area that Planning considered was the Sawmill Road area for its potential to become an entertainment- focused commercial center with high densities and great walkability. He continued that, to support both of these first two areas, Planning looked at the area interior to the Corridor as an area with a critical mass of residential development in order to have enough people living in the Bridge Street Corridor to be able to support both employees that may want to work in offices along the State Route 161 address corridor, as well as the ones that may want to walk or bike over to the Sawmill Center area. He concluded that the strip of land along Riverside Drive relates to the Scioto River provides an opportunity to capture critical park land, and development in this "riverside character" area should relate to the river and the future park. Mr. Langworthy stated that these are the basic principles that Planning considered in terms of forming the character for these areas through the creation of the Bridge Street Corridor zoning districts. He noted that there are some "left over" commercial areas that are currently very well established, but we learned from the consultant who produced the retail analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor that retail in this area really needs to be condensed and located in clusters so that the commercial development can feed off of the activity generated by adjacent uses in close, walkable proximity in order to be more survivable. Mr. Langworthy said that the first zoning character map dated November 10"' shows the density, walkability, critical mass of residential uses, the office "address" corridor, and the riverside character, hopefully the way that they all work together in implementing the Bridge Street Corridor Vision is clearer. He pointed out that Planning had received several letters from property owners interested in different zoning designations applied to their properties, which were reviewed at the November 10"' Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that the Commission agreed with most of the requests to change zoning districts, and the resulting map is the one dated December li He stated that Planning was concerned that the requested changes to the zoning map recommended by Planning started to interrupt the ability to establish the character areas described earlier by spreading out the Sawmill Center Neighborhood to diminish its compactness, interrupting the address corridor along State Route 161 with commercial development, interrupting the riverside character area with commercial development, and losing the critical mass of residential development. He stated that these interruptions form the basis for Planning's concern with the requested modifications to the recommended zoning map, and that is why Planning continues to recommend the November 10"' draft of the proposed area rezoning map. Mr. Langworthy recalled that Mr. Taylor had mentioned the existing uses operating in existing buildings in the Bridge Street Corridor. He explained that draft Code language was included in more recent drafts of the Code to protect those uses and buildings so that they can both expand and continue to thrive in their current locations until they decide that the Bridge Street Corridor development is right for them. Mr. Langworthy said that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the area zoning proposed for the Historic District, and the one recommended change is the area on North Riverview Street. He explained that this area contains six single family residences, and the ARB's recommendation was that the current designation of BSC Historic Core be changed to BSC Historic Residential to mirror the zoning on South Riverview Street and to maintain that cluster of homes. He pointed out that the Planning Report contains two positions with respect to the proposed zoning for this area, and the Commission should discuss how they should proceed with the ARB's recommendation. Mr. Taylor requested further clarification of the property owners' concerns regarding what happens to the uses they currently operate in their existing buildings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 14 Mr. Langworthy explained that Planning started by renaming these "Existing Structures" and "Existing Uses" to distinguish them from true nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures, allowing them to be considered conforming buildings and uses. He said that the only restriction is that there is a fifty percent limitation on expansions to the buildings or use areas, and when Planning looked at the affected properties, getting a fifty percent expansion will be difficult because of the need to also provide parking. Mr. Taylor asked why the Shoppes at River Ridge was not recommended for BSC Office. Mr. Langworthy noted that Planning had debated whether BSC Office or BSC Commercial would be more appropriate for that property. He said that with the Council recommendation of a roundabout at the intersection of Riverside Drive and State Route 161, the orientation for the Bridge Pointe shopping center will be more towards Riverside Drive than State Route 161. He said that the office designation on that site will relate better to the future office, residential, and /or park development north along Riverside Drive than commercial would. He said that with respect to the Shoppes at River Ridge, with the configuration of the existing buildings and the age of the buildings, BSC Commercial appeared to be more appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy to clarify what he meant by the "interruption" created by the commercial zoning designation shown along State Route 161. Mr. Langworthy said he was referring to the type of character that was being created, because in the address corridor, the desire was for taller buildings located closer to the street. He pointed out that one of the building types permitted in the BSC Commercial District is the single story commercial center building type, which can be built close to the street, but a building with fewer stories would not continue the same character down the State Route 161 Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that Mr. Hardt had questioned several times why it was important to define what happens within buildings, since this entire area is intended to be mixed use. She thought that that speaks to the point that if we want buildings to look a certain way, we should codify that appearance and spend less time on what happens within the buildings themselves. Mr. Langworthy noted that the uses permitted in each of the districts had been broadened. He said that he is not as concerned with the uses permitted in the BSC districts as he is with the building types that are permitted, particularly within the BSC Commercial district verses the BSC Office district. He explained that the building types are different and generally lower density, and therefore they would miss out on the opportunity to establish the office corridor along State Route 161 that was first envisioned in the 1997 Community Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked, if the building types are more problematic than the uses, shouldn't the building types be addressed? Mr. Langworthy noted that a number of property owners had indicated that they did not want to build two story buildings in the BSC Commercial district. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed to the proposed zoning map and suggested changing the zoning of the parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of Tuller Road and Tuller Ridge Road from BSC Office Residential to BSC Residential in exchange for changing the parcels designated BSC Residential to BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood on the west side of Village Parkway south of Tuller Road in order to maintain the critical mass of residential development that Planning was concerned with losing. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning recommends expanding the BSC Residential district wherever possible Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 14 Mr. Taylor said he preferred to see the density associated with the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood on both sides of Village Parkway, instead of concentrated only on the east side of that road. Mr. Langworthy agreed that the density was important, but the zoning recommendation also had to do with the types of uses. He stated that Planning had spoken with the owners of the shopping center site, and their early plans show residential on the west end of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and the objective is to start transitioning the intensity of development down, to some extent, into a more residential area. Ms. Kramb pointed out that much of the public comment received at the previous meeting on the area rezoning had to do with property owners not wanting to build two or more story buildings as required in the BSC Office district. She assumed that their concern was that the property owners felt that they would be getting more value from their properties if they are redeveloped with commercial building types instead of office building types. Ms. Kramb agreed with the Architectural Review Board's recommendation to change the zoning of the properties on North Riverview Street from BSC Historic Core to BSC Historic Residential district since the area should remain residential given the limited amount of historic residences in Historic Dublin. She thought that the existing homes should be preserved. Mr. Fishman said that it still was not clear to him why, if the current uses are permitted to remain as long as property owners choose, with some ability to expand, there continues to be objections from property owners. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that Planning had worked with property owners, particularly Mr. Hale, who represents the Bridge Pointe shopping center, to develop the language to protect property owners. Mr. Hardt noted that he was still not convinced that there was enough of a resolution for the vacant outparcel at the Bridge Point shopping center. He noted that the property owner demolished the building prior to the drafting of this code, and now they are in a position in which they would be forced to build the building in compliance with the new code, and he was not sure that that would work. Mr. Langworthy stated that Planning has not seen any proposals for redevelopment of the outparcel, and because we do not know what it would look like, we cannot comment on how it would or would not meet the BSC Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, stated that he represents a number of property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor and agreed that he has worked very closely with staff on the language that is in the Code, and in the process, believes that many of his clients' interests have been protected. He said that there are several that should be placed in different zoning classifications, including the Byers site on Village Parkway, which would be more appropriately designated BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district. Mr. Hale said that the owner of the Bridge Pointe shopping center is an unusual situation, because just like the Shoppes at River Ridge shopping center across the street, they have an outparcel with no building on it. He stated that the building was removed not too long ago, and that piece of land has a lot of value if it can be reused, but he believes that the value of that piece of land is destroyed if the BSC Office designation is applied because only a very small percentage of the new building gets to be developed and used as retail. He pointed out that this is the only piece of commercial property that is currently developed with multi- tenant shopping center that is not receiving BSC Commercial district designation. Mr. Hale said that this site has been home to a shopping center for 25 years, and it will Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 11 of 14 remain a shopping center site for a long time, and therefore the zoning that is applied to this site should protect the value of the property, which is a reasonable business expectation. Mr. Hale requested that the Charles Penzone site should also receive the same zoning classification as the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood across Village Parkway, and Byers should also receive the same zoning. He pointed out that he did not represent Charles Penzone, but he felt that they should be treated the same as the Byers site. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity, 445 Hutchinson Avenue, said that Equity currently owns the Bridge Pointe shopping center, and the only thing that she would add to Mr. Hale's comment is with regard to her concerns with the lending environment today. She noted that, with the BSC Office District designation recommended for the Bridge Pointe shopping center, lenders get concerned about the uncertainty that results from new zoning districts. She noted that the center had been a challenge, and although the recently approved architectural enhancement would be an improvement, the BSC Office designation would be a detriment. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Wollenberg to explain what it is about the BSC Commercial zoning district that is preferable to the BSC Office district. Ms. Wollenberg said that the BSC Commercial district allows single story buildings instead of requiring multi -story buildings, which involves more expensive construction. She pointed out that outparcel buildings are typically single story and are generally restricted to eating and drinking establishments. She said that the limitations on this type of use in the BSC Office district are too restrictive for an outparcel. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Ray if there is a requirement that when a building is required to be two stories, if that is calculated based on actual floorplates, or if it related to the height of the buildings. Ms. Ray clarified that buildings would be required to have the number of required floor plates. She added that, in the upcoming draft of the Code, Planning did make the modification within the BSC Office, Office Residential, and Residential districts to allow personal repair, rental service, and eating /drinking facilities to be up to 10,000 square feet in a single tenant building, so that if a developer could make that square footage work with the permitted building types, there are some options that were not in available in the previous drafts. Mr. Taylor said he compared the building types permitted in the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts, and in the BSC Commercial district, the mixed use, commercial center, and large format commercial building types are permitted, while the only building type that is shared with the BSC Office district is the mixed use building type. He noted that the commercial center building type allows one story buildings with a minimum height of 21 feet, while the large format commercial building requires a minimum of two stories with a minimum height of 24 feet, and lastly, the mixed use building requires a minimum of two stories and a minimum height of 26 feet. He pointed out that in terms of building form, all three buildings could look almost identical, and he asked if there was a way to allow a one -story building to look like a two -story building while meeting the minimum required height of 24 feet. Ms. Ray said that there are other subtle differences among the building types, such as transparency requirements, front property line coverage, and required building zone (RBZ) width, despite the fact that building form is a major factor. Ms. Wollenberg said that even if the outparcel issue were solved, there would still be the overall uncertainty of this project being classified as BSC Office, because it feels inappropriate for a site that is located at a prominent intersection with 60,000 cars passing by every day and has been a commercial center for 35 years to suddenly be zoned office. She agreed that although there is an opportunity for Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 12 of 14 more density under the new code, the use category is changing, which would require office uses that would decrease the property values and rents and increase costs. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was additional public comment. Paul Reiner, Oakland Nursery, 5875 Kilbannan Court, said he has always been concerned with the impact on property values resulting from commercial to office zoning, and the position that leaves property owners in if they want to expand. He noted that there is a potential to expand or modify 49 percent of the building, but if they wanted to tear down the building and start over, they would not be allowed to if they are zoned BSC Office. He reminded the Commission that the Oakland Nursery site has been commercial for over 50 years, and it is located on West Dublin- Granville Road, which is a four -lane divided highway with an access road intended to serve commercial uses, and therefore the properties along the south side of State Route 161 should remain commercial. He recalled that there had been discussion of how commercial uses should be clustered in certain areas to create a critical mass of similar uses. He said that nursery and garden centers create business and do not feed off of other commercial uses, and if the zoning on his property were changed, it would restrict their ability to expand onto neighboring properties, and therefore the proposed zoning does nothing for the business in the long run. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Reiner and asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak with regard to this application. [There was no one.] Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that the Commission summarize their comments on the zoning maps. Mr. Taylor asked if the Architectural Review Board had made a decision on the recommended zoning for 155 South High Street. Ms. Ray stated that the ARB had agreed with Planning's recommendation that the property be zoned BSC Historic Residential district instead of BSC Historic Core district. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the six parcels along North Riverview Street had been the subject of a redevelopment application that was presented to the Commission, and that the properties had been acquired for that sort of project. He commented that, as long as the parcels are developed in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the vision for Bridge Street, he would be comfortable with the recommendation to zone those properties BSC Historic Core. Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Taylor and stated that although he values the single family homes in Historic Dublin, those six homes seem to be orphaned on the north side of Bridge Street, and that they have been acquired to allow something to be done with them, and he is not opposed to allowing that to happen. Mr. Fishman said that although he understood Ms. Kramb's point with regard to the desire to preserve the few remaining historic residences in the Historic District, he agreed with Mr. Hardt and Mr. Taylor. Joe Budde and Todd Zimmerman agreed with Mr. Hardt and Mr. Taylor. Ms. Amorose Groomes recommended the BSC Historic Core district for those parcels on North Riverview Street primarily because the conditions of some of those homes makes it impractical to try to maintain those structures as historic residences. She said that everything that is designated BSC Historic Residential District south of Bridge Street certainly needs to remain that way. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Commission will have the opportunity to review the zoning map at least at one more meeting, and that the Commission will only vote on the area rezoning after they have voted on the Bridge Street Corridor Code so that there is some time between the point at which the Code is voted on and the area rezoning is reviewed once again so that all property owners have time to learn about what the zoning will mean for their properties. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 13 of 14 Mr. Budde said he would support the map dated December li with the modifications to the properties on North Riverview Street, and provided the concerns raised by Mr. Reiner and Mr. Hale are addressed. Mr. Fishman, Mr. Zimmerman, and Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Budde. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see the issues resolved with regard to the properties at Riverside Drive and State Route 161, and he thought that the zoning along Village Parkway should be aligned with the proposed street grid. He suggested that if the Byers parcel is zoned BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood district, then the parcel immediately to the north of it should be zoned that way as well. He agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes' earlier suggestion to change the zoning of the parcel in the northwest corner of the residential area to the BSC Residential district, and that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood should extend all the way down to State Route 161. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said that with regard to the properties at Riverside Drive and State Route 161, he would like to explore the issue further. He noted that despite the zoning, we are talking about a significant amount of time for the Corridor to develop, and what many property owners envision for their futures today and what they might think down the road could be very different. He commented that once the districts start developing, people will start changing their opinions about the value of their properties, and so there needs to be a way to be flexible on some of the key properties in this area, so he was not ready to support either of the zoning maps at this point. Mr. Langworthy stated that he would like to make clear that both versions, including the draft recommended by Planning and the draft recommended by the Commission, would be forwarded to City Council once a recommendation is made. Additional Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners to make sure that they had read through the memo from the Deputy City Manager that had been included in the meeting packet. She said that based on her reading of the memo, she understood that there are going to be potential applicants attempting to use what they have to develop in the Bridge Street Corridor, without making the necessary changes to build really high quality development. She said that Planning's responses to many of the requests were very good, with strong push back. She stated that we would need to be clear and deliberate with our expectations for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. She reiterated that the Commissioners should read this memo thoroughly. Mr. Taylor said that when he read the memo, he was disappointed in the development community for making the requests to reduce development quality. He thanked Planning for pushing back and holding up the high standards of the Code. Mr. Langworthy attributed credit for the memo to Dan Phillabaum, Rachel Ray, and Justin Goodwin. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the last issue that the Commission needs to address is the upcoming review schedule. She stated that now that the Commission has made it through one complete review of the Code, they would like to take the time to review and comment on the revisions to ensure that the Commission's comments are adequately incorporated into the final draft. She asked for suggestions regarding how long staff thought the final review would take. Ms. Kramb stated that she did not believe that the Commission would be able to get through the entire Code in one meeting. Mr. Taylor said he thought that if the Commission had two to three weeks to review the Code, they would be able to review the mark -ups at a third meeting. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 8, 2011 — Minutes Page 14 of 14 Mr. Langworthy asked that if questions arise that will needs staff work and research, the Commissioners should email those questions to Planning so that we will have an opportunity to look into the questions and provide responses to all Commissioners to help keep the process on track. Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that they will not be present on January 19, 2012, but Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the vote and recommendation to City Council should not be delayed just because she is not present. She reiterated that the Commission would not vote on the Code until the Commission was satisfied with it. Dana McDaniel suggested that if the Commission needed more time after January 19, the Commission could schedule another Special Meeting on January 26, which would still allow staff to prepare for the February 13 City Council meeting. Mr. Taylor made a motion to schedule a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 2012. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes commended everyone for their hard work on the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and said that she respected the efforts that had been put forth. She said that she is confident that everyone will finish strong, and that the Commission's thorough review will produce a better document for having done it. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Faax: 14 - 10 -44 9 0 10 9 0 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: December 8, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update of Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The Commission subsequently began its code review on October 13, 2011 and continued their review on October 20, November 3, November 10, and December 1. A special meeting for December 8, 2011 has been added to accommodate the Commission's continued review. Following the discussion on December 8, Planning will prepare a final draft of the BSC Development Code incorporating the Commission's comments made during the previous meetings. This draft will be available mid - December for the Commission for their final review at the regular meeting schedule for January 5, 2012. A summary of the Commission's comments from the Thursday, December 1st code review meeting follows. December 1 PZC Regular Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 5153.065(H) Site Development Standards — Signs — Pages 96 -100 At the November 10, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioners had requested that the sign regulations be reviewed at the December Vt meeting. The Commission also requested graphics to illustrate some of the requirements. For the review of the code scheduled for December li Planning took the opportunity to not only prepare graphics to depict sample applications of the sign requirements, but to reorganize the sign requirements table in response to some of the Commission's comments on other sections of the code regarding legibility and ease of use. Planning has also modified some of the requirements based on further testing resulting from the preparation of the graphics and based on some of the changes that have been made to other sections of the code over the course of the Commission's review of the draft. For example, the draft sign regulations were previously separated by groups of BSC Districts, with specific sign requirements for the BSC Residential and Public Districts separate from the BSC Office, Office Residential, and Commercial Districts, and special sign requirements for the Neighborhood Districts and the historic districts. Since the use table has been broadened as a result of the Commission's comments on the draft Code, and to ensure greater consistency, Planning has combined the sign requirements for all BSC districts, with the exception of those related to the Historic Districts. - Commission members discussed the purpose and intent of the sign regulations, and requested that additional language be considered to clarify what types of signs are desirable, and what types are prohibited. - The Commission discussed the current Zoning Code limitation on the number of colors permitted for signs. The Commissioners agreed that a greater variety of colors would be appropriate to the Bridge Street Corridor; however, some were concerned that opening up the requirements to allow an unlimited number of colors would be undesirable. Following discussion, some Commissioners suggested that if a Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code December 8, 2011 Page 2 of 2 registered corporate logo had unlimited colors, it should only take up 20% of the sign area as a secondary image, with two additional colors permitted in addition to the logo. However, if a business wanted a larger logo, then the total number of sign colors should be more limited. The Commission also discussed whether black and white should be counted as permitted colors, and whether allowing the two additional colors for signs with multi - colored logos should be the same colors as used in the logo. - The Commission commented that wall sign size should be based on the exterior storefront and not the portion of wall applicable to the tenant. - Commissioners requested that ground signs be landscaped where appropriate to its setting. - Commission members requested clarification regarding the use of the term "Building- Mounted Signs" and suggested that this term be defined and consistently used throughout the section. - It was suggested that a table or section be placed at the beginning of the sign regulations subsection to clearly state how many of each type of sign are permitted for each building type or district. - The Commission members discussed the concept of signs for "major tenants," defined as tenants occupying at least one full floor of a building three stories or greater. The Commissioners agreed that this type of sign would be helpful in identifying significant buildings and tenants, but thought that the sign allowance should be simplified to permit a major tenant sign for buildings three stories or greater and permit the owner to determine how the sign is used. - Commissioners requested additional sign provisions to ensure adequate identification for upper story tenants in smaller office buildings. - The Commission discussed window display signs and agreed that some limitation was desirable. The Commission suggested that if window display signs are used, it should be in lieu of a permitted window identification sign. - Commissioners requested that Master Sign Plans be permitted for any building or site that wishes to deviate from the sign requirements, instead of just larger, coordinated sites in the Neighborhood Districts. - Commissioners requested language to clarify that sandwich board signs should allow for a continuous unobstructed path along the sidewalk. 5153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria — Pages 101 -109 (final section of BSC Code) The Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section of the Code had been modified since the October 6 publication date in response to some of the Commission's comments and concerns regarding the process. A new draft was distributed at the November 10 meeting, with the intent that the revised draft would be reviewed at the meeting on December li Due to the late hour, the Commission requested that the discussion of this section of the Code be postponed until December 8, 2011. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the Code on Thursday, December 8, 2011. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION CITY OF r,.,., Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, . DECEMBER 1, 2011 Land Use and Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Long Range Planning Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code 5800 Shier -Rings Road under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Dubi n. Ohio 43016 -1236 City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Phone / TM 614.410 -4600 Steve Langworthy, Planning Director and Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Fax: 614- 410 -4747 (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us Web Site: www.dubrn oh us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topic: Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.066). Public Comment regarding the proposed BSC Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director and Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission reviewed the draft sign regulations of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Commissioners commented on the intent of the sign requirements and how signs and graphics should function in a more urban environment. The Commissioners suggested modifications to the number and types of permitted signs. The Commission also viewed a presentation regarding the draft Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Section demonstrating the main development application review processes. Due to the late hour, discussion on this section was postponed until the next meeting on December 8, 2011. The Commission voted to establish January 12, 2012 as a Special Meeting Date for the BSC Code, if needed, for further review of the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Richard Taylor Todd Zimmerman Warren Fishman Amy Kramb John Hardt Joseph Budde ST CERTIFICATION Steve ngworth� Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 20 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC). She stated that the Commission is scheduled to continue the review with §153.065(H), Signs. Rachel Ray stated that at the November 10 meeting, the Commission requested that the sign regulations be reviewed at this meeting, and that they be provided graphics to illustrate the requirements. She pointed out that Planning had included graphics with the meeting packets, but Planning also took the opportunity to reorganize the sign requirements in response to the Commission's comments made on some of the other Code sections on user - friendliness. She noted that a memo had been included in the packets highlighting the changes to the Sign requirements. Ms. Ray prefaced the discussion with Planning's overarching approach to crafting the sign regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that each building type would generally be permitted more signs than would be permitted elsewhere in the city, and that has to do with one of the main principles of the BSC, which is creating walkable, pedestrian- oriented environments and moving away from more auto - oriented designs. She stated that, just as we regulate building form and placement to produce a more walkable pattern, signs are also treated a little differently in form -based codes to produce more pedestrian- oriented places. Ms. Ray noted that the Commission had discussed the importance of integrating signs into the architectural design of buildings in other sections of the Code; the Signs section will define how many signs of each type are permitted, and generally, how they should be sized. Ms. Ray explained that signs are not intended to be geared toward vehicles as much in the BSC, because one larger sign would probably suffice in an environment where vehicles go by at 45 miles per hour. She said one or two smaller signs are more effective in a pedestrian- oriented environment, because they will create more visibility for pedestrians walking down the street, arriving from across the street, or pedestrians who arrive at a building and park behind it. She said that all of these requirements are intended to create a pleasurable walking, strolling, and window shopping experience. Ms. Ray explained that to start, Planning combined the sign requirements for several of the Bridge Street zoning districts, the BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts. She said they also addressed each major type of sign, and noted that whenever a sign is not specifically addressed by the BSC Code, that the requirements would default back to the Zoning Code requirements for signs. Ms. Ray presented the "menu" of permitted sign types. She said that typically one ground sign will be permitted per building, per street frontage. She said however, since the Code will require ground signs to be set back eight feet from the minimum setbacks, the public right -of -way, or the minimum required building zone, the use of ground signs is probably going to be fairly limited in the BSC, based on the limited setbacks of most of the buildings. Ms. Ray said where they are used, ground signs are permitted to be up to a maximum of 24 square feet, whereas the Zoning Code currently allows most commercial ground signs to be up to 50 square feet. Ms. Ray said the BSC Code provides for a combination of two building- mounted signs per storefront, per street frontage. She explained that if there was a tenant space that turned a corner, an additional two signs would be permitted. She said the maximum permitted areas of each building- mounted sign are typically smaller than what the Zoning Code currently would permit, but that is effectively in exchange for allowing an additional sign, allowing for greater visibility for people arriving from different directions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 20 Ms. Ray said in addition to these primary building- mounted signs, the code would also allow a secondary, smaller sign, limited to six square feet, that would be located on the back of the building to orient people arriving from the parking lot. Ms. Ray said other signs addressed in the Sign Code include directory signs, which generally provide generally information for people coming up to a building for upper story tenants, and display signs, which are placed on storefront windows to advertise goods, services, sales, restaurant menus, etc. She explained that Display Signs are intended to be changed frequently and should not entirely cover the windows. Ms. Ray said sandwich board signs will continue to be permitted only in the Historic District. Ms. Ray said the third category of sign types are the major tenant signs, which are similar to corporate office signs on buildings fronting on I -270 that are intended to call attention to major corporate entities. She said that for the purposes of this Code, "major tenants" have been defined as a tenant that occupies at least the equivalent of the gross floor area of one full floor of a building that is three stories or greater. Ms. Ray said one Major Tenant Sign is permitted per frontage, up to a total of two, and they may be located higher on the building fagade. Ms. Ray explained that the Code allows the Commission to approve special sign plans that would accommodate a wider variety of signs than what the Code currently allows. She presented images from a mixed use development called Crocker Park, which has a very extensive sign plan that allows for a wide variety of signs. She said that in Crocker Park, all signs are highly coordinated with the particular architecture of each building. Ms. Ray said it is this level of detail that could not be anticipated up front to be included in the sign regulations, but the master sign plan provisions would allow for enough flexibility in the future to allow a developer to come in and make a special request, particularly for the shopping corridors in the special parts of the Neighborhood Districts. Ms. Ray concluded her presentation and offered to answer any questions. John Hardt asked for confirmation that the intent was to allow master sign plans only in the Neighborhood Districts. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and Purposes (Page 1 of 9) Amy Kramb said she did not know why an entire page was needed to state the intent of a sign, because they all know it is for navigation and identification. She thought it needed to specify what is notwanted. She said, for example, nowhere in this code does it say whether or not neon, scrolling banner signs, or flashing lights are permitted to be used, and she did not think those sign types would be acceptable. Ms. Ray clarified that the restrictions on neon signs and changeable is included as a general regulation in the Zoning Code, and there is a reference that states that items that are not specifically addressed in the BSC Code would default back to the Zoning Code regulations. Ms. Kramb said she would be more comfortable stating what types of signs are not desired. Steve Langworthy said that the problem with that approach is that you cannot say everything you do not want, and if something is left out, that would make it permitted. He stated that at some point, we would need to discuss new sign technologies and how they should be regulated, perhaps at a future work session. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (1) Intent and Purposes (c) BSC Office, Office Residential, and Commercial Districts (Page 1 of 9) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 20 Mr. Hardt referred to ...to provide simple and clear visibility and awareness of larger office, commercial and residential uses... He suggested that rather than the word uses, residential development' should be used instead, because the intent is to allow a sign for the overall development, not individual residences. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (c) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Hardt asked about registered corporate trademarks. He said he understood the paragraph and supported it, but he thought for example that the intent was if Company X from a national brand came to Dublin, and they want to put their logo on the sign, we want to let them do it. Mr. Hardt said he was concerned about how easy it is to establish a corporate trademark. He said for $75, someone could file a trademark the day before they submit a zoning application and create a logo with 64 colors in it, expressly for that purpose. He asked if there was a way that language could be crafted that would limit the regulation to allow more colors for corporate trademarks that are well established in some way. Jennifer Readier said that would be tough, but they would give it some thought. Mr. Hardt said that stating regardless of the number of colors obviously has infinite possibilities, and he wondered if it was appropriate for all of the colors in a trademark to count toward one color in the sign, or if all of the colors in the trademark ought to count as colors in the sign. He said for example, if a logo had four colors in it, they could use the logo, but those would be the only allowable colors, as opposed to saying that the logo only counts as one of their allowable colors. Ms. Ray noted that the background itself is also counted as a color, so if you want the logo and copy to stand out from the background, one additional color may be necessary. Mr. Hardt said he supported the concept, and he agreed that signs should be treated differently in this part of the city; however, he said he was uncomfortable with how open -ended it seemed. He thought that the colors in the logo plus a background color should be enough to solve anyone's problem. Richard Taylor said he tried to imagine conditions in which this is going to exist. He said he was okay with allowing a wider variety of sign shapes, because we need that variety. He said he understood why the limitation on secondary image size should be eliminated in this area as well. He said he was not however in favor of a sign with too many colors on it, regardless of whether it is a logo or not. He thought the Code should establish what we want, and allow people to see restrictions and design to them. Mr. Taylor said, for example, if a Home Depot with an orange and white sign came in, he assumes that they would know that they are going to be building stores all over the country with all types of sign requirements, and they would decide to make their sign as simple as they can. He said when there is a local business not looking at the broader, nationwide application of their logo, then that is when he thought they might end up with the "mom and pop" stores wanting to do something really bold on their sign. He thought there should be something in place to keep that from getting out of hand. Mr. Taylor stated that what he thought would make everything lively in the BSC in terms of signage is the potential variation between signs, not so much variation within a sign. He said if there is a round sign with just two colors, and 30 feet away at the next storefront is a square sign that is 20 percent larger with one color, that would be great. He said allowing one sign with lots going on would actually have the opposite effect. He noted that Crocker Park had a lot of interesting signs, none of which had a lot of different colors in any one sign. Mr. Langworthy said that he did not know how to write language that would accomplish that variety among different signs. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 20 Mr. Taylor said he did not know that regulations to require that variety would be necessary. He thought allowing variety in terms of the size of the sign, the shape of the sign, in the amount of the sign that is occupied by the logo, in the fonts, and in the colors, as long as those individual things are limited within each individual sign, that would result in variety. Warren Fishman stated that there might be some signs that look similar, but he thought most businesses will want their signs to be different. He said that was why colors needed to be limited. Mr. Hardt said noted that sign size, shape, and color are the fundamental limitations on signs in Dublin. He thought what Mr. Taylor was suggesting was that the sign in and of itself should have a relatively small number of colors and be fairly simple and clear, but the business next door does not have to do what the other business next door did. He said currently, the Code text does not provide any of the "guardrails" within which a single sign needs to stay, and you can have any shape, any logo size, and any number of colors wanted. Mr. Langworthy clarified that was true, as long as it was within the logo. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the entire sign could be the logo. Mr. Langworthy asked if the Commission was stuck on three colors. Mr. Hardt said a relatively low number of colors would be preferred. Ms. Kramb suggested four colors because most company logos did not have more than three. Joe Budde said the Nationwide logo and sign they reviewed tonight was attractive, even if it did have a lot of colors. He suggested that if the trademarked logo is limited to a certain percentage of the sign size and allowed an unlimited number of colors, he thought that could be attractive with the remainder of the sign limited to the background and the graphics. He said for a Starbucks -type sign that is two or three colors, and the logo is the entire sign, perhaps the number of colors should be more limited. Mr. Langworthy said that could be written. Ms. Kramb said if the logo took up more than one -third of the sign, it would be limited to a specific number of colors. Mr. Hardt agreed, and said then the sign should be limited to three or four colors. Mr. Taylor said he did not think they will find that many, if any, big national companies that have a logo that contains more than two or three colors. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the old Apple logo had the rainbow colors in it Mr. Hardt suggested they could have all their colors and limit the size of the logo, relative to the sign, or they could limit their colors and have their logo occupy the entire sign. Ms. Kramb clarified that 20 percent of the sign could be a logo of unlimited colors and if it was larger than 20 percent, they would need to stick to four colors for the whole sign. Mr. Langworthy said he thought that planning could work on language to require something like what the Commission was suggesting. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (d) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraphs one through four, regarding how signs should be measured, while subparagraphs five and six seem out of place because they switch to specific numeric regulations for particular types of signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to subparagraph one and asked about signs that are tethered to a building, using something like cables, and would therefore end up exceeding eight feet in height. She asked if they would be excluding something that might be desirable. Ms. Ray explained that the measurement was only for ground signs, so something tethered to a building would probably be considered a building- mounted sign, which would be measured to the top of the sign itself, not including the tether. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she hoped for great creativity among signs in the Bridge Street Corridor, and she wanted to make sure that we do not create restrictions that would limit interesting designs. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph four regarding sign areas for multiple- tenant buildings and noted that the language in the paragraph relates the size of a sign to the front wall of the building as opposed to relating it to the storefront. He said he was concerned with that method because, for example, we might see a retail building designed in an organized orderly way with multiple storefronts that may or may not be the same size. He said that over time, as tenants change out, the landlord could move interior walls for the purpose of creating a certain square footage for the tenant. He said tying the sign area to the wall frontage would end up creating all different sizes of signs depending on how large the tenant space was in a single building. He suggested tying the sign size to the size of the storefronts rather than wall frontage of individual tenant spaces. Ms. Ray presented an example building and explained how the measurement was figured. She said that part of the intent was to consider the vertical fagade divisions, tying the sign design to the building's architecture. She said they would look at the language to address Mr. Hardt's concern. Mr. Taylor also referred to subparagraph four as something that has been discussed on multiple occasions. He said this requirement, at least for a multi- tenant building, seems to assume that we are only talking about signs for the tenants on the ground floor. He said they need to think about how they are going to address upper floor tenants because there is some precedent in Historic Dublin for upper floor tenants to have signs on the upper floors of buildings. Ms. Ray said that they tried to deal with Historic Dublin a little differently for that very reason. She said storefront' is defined specifically as applicable only to ground floor tenants as opposed to upper story tenants. She said for most other BSC districts, they would intend for upper story tenants to be identified either through a major tenant sign or a directory sign approach. She explained that the intent of building mounted signs for tenants with individual storefronts is to allow two building mounted signs per street frontage. She noted that perhaps part of the problem was that it said tenants' and multi- tenant building tenants' instead of storefronts.' Ms. Ray said that Planning could clarify the intent. Mr. Taylor asked if one of the two building mounted signs could be used for an upper floor tenant. Ms. Ray said that that was the purpose of the directory sign, if there is a ground story entrance to get upstairs. She said beyond that, the only other permitted sign would be a major tenant sign. Mr. Taylor stated that in the case of a professional office, only being identified by a directory sign would probably be less of an issue, but there might be concerns for business that do have a lot of walk -in traffic and may want to have some more significant sign presence on the outside of the building. He said he Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 20 would not expect anything close to the amount of signs that a storefront would have, but he could see a situation where someone might build a large multi- tenant building where there is some type of a small galleria or mall that is accessed through a single entrance, and there are multiple tenants accessed from the interior. He said if those tenants are only identified on the interior, they would have no exposure on the outside of the building other than the directory, which would make them difficult to find. Mr. Taylor was concerned that the directory sign would not be very much in the way of identification until you are actually at the building, and therefore upper floor tenants needed to be better accommodated. Todd Zimmerman suggested a blade type of sign for upper story tenants. Mr. Taylor said blade signs were often used for second floor tenants in Historic Dublin, and he liked them. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph five regarding wall sign height and asked if the roof eave or top of the ridgeline was considered the roofline on a gabled roof. Ms. Ray said if it was a pitched roof, it would be the eave line. Mr. Hardt understood the intent to keep signs on the vertical building fagades, but he said he could interpret the roofline as being the highest point on the roof. Ms. Ray noted that roofline was defined as the uppermost line or point of the facade or parapet of flat roof structure, or the lower edge of an eave, gable, or rake of sloped roof structure. Mr. Hardt said 14 inches was fairly deep for channel letters and asked about the logic behind the number. Mr. Langworthy explained that the mounting cannot push the letters out more than 14 inches, because after that point, the sign becomes a projecting sign. He said 14 inches was not a magic number, it is just a number that has been used in other communities. Ms. Ray explained that 14 inches would also allow some lighting behind the letters. Mr. Hardt pointed out that 14 inches would be nothing for a major tenant sign on the fourth floor Mr. Langworthy said that at some point there has to be a differentiation between wall signs and projecting signs. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph six regarding projecting signs. He thought 10 feet apart was not very far for signs projecting six feet out from a building. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there would not be more than one projecting sign on any given storefront. Ms. Kramb pointed out that there could be two doors next to each other for storefronts extending in opposite directions, or if there were two upstairs tenant spaces close to two other storefronts, they easily could be located within ten feet of one another. Mr. Hardt said it seemed like tying the distance between signs to the divisions in the architecture or the rhythm of the building would make more sense than an arbitrary number like 10 feet. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Mr. Hardt. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph seven, regarding different sign types permitted on the same frontage, and said that he guessed this means that one tenant in a building might choose to have an awning sign and a blade sign, and the next tenant might choose to have a wall sign and an awning sign. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 20 Ms. Ray said a tenant could also have a wall sign and a ground sign if the site configurations allowed a ground sign, which is a combination not currently permitted by the Zoning Code. Mr. Hardt asked the other Commissioners if that was what they wanted, or if two storefronts with the same architectural treatment should have the same signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if the example of the mixed use building on the screen was consistent, that configuration did not bother her. Mr. Langworthy said that allowing different types of signs goes back to achieving the variety of signs the Commissioners said that they wanted. Ms. Amorose Groomes said to Mr. Hardt's earlier point, she thought those signs did not bother her because they are located in architecturally appropriate places. Mr. Hardt said he understood, but he was maybe only half way there. He said that if there is a building with four architecturally identical storefronts and then one different storefront on the corner, he thought that one should have a special sign treatment. Mr. Taylor noted that the sign treatments are likely going to be similar within the allowable sign types, so the awnings are going to be about the same size and position, they can just choose different types. Mr. Hardt pointed out that as it is written here, the only real restriction is the size, because the colors, fonts, and everything else are not limited. Ms. Kramb said she would be okay with all of the signs being different. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (2) General Provisions (e) (Page 2 of 9) Mr. Zimmerman asked what was meant by, A non - commercial message may be substituted for a commercial message on any sign regulated by this chapter. Ms. Readier explained that this provision allows for First Amendment protection for freedom of speech. Mr. Hardt asked if this was something they had to allow in the code. Ms. Ray explained that the consultants had recommended this provision in the initial draft of the code. She said that it was just intended to confirm that the sign requirements are not intended to regulate content, rather than time, place, and manner. Mr. Hardt asked about a Whole Foods or a Trader Joe's who wanted to have their store name at their main entrance, in addition to their six other storefronts down the sidewalk, and over those, if they wanted to put phrases like Choose Organic; 'Buy Local; Live Healthy,' etc. He stated that those were not commercial phrases, which would be permitted by this regulation. He said if that was not the intent, the requirement should be clarified. Mr. Langworthy stated that those phrases would be considered commercial phrases because they are advertising the business itself. He said something like, 'Get Out of Afghanistan' would be a non- commercial message example. Ms. Readier said she thought that subsection (f), Required reviewing bodies shall not address the content of the sign message, would be sufficient. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (a) Ground Signs (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Hardt said he concluded from the presentation that there were at least significant parts of the BSC where ground signs are not likely to be appropriate. He said initially, he questioned ground signs being permitted at all, but after he thought about it, he decided that there are some areas where they seemed to make sense. He asked if it made sense to narrow down where ground signs should be permitted. Ms. Ray clarified that ground signs are likely going to be limited because the draft regulations require them to be set back eight feet from the minimum required build zone (RBZ) or setback. She said if you have a building with high a front property line coverage building requirement and a fairly narrow RBZ, there just might not be enough space for a ground sign. Ms. Ray said a building with a courtyard or a greater setback like the commercial center building type, ground signs could be permitted, and those might be the circumstances where they would be more appropriate. Mr. Hardt said he thought that if there is a required build zone in effect, then that struck him as a site where a ground sign would not be appropriate in the first place. He said that his concern was that in a dense, urban, walkable environment, ground signs do not seem like the right kind of signs. Mr. Langworthy said the best example was if there is a courtyard, and the sign is set back from the RBZ, a ground sign could make a nice entry feature, and at that point, it would be more pedestrian- oriented anyway. He noted that 24 square feet, the maximum size permitted for ground signs, is not very big. Mr. Hardt pointed out that in places like German Village, Grandview, or Georgetown in Washington, D.C. you will rarely see ground signs, because it is too dense. He suggested that one solution would be to take the entire notion of a ground sign and define which parts of the BSC where they are appropriate, and which they are not. Mr. Hardt said this seems to say that they are allowed everywhere if you can figure out how to make it happen. Ms. Ray suggested that allowing ground signs in these limited circumstances goes back to trying not to prohibit some more imaginative sign designs. She said if someone really wanted to do something really cool for a ground sign and could figure out a way to do it, they would want to allow that to happen. She said they are most likely to be used with buildings where there is a greater setback like the public building type, perhaps for a library or something along those lines, where a ground sign would be appropriate, as opposed to the mixed use building, where it was expected to be more urban and probably less appropriate, and not always even possible based on site configurations, anyway. Mr. Taylor agreed that there generally should be a blanket acceptance of a variety of signs in the Bridge Street Corridor, and noted that there will be practical limitations on sign type based on the location of the building in the RBZ or its particular setback. Table 153.065 -I: Ground Sign Requirements (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to the requirement stating, Ground Signs maybe landscaped where appropriate, and asked if it should be shall be landscaped instead. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had had a long discussion about that because they thought about if you had one that was in a courtyard, that you might want to allow a sign that was located within a hardscape design feature, and then putting landscaping around it would look odd. Mr. Taylor noted that it did say where appropriate, so if it is in an environment where it is appropriate to landscape, then it should be required. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 20 Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (b) Building- Mounted Signs A. (Page 3 of 9) Mr. Taylor said he was confused by the phrase, In addition to a permitted ground sign, which seemed out of place and redundant. He asked if the intent is that all Building- Mounted signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 163.065 -J. Ms. Kramb said the way it is written, the sign types seem to be cumulative, such that you can have a ground sign, two additional building signs, and so on. Ms. Ray explained that the intent was that a site could have a ground sign if it can fit onto a site, and in addition, it could also have building- mounted signs. Ms. Kramb said that subparagraphs B. and C. under (b) Building- Mounted Signs conflict with each other. Ms. Ray explained that buildings are permitted a maximum of two building- mounted signs, but if the building has multiple- tenant storefronts on the ground floor, each storefront is permitted a combination of any two of the four building- mounted sign type options. Mr. Hardt reiterated that he did not understand subparagraph C, Buildings with two ormore ground floor storefronts are permitted up to two different building- mounted signs for each ground floor tenant. He asked if that meant each tenant could pick two types of building- mounted signs, but not all four. Ms. Ray clarified that an individual tenant cannot have all four types, but there could be all four types on one building associated with different tenants. Mr. Hardt said he was okay with that, but the intent was unclear. He said the only thing he would object to is that display signs in the windows ought to be one of the types in the menu that you choose from. Ms. Ray said the concern was that if there was a restaurant menu sign, it would be part of the 20 percent limitation for window signs. She said that a retail '50% off sale' sign, for example, was intended to be changed frequently, different from what the window sign would be to identify the name of the business. Ms. Kramb asked if a window sign was defined based on content, meaning the name of the business or address because then it could be a display sign in the window. Ms. Ray explained that a window display sign could be up to 10 percent of the window pane area, or 8 square feet, whichever is smaller. She added that a business could also have 20 percent of the area of that window pane for your building- mounted window identification sign. She said in theory, up to 30 percent of one window could be used. Mr. Taylor asked if a display sign could be anything three feet behind a window. Ms. Ray clarified that display signs are anything located within three of a window; anything more than three feet from a window would not be counted. Mr. Taylor said that cleared up something he thought should be changed on page 5, Table 153.065 -L: Requirements for Other Permitted Signs, Display Signs — Location: If not affixed to the window, display signs shall be located at least 3 f. behind the window. He said if it was not affixed to the window, it was not a window sign. He suggested striking the sentence. Ms. Ray explained the intent was that if it was a poster not attached to the window, but hung in front of it to obscure the view of the interior, it would be counted as a display sign. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 20 Mr. Fishman pointed out that a lot of restaurants in urban areas have a framed menu behind glass on a wall beside the door. He asked how that would be handled in the draft BSC Code. Mr. Hardt said that it would be considered a display sign and that it was defined as advertising goods or services, is intended to change frequently, and may or may not be attached to or adjacent to a window. He said as written, the Code allows these signs in addition to two of the four building- mounted signs. Mr. Langworthy said that a menu could be a directory sign because it does not say what has to be on the directory sign. Ms. Kramb asked if a building could have two wall signs, plus a directory sign, plus a display sign, which would add up to a total of four signs. Ms. Ray agreed, and clarified that two of the signs would be the primary signs identifying the business, while the other two would be secondary, usually identifying goods or services offered by the business. Mr. Hardt said the key is the term building- mounted sign; which ought to be defined. He confirmed that Table 153.065 -J has four building- mounted sign types, and you get two, while display signs are outside of the table, and therefore they are not a member of the building- mounted sign "family." Ms. Amorose Groomes said the only note she had on the Table was with regard to legibility, because it is very difficult to understand how many of each sign type are permitted, and in which combination. Ms. Ray said that Planning could look into clarifying the regulations; however, ultimately, she said it was Planning's intent to have a "user guide" or something similar to help clarify how to use the BSC Code. Ms. Kramb suggested something up front to state how many signs are permitted for each property. She said that she thought allowing a ground sign and two building- mounted signs and a directory sign and a display sign would be a lot of signs. Mr. Hardt said that was why he though display signs ought to be a member of the building- mounted sign family. He said he understood that there were four different kinds of building- mounted signs, including wall, awning, projecting, and window signs, and as a retailer, he could pick two; but if he was a retailer that sold cell phones and he knew that as part of his business he wanted to put stickers on his window advertising cell phone sales, he did not think it was unreasonable to say he could do that, but it would count as one of his two permitted signs, and if he put up stickers on the windows, he had to give up one of his permitted building- mounted signs. Mr. Fishman said he was worried about sign clutter. He said in nice areas, there is usually a sign over the door, and a menu sign, and that's it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in downtown Naples, there are signs everywhere, and it is still a very nice place. Mr. Hardt said any given developer has two options available to them, they can comply with the BSC Code as it is written, or they can submit a sign plan in the two neighborhood districts. He said he would not be opposed to telling the development community in general that they have fairly narrow choices; they can play within the rules if they want predictability and want to know exactly what they are getting, and if they want to do something different, they have the option of showing the Commission the whole picture and getting a sign plan approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 20 Mr. Langworthy explained that there were actually two options. He said the sign plan is specifically for the two neighborhood districts, but there is also the waiver provisions, where an applicant can come before the Commission and ask for something different. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not a fan of signs attached to windows. She said she did not mind banners as long as they would be at least three feet behind a window. She suggested that perhaps the regulations should consider the signs that are affixed directly to the window itself. Mr. Langworthy noted that the hardest thing to enforce in the Zoning Code are the temporary window sign limitations because they are so easy to change in and out. He said he would rather have some allowance for temporary window signs, so the Code can say that they would be permitted some amount, but not allow them to go overboard. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought it would be easier to say they could have nothing. Mr. Langworthy said he wished that it was, but from an enforcement standpoint, retailers will then argue that they should have something, and at least they can have 10 percent. Mr. Hardt said he thought display signs should be permitted, but the business owner should be able to choose what they want. He said if they want window display signs, they would have to give up one of the two permitted building- mounted signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman said they agreed with that approach. Table 153.065 -3, Building Mounted Sign Requirements (Page 4 of 9) Mr. Hardt said under Wall Signs, the table referred to building orstorefront. He said again, those lead to different conclusions, so he thought storefront' was the right word to use. He said also, under Location, it referred to storefront signs, which is a term not used elsewhere. He confirmed that it meant a wall sign associated with a storefront. Mr. Hardt referred to Awning Signs, and said he thought it meant to say, only 1 sign permitted per awning, instead of for an awning. Section 153.065 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (H) SIGNS (3) BSC Residential, Office Residential, Office, Commercial, and Public Districts (c) Major Tenant Signs (Page 5 of 9) Mr. Hardt confirmed that the intent was that a major tenant was anybody that occupies an area at least as large as the ground floor of the building. Ms. Kramb confirmed that a business could get two building mounted signs, one ground sign, and a major tenant sign, and a directory sign. Ms. Ray said if a business tenant was large enough to meet the definition of a major tenant, then that would be the case. Mr. Hardt said conversely, if there was a building with a 20,000- square -foot footprint, and he was a tenant that occupied 16,000 square feet of the second floor, he got no signs except identification on a directory sign. Mr. Taylor said he did not think there was adequate provision for businesses in denser areas, where significant businesses will be on upper floors. Ms. Ray suggested a projecting sign or a blade sign over the entrance, or one window sign Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes said that if upper floor tenants are permitted an additional sign, the area should come out of the area permitted for first floor tenants; otherwise, we are just getting more signs on a building, and more is not necessarily better. Ms. Ray pointed out that another objective to keep in mind is that all of the permitted signs are intended be visible from different vantage points, such as people coming from different directions, and whether they are pedestrians or arriving by car. She said that one would be very unlikely to see every permitted sign from any single vantage point. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought there needed to be a maximum number of signs on a building. Mr. Taylor suggested that if someone wanted to have a sign for an upper floor tenant, they would be required to obtain a sign plan for the entire building, allowing for some negotiation to maintain balance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know how that would be legislated. Mr. Hardt said that would turn the Commission into a sign review commission. He suggested that if a landlord leased out the second floor, they could have a major tenant sign on the building, and if the third floor was leased they could have another major tenant sign (one each). Ms. Ray explained that if there were two frontages, they could have two major tenant signs; otherwise they got one major tenant sign per building. Mr. Hardt said as a landlord, he could theoretically tell the second and third floor tenants which sign they could have. He confirmed that the two major tenant signs, if permitted, did not have to be the same, and stated that by having this discussion, the Commission has already seemed to agree that signs on the top of a building are okay. He said these signs are permitted as long as a large enough space is leased, but if the threshold was lowered for what it took to earn a major tenant sign, and the landlord was told that they got two major tenant signs, and they can be given to whichever tenants the landlord wanted, one could be allotted to the tenant on the second floor from an earlier example that had 16,000 square feet. Mr. Langworthy asked if major tenant signs should just be regulated by building size; that they are permitted whenever they are associated with a building that is three stories or greater. Mr. Taylor said that addressed a large part of the issue, but the other part was that it did not change the orientation of other signs on the building and the overall accumulation of signs. Mr. Hardt said there could not be a total cap on the number of signs permitted, because you can never state exactly how many retail spaces there might be for a single building. Mr. Fishman suggested limiting the total number of square feet permitted for signs on the building. Ms. Ray said that when buildings come in for review, they will be required to show where all of their permitted signs are going to be located, since signs are required to coordinate with architectural design, and therefore the number of signs will be identified up front. Mr. Fishman reiterated that there needed to be a limit on the number of square feet permitted for signs for each building, depending upon the size of the building. Mr. Hardt said that there were already provisions that said larger buildings get one, two, or on rare occasions, three major tenant signs. He suggested a provision be added that said that in no case, shall major tenant signs outnumber the number of stories. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 20 Mr. Langworthy said that major tenant signs require buildings with three stories to start with Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Hardt if he was comfortable with the quantity of signs. Mr. Hardt said yes, but he thought he would actually lower the threshold of what was just said, which is to say if you have a substantially sized two -story building, he thought that a major tenant sign to identify the upper floor tenant would be appropriate. He said that he liked the way the major tenant sign provisions had been set up, but he thought in a two -story building, there should be some way to identify second -floor tenants. He said that perhaps it did not need to be a major tenant sign, but a larger sign. Mr. Langworthy said they would have two thresholds. He said obviously, a single -floor building has a set number and a two -story building would have some means of identifying somebody on the second floor, but you could not take that same mechanism or package to a three -story building. He said when you get to a building with three or more stories, you are now into the major tenant sign provisions. Mr. Langworthy said they might have something that has some sign allowance for second floor tenants on a two -story building, and once you go to three and above, you are limited to major tenant. He asked if that would work. Ms. Kramb thought that was a start, but she thought they should still limit the total number of signs Mr. Langworthy said that he had no way to do that, because there are too many different circumstances relating to building type, street frontage, possible number of tenant storefronts, or stories, for example. Mr. Fishman thought that architects could design a building so that it could end up with a ton of signs, simply by putting doors on the first floor that lead to upper floor tenants. Mr. Langworthy said that would not be a storefront, as defined, and therefore they would not be permitted the two building- mounted signs. Mr. Taylor said he was less concerned with the example of an upper floor tenant that did not qualify for a major tenant sign, because he was more worried about small office tenants who cannot rent first floor tenant spaces, yet still experience a lot of walk -in traffic and want to be part of the action in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Taylor pointed to an example of a doctor in his building that sees a lot of business and also has a small sign on a multi- tenant sign on the building. He said he did not know the solution, but that was why he suggested that perhaps a solution is that if a building owner wants to allow upper floor tenants to have a sign separate from a major tenant sign, that crosses the threshold into requiring the whole sign package for the entire building. Mr. Langworthy said he would rather try to come up with a straight - forward provision for a two -story building with upper floor tenants, and then allow the major tenant provisions to come in at three or more stories. Mr. Taylor said you could still have the major tenant sign provisions for buildings with three or more stories, but it still does not take care of the need for a sign for small or large tenants on the second floor. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not really like the idea of a major tenant sign on a two -story building because she could not see a major tenant sign on the existing buildings in Historic Dublin. Mr. Taylor said he was talking about the blade signs on the second floor. He acknowledged that allowing each upper floor tenant to have a sign could result in too many signs very quickly, and that was the question. He asked if there was a way to allow second floor tenant signs without cluttering the building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the types of office clusters, where a building provides reception services for rented out offices. She said technically, they would all be tenants, and there could be 20 or more of these offices on a second floor. Mr. Taylor said it depended how the signs were regulated. He suggested if there were second floor tenants, perhaps they could be limited to two signs and a total of so many square feet, and that way there could be 30 tenants, but they only had so much space for signs. Mr. Fishman and the other Commissioners agreed that they did not think there should be major tenant signs on two -story buildings. Table 153.065 -L Requirements for Other Permitted Signs (Page 5 of 9) Mr. Taylor referred to Display Signs — Intent, and said because he was aware of signs that would fit into the display sign category which are images with no text whatsoever, he thought the last part of the sentence should say, ...and signs that show or describe goods or services, instead of just describe. He said that way, a big picture of something like a wedding dress for a bridal shop would be covered. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (4) BSC Indian Run Neighborhood, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and Vertical Mixed Use District Signs (Page 6 of 9) Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, A: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be permitted to approve master sign plans that depart from the requirements of this section for sites with an approved Development Plan... He pointed out that development plans apply to sites with five acres or more, and he asked if master sign plans are intended to only be an available option for sites with more than five acres. Mr. Langworthy explained that master sign plans were intended to apply to larger development sites, and also for sites with more than one building. Mr. Hardt thought a master sign plan ought to be an option for anybody. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt. Ms. Ray explained that the intent was to allow carte blanche only for these very specific, very special parts of the BSC in the neighborhood districts to allow these areas to be something different, a destination, as opposed to other parts of the BSC. Ms. Amorose Groomes said five acres was huge and that there were many places in the Corridor where this could apply. Ms. Ray agreed that there are some areas where a development site may be five acres, but the buildings themselves come in one or two at a time, with a general concept for the larger area. Mr. Taylor stated that creating a master sign plan is something that should be optional because it gives a developer the option of coming to the Commission and proposing something special or different. Ms. Ray clarified that master sign plans were actually required for shopping corridors, which are required in the neighborhood districts. Mr. Hardt confirmed that master sign plans are required in shopping corridors, but are optional in some other places. He asked about what would happen if he wanted to develop an entire block with one large retail building with residential and office uses that only ended up being three - quarters of an acre, but he still wanted to a sign plan to accommodate special signs for the anchor tenant, and a sign plan for all of the others. He asked why not have the option to do that, because it gives the City the opportunity to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 make sure that the signs meet the high standards we have in Dublin, and it also establishes a plan so that when the next tenant comes in, there is already a sign plan in place. Mr. Hardt referred to the last sentence in subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, A: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be permitted to approve alternative requirements for sign number, type, size, height, location, and /fighting, and said that because that seemed to cover just about everything related to signs, he did not know why the sentence was needed. Ms. Ray said it was intended to specify and even encourage vibrant, imaginative sign types and varieties. Mr. Hardt referred to subparagraph (b) Master Sign Plans, B: A master sign plan is required for a planned shopping corridor, and said the sentence was important enough to stand alone with the remainder, The master sign plan shall be submitted prior to approval of Site Plan in a shopping center, in another paragraph. He asked why a sign plan and a Site Plan application could not be submitted simultaneously. Ms. Ray said they could, but they wanted to ensure that the master sign plan coordinates with the architecture and all of the other site elements that are part of a Site Plan application, but they can clarify. Mr. Hardt referred to Table 153.065 -M: Gateway Signs, 1 for each frontage along a corridor connector street. He asked if that was intended to mean that if he had a shopping corridor, and a corridor connector street ran along the edge, he got only one gateway sign along that frontage. Ms. Ray said the intent was to identify where these key gateway locations might be, and perhaps Planning could look at a better way of doing that. Mr. Hardt suggested that a gateway sign might be permitted in places where a corridor connector street is perpendicular to the shopping corridor frontage, so gateway signs would be located in places where streets intersect the shopping corridors. Ms. Kramb asked if this was intended to refer to lot or building frontage. Ms. Ray said it was intended to be frontage for the neighborhood district, and agreed to look at a better way to word the requirements for gateway signs. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (5) BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Neighborhood District Signs (Page 6 of 9) Mr. Taylor referred to subparagraph (a), and said he appreciated that it addressed some of his previous concerns with regard to the Architectural Review Board's review authority in the Historic District, but he would like to clarify the first sentence to read: A// newsigns in those parts of the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts that fall within the Architectural Review District boundaries... Table 153.065 -N: BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 7 of 9) Ms. Kramb referred to Number and suggested that it say, provided that they are all the same type. Ms. Kramb referred to Location, (first block, last sentence): Minimum setback of 8 feet from the right -of way or any property line, and asked if that meant they could choose which property line to use. Ms. Ray said it was intended to say ...and anyproperty /into address side property lines. Ms. Kramb referred to Size and Height, and suggested that the word maximum should be added before the dimensions since that is the format used elsewhere. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 Table 153.065 -N: BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 7 of 9) and Table 153.065 -0: Other Signs Permitted in the BSC Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts (Page 8 of 9) Mr. Taylor said his comment had to do with the conflict with the requirements, especially in Table 153.065 -N and the Historic Dublin Design Guide lines, which are different. He explained that if Table 153.065 -N refers to those parts of the BSC that are outside of the Architectural Review District boundaries and therefore the Guidelines would not apply, that makes sense because at least the same requirements apply to separate areas that are close together; however, below Table 153.065 -0, (c), in the Historic Residential, it says, The requirements of 153.150 through 153.163 shall apply in the BSC Historic Residential District, but that section contains a reference back to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, so he thought that there may be a conflict. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Guidelines are expected to change in 2012, with any of the regulatory language in the Guidelinesto be removed. He explained that as one of their objectives for the upcoming year, the Architectural Review Board has directed that the Guidelines be made into more of an "Applicant Guide" than a regulatory document. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Sandwich Board Signs, which are required to be constructed with subdued colors, and he asked what this meant. Ms. Ray said sandwich board signs would have to be a natural color; they could not be a bright blue or yellow, for example. Mr. Taylor asked if display signs were currently permitted in the Historic District. Ms. Ray explained that they are currently permitted to cover up to 10 percent of the window area. Mr. Taylor referred to Sandwich Board Signs — Location (second block), Signs shall be placed within 6 feet of the primary ground floor public entrance of the business. He pointed out that in Zoning Code Section 153.155 (Prohibited Sign Locations), it says that Temporary signs cannot be in the right -of -way, and he thought those requirements might conflict. Mr. Langworthy said that was the reason why they need to call out specific provisions like this, so that it is clear when there are intended to be exceptions from the Zoning Coe to the Bridge Street Code. He said the specific requirements override the general. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Sandwich Board Signs — General, Sandwich Board Signs may include chalk and whiteboard elements. He recalled seeing a sandwich board sign with a realtor's picture on it and asked if that would be permitted. Mr. Langworthy explained that it was the realtor's marketing piece and so it was okay. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was a way to regulate where sandwich board signs are located, since several signs could narrow the sidewalk down to two or three feet. Ms. Ray pointed out that the signs have to have a minimum of 5 feet of unobstructed clearance. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought that all the sandwich signs needed to be located on the same plane. Mr. Langworthy said he could write the requirement that way, but he would not be able to regulate it, because someone would have to be in the Historic District at all times to enforce it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like it written that way, so that way they can choose to enforce it if it becomes a problem. Ms. Kramb asked if they could say the signs had to be within one foot of the building wall. Ms. Ray said it depended upon how wide the sidewalks were in the Historic District, which could vary. Mr. Fishman said he thought that a couple of sandwich board signs in the Historic District would have been ok, but now he sees them everywhere, and in a high density area, he thought there would be one sandwich board sign after another. Ms. Ray pointed out that sandwich board signs are currently only permitted in the Historic District, and the BSC Code keeps it that way. Mr. Taylor said his favorite sandwich board sign was the Jeni's sign, because every day, a different ice cream is listed, and in his opinion, that was the correct way to use these types of signs. Mr. Fishman asked if the Code could require that sandwich board signs have to provide additional information beyond just the business name. Ms. Readier reiterated that the sign requirements could not regulate content. Section 153.065 Site Development Standards (H) SIGNS (6) Other Signs Permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor Districts (Page 8 of 9) Ms. Kramb asked if street address signs were an additional permitted sign. Ms. Ray explained that the Zoning Code currently allows up to 12 -inch street address numbers, and instead of a major tenant sign, where applicable, a building could have their address numbers be that sign instead, but because the size of the address numbers would exceed what is currently permitted by the Zoning Code, it needed to be clarified here. Ms. Kramb asked if a sign permit was required for addresses. She referred to subparagraph A: Street address numbers shall not require a permit, provided the requirements of Section 153.157(H) are met. Ms. Ray explained that typically, address numbers are incorporated on the sign itself if it is a ground sign, which would require a permit. Ms. Kramb said it made her question what other signs required a permit. She said this was the only time a permit was mentioned. Ms. Ray said there was a Zoning Code section that lists signs that do not require permits or have special conditions. Mr. Hardt said he interpreted this as small address numbers on storefronts not requiring a permit and not considered signs, but numbers greater than 12 inches really function more like a sign and would require a permit. Ms. Ray agreed they could make that clearer. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the proposed sign requirements for the Bridge Street Corridor. [There was none.] Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 Mr. Langworthy provided a brief overview of BSC Development Code Section 153.066, Review and Approval Procedures for development in the Bridge Street Corridor as it relates to the Planning and Zoning Commission to set up the discussion for next week's meeting. He explained that the process begins with a mandatory Pre - Application meeting with the Administrative Review Team (ART), as requested by the Commission, which must be completed within 14 days of request. He continued that after the Pre - Application Review, the Commission had asked for a means of obtaining public input, so the next step is the Basic Plan Review. He said that the Basic Plan Review has to be completed within 28 days, and the public will have ten days notice of that meeting. He pointed out that there is a time limit placed on the basic plan review of one year, so that if a Development Plan or Site Plan application is not submitted within that specific period of time, another Basic Plan Review would be required. Mr. Langworthy stated that after the Basic Plan Review, the applicant would be able to submit a Development Plan and /or a Site Plan approval application, each of which begin with the ART. He explained that when the ART reviews the Development Plan and /or Site Plan application, they must make a decision to approve or deny it within 28 days. He noted that if all aspects of the Code are met, then it moves along to building permitting. He said the applicant would have the ability to request a Waiver from the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow them to avoid having to meet a specific Code provision, or the ART can elect to send the Development Plan and /or Site Plan application up to the Commission for their review, still within the 28 -day time limit. Mr. Langworthy said that once the decision is made on the Waiver and /or Elective Review, the application would then move forward to building permitting. He pointed out that the Commission still maintains review and approval authority for Conditional Uses, the Open Space Fee -in -Lieu Determinations that they discussed in Section 153.064, and Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Plat approvals. Mr. Langworthy explained that the ART Pre - Application Review is mandatory for applications in the Historic District as well, with the same 14 -day timeframe. He said that the Basic Plan Review has been made optional, since there are so many Architectural Review Board (ARB) approvals, like changing paint color, that would have to be approved by the ARB anyway; however, he thought they may want to consider whether or not the ART ought to be able to require perhaps a basic plan review for special circumstances, and not just leave it as an option of the applicant. He said that from that point, the process is the same for submitting a Development Plan and /or a Site Plan application, which would first be reviewed by the ART, who would then make a recommendation to the ARB for their final review and decision. Mr. Langworthy said that the ART has 28 days to make a recommendation to the ARB, who would also review any Waiver requests, before moving on to building permitting. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that the ARB maintains the same review authority that they have always had, and pointed out that the normal Planning and Zoning Commission approvals for Conditional Uses, Rezonings, and Plats would still apply in the Historic District as they do currently. Mr. Langworthy concluded that there are other administrative reviews, including the Minor Project Review, which required ART review and decision within 14 days as well, in addition to Administrative Departures. He noted that anything that does not qualify or is not approved for an Administrative Departure can be submitted to the Commission as a Waiver Request. Mr. Hardt asked if the Waivers can be requested at the applicants' discretion. Mr. Langworthy stated that the applicant can choose whether to request a Waiver, but it would need to meet certain criteria; otherwise, the applicant would need to meet the BSC Code. Mr. Hardt confirmed that if an applicant submitted a project, and the ART were to review it find that it was not consistent with the BSC Code, the ART would have two options available — they disapprove the application, or they can kick it up to the Commission for review. He asked if there would be an Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 opportunity, hypothetically, if the ART were to disapprove an application, for the applicant to say that they would rather pursue a Waiver request. Mr. Langworthy said that was an option, or they could take the disapproval and leave. Mr. Langworthy added that there are also provisions for Minor Modifications to approved applications, which includes language that is nearly identical to the language used for Minor Modifications in Planned Districts. He confirmed that the Board of Zoning Appeals would still review Administrative Appeals to administrative decisions. Mr. Langworthy stated that the Commission's ability to monitor the implementation of the BSC Code is still included. He said that time extensions have to be agreed upon by both the applicant and the City before the extension is granted. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that an abandonment clause has been added. He explained that once a final approval is granted, if an applicant is not actively pursuing completion of the project, or the Director of Building Standards finds a project that has been abandoned, which is defined as when the Building Permit expires, then the approval for that application will lapse. Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that at the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for December 8, the Commission would review Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria in more detail. Ms. Ray pointed out that some discussion on the BSC Area Rezoning would also be necessary, since notices had been sent out to property owners indicating a possible decision at that meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what there was to discuss, since the Commission did not intended to make a decision on the Area Rezoning until they had concluded their review of the BSC Code. Claudia Husak clarified that when the agenda for the meeting on December 8 was set, Planning had assumed that the Commission might be a little further along with the Code, and that there may have been a potential vote on the Code and Area Rezoning, and that is why the notices were sent that way. She said that since there were over 400 property owners and that the meeting was only a week away, they did not have enough time to send out an amended agenda. She suggested that if residents came on December 8 th wanting to hear the Commission's discussion, that they be informed that they would be notified when the Commission was ready to take a vote. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the public notice did not say the Commission would vote, but that they had scheduled a vote. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she believed that the Commission still had some things to talk about with regard to the Code and the proposed Area Rezoning, and she still wanted to hear from staff and the other Commissioners about some of the changes that had been discussed at the past several meetings. She added that she did not believe it would be fair to vote on the Code and then immediately follow that with a vote on the Area Rezoning, because she thought that if she was someone whose property was being rezoned, she would not feel like she would have enough of an opportunity to digest the new requirements and comment on it, if necessary. She thought the votes should be at least a meeting apart. Mr. Langworthy noted that two City Council readings are built into the process for that reason. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Hardt and Ms. Kramb agreed that the votes on the Code and then the Area Rezoning should occur at separate meetings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 20 Mr. Langworthy said he would discuss the Commission's recommended schedule with the City Manager, and he would relay the Commission's concerns regarding adequate opportunity for public input. Mr. Hardt said he expected to see was a clean, finished, edited, completed draft of the Code before they begin their final review. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the Commissioners had the first half of the revised Code, and a complete draft would be sent to the Commission as soon as possible after December 8 so that they have adequate time prior to January 5 to begin their review. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to be clear about expectations. She stated that the Commission is committed to an aggressive schedule for both the Code and the Area Rezoning, but they are categorically opposed to rushing and thereby compromising any of the quality. She concluded that the Commission would review Section 153.066, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria at the special meeting on December 8 and also take public comment on the Area Rezoning. Mr. Hardt asked if there should be another special meeting scheduled for January 12"' since it has taken this long to get through the initial draft of the Code. Mr. Langworthy reiterated that he would confirm the schedule with the City administration. Motion and Vote Richard Taylor made a motion, seconded by Todd Zimmerman, to establish January 12, 2012 as a Special Meeting if needed, for further review of the final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:34 p.m As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7 ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD BOARD ORDER NOVEMBER 15, 2011 The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting: 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Proposal: An area rezoning of 144 parcels totaling 91.6 acres within the Architectural Review District for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Robert Schisler made a motion, seconded by Carl Karrer, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission of this Area Rezoning, with one condition: 1) All properties on North Riverview Street be zoned Historic Residential and 155 South High Street remain Historic Residential. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: Approval of this Area Rezoning will be recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORDED VOTES: William Souders Absent Tom Currie Yes Robert Schisler Yes Carl Karrer Yes Tasha Bailey Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION J nifer M. auch Planner II Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Jennifer Rauch said Bridge Street Area Rezoning, as it relates to the Historic District and as mentioned in the implementation of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC), is underway with the proposed Zoning Code being the first portion. She said the proposed Area Rezoning is the second portion. She said once the Zoning Code is recommend for approval the Area Rezoning will be recommended to City Council so the districts outlined in the proposed code can be applied to the various parcels throughout the corridor. Ms. Rauch said there are 388 parcels included within the entire Bridge Street Corridor which make up over 800 acres. She said the Area Rezoning has created 10 new zoning districts, which all the properties will be rezoned into. She said the properties will be governed by the soon to be adopted Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, with the overall goal to create walkable coordinated development areas consistent with the adopted Vision Plan. She said it should provide flexibility and transition between the corridors. Ms. Rauch said the Vision Plan outlined the original eight districts in a potential development pattern and this is what was used to create the framework for what these districts would be throughout the corridor. She said each district has a unique character but all have a unifying theme. She said the districts have been transcribed into the proposed Zoning Map, which lists what the properties are currently zoned with what is being proposed. She said the original Zoning Map was provided this past April which lists the changes which were requested and recommended by Planning. She said the Zoning Map was presented to the Planning Commission last Thursday for their review. She said this Board's recommendation is needed to move forward with the Zoning Code. Ms. Rauch said within the Historic District there are 144 parcels over 90 acres which are the subject of this Area Rezoning which will be zoned into four districts. She said the Historic Core is replacing the Historic Business District, the Central Business District and the Central Community Commercial. She said the focus of this district is on sensitive infill development and ensuring redevelopment is accommodated and the core remains walk able. Ms. Rauch said the Historic Transition Area is one of the districts that requires special attention to the location and character of the building, creating additional standards. She said the Historic Transition areas are located between the different zones. She said the Historic Residential District replaces the current Historic Residential District, but is unchanged from the current code to preserve the residential character and the existing patterns within the district. She said the Public District is for public spaces and facilities which includes schools, parks and open spaces, land along the Scioto River and naturally sensitive areas. Ms. Rauch said there have been requests from property owners who have requested changes to the Zoning Map. She said the property owner from 155 South High Street, which is two properties south of John Wright Lane, is requesting Historic Core zoning. She said Planning recommends the property stay within its current district which is Historic Residential because John Wright Lane has been the dividing line between the commercial uses north of that area and the residential area to the south. Mr. Schisler said he would like to see the Historic Residential District extended to North Riverview and see the High Street Corridor remain the business streets. Ms. Rauch said that could be part of the recommendation, that the area be modified to become Historic Residential. She said the intent was for the area to be redeveloped as a larger piece. Mr. Currie said it is the intent of the Board that the area remains Historic Residential. Mr. Karrer asked what the limitations are in height for the Historic Core. Eugenia Martin said to keep the character of the District, it was limited to two stories. Ms. Rauch said this body would review all the projects for this area. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 Mr. Karrer asked for the height restriction for Historic Residential. Ms. Rauch said it was two and a half stories. Mr. Schisler asked if the Historic Core height restriction was switched to two and a half stories. Jonathan Papp said he believes it was. Mr. Karrer asked if Historic Residential includes multi - family residents. Ms. Rauch said the current code does permit it. Tom Currie said Historic Residential is proposed as only single family dwellings. He said he believes the Board is being asked to approve the rezoning without a firm grasp of what is being approved. Ms. Rauch said the goal is to retain the Historic Residential District as it currently exists. The Historic Core District would allow for multifamily and mixed used development. Robert Schisler said the Historic Residential is going to remain the same, the lot sizes will remain the same, and no one is going to put in new lots. He said what the code is trying to do is not allow someone to come in and purchase multiple parcels and build one large development on the land. He said a lot of what is being proposed does not take into account what already exists, there are currently lots in this location larger than what the new code permits. Mr. Currie asked if lots can be subdivided in the future. Ms Rauch she said it has to meet the lot and block requirements. She said when this code was developed it was determined how the lots and blocks would layout and how one would develop on a particular lot or block. She said this setup is practical and how development would function in the future. Ms. Rauch said there is an existing use and structure portion which allows for maintenance and retention of property to a certain point before the code has to be met. She said the code does not prohibit residents from maintaining their property. Ms. Martin said the Historic Core consolidates several different zoning districts such as the Historic Business, Community Commercial, Central Business and other categories. Once the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan was approved staff tried to consolidate them into one district, the Historic Core. She said Planning was writing regulations to keep the historic character that is already in place and build upon the fabric that has been established. Mr. Schisler said, in reference to the request for 155 South High Street, the applicant wants this small space to be Historic Core and have Historic Residence on both sides. He said to change the district of one resident is not fair to the other residents who do not want to also make the change. Mr. Currie asked what the limitations are on residential business, what kind of business can be within the Historic Residential District. Ms. Martin said it operates similarly to a home occupation. Ms. Rauch said the rule is 20% of a home can be used for business. She said the resident has to be the primary person for the business. Mr. Currie said it seems like we want the area to be walkable and vibrant but don't want to change anything. Mr. Schisler said right now it is walkable, in the future there will be development and the expansion will be buffered by the transition area. Ms. Rauch said the goal as a City is to maintain the historic portion of the City as it is, there are building types and site development standards that have to be met. She said when someone wants to develop, the point of the code is to get the developer to follow a certain form. Ms. Martin said there are currently older structures that do not meet the intent and character, should the property owners want to redevelop the properties there are standards that need to be met. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Ms. Rauch said if a property is within the Bridge Street Corridor the property owner can request to be zoned to another district, they would have to come before this Board, Planning and Zoning Commission as well as City Council. She said it would be evaluated based on the Vision Plan and the Community Plan and a property owner must have a basis for changing their property district. Mr. Currie said if the property owner wants to change zoning they would need to meet the requirements of the code. Ms. Rauch said yes. Mr. Karrer said he is puzzled by the large amount of land that is left public. He said he understood a large portion of the land would be Historic Core. He said he hopes plans for a City Hall does not migrate to the Historic District. He said if the school property should become available in the future, the land should become Historic Core up to the area of transition. He said even the transition land is more limited than it was in the original version. Ms. Rauch said the intent, in the long run, is portions would be transferred to Historic Core. She said currently the land is owned by the schools. She said that does not mean there cannot be future Historic Transition or Historic Core that meet in the middle. Mr. Currie asked why the Zoning Maps are being reviewed prior to the Zoning Code. Ms. Rauch said the thought was this Board has already reviewed the Zoning Code and made comments about the portions that needed changed. She said during the last meeting it was suggested if there were areas of concern, that this Board meet with Planning to get those concerns addressed. She said it was Planning's understanding this Board reviewed the Zoning Code and only needed to review the Zoning Map. Mr. Karrer said the Zoning Code is still in flux which makes it uncertain. He said that has a bearing on how the Zoning Map is viewed. Ms. Martin said the districts are not in flux. She said the parts of the BSC code which were being addressed were landscaping and building types. She said the Zoning Code this Board reviewed in June 2011 has been revised and now the Planning Commission is reviewing the code and addressing minor changes. Ms. Rauch said there are not any large changes. Mr. Currie said the recommendations he made this past summer are not in the draft code, which means they are not going to be changed. He said single family dwellings are not permitted in Historic Transition and he does understand why they are not allowed in those areas. Ms. Rauch said because the intent is to transition from existing commercial into the Historic Core portion. She said it is intended to be a larger coordinated development, not single family lots. Mr. Schisler said we want to maintain the character of the core. He said he would not want to see single family homes in the corridor. Mr. Karrer said we are looking at a development plan which has a goal of increasing population density in the greater district. He said we want to shield the present historic residential areas and keep it the open space that it is. He said we need to also consider accommodating others who may want to live and work within the district. He said we need to allow the bigger growth on the perimeter as long as the architecture is a transition area. Mr. Currie said he does not think it is wise to not permit single family homes. He said the lot width on the street has to be 60 feet which does not encourage high density. Ms. Rauch the design intent is different. Mr. Schisler said the intent is to not have single family residential. He said not everything we comment on has been incorporated into the updated code and may never be. He said he is interested in preserving the homes on the Historic Registry otherwise the area won't be very historic. Ms. Rauch said the comments the Boards, residents and developers made were considered and Planning has to weigh the comments against the intent of the corridor. Mr. Currie said the vision of walkable and convenient was different from his. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 Ms. Rauch said as the code moves forward there are going to be amendments. Mr. Schisler said the goal is to have strict guidelines to allow the city to turn away certain developments if need be. He said right now the code does provide that opportunity. Mr. Schisler said the higher density is going to translate to the taller buildings in the transition area. He said he is concerned about the extent of the transition district on the north east corner. He said he does not recall the transition going down that far on the river. He said the lot in line with North Street is being perceived as a desirable location for a pedestrian bridge across the river. He said Historic Residential is being pushed out of the north side, losing that segment to commercial would be disappointing. He said the balance of the district is best served by allowing Historic Residential to extend the full length of Riverview and he questions the Historic Transition south of the river lot. Ms. Rauch said the Community Plan currently shows commercial or mixed use development on North Riverview. Mr. Karrer asked how the river front area is going to be zoned. Ms. Rauch said it is Public. Ms. Martin said land not owned by the City cannot be listed as Public. Mr. Schisler said that does not mean it will not happen if the opportunity arises. Mr. Karrer it is undeveloped at this time and if that parcel and the two that are presently Historic Core were turned into Historic Residential the space would be preserved. Ms. Rauch said that can be part of the recommendation which will go to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Schisler said if this stays residential it is harder to do something other than what is already there. Ms. Bailey asked what level of North Riverview was approved. Ms. Rauch said it has been reviewed as a Concept Plan which is non - binding. She said the demolishment of the six properties would need to be approved by the Board before the area could be rezoned. Ms. Bailey said if it is approved as remaining Historic Residential that does not mean they are unable to do that. Ms. Rauch said the zoning of the area can be requested to be changed. Ms. Bailey asked why it was changed to the Historic Core when the south side was not. Ms. Rauch said the Community Plan currently shows the north side of Bridge Street being redeveloped for more commercial or office uses to make the commercial development vibrant on the north side. She said the south side of Bridge Street would maintain residential. Ms. Rauch said the Board needs to the discuss property owner that is requesting the change Historic Core from Historic Residential. Vito J Checchio, 3565 Schirtzinger Road, Hilliard, Property Owner, said he is preparing the sale the property and was approached by an attorney who wanted to convert the property from a house to an office. He said there is an easement in the back that makes it accessible to build parking in the rear of the property. Mr. Schisler said if this Board votes no, that does not mean another request will not be received to change zoning of a property. Ms. Rauch said that is correct, all of the properties in the area can come in with a request to be changed. Ms. Rauch said the property owner is requesting the area to be Historic Core and Planning requests it remain Historic Residential. Mr. Schisler said it does not seem fair to change one property to business when all the surrounding properties are residential. He said if other properties requested the same change he would not be as opposed to the change. Mr. Checchio said he understands. Ms. Rauch said her understanding is the Board is recommending the properties on the north side of Bridge Street on Riverview be changed to Historic Residential as opposed to Historic Core. She said 155 South High Street remains Historic Residential. Dublin Architectural Review Board November 15, 2011— Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Motion and Vote Robert Schisler made a motion, seconded by Carl Karrer, to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission of this Area Rezoning, with one condition; 1) All properties on North Riverview Street be zoned Historic Residential and 155 South High remain Historic Residential. The vote was as follows: Mr. Schisler, yes; Ms. Bailey, yes; Mr. Currie, yes; and Mr. Karrer, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. As approved by the Architectural Review Board. CITY OF DtJBLIN. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dub.Jn Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD:6'4-410 -4600 Fax: 614.410 -4747 Web Ste* www.dubiin.oh.us Graed'/>'c PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting. 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts Todd Zimmerman and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Continuation of draft code review. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code John Hardt under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 saangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission continued their review of the draft Bridge Street Corridor code covering Site Development Standards, except for signs. The Commissioners suggested changes to the parking and requested that applicants be required to submit a parking study and parking plan for any uses not listed in the BSC Code. Commissioners requested that, like certain building type requirements, certain landscaping requirements should be less proscriptive with fewer specific requirements, with more general language that would allow the required reviewing body to determine whether the intent of the regulation had been achieved. Commissioners also requested that the only type of street wall that should be permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor be the dry-laid stacked stone walls, and all others including hedges and other masonry types be eliminated from the list of options. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION 5 �' 'I Steve Langworthy Planning Director 1 7 "ITY OF I1?t11.9 3N_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dubl'n. Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD• 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Yeb S'le: www dubtln oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Area Rezoning Proposal: An area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us Affected Parcels: 273 - 000016, 273 - 000071, 273 - 000003, 273 - 000797, 273 - 000040, 273- 000102, 273 - 000088, 273 - 002457, 273 - 009973, 273 - 011148, 273- 009093, 273 - 000028, 273 - 004081, 273 - 000027, 273 - 004079, 273- 004080, 273 - 009147, 273 - 008995, 273 - 000104, 273 - 000093, 273- 000094, 273 - 000039, 273 - 009972, 273 - 009124, 273 - 005565, 273- 000068, 273 - 000042, 273 - 000073, 273- 000107, 273 - 000048, 273- 000012, 273 - 000035, 273 - 000024, 273 - 002459, 273 - 009044, 273- 010405, 273 - 000086, 273 - 012325, 273 - 000108, 273 - 002485, 273- 000029, 273 - 000123, 273 - 000415, 273 - 012260, 273 - 012261, 273- 008868, 273 - 000033, 273 - 000099, 273 - 012295, 273 - 009088, 273- 000794, 273 - 002460, 273 - 000321, 273 - 000121, 273 - 009734, 273- 000109, 273 - 000079, 273 - 009155, 273 - 008958, 273 - 008280, 273- 000106, 273 - 009119, 273 - 009971, 273- 008872, 273 - 008329, 273- 000020, 273 - 008373, 273 - 000037, 273 - 000062, 273 - 000787, 273- 000143, 273 - 003513, 273 - 005566, 273 - 008309, 273 - 009322, 273- 009324, 273 - 009749, 273 - 009978, 273- 009979, 273 - 012181, 273- 012182, 273 - 012183, 273 - 000002, 273 - 000018, 273 - 000111, 273- 000310, 273 - 000208, 273 - 008277, 273 - 003680, 273 - 008316, 273- 010936, 273 - 011236, 273 - 012066, 273 - 012067, 273 - 012068, 273- 012069, 273 - 012070, 273 - 012071, 273 - 012072, 273 - 012200, 273- 009055, 273 - 012174, 273 - 012175, 273 - 012176, 273 - 000032, 273- 000098, 273 - 000010, 273 - 000038, 273 - 004507, 273 - 008286, 273- 008287, 273 - 008288, 273 - 008313, 273- 008314, 273 - 008315, 273- 009750, 273 - 007473, 273 - 002895, 273 - 000269, 273 - 000025, 273- 000077, 273 - 000096, 273 - 000113, 273 - 000044, 273 - 000008, Page 1 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 FII Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -0212 Area Rezoning Affected Parcels: 273 - 000089, 273 - 008242, 273 - 008258, 273 - 008377, 273 - 008813, 273- 009030, 273 - 008257, 273 - 000061, 273 - 009077, 273 - 008332, 273- 008333, 273- 000001, 273 - 000122, 273 - 000124, 273 - 008867, 273- 000022, 273 - 000270, 273 - 000274, 273 - 001348, 273 - 001349, 273- 001350, 273 - 008261, 273 - 000081, 273 - 000031, 273 - 000067, 273- 000078, 273- 008327, 273 - 008328, 273- 000034, 273 - 010207, 273- 009035, 273 - 000069, 273 - 008998, 273 - 000013, 273 - 000127, 273- 009099, 273 - 000128, 212 - 000129, 273 - 009079, 273 - 009096, 273- 009150, 273 - 000072, 273 - 008279, 273 - 012251, 273 - 008285, 273- 008308, 273- 008312, 273 - 012184, 273 - 012185, 273 - 009145, 273- 000007, 273 - 001940, 273 - 012300, 273 - 012301, 273 - 008275, 273- 000023, 273 - 000256, 273 - 000136, 273 - 009086, 273 - 000015, 273- 000329, 273 - 012245, 273 - 000054, 273 - 000112, 273 - 003800, 273- 012193, 273- 000005, 273 - 008827, 273 - 009081, 273 - 008907, 273- 008330, 273 - 009101, 273 - 012296, 273 - 000259, 273 - 000014, 273- 000074, 273 - 000053, 273 - 000059, 273 - 000097, 273 - 008245, 273- 000051, 273 - 000315, 273 - 008305, 273 - 010154, 273 - 000132, 273- 000134, 273 - 000080, 273 - 000047, 273 - 008859, 273 - 000046, 273- 012285, 273 - 008334, 273 - 000049, 273 - 000139, 273 - 009974, 273- 009975, 273 - 000100, 273 - 001684, 273 - 000129, 273 - 009149, 273- 000083, 273 - 008284, 273 - 008310, 273 - 008311, 273 - 009084, 273- 000063, 273 - 012062, 273 - 012064, 273 - 012065, 273 - 012342, 273- 000138, 273 - 000177, 273 - 000209, 273 - 000210, 273 - 000211, 273- 000214, 273 - 000215, 273 - 000216, 273 - 000217, 273 - 000205, 273- 000101, 273 - 000324, 273 - 011175, 273 - 010864, 273 - 012199, 273- 000130, 273 - 000131, 273 - 000126, 273 - 000258, 273 - 000052, 273- 000118, 273 - 000785, 273 - 000786, 273 - 009090, 273 - 008266, 273- 001308, 273 - 000110, 273 - 000114, 273 - 000273, 273 - 000344, 273- 000788, 273 - 000257, 273 - 001978, 273 - 008246, 273 - 009148, 273- 008361, 273 - 009146, 273 - 008802, 273 - 000133, 273 - 000056, 273- 009043, 273 - 000087, 273 - 000313, 273 - 000092, 273 - 000262, 273- 000004, 273 - 004077, 273 - 004078, 273- 005564, 273 - 000989, 273- 001530, 273 - 002458, 273 - 002463, 273 - 000091, 273 - 012229, 273- 008335, 273 - 000105, 273 - 000060, 273 - 008304, 273 - 012158, 273- 008306, 273 - 008307, 273 - 008375, 273 - 012198, 273 - 000036, 273- 000084, 273 - 000090, 273 - 012149, 273 - 001976, 273 - 002893, 273- 000019, 273 - 000286, 273 - 002892, 273 - 002897, 273 - 008957, 273- 000050, 273 - 000206, 273 - 000207, 273 - 009095, 273 - 000070, 273- 009082, 273 - 009512, 273 - 000066, 273 - 009732, 273 - 009733, 273- 012138, 273 - 008296, 273 - 009323, 273 - 000125, 273 - 012311, Page 2 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Affected Parcels 273 - 012170, 273 - 008908, 273 -0082 000075, 273 - 000135, 273 - 002075, 008244, 273 - 009080, 273 - 008381, 000043, 273 - 000057, 273 - 000137, 003410, 273 - 003411, 273 - 008820, 008831, 273 - 008832, 273 - 008833, 008856, 273 - 008857, 273 - 008858, 000045, 273 - 012264, 273 - 000212, 000144, 273- 008206, 273 - 008264, 000085, 273 - 009118, 273 - 009121, 009054, 273 - 009094, 273 - 009128, 009152, 273 - 009153, 273 - 009154, 008331, 273 - 012218, 273 - 010406 17, 273 - 00824! 273 - 009083, 273 - 008358, 273 - 000405, 273- 011235, 273 - 008834, 273 - 008869, 273 - 000213, 273- 008805, 273 - 009127, 273 - 009129, 273 - 009085, 273- 008811, 273- 273- 008269, 273- 273- 002474, 273- 273- 000170, 273- 273- 008243, 273- 273- 008838, 273- 273- 008994, 273- 273- 000141, 273- 273- 001186, 273- 273- 009045, 273- 273- 009130, 273- 273- 008913, 273- (RESULT: Commission members requested clarification regarding how the street network planned for the corridor will coordinate with the proposed zoning. Commissioners also commented that it appears that the proposed zoning districts are too use -based and will not allow an adequate mix of uses throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members commented that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin - Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River in response to the property owner requests. Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for large coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION S� Steve Langwo y Planning Director Page 3 of 3 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 33 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for a review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said the Commission is scheduled tonight to continue with review with Site Development Standards, Section 153.065, pages 77 — 100. Justin Goodwin said the Site Development Standards cover a few broad topics, including parking, landscaping, screening, and signs. He said there are references to other code sections such as stormwater and utilities. Mr. Goodwin said a few of the sections they had already discussed were being moved to or referenced in this section based on the Commission's comments. He said the Building Types section included provisions for parking for Existing Structures, and the Commission had recommended this language either be incorporated back into the Parking section or that a reference be provided. He said Planning was working on that revision. He said a comment regarding the Street Types section dealing with loading spaces will also be coordinated in the parking section as well. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 3. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt said he interpreted this section as saying that if there is a change in use that requires a change in parking of less than 30 percent, the property owner is not affected by the parking requirement. He asked how that would apply to a multi- tenant building. He asked whose problem it would be if a retail tenant in a multi- tenant building becomes a restaurant and effectively uses up the 30 percent leeway, and then the next tenant turns over and becomes a restaurant, tipping the whole site over 30 percent. He asked if that had been contemplated. Mr. Goodwin said Planning tried to address this in the second part of the provision which states that when a use changes in a portion of a multi- tenant building, only the parking dealing with that use shall be considered. He said he was not sure that fully addressed Mr. Hardt's concern. Mr. Langworthy said that was typical and similar to when there are sign provisions for a multi- tenant panel sign and one tenant uses two - thirds of the panels. He said it is first in, first served and it becomes the building owner's problem. Mr. Goodwin said this draft of the code includes provisions for shared parking plans specific to some districts, including the BSC Commercial District which includes existing shopping centers. He said the intent was to deal with the issue on a case -by -case basis as needed. Mr. Hardt said part of the reason he was asking the question was because in the BSC, a shopping center could be a completely different animal than what the city is used to. He said he imagined a four -story building that filled an entire block with retail on the first floor, and after a couple of retail stores went out of business or turned over, maybe a restaurant comes in and wants to take over the entire first floor. He pointed out that they could have a substantial impact in these tight sites where there is not as much latitude to deal with it as there is in a greenfield development. He said he had no particular request or solution, he just wanted to know what the mindset was when they were thinking about that. Mr. Goodwin said Planning has had much discussion internally and with the consultants about what is the proper balance between regulating parking by specific use as the city has been used to, while also recognizing that if the Bridge Street Corridor develops as intended, there is likely to be a high turnover of uses throughout the area that are going to have their own different parking demands, and the city will not be able to anticipate all of those situations. He said that is one of the reasons they have included Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 33 shared parking provisions and other methods to accommodate those changes. He said another example is the allowance for parking off -site within certain distances to provide more flexibility for property owners who may determine that a certain location works for their business, but they may need to provide parking somewhere else because the previous use was not set up to accommodate the same amount of parking on that specific site. Mr. Hardt asked that the thought be held because he had a question about this when they get to that section. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 4. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked for clarification regarding the extension for unfinished parking areas. He said he understood the purpose and he thought the development community would love it. He asked if this only included instances where in the construction phase, the contractor cannot get the second layer of asphalt or striping down, but there is a hard surface there, or if it also included situations where they cannot get asphalt down at all. Mr. Goodwin said his understanding was that there may be cases where they simply cannot get the asphalt down at all. Mr. Langworthy said he thought it would be a variety of situations. He took the example Mr. Hardt mentioned about the building taking up substantial, if not all portions of the block, and said the contractor may stage construction in the area intended for parking. Mr. Langworthy said the expectation is that parking will still have to be provided somewhere if the normal parking area is used for staging. Mr. Hardt said he understood what they were trying to do, but opening a building with no asphalt down at all seemed a step too far. He said that for any construction project that lasts more than six or eight months there will be the opportunity to get something down on the ground, but it may not be the final course of asphalt. He said he was comfortable with some latitude where something is not quite complete, but when the paving is not even started, that may be going too far. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (a) Applicability 6. (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked if the phrase "shall be determined by the Director" was appropriate with regard to uses not addressed in the parking section because other portions of the code refer to the approving body or other similar language. Mr. Goodwin explained that unless specified as a different department, the Director meant the Planning Director. He said it was purposely called out this way here because use determinations are specifically attributed to the Planning Director elsewhere in the code. Mr. Langworthy explained that Directorwas a defined term. Mr. Hardt asked if it was the intent that such a decision would be based on some kind of submitted parking study or data. Mr. Goodwin said it would be permitted in this case, and supporting documentation was specifically mentioned later with regard to parking plans, but perhaps it could be clarified here. Mr. Hardt said he would like to give developers the opportunity to submit data and make the argument. He said the way it reads now, it looks like it is at the discretion of one person. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (b) Parking Location (Page 77) Mr. Hardt asked if there was a presumption that all parking structures will be publically available. Mr. Goodwin said that they have allowed parking structures to be partially used if a property owner desires to provide public parking or parking to other sites, but there could be entirely private parking structures for specific property owners. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (b) Parking Location 4. On- Street Parking (Page 77) Ms. Kramb noted that a building can use on- street parking spaces in front of the building. She said in some circumstances that can lead to a presumption of ownership. She thought it should be made clear that those cannot be signed for just that building owner. Mr. Goodwin explained that could be specifically stated in the Code. He said they want to make sure that those parking spaces are publically available. Mr. Goodwin said it is appropriate to allow a building to count those spaces because on- street parking is critical to making the streets function properly, but they also did not want any property owner to have the expectation of ownership over those spaces. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2), Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum Amount Permitted 2. (Page 78) Ms. Kramb said as written, it is not clear that the items listed in the paragraph describing a parking plan are actually review criteria. She suggested restructuring the paragraph to read "the required reviewing bodysha/ / consider" or "subject to the following review criteria" and then listing them out individually. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Amount Required and Maximum Amount Permitted 4. (Page 80) Mr. Hardt pointed out the paragraph referring to Table 153.065 -A, was after the table. Table 153.065 -A: Required Vehicle Parking (Page 78 -80) General Comments Ms. Kramb requested that the numeric requirements be reformatted using the word 'per' and not a (slash), because the slash is also used to indicate fractions and it is very confusing. She said as an example, it was unclear if the requirement for religious or public assembly is 1 space per 6 persons or 1 space for each 1/6 of a person. Mr. Goodwin said it was 'one per six persons; but the requirement should work out to the same number under either interpretation. He said that change could be made to clarify the intent. Ms. Kramb said regarding dwelling two- fami /y; she did not understand how that differed from a multiple family dwelling that would have two families. Mr. Goodwin explained that a multiple family dwelling is three units or above as defined in the Code. Ms. Kramb asked why two parking spaces would not be required if there were two families. Mr. Goodwin said because the requirement is one space per unit and a two - family dwelling includes two units, it does require two parking spaces. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 33 Ms. Kramb asked if it would be appropriate to require some type of service vehicle parking space for uses such as an energy plant or community garden that are marked 'not applicable.' She said some parking was needed for those who work in the garden. Mr. Goodwin said that depended on the uses. He said Planning had discussed that for community gardens, on- street parking may be sufficient depending on the location. He said it was difficult to anticipate what that requirement would be depending on the specific conditions, but they could require a parking plan rather than stating 'not applicable.' Ms. Kramb referred to the numbers on the table. She said some of the maximum numbers did not seem high enough to her. She said the church and conference center maximums seemed low and may need to be reconsidered. Mr. Goodwin said it is difficult to determine exactly what ranges are appropriate, but Planning maximums are important to ensure there is not excessive parking on individual lots. Mr. Goodwin said Planning wanted to make sure that they did not necessarily allow properties to automatically develop with parking to accommodate their absolute peak use during the year because that may only be for one day, such as the day after Thanksgiving for retail uses, and there is otherwise a lot of parking that is not regularly used. He said the same argument could be made with some institutional uses like churches. He said the code also provides a mechanism for property owners to request adjustments based on their own specific needs, and that is another way to potentially get additional parking above the 150 percent maximum. Ms. Kramb said she thought the city needed to be careful since it is trying to create such density. She said it will not necessarily be easy for a property owner to come back and keep asking for more parking because there will not be any space. Ms. Kramb said if a use is going to need more than what is permitted in the future, she thought the code should somehow accommodate or allow for a greater maximum up front. Mr. Hardt said that in some of the subsequent paragraphs, his interpretation is that for any site, for any use, there is the opportunity to do a parking demand study to prove something different. Mr. Goodwin indicated that was correct. Ms. Kramb said that a parking demand study seemed costly for a church. Mr. Hardt said that a basic parking study could be done in a day. Mr. Fishman said he noticed that two family units were allowed one car per unit, which is less than the two cars per unit the city currently requires. He said regarding community gardens, when a park is constructed, which is similar, we require that there be parking. He said he thought this needed to be reworked. He noted that there was no square footage on the units. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that for some residential developments, depending on the price point of the unit, there may be an expectation that one of the tenants parks on the street. He said Planning wanted to make sure that the on- street parking was used as well, which is more common in urban environments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would be more likely that they would pursue another kind of living arrangement in other parts of the city where they might have two or maybe three parking spaces per unit. Mr. Fishman said they were lowering the standards. He said sometimes economics require people to live in a 1,200 square foot unit and they often have three drivers per unit. He said if the builder is only required to provide parking for one car, it would be advantageous to the developer because it was less expensive. He reiterated that he would like to see parking based on the square footage of the units. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 33 Mr. Zimmerman said he would like to see the minimum parking for live -work dwellings increased from one to two parking spaces because if someone came to see that person, parking should be available. Mr. Hardt said he had that comment also. He said either a customer coming to that business or an employee who works there as well needs to park. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the single family, two family and the live work unit parking requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that Mr. Hardt had suggested it might be more appropriate to base the parking requirement on the number of bedrooms than by the square footage. Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Fishman agreed and said that was a good point. Mr. Goodwin said they would look at that option. He said there may be some additional administrative issues with requiring parking at a per bedroom level. Mr. Hardt said he shared Ms. Kramb's comment about the use of 'per,' and suggested using a more consistent formatting for the numeric calculations as well. He said for example that the requirement for Handicapped Housing is 0.5 space per dwelling unit, but a use on the next page is formatted as 2 spaces for every 3 guestrooms. He said those were two different ways of expressing fractions and he suggested one be chosen and used consistently. He said similarly, there were places in the table that refer to square footage, gross square footage, and indoor square footage, and he suspected that those were all the same thing. Mr. Goodwin said all of the calculations are intended as gross square footage. He said there are a couple of places where it specifies indoor square footage based on the type of use. He said for instance, that if a personal, repair or rental service included an outdoor component, they did not want that to have to be included. Mr. Hardt said that made sense, but gross floor area and square footage being used interchangeably is confusing. Mr. Hardt said for community centers, he could not confirm or dispute that 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet is the right number, but it occurred to him that a community center could be a lot of different things such as a satellite of the DCRC, a large meeting hall, or something else. He suggested it instead require a parking plan, depending upon exactly what is proposed, similar to the community garden, but on a larger scale. Mr. Hardt said regarding hospitals, tying parking to beds and treatment rooms does not work. He said it is difficult to define exactly what a treatment room is and these facilities convert offices to exam rooms and back to offices daily. He said it will be difficult to keep track of how much square footage applies to each of these areas within those buildings. Mr. Hardt suggested that Planning refer to the parking requirement used at Dublin Methodist Hospital. He recalled having the discussion specifically, and he thought the requirement was based on overall building gross square footage and industry standards. He said as far as he could tell it was working okay. Ms. Kramb said she had a similar comment on schools being based on classrooms. She said some schools have converted service areas to classrooms and it is constantly changing. She said there are many Dublin schools where the parking is not sufficient for times when parents are invited for activities. She suggested parking plans could be used, or it could be based on the number of students. She said especially, at the high school level, there are usually a student parking lot and a staff parking lot. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 33 Mr. Goodwin said Planning hoped that if there are students going to school in this area that they will walk or ride a bike to some extent, but obviously, parking also needs to be accommodated. He said he had seen school parking requirements dealt with in many ways and Planning could research to see if there is a better option. Ms. Kramb said she had similar concerns about day cares. She suggested some type of parking plan requirement that would show where people park when they are dropping off and picking up students. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking Table 153.065 -B: Shared Parking Plan Approval (Page 80) Ms. Kramb asked why there was a distinction on the table between individual lots and multiple lots. Mr. Goodwin said the difference was specifically to address the BSC Commercial District to accommodate shopping centers that typically are one lot onto themselves with multiple uses, whereas in the other districts, they would anticipate a greater dependence between different buildings and lots. He said in those cases the lot did not have to be owned by the same person. Ms. Kramb said it was not clear if it could be one person who owns multiple properties or if it has to involve separate property owners. Mr. Goodwin said it could be either of those situations. He said he thought it was implied, and maybe they should clarify that they would have to establish some sort of formal agreement. He said they could not tell the city they are going to use their neighbors' parking without asking their neighbor. Mr. Hardt said that spoke to something he was getting at three pages ago. He said there was a lot of language in the code about shared parking, nearby parking, documenting that sufficient parking is available to meet projected demand, and other adjustments. He said it seemed that in a dense environment when there are uses with cross agreements and maybe a public garage nearby, there could be a lot of different arrangements and documents produced that suggest a given business has enough parking available, and then a year later someone a block in the other direction asks to use the same parking. He asked how the city will keep track of all of this. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning recognizes that this could lead to a lot of administrative issues. He said they think it is important to provide for this flexibility and short of having a better answer right now, they recognized that they may, for a time have to be prepared to keep detailed track of all of these different conditions. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that they do a lot of that already because for a lot of the planned unit development districts, for example, shopping centers they do parking calculations differently. He said some are for all the square footage and some are for each use and as each use changes they have to recalculate every time. Ms. Kramb asked if they had anticipated people putting up signs saying this is my parking'. She asked if they had allowed for or considered that type of signs. Mr. Goodwin said he did not recall anything in the code now, which specifically dealt with that, but they would look into it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 33 Mr. Hardt pointed out that it was a Historic Dublin problem and people now are resistant to the notion of sharing parking. He said they had an opportunity to fix that problem here before it starts by discouraging that. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Hardt said they did not know how to discourage that Mr. Langworthy said the only time you could do that is if they had a shared parking agreement that they agreed, for example two businesses could say on their sign that those two businesses have that parkign because those were the only two that had a shared agreement. He said apart from that, if they provide their own parking on their own site, they have a right to use it themselves. Ms. Amorose Groomes said you would think they would like to rent out the parking to generate revenue if the parking was not being used. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that depending on where the sign was placed on the lot, if the sign was visible from a public right -of -way, it may not be a permitted sign. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking (Page 80) Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any discussion or contemplation of bicycle sharing in the same vein as auto -share parking, or was that something that could just organically happen if it decides to happen. He clarified that he was talking about systems in other cities where there are bicycles available to borrow. Mr. Goodwin said that had not specifically been dealt with in the code and he was not aware of anything that would prevent that from happening. He said they would look into other regulations that they should consider facilitating or not making that detrimental, if the Commission wanted. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking S. Transportation Demand Management B. c. (Page 81) Ms. Kramb suggested that the last line should be: "on -site office, or project - speck website" because it was not an on -site website. Mr. Goodwin said she was correct. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (B) Parking and Loading (2) Required Vehicle Parking (b) Adjustments to Required Vehicle Parking S. Transportation Demand Management C. (c) Accessible Parking Spaces (Page 81 -82) Mr. Hardt noted that there were many other places in the code including the right hand column on page 82 where they refer to the Uniform Building Code and reference the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said he did not agree that in the case of accessible parking spaces, they should stipulate the number rather than referring to federal standards that already exist. Mr. Goodwin explained that they had that discussion and it was carried over directly from what was in the existing code today. He said he thought it might be appropriate to simply refer to the appropriate regulations. Mr. Hardt said if the federal standards get updated, he did not think anyone would make sure that the Commission sees it, processes it, and changes the code. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 33 Mr. Goodwin said including it there may be more user - friendly for someone looking at the code, trying to determine how many spaces would be required and how many of those had to be accessible. He said however, he saw the reasoning to not include that here. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (3) Required Bicycle Parking (c) Facility Type (Page 82) Mr. Hardt asked everyone in the room whether we ought to have a city standard for the type of bike rack placed in front of buildings and on streets, even if they are on private property. He said his logic was that as a person who uses his bicycle frequently, there is nothing more frustrating than having a particular kind of lock and figuring out the right way to lock up your bike and secure it in public and you do it six times, and you go to another business that has a different kind of bike rack and your lock does not work. Mr. Hardt pointed out that even in downtown Columbus most bicycle racks are the same type and style. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought by district, particularly in the Historic District, some kind of standard would be appropriate. Mr. Goodwin said there were two competing interests because Planning had also heard some interest at the policy level of encouraging a variety of bike racks to create an interesting streetscape with street furniture. He said there are some basic standards included here. He said the racks have to be designed to provide two points of contact to the bicycle frame which allows the bicycle to be supported and it tends to make it easier for a variety of locks to work. He said it was a balancing act that they were trying to achieve. Mr. Langworthy said in the Historic District, Parks and Open Space is working so that there are not 50 different rack varieties, but there is a consistency. Mr. Goodwin said he thought as they developed a better understanding of what type of street furniture in general applies in the different portions of the corridor, maybe there could be a palette of recommended or specific types of racks. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed about the standard functionality of bicycle racks and locks. Mr. Fishman, a member of the Bicycle Task Force, said that they recommended the racks be artsy, but consistent in the way they were locked. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the issue be addressed when they come to the next revision. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (3) Required Bicycle Parking (d) Location 2. (Page 82) Mr. Hardt said that "Outside bicycle parking sha // be located in a we / %/t area' was all that needed to be said because the remainder is redundant. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions — Table 153.065 -D: Off - Street Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (Page 83) Ms. Kramb said her issue was the figure which she thought they were trying to use as part of the table or something because there was a footnote after it. Mr. Goodwin explained that it needed clarified and a figure reference added. Mr. Hardt noted that the 90- degree parking stall has the width indicated at 8 1 /2 feet, and the city standard was 9 feet. He asked if that was due to today's SUVs and Escalades. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 33 Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that when doors are swung open on small cars, they are 40 inches wide. He said they needed to be opened wide to get in and out. He said he was a firm believer in the 9 -foot wide space. Mr. Hardt said shrinking the regular parking spaces was questionable to him. Mr. Goodwin agreed it would be appropriate to change the dimension for regular spaces from 8 1 /2 feet back to 9 feet, but suggested they maintain the reduced dimensions for compact spaces. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (5) Parking Structure Design. (Page 83) Mr. Hardt said the first paragraph and continuing throughout the rest of this portion of the code, talks about the minimum requirements established by the City Engineer, and the subsequent paragraphs elude to the existence of parking garage design standards of some sort. He asked if the City of Dublin had or established parking garage design standards. Mr. Goodwin said not yet. Mr. Hardt suggested that if there were such a thing they would not need to go into such a detailed list of design requirements. He said he would expect to find that in the Design Standards. Mr. Langworthy agreed. He said they wanted something in place right away. He said once they get Engineering to do that, they will probably come back and take some of that out of the code. He said this was in anticipation of not knowing exactly how long it may take for Engineering to get that finished. He said it actually came from the original COIC code. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the phrase "established City Engineer requirements" needed to be removed. Mr. Langworthy agreed to do so, until they are established Mr. Hardt referred to (c) 4. (Page 83) where it refers to a clearance height of 8 1 /2 feet. He said that was big for a parking lot clearance. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had experienced difficulty in getting snow clearing equipment to the top deck, and when they are substantially lower, it is difficult to get the equipment to the snow. Mr. Hardt said he agreed, but wondered why that was a zoning issue. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would expect to see that in the Engineering requirements. Mr. Hardt referred to the top of Page 84, where it talks about pedestrian flow, security and cameras which he said all sounded like great ideas and smart things to do, but that they did not seem like a land use issue. Mr. Goodwin explained that until they have other standards to reference, they thought it was important, but this is subject revision for sure. Mr. Langworthy said he did not know of another place they could put it. He said they do not really address parking structures anywhere else. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought they should get some sort of urban safety guidebook together, but until then, they should probably address it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (c) Driveways 3. (Page 84) Ms. Kramb noted ... "driveways shall be limited to one per lot or parcel "and asked if there was a difference. Mr. Langworthy explained that a lot was considered a single lot, but a parcel is a group of lots. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked how it was determined if it was a parcel. Mr. Langworthy said it could be either by ownership or by use. He said more often, it was by use. He said a shopping center with multiple lots would be considered a parcel. Ms. Kramb said that this should read ... one periotorparcel, whicheveris fewer." Mr. Langworthy agreed to work on it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (4) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (d) Curbs and Wheel Stops (Page 84) Ms. Kramb noted that there was no mention as to what materials curbs can be constructed of, and she assumed they want concrete curbs. She said it did not reference any type of material. Mr. Langworthy said those did exist in other regulations. Mr. Goodwin said they could say concrete. Mr. Hardt said it was his understanding that asphalt curbs were not allowed anywhere in Dublin. Mr. Goodwin said there were existing asphalt curbs. He agreed to research it, and if it needed to be specified here, they could. Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Zimmerman, and Ms. Kramb agreed that they did not want to see asphalt curbs in any of these districts. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (Page 84) Ms. Kramb suggested this section be named, Required Off - Street Loading Spaces. Mr. Goodwin said Planning and Engineering had discussed whether or not it may be appropriate to allow, at least for a small truck situation, to use an on- street space rather than always requiring an off - street space. Ms. Kramb said that it really did not distinguish between the two here. Mr. Goodwin said they could clarify that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (a) Applicability 2. (Page 85) Ms. Kramb noted that loading was based on the size of the building and the use. She said as long as it is a small building, even if it generates a lot of loading, it would not be required as written because of the word and/ She said if a building was 24,000 square feet, but received deliveries every day, she did not know that the size -based requirement will be sufficient. She said that went to her point across the page, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 33 in paragraph 3, "Loading areas are permitted in the alley; which she did not think they should be allowed to do. Mr. Goodwin said he saw the point about the type of use. He said some uses may have a lot of need for loading space all the time. He said there may be uses that only get occasional loading or deliveries, and it may be appropriate to allow the alley to serve that function rather than requiring a dedicated space that is not used often. He said maybe they could fine -tune that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (7) Required Loading Spaces (b) Location 2. and 3. (Page 85) Mr. Hardt noted that this does not allow the loading space to be in a vehicular circulation area, even off- street. Mr. Goodwin said there may be cases where that is actually okay. Mr. Hardt said if there is a truck parked there all the time, it is a problem, but it is for a business that gets a delivery once a week at 2 a.m., he would argue that having them unload in their parking lot is preferable to creating this 30 -foot long space that never gets used. He said it seemed there was some massaging needed. Mr. Goodwin agreed to look at that. Ms. Kramb said that she did not understand the six -foot height requirement for the screening because it would not screen a semi delivery truck. Mr. Goodwin explained that it was to screen the loading dock area. Ms. Kramb said that it was talking about a loading space in general, not necessarily a loading dock. Mr. Goodwin agreed to clarify that it was not every single space. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (b) Use Descriptions 3. and 4. (Page 86) Mr. Hardt asked if this was covered elsewhere in the code already. Ms. Ray said they would check the language to see if it was exact, but it was close to what we do require in other residential districts. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (2) General (c) (Page 86) Ms. Kramb pointed out that the definition of protected tree' was not found in this chapter. Mr. Langworthy said the definition could be found in Chapter 153 of the Zoning Code, Section 002. Ms. Kramb asked if the Commission would see the definitions again. Ms. Ray said they would be given a new copy of the definitions. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (2) General (j) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed with the concept of diversity in the District, but not necessarily on a site. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 33 Ms. Martin said that was correct and something they would look into more Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (b) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why the tree lawn was 7 feet in width. Ms. Martin said that they had found that width of tree lawn to work well throughout the city, and they were trying to maintain that general roadway standard. She said the tree well is not necessarily precluded from being covered by a paving material. She said the goal is to create more of a planting zone with structural soil. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (c) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what would be a similar treatment to structural soil. Ms. Martin explained the phrase or "similar treatment "was meant to define that the material makeup would have similar characteristic or composition as structural soil. Ms. Amorose Groomes said rather than "similar treatment "she would like it to say or approved equal. Ms. Martin agreed to make the change. Mr. Hardt said they needed then to say who did the approving. Ms. Amorose Groomes added ... "by the City Forester." Ms. Amorose Groomes said the comment "licensed and qualified producer "opened the door for anyone who had licenses. Ms. Martin said they would look at rewording that. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the last sentence and said she thought that was really weak language to say ... "as far as they permit:" Ms. Martin said they would change it to "as far as physical conditions would permit:" Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (d) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said that a depth of three feet was very shallow for a tree, particularly something that we would expect to grow to maturity. Ms. Martin explained that would be the minimum depth they would excavate for the well. She said a well is not necessarily a concrete structure, but is intended to describe where the structural soils would be located. She said depending upon the caliper size and species of the installed trees, the tree root ball may not necessarily be three foot in depth. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled seeing the requirements for structural soil to be a five -foot depth. Ms. Martin agreed to look into that further. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why this said "Structural soils shall not be used in the street tree planting area." Mr. Martin said the intent was to have friable soil with the structural soil surrounding the pit. Ms. Martin said further internal discussion was needed in the best way to address that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (e) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she assumed the urban tree wells were the street trees themselves. Ms. Martin explained that it was going to be applicable to the Street Type, so in areas which are to be more of the urban /downtown treatment, not necessarily the residential areas, there would be that type of treatment within the tree well. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she thought they needed to call out a standard tree grate and probably engage someone to commission an ornamental grate so all the tree wells would have a similar grate. Ms. Martin said that they could do that with the street site furnishings as far as having a complete package, to ensure it all coordinated and made sense. Mr. Hardt said he read this as if every single street tree shall have a grate around it. Ms. Martin said the tree grates would be applicable to the urban tree wells. Mr. Hardt pointed out in other parts of Central Ohio he saw tree wells, in downtown Columbus for example, where the base of the tree has a ground cover of annuals or something around it as well as uplighting. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this does not take into account the raised planters in medians. She said it demands everything have something, but there are a number of instances where you probably would not want them. She suggested it should be ... "where appropriate or where they are likely to have foot traffic." She said if it is not subject to foot traffic, then it should not have to be covered. Ms. Martin recalled that previously, it referenced street types, and that must have been taken out. She said they will look into clarifying it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (f) Species and Size (1) (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes said this referenced the Approved Urban Street Tree List for Dublin Ohio, (available in the Bridge Street Corridor's Applicant Guide). She said the Commission has not seen it yet and cannot vote on this until they do. She asked if the reference should be left here. Ms. Ray said that it was referenced throughout, and she thought there had been a universal comment to delete it. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred the last sentence and commented they would certainly want diversity within a district, but not necessarily on a street. Ms. Martin said it could be by block. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that 300 feet might be short and they might need three blocks. She said they do not want to create a monoculture, but want to look down a street and see a consistent canopy over the street. Ms. Martin agreed it has to be similar in form and character. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they needed to define how the mix is done so that it is not every other tree or something like that. She said there has to be some delineation of how they arrive at that. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (f) Species and Size (3) (Page 87) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes questioned why only small trees were permitted in the medians, which is the one place where larger trees are likely to have the greatest chance of surviving. She pointed out that the median is going to be some of our best growing locations. Ms. Martin said the comment was to avoid having small tree species within the urban tree lawn against the back of the sidewalk. She said small street trees would only be permitted to be located in the median. She explained it was not excluding larger street trees being planted there, it was just saying that if you use small street trees, that is where they would be located. Ms. Kramb said she read this as that a median was the only place you could put small trees. Ms. Martin agreed to clarify the language that it is not precluding medium to large size trees. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees Table 153.0065 -F: Street Tree Spacing Requirements (Page 87) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted three feet was required between the edge of the street and sidewalk. She pointed out that a lot of our islands are eight to ten feet wide and if there is three feet on either side, you lose six feet, so you really have only two feet left to locate the tree. Ms. Martin said she understood Ms. Amorose Groomes' comment. She said they considered vehicle door swing and vehicle parking when making that requirement, but would look at how it impacts the medians. She said to think about how the tree canopy may overhang into the roadway so too much varying may not be a good thing. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was thinking about islands at the end of a parking lot where you would stack snow. She said they will have to consider street trees requirements. Ms. Martin said this was not necessarily speaking to parking lot islands. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there were still areas where there was head -in parking essentially on the street. Ms. Martin said a back -in parking situation would be the same as far as bumper overhang. She explained current code requirements for parking includes a provision prohibiting two -foot overhang. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted the chart addresses street trees may be planted within ten lateral feet of overhead utilities which will probably be problematic. She said hopefully, all those overhead utilities will be moved underground. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (1) Prohibited Activities 3, 4, and S. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that in 3 and 4 as well as in other places, it talks about the City Forester, and in 5 when it talks about "No person shall buy any type of construction reduced size of tree lawn or tree scape planting zone without prior written approval of the Director; it should read the City Forester instead. Ms. Martin agreed that it should be changed from Directorto City Forester. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (j) Municipal Rights 3. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "To ensure that street trees thrive, property owners are encouraged to contact the City Forester and provide care for trees as needed" and said there was really no reason to have this language as it does not really say anything. Martin agreed to look at it Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (3) Street Trees (j) Municipal Rights S. (Page 88) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "The City Forester shall have the right to cause the removal of any dead or deceased tree(s) located on private property within the city and /or cause the removal of branches of trees located on private property that overhang public property,..." She suggested adding "...or impede" because there was a greater chance of tree branches being an impediment. Ms. Martin agreed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (a) 1. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if we really wanted fences and things like that along I -270. Ms. Martin explained the type of buffering option used would be reviewed by the ART as far as what would be applicable and what they are screening. She said there may be cases where a wall for screening is appropriate. Ms. Martin said if residential uses were located along I -270, it could function as a sound barrier wall, in which case there would be a dual function to the screening. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had never seen a sound barrier wall that she liked and she would prefer to change the use next to I -270 rather than put up a sound barrier wall. Ms. Kramb confirmed they were saying buffering along I -270 is required. Mr. Hardt said he would be concerned if someone constructed a building that is residential in nature, and for whatever reason, it requires a wall, and the next building does not, and as you go along I -270, you will see a wall, a bunch of trees, and then shrubs, then a fence, and then a wall. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know that we should include I -270 in the same vein, because she did not think any walls should be seen along I -270. She said it would be a shame to build something that does not belong there to the extent that we would have to put a wall in front of it to hide it. Mr. Hardt posed the question of would the wall be to hide the building from I -270 or I -270 from the building. He said they needed to figure out what kind of treatment was wanted along I -270. Ms. Martin said it was consistent with current code requirement for buffering along I -270 and gave Verizon and Cardinal as examples of sites which adhere to this requirement. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not recall any walls mentioned in their language. She said she would be happy, as long as walls are not being built along I -270. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (b) 2. Option B, C. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why we would plant shrubs at eight feet on center in front of a wall. Ms. Martin said code requires the pretty side of a fence or wall to be facing the neighbors. She said the plantings provide an evergreen buffer to the non -BSC District Residential -Only land use, so there is a bit more of a visual appeal to it. She explained eight feet allows for clumping the plants instead of creating an absolute hedge and provides a little more design freedom. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it could be really ugly with one shrub every eight feet. Ms. Martin said the landscape plan would be reviewed by the ART in order to avoid that look. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested something be added like a small ornamental tree which she would rather see than a taxus. Ms. Martin agreed. Mr. Hardt said this seemed to be more a prescriptive provision versus an intent provision. He said if the intent is for clumping of plantings with design integrity, then that the code should say that. Ms. Martin said they could add something as far as the intent, but at the same time, developers want to know what is required and has to be provided. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (f) (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were places where curbs in parking areas would not be required. She said she did not want to give them the option of putting in a wheel stop over a curb. Ms. Martin said in cases of bio swales or rain gardens, there is a possibility of wheel stops so water to be able to sheet flow into those locations. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled someplace it talked about openings in the curbs Ms. Martin said that could be done as well. She said there are a couple of different options to do stormwater management with rain gardens under bio swales, it depended upon how it was treated. She said for instance, a roadway with on- street parking, could opt to sheet flow out into a depressed well, and at that point, you would want to make sure that there are wheel stops so that the vehicles do not back off into the area as well. Ms. Martin said she was commenting without being able to refer to the Stormwater Regulations. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think wheel stops should be allowed in any of these districts. She said she thought we should have concrete curbs with breaks in them to allow the water to move. She said we create a host of problems for the city in terms of maintaining wheel stops. Ms. Kramb noted that it said that they needed to be installed "...where necessary to avoid vehicle conflicts. " Mr. Hardt pointed out wheel stops were required for handicap parking spaces Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (4) Perimeter Landscape Buffering (b) 2. Option B, D. (Page 89) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for an explanation as to why we would not want to go with a living screen versus some of these non - living screens. Ms. Martin said in some cases, it depended upon how the development occurs, whether it is architecturally appropriate to use something which might be more of a structure. She said an example would be Waterford Commons, where the applicant had proposed a physical structure adjacent to the cemetery to provide a separation and privacy between the two different spaces. She said there could be cases where it made more sense to have a physical barrier for privacy and /or security. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes said rather than trying to say what the requirements are, it needs to say what the intent is because the requirements could come up with something attractive, but she thought they were Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 33 more likely to get something really ugly. She said in every 40 -foot section, you could have a tree and five shrubs, planted at 8 or 9 -foot on center. She reiterated that they needed better direction and this was no better than no direction at all. Ms. Martin agreed to look at this more clearly. She referred to (a) 3 which were the standards applied for HCR ManorCare and said she thought they captured it well. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage 1. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they were looking for specimen type material. Ms. Martin said the intent was to have clear views as it related to the parking lot. She said it was similar to the existing code which requires a 3 1 /2 -foot high mound or screening material. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "three deciduous shrubs or evergreen shrubs per 25 linear feet," and said it was not an opacity thing by any means. She said she would like to see some intent language here to help everybody. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (a) Street Frontage 3. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to "The property owner shall install at least three deciduous or evergreen shrubs per 25 linear feet or fraction thereof of parking lot boundary facing the public street, and trees are permitted to be installed, but not required." She asked if we would not rather have trees than shrubs. Ms. Martin said it depends upon how close the parking is going to be to the existing street trees. She explained the intent was to not create a condition where there will be overcrowding and potentially compromising the health of our street trees. She said if the applicant is required to mitigate any trees, this would allow them opportunity to use this area if they were set back 20 feet or greater from the right of way. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought there was the presumption in the writing of this that this green area is adjacent to the street, but she did not think it was necessarily there. Ms. Martin said they could try to define that more clearly. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 2. A, B, and C. (Page 90) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was proven at this point that parking lot islands do not work for tree plantings. She said there are no great examples of trees doing well in those islands and she has not seen any which were thriving and reaching maturity. She said she did not think that was something they wanted to keep in this district, particularly in the Historic District and in the very high density districts. She said she did not know if the ten -foot parking lot island was appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes said an island that size was going to eat up a lot of parking spaces and was not going to provide big, old beautiful trees. She said they should look at a more creative approach. Ms. Martin said they were trying to make sure they still maintain at least the peninsula planting area at the points of ingress and egress, which provides some protection for the cars parked on the end. She said they would rather not see it striped and Option A permits some islands which can count toward meeting interior landscape requirements and help reduce the heat island effect. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not disagree with that at all, but maybe a large deciduous tree is not the right tree to plant there. She said she was not saying the islands cannot be there, but they cannot support the kinds of trees which tend to be put in them. She said we need to come up with something different to put in there. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the interior tree lawn, Option B, was a better way to go. Ms. Amorose Groomes said regarding Option C, she would like the lawn areas limited to a maximum of two large consolidated islands for parking lots with less than 30,000 square feet in area. She said they may want to have two squares and we should encourage the size to be at least 20 foot by 20 foot for survivability as well as possibly more of them in the larger parking islands. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 3. (Page 90 and 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said there would be overhang issues with this, but she did not know exactly how to address them. She said it was hard to legislate something you know is going to be a problem. Ms. Martin explained when they talk about where trees may be located from the back of the curb, it actually ends up putting them more at 42 inches which accommodates car bumper overhang or car door swing. She said this was addressed the same in the current code. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping S. (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes noted a reference was made to the Applicant Guide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if "Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least seven feet above the ground" was new language. She said she thought it was good for our street trees as well and we should legislate they have a seven -foot clear trunk as it will alleviate a lot of plant /person conflict. She reiterated the language should go in the Street Tree section. Ms. Martin agreed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (5) Vehicular Use Area Landscaping (c) Interior Landscaping 6. (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said the language, "Ifa curb is located at the edge of landscaped area, planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and curbing shall have openings and gaps allowing drainage from the pavement to enter and percolate through the landscaped areas," was more appropriate than the wheel stops language. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (7) Foundation Planting (b) (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was pretty sure she did not want to see a shrub every ten feet on a building fagade and she would rather see the sidewalk go up to the foundation of the building. Ms. Martin said that was not the intent and would clarify the intent better. Mr. Langworthy said it was explained in (a) where it stated if there was not hardscape against the building, then there would be foundation plantings. He said the intent was for those areas to have foundation plantings, but it may not say that very clearly. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she read it as if she had a 100 -foot building and 10 feet of stoop, she would have 90 feet of landscape area and she could sprinkle nine shrubs in those 90 feet. Ms. Martin said they would clarify it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if they were going to get into structural soils and things, she read this as all plant beds are required to be 42 inches deep. Ms. Martin clarified that meant the distance away from the facade of the building, not the depth. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in the Historic District now, they were far from 42 inches, although she liked that because it was a more survivable condition. She said they needed to define what the plant bed widths are going to be in the Historic District so they were all consistent so and there is not a change in the width of the sidewalks. Ms. Martin said they could look at language to specifically address the Historic Core which may end up being associated with the Building Type. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (8) Credit to Preserve Existing Trees (Page 91) Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out the American Standards for Nursery Stock talked about methods of measuring caliper and in the glossary, it said, "Caliper in the landscape industry trade is the diameter of tree measured at a point of six inches above the ground line if the resulting measurement is no more than four inches. If the resulting measurement is more than four inches, the measurement is made at a point twelve inches above the ground line. This is in contrast to the method to use to measure caliper in the timber industry, which is to make the measurement at a 4 %z feet above the ground line, or the diameter at breast height." She said we use diameter breast height instead of the landscape industry term and she did not think it was used properly. Ms. Martin explained diameter breast height is a term used in the current code and is how protected or preserved tress were established throughout the city. She said the term has been used in the zoning code as long as there has been a tree protection code section. Ms. Amorose Groomes did not think the term should be continued. Mr. Langworthy concluded the timber industry term was used for tree stands, not individual trees, as was being referred to in the code. He said caliper and diameter breast height were both defined in the definitions section. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (9) Tree Preservation (a) General Provisions 1. Applicability (Page 92) Ms. Kramb pointed out this does not apply to "all public and private properties in the BSC zoning districts." Ms. Martin agreed to make a clarification. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (9) Tree Preservation (b) Exemptions 1. and 3. (Page 92) Ms. Kramb pointed out this did not specify it had to be a new site, only that if they cut down a tree where the building was to be, they would not be charged. Ms. Martin agreed to look at combining or clarifying 1 and 3. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested it say something like during the course of redevelopment which would give it a trigger. Mr. Hardt said he did not understand why 1 was needed if the intent was to say a tree that exists in the footprint of where we want the building to go did not need to be preserved whether it was a new site or a redeveloped site. Mr. Langworthy said paragraph 1 was requested by some of the reviewers of the code. Ms. Kramb said 3 satisfied it and 1 just created the opportunity to cut down all the trees on the property if it was a redeveloped PUD or something earlier. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out it could become very significant if they were ash trees and they would not be required to be replaced and redevelopment had not happened. Ms. Martin agreed to work on this. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (30) Maintenance and Replacement (b) 1. (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes questioned who was to determine if the required landscaping was in good condition. Ms. Martin agreed to add, "as determined by the City Forester." Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she recalled the last time they saw HCR ManorCare, the wall in front was not going to be stone, but another material which was more modern. She said the big picture is this is Dublin, and our history and nomenclature goes back to the stone walls. She said if there are going to be walls they should be of stone. She said she thought it was a place- making concept. She said she understood if it was a restaurant or something and a dining space needed to be enclosed and she could see wrought iron if there were some extenuating circumstances. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought all walls in the Bridge Street Corridor which were 36 -inch in height should be dry laid stone with bookend top. She asked for the Commissioners' thoughts on that. Ms. Martin said the intent was to have the walls be incorporated as part of the architectural character of the area where they are located, so they coordinate with the building, not necessarily have the same thing everywhere. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would argue the opposite, that the dry laid stone walls should be incorporated because streetscapes were what they were trying to create. Ms. Kramb said if the wall is screening something on the building, or protecting a patio or something along the street or parking lot, she thought it should be the limestone. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if it was engaged in the public realm, it should be dry laid stone walls with bookend top. Ms. Martin clarified Ms. Amorose Groomes meant if it was in the public right -of -way, it should be stone. She said from a design standpoint, it provides a cohesive tie to whole site if the street wall is associated with the building, or in cases where there is screening of the parking lot, the building fagade is continued so it blends into the background rather than calling attention to the different material. She said the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 33 intent is to give the ART the ability to review how the street wall makes sense within the fabric of the street and site. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had a different theology. She said she thought the cohesiveness is not generated by the site, it is generated by the whole. Ms. Kramb said historically, in Dublin, the stone wall's purpose was to divide properties. She said it ran along the frontage of the property with a gate for the driveway. She said the stone wall would still serve the same function if they were trying to say this property went with this building. Mr. Zimmerman said he liked what Ms. Martin was saying about continuing the design of the building between the walls. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what if the two buildings were of different materials. Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. He said people remember the white fences of New Albany and the stone walls in Dublin. He said he thought any perimeter walls should be stacked limestone walls which were a character of Dublin. Mr. Zimmerman said he saw the white fences in New Albany as streetscape Mr. Fishman and Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed a wing wall or dumpster enclosure should coordinate with the building or anything which was a structure related issue should be the same material as the building. Mr. Fishman said they needed to create as much character as possible in this high density area, and stone walls are a character of Dublin. Ms. Martin explained they were not precluding anyone from having the ability to have dry stacked stone walls with the bookends on top, but it was going to come down to how it architecturally ties into the site. She said for instance, if there is a retail center with parking located against the building with a wing wall or street wall coming off the building to screen some of the parking, the material should be the same as the building, so there was a continuance of the fagade. She said if we follow the principle of using only a dry stacked stone wall, there would be a break for the drive aisle and then the dry stacked stone wall would begin. Ms. Martin said she appreciated the passion for the stone walls, and they were not precluding anybody from being able to use them, but it was more of trying to make sure they were used when it was appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to mandate them Mr. Langworthy said he thought that was admirable, but he had the feeling if they gave absolutely no ability to change that in any way, there are going to be some circumstances where that is really not going to look very good and will look out of place. He reminded everyone that this was not a suburban area and consisted of straight stretches of blocks and sidewalks. Ms. Kramb said we have urban treatments and long stretches of sidewalks in Historic Dublin. Mr. Hardt said he was having a hard time imagining a building architecture or building material that is incompatible with stone. Mr. Langworthy said he was not saying that stone, as a material was bad. He said he was saying a stacked stone wall in every single circumstance was probably not appropriate. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not saying that every inch had to be walled, but if they are meeting the wall requirements, the wall had to be a dry laid stone wall. She said she was only one of the seven Commissioners and that was how she felt. Mr. Hardt said for the record, that he came down on the side of Ms. Amorose Groomes Mr. Langworthy said he thought this would have some unintended consequences which would not be good. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that there had to be a creative way to work it out. She said she thought just driving through some of these areas and seeing different kinds of walls against the street is going to look very disheveled. Mr. Langworthy asked to put some thought into it, that maybe there are some character districts or character areas which could be established where the wall style could be flexible and other character areas where it could be mandated to be dry laid stone walls instead of creating acres of stone walls. He suggested trying to come up with language to make it appropriate in some places and mandate it in others. Ms. Martin agreed it made sense in the Historic District, that was how that district had been established and it was appropriate. Ms. Kramb pointed out there were stone walls all along Riverside Drive and Dublin Road. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she read this as the walls are not required everywhere. Ms. Martin said they are not required everywhere, but if they choose to do a street wall, by saying it has to be dry laid stone, it was saying that all street walls which have parking lots within the 20 feet of the street frontage would be required to have a dry laid stone wall according to Ms. Amorose Groomes. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated she did not want to see many different treatments. She suggested there might be minimum requirements, if they wanted a different wall, it had to be over 600 feet away or something of significance to justify it, although she would not make any promises. Mr. Langworthy said he could work on that language. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards B. Parking and Loading (8) Maintenance and Use (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (1)(b) 2. (Page 93) Ms. Kramb suggested this say six -foot fences were allowed for residential patios only. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (1)(c) Signs (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why management signs were permitted on fences and walls. She said normally, for maintenance issues, it was on an entry door. She said if it was located on a front wall, it was more of an advertisement. Ms. Ray said they would want it in a visible location, but could work on language to clarify it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (b) Street Wall Design and Location (Page 93) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had already mentioned that (2) should be stricken and it all should be dry laid stone walls with bookends. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 33 Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (c) Types (Page 94) Mr. Hardt noted for all three types, the paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 refer to landscape requirements, and if he was using this code, he would have never found it there. He said he preferred it placed back in the landscape section. Ms. Ray said they wanted to keep the language consistent because if an applicant just had to do a masonry street wall, it would not have the hedge requirements along with it. She said they wanted to include it here because it would be used to screen not only parking areas, but also vehicular circulation areas and other limited applications as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out if the masonry street wall were dry laid stone walls, you would not need to plant anything in front of it. Ms. Martin explained in cases, like the Dublin Road Bikepath, there are sections where there are dry laid stone walls against the bikepath with a bit of a planting strip. She said the dry laid stone wall creates an uneven surface and if you brush up against or hit it, you could disrupt the wall or hurt yourself so some separation was desired. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could see it in those kinds of situations, but if it were in a turf panel or something, there would not be a need for an additional planting. Ms. Martin said under those circumstances, Ms. Amorose Groomes was correct. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (2) Street Wall Standards (c) Types 3.(Page 94) Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know if we wanted vines growing over them, but perhaps groundcover like Boston ivy or something might be appropriate in some areas. Ms. Martin said living screens or walls was intended to be something softer which adds a different character and texture. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled where it talked about living walls elsewhere. Ms. Kramb pointed out it was under (c) Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment B. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they might want to look at adjusting the opacity. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (3) (d) Outdoor Waste and Storage Containers and Enclosures (Page 94) Ms. Amorose Groomes said it gives landscaping as an approval method of enclosure. Ms. Martin said that was what currently was permitted as far as screening. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not imagine in this dense of an environment that you could have a living enclosure and she did not think they should have landscaping permitted as an enclosure in these districts. Ms. Martin said they could look at that. Mr. Fishman wanted it noted that they did not want the enclosures to be made of wood. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was confusing. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 33 Ms. Martin suggested "where permitted it could be incorporated into the footprint, "similar to like Building A and B at Bri Hi Square. She confirmed they did not want to permit something like a Skyrocket juniper. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (E) Fencing, Walls and Screening (3) (e) Off - Street Loading Areas (Page 95) Mr. Hardt pointed out the Off - Street Loading Area was the 30 by 12 parking space for a truck to sit in and we are saying here we want a wall around that entire thing. Ms. Kramb said she had the same concern. Ms. Martin said they would make it consistent. She said it was meant to reference the dock area. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (9) Wall Lighting (a) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt said he understood what they were trying to do with decorative incandescent lighting, but 100 watts was very bright. He said a retail building with multiple doors with a 100 -watt light fixture over every door would be pretty bright. He recommended they be no more than 40 watts and if they were really decorative, not much more than 15 was needed. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (10) Canopy Lighting (a) and (b) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt pointed out that paragraphs (a) and (b) required the same thing. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (F) Exterior Lighting (10) Canopy Lighting (c) (Page 96) Mr. Hardt said "highlyreflective matenarseemed difficult to define. Mr. Langworthy said they would add a clarifying statement saying that the intent is to avoid creating glare. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (G) Utility Undergrounding (Page 96) Mr. Ha rdt sa id he thoug ht they mea nt " That in BSC districts, all utility /fines, including but not limited to ... " Mr. Hardt said the sentence "Unless otherwise dictated by the needs of the building," was too subjective. He suggested striking the sentence and let an applicant make the argument if they need to do it. Section 153.065 - Site Development Standards (H) Signs (Page 96) Ms. Amorose Groomes said that, due to the late hour, she preferred to postpone the discussion on signs. Mr. Hardt said that he felt ill- equipped to review the sign requirements in a text -based format. He said as part of the review, he would like to see some examples and pictures of how the regulations are applied. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide some illustrations. Ms. Kramb commented that she found the sign requirements table confusing. Ms. Ray said Planning would look at an alternative way to organize the section 2. Bridge Street Corridor — Area Rezoning 11 -021Z Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 33 Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the area rezoning of 388 parcels totaling approximately 808.7 acres for the Bridge Street Corridor. She announced that this is the Commission's first review of this application, and public comment on the area rezoning is intended to be received at this meeting. Rachel Ray stated that the land in the Bridge Street Corridor area is recommended for zoning to 10 zoning districts that are only applicable to the Bridge Street Corridor. She said that the 10 zoning districts will be governed by the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, which is currently under review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said the purpose of the area rezoning is to encourage coordinated development and redevelopment in the Bridge Street Corridor consistent with the Vision Plan, while recognizing the need for flexibility and adaptability to transition the character of the corridor over time to a mixed use area with a variety of commercial and residential densities. Ms. Ray referred to a graphic of the Bridge Street Corridor and identified the area rezoning boundaries, which generally include the area south of I -270, west of Sawmill Road, and along State Route 161. She stated that all of the Historic District is included in the Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Ms. Ray said in October 2010, City Council approved by resolution a Vision Plan for the Bridge Street Corridor to demonstrate the general land use character that might be expected in the Bridge Street Corridor. She explained that in preparing the area rezoning, Planning looked at the general land use character that might be expected in different parts of the corridor. Ms. Ray said from there, Planning derived a variety of different zoning districts generally consistent with the Vision Plan: 1. Bridge Street Corridor Residential District is intended to be a mixed residential district with mid -rise development generally interior to the Bridge Street Corridor with a small pocket along the southern boundary of the Bridge Street Corridor east of the Scioto River. 2. Bridge Street Corridor Office Residential is concentrated along I -270 on the east side of the Corridor. She said that this district is recommended to have flexibility for both residential and commercial uses, and will benefit from the visibility and access to I -270. 3. Bridge Street Corridor Office District is concentrated along West Dublin- Granville Road on the east side of the corridor. She said that the intent is to establish a signature urban office corridor along State Route 161 as development leads up to the Historic District. 4. Bridge Street Corridor Commercial is intended to accommodate a variety of low -rise commercial uses at the eastern and western gateways to the Bridge Street Corridor. 5. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Core is intended to replace some of the older zoning districts that currently exist within the Historic District that do not apply to anywhere else in the City. The purpose of this district is to apply to the commercial uses in the historic center of Dublin. 6. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Residential is concentrated along South Riverview Street and Franklin Street and is intended to preserve the existing Historic Residential District zoning regulations for the existing neighborhood. 7. Bridge Street Corridor Neighborhood Districts are intended to create signature places in the corridor while accommodating longer term phasing plans. She said that Planning recognizes that these districts will not redevelop all at once, and the Neighborhood Districts allow development to occur time with greater consistency. She said that the three Neighborhood Districts include: a. Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Center Neighborhood, which is intended to have a mixed use entertainment focus a regional center in the area west of Sawmill Road. b. Bridge Street Corridor Historic Transition Neighborhood, which is partially within the Architectural Review District that the Architectural Review Board reviews. She explained that this district is intended to allow mixed use development and additional residential uses to transition from the scale and character of the Historic District of greater development scales and densities to the west. c. Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood, which is a mixed use district with more employment and supporting services. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 33 8. BSC Public District is intended to be applied to the existing public uses throughout the corridor, including the school site, library, cemetery, open spaces, and the AEP substation. Ms. Ray indicated since the map was initially published in April of this year, Planning has met with a number of property owners to discuss what the proposed zoning districts mean for their properties and discuss any of the property owners' concerns. She reported that several property owners have submitted requests to change zoning districts, or to be excluded from the corridor. She said that the properties include the LaScala restaurant, LaScala apartments, Acura Columbus, the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, and Oakland Nursery. Ms. Ray said the recommendation for the LaScala restaurant is to be zoned to the Bridge Street Corridor Office District. She said that Planning has worked with the owner to develop the Existing Uses and Existing Structures provisions to address many of their concerns. She said that the LaScala apartment site is recommended to be zoned Bridge Street Corridor Residential, which is an equivalent zoning district based on their current zoning of R -12, Urban Residential District. Ms. Ray that the recommendation for the Acura site and the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center is also Bridge Street Corridor Office District to establish the signature office corridor along State Route 161. She noted that the Bridge Street Corridor Office District is important for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center site because of the strong relationship this site will have to the Historic District as well as future uses to the north along Riverside Drive. Ms. Ray said the Infiniti Columbus site has requested that they be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Center Neighborhood District in order to better coordinate with future development on that site. She reported that planning also recommends that some of the surrounding parcels along Tuller Road, including the three hotels on the north side of Tuller Road and the AMC Theater site, also be included in the Bridge Street Corridor Sawmill Neighborhood for the same reason. Ms. Ray indicated the Cardinal Health South Campus, which is currently zoned PUD, was originally recommended for zoning to the Bridge Street Corridor Office Residential District. She stated that Planning recommends that this site be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood District to allow greater ability to transition over time with coordinated development on the OCLC campus to the west. She said that the three residential lots wrapped by the Cardinal Health site are also recommended to be part of the Bridge Street Corridor Indian Run Neighborhood District as well. Ms. Ray noted that the property owner at 155 South High Street has requested Bridge Street Corridor Historic Core District zoning for his property, which is currently recommended for Bridge Street Corridor Historic Residential District. She said that the Architectural Review Board will review this request at their meeting next week and will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on this site. She continued that on the west side of the cemetery, Planning is recommending the whole block of land be zoned Bridge Street Corridor Historic Transition Neighborhood District to coordinate with any future development that may happen across Bridge Street to allow for a more coordinated transition from the interchange into the Historic District. Ms. Ray presented a summary list of all of property owner requests for zoning district changes or exemptions, with Planning's recommendation for each property, along with a list of the properties that Planning has recommended a change since the April 14, 2011 draft of the proposed zoning map. She said Planning has reviewed this application with respect to the considerations for a request for an area rezoning, approval of the area rezoning is recommended at either the December 1, 2011 or December 8, 2011 meeting with the modifications noted following the recommendation on the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Ray asked that the Commission discuss the draft zoning map, the property owner requests, and the changes to the April 14"' zoning map that Planning has recommended. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that although there are two possible target dates for a vote on this application, and she wanted to be clear that the Commission will not vote on the area rezoning until they are satisfied with the development code and have voted on that item. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment on the proposed Bridge Street Corridor area rezoning. Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, said he represents two properties in the Bridge Street Corridor that he would like to discuss. He said he has worked with staff on the Code, since staff has given the business community the opportunity to review draft document. He said that he worked with staff to draft provisions for existing businesses so that they will remain conforming and not become nonconforming, which will allow them to continue to operate as they do currently and even replace existing tenants in the future. He said he appreciated staff's cooperation in resolving this issue. Mr. Hale said that the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center recently received approval for remodeling the existing buildings, while the proposed zoning is for Bridge Street Corridor Office District. He stated that this site has been a commercial shopping center for 25 years, and with the changes to the code to address Existing Uses and Existing Structures, the owners will be able to continue to change out tenants; however, one of their concerns is that there is an outparcel that at one time had a bank on it. He said that the outparcel building no longer exists, and building a new building on that site that complies with the BSC Office District will be difficult if not impossible. He said he believes that the center should be zoned BSC Commercial because the development standards would allow the existing uses to remain within this classification. He noted that all other shopping centers in the corridor received BSC Commercial and asked that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council for Bridge Street Corridor Commercial for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center site. Mr. Hale said the second site he represents is the Byers dealership on Village Parkway, which is located across from the AMC Theater. He said the dealership has been there for a while operating a car dealership within two existing buildings. He said Byers lost their Chevy dealership, and now they are primarily a used car dealership. He requested that the Commission consider the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District instead of the BSC Residential District for this site due to the nature of the current uses and how the site could be reused. He reiterated that the zoning should be either BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, or the site should be exempted from the area rezoning and remain zoned PUD. Mr. Hale said the other clients he represents, including Cardinal Health and OCLC, are generally satisfied with the proposed zoning classifications, with some changes in the zoning requirements that he has recommended to staff. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Cardinal Health is satisfied with their re- classification to the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood District and asked if there are any others that Mr. Hale represents that may have concerns. Mr. Hale said he has worked with the Leo Alfred Jewelers, the Lexus dealership, Cardinal Health, Byers, an office building along Tuller Road, the driving range site, and the Bridge Pointe shopping center. He said he has made suggestions with regard to the language of the draft code, but generally seem to be okay with the rezoning. Amy Kramb asked if the difficulty with redeveloping the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center had to do with the permitted uses or the building types. Mr. Hale said the outparcel is small, and when they look at the BSC Office District building types, he believed the value of the outparcel would be destroyed, compared with the building types permitted in the BSC Commercial District, which are still difficult, but may be possible. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 33 Ms. Kramb said that she wanted to clarify, because the use table includes a nearly identical list of uses for the BSC Office and BSC Commercial district, but the permitted building types are much different. Mr. Hale indicated that the property owner's biggest concern was with the potential for a restaurant, since the there are severe limitations on size. John Hardt inquired about the size of the outparcel. Melanie Wollenberg, Equity Inc., 445 Hutchinson Avenue, Worthington, said the vacant outparcel site is approximately half an acre, and they also own a second outparcel containing the building that used to be occupied by a Mark Pi's restaurant. Scott Phillips, Frost Brown Todd, 9277 Center Point Drive, Suite 300, West Chester, Ohio, 45069, said that he represents the Joseph Auto Group, which is the former Hummer dealership located at 4300 West Dublin- Granville Road. He indicated that he had written a letter dated June 9"', 2011 and that he has been in constant communication with staff about their concerns with the proposed rezoning. He said that they are recommended for zoning to the BSC Office designation, which would move the car dealership from a conforming use to a non - conforming use, and therefore the property owner has requested to be excluded from the area rezoning. Mr. Phillips indicated that he had been practicing for over 20 years and had never had a better or more responsive experience than working with Dublin's Planning staff on his client's concerns. He said the car dealership will become a "conforming" non - conforming use, or an Existing Use, which he thought was a creative approach to dealing with nonconformities. He said he had not received notice of the previous meeting to discuss the draft Development Code; however, the good news is that they are happy with the language that has been drafted. He said his client would prefer not to be rezoned, but if it is necessary, they are happy with the language provided. He said that he was concerned that their objection had not been duly noted. Paul Reiner, 5875 Kilbannan Court, Dublin, Ohio, said he is the president and owner of Oakland Nursery. He said that Oakland had moved to Dublin approximately 5 years ago after they had purchased and restored the old Frank's Nursery building. He said that they spent a tremendous amount of money, and they are spending more money to build a greenhouse. He said he firmly believes that if their zoning is changed to BSC Office, it will result in a by making the use nonconforming and limit future expansions. Mr. Reiner said that he had not expected this when he moved his business to Dublin and after they had spent so much money, time, and effort on what he feels is the most viable business in the area. He stated that the site is perfect for his use, and in the future, he would have liked to expand, but he is concerned that with the new zoning regulations, they may not be able to do so. He said that the "downzoning" from commercial to office will debilitate their opportunity for growth, and he felt that he should be compensated for the lost value and creditability with their lenders. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the Commission has now heard several comments about how the zoning designations will cause an existing corporate citizen a hardship, and asked how Planning had considered this site in their zoning recommendation. Steve Langworthy said that the Existing Uses and Existing Structures language will apply to this site just as all of the others, allowing the owner to maintain the existing use and even allow them to be eligible for some expansion. He stated that Mr. Reiner had pointed out to staff that the code did not address outdoor use areas, so Planning is looking at language to accommodate outdoor use areas as well to accommodate this site and others in the area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 33 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Reiner if there is any way he could become more comfortable with the proposed rezoning. Mr. Reiner said it is difficult for him to get comfortable, because regardless of whether he is thinking short term or long term, he has spent a sizable amount of money building a green house on this building, so it is not as if he is looking to redevelop this site in 10 or 20 years. He said that the building has been built for its current operation. He said if the zoning is changed, then it will demean the value of the property and ability for banks to lend to them in the future because they are no longer commercially zoned. He said he has been working with Planning on the zoning text as it refers to the uses outside of the building, because otherwise, it would have meant the death of his business. He said that he is trying to make this as clean as possible because he doesn't want to contend with problems in the future. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Reiner had explored the BSC Commercial District, and what he thought of that zoning district. Mr. Reiner agreed that the BSC Commercial District would be much more satisfactory. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if all the properties along State Route 161 that are currently zoned Community Commercial were satisfied with the BSC Office zoning, or if they all preferred BSC Commercial zoning. Ms. Ray indicated Planning has only received letters from Mr. Reiner with Oakland Nursery, and the owner of the LaScala restaurant and the LaScala apartments, but Planning has not heard from the owner of the Tommy's Pizza site. Mitch Grant, 5075 Galway Drive, said he is a concerned Dublin resident and that he has been involved in the recent discussions regarding the bicycle paths and other improvements to Brand Road. He said that he was very disappointed in Council's decision to severely restrict and destroy eight properties on Brand Road. He thought the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan is very enticing and exciting on the east side of the Scioto River where Dublin Village Center is in need of redevelopment, and he thought that this plan shows a lot of foresight. He said that he is not so sure about the west side of the Scioto River however, and if the City staffs and Council's ideas of infrastructure with respect to Brand Road is any indication, he felt that the scenic nature of the area around Historic Dublin may be destroyed, and Dublin as it exists today will be changed forever. Mr. Grant said that this plan is a really big deal, and it needs to be very well thought out. He stated that the rights of tax payers and citizens who have bought homes in this community need to be respected. He said he has listened to all of the consultant presentations on the Bridge Street Corridor website, and the word that keeps coming up is "urban." He said that Dublin is an exurban, rural community, and not in his opinion, "urban." He said that Dublin was developed as a community of single family homes, neighborhoods, and an excellent school system. He noted that there is no new school shown in the Bridge Street Corridor, which will do nothing to help the existing schools, which will need help in the future. He said that Dublin is going to expand in the future, probably with more single family homes. He stated that he believes this plan would be great on the east side of the river where the Dublin Village Center is located, but he questions the traffic and the density and the historic nature of Historic Dublin. He said that he believed that the surrounding area could be compromised and destroyed forever if it is not handled very carefully. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. Grant's comments are valid and that it is the Commission's desire to engage the public as much as possible in this process. She said that as it is today and in the future, one of the Commission's greatest desires is to keep the public engaged in the process as the Bridge Street Corridor develops. She said inevitably, there will be some redevelopment on the west side of the Scioto River on the OCLC site, and the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan will act as a guide to redevelopment Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 33 that will be driven by property owners. She said that the intent is to make all development as great as it can be for everyone living in Dublin. She said that she feels that it is pivotal that the community be engaged every step of the way so that folks can come forward and be heard. She reiterated that the Vision Plan is a guide, and not something that will be forced on anyone. She said that the Commission will do what they can do to allow whoever is in the Corridor to continue doing what they are doing for as long as they care to do it, with the knowledge that the needs of the citizens already living in Dublin should be balanced, since they have certain expectations of the community that they have moved to. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that redevelopment is going to happen, and there is nothing they can do about that, but the best thing they can do is to structure the redevelopment in a way that is well thought out and well planned like the balance of the community. Mr. Grant said he appreciated Ms. Amorose Groomes' comments and said his family loves Historic Dublin and that they love to come downtown to the Indian Run Park. He said that Dublin is a high quality place to live and he loves Dublin and wants to see Dublin continue to grow strong. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone else who wished to comment. [There was no one.] Joe Budde said he likes the concept of the Bridge Street Corridor, but he understands the concerns expressed by the property owners, and he said he wanted to make sure that their concerns are addressed. He said that he was surprised that others in similar situations were not present to voice their concerns, although he thought that staff has done a great job of putting this information together. Warren Fishman said that he is confused by the conforming /nonconforming issues, because as he understood it, Mr. Reiner's use would always be conforming. Mr. Langworthy agreed with Mr. Fishman's statement and said that the existing use has been protected along with the outdoor areas, and the code also allows for the ability to expand the building. He said that the language is important between conforming and nonconforming, because the code currently allows for a fair amount of expansion for Existing Uses and Existing Structures, as well as protects the uses that are there. He pointed out that the code also gives property owners the ability to change ownership. He stated that existing property owners will be able to exist as long as they choose, and that they can opt in to the Bridge Street Code when they choose to do so. Mr. Fishman asked why the zoning on the nursery site should not be changed to commercial. Mr. Langworthy said that the objective is to avoid turning State Route 161 into another commercial strip like Sawmill Road. He said that this area is intended to be a distinctive "address" street with a high quality office presence and a different kind of look, and not a commercial strip. He said that that is why the building types are restricted to more mixed use and office buildings as opposed to single story commercial building types, to create a different atmosphere along State Route 161. Mr. Fishman asked if zoning to BSC Office was a downzoning, and if the property owner had the right to exempt himself from the area rezoning. Mr. Langworthy said that the Commission has the right to make that recommendation to City Council. Mr. Fishman said he is worried about the Indian Run Estates neighborhood and the higher density, mixed use development expected around it. Mr. Langworthy said that there is a provision in the existing zoning for the Cardinal Health South Campus for a substantial landscape buffer between that neighborhood and whatever may happen on the Cardinal property. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 33 Ms. Kramb asked why the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center should be recommended for zoning to the BSC Office District when the Shoppes at River Ridge site is recommended for BSC Commercial. She thought the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center and Oakland Nursery should be zoned BSC Commercial. She noted that it seems as though the objective is to limit car dealerships along State Route 161 in the future, because those uses have been excluded. Ms. Kramb agreed with Mr. Hale with regards to the Byers dealership, and felt that the zoning map goes too far with showing BSC Residential. She thought that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood should be permitted on the Byers site west of Village Parkway. Ms. Kramb said that she did not understand why there is a sliver of land with the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District that reaches south to State Route 161. Ms. Ray stated that the land is part of an existing parcel recommended for zoning to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, and currently contains a driveway with access from State Route 161. Ms. Kramb said it seems odd to have two small parcels recommended for BSC Office on the north side of State Route 161 on either side of that driveway. She recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District be extended south to State Route 161. Mr. Hardt said he would like to see a version of the zoning map that shows the proposed street network to see how the maps relate to one another. He agreed with Ms. Kramb with respect to the zoning along the north side of State Route 161, because he thought that the development in the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District would want the visibility from one of the largest and most highly traveled roads in the city. Mr. Hardt said when this process began, one of the stated intents was to create a mixed use development with a variety of uses, where people could live on one side of the street and buy a cup of coffee on the other side of the street. He said that the City has decided to accomplish this by using a form -based code. Mr. Hardt said that his understanding was that, as he had learned from the consultants, form -based code regulations are intended to govern the size and shape of buildings and how they interface with the street and public realm. He said that he is concerned they are getting back into a use -based code by dividing the Bridge Street Corridor into these use - centric districts. He thought that this approach would be detrimental to property owners, contrary to the stated intent of the Bridge Street Corridor, and that the names of the districts are misleading. He recommended that the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts be combined to address some of the concerns that had been raised at the meeting and put more focus on the building form instead of the uses. Ms. Ray mentioned that, since the discussion on uses at one of the Commission's previous meetings, Planning is in the process of reviewing the districts and their list of permitted uses to allow a greater mix of uses. She said that regulating which building types are permitted in each of the districts will contribute to the character of each zoning district. Ms. Kramb that there are few differences between the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts on the use table, but the permitted building types are much different. She suggested that more building types should be permitted in more districts to help address some of the issues raised at this meeting. Mr. Hardt recommended that Planning revalue the zoning designation for the Bridge Pointe Shopping Center to understand the impact of the BSC Office designation on that property, particularly with regard to the outparcels. Jennifer Readier said that through a rezoning of a property, uses and structures that are no longer permitted in the new district would default to the existing nonconforming uses section of the Zoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 32 of 33 Code, which is very limiting. She said that the Existing Uses section is unique because it is much more expansive then what these property owners would otherwise be entitled to. She stated that the conformity of those uses and structures are preserved; however, the use and /or structure has to be existing at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Hardt said that he voted against the special meeting on December 8, 2011 or earlier because of the timing. He was concerned that with the remaining number of pages left to review, in addition to the new copy incorporating all of the revisions, it does not seem that there will be adequate time to prepare and review all of this material by December 8, 2011. Ms. Amorose Groomes assured the Commission that they would not vote on either the code or the area rezoning until they are ready, and they have the ability to cancel the meeting on December 8, 2011 if they are not ready. She said she appreciates the sense of urgency that City Council has applied, but they also feel an urgency to get all of this right. Ms. Kramb referred to the BSC Office Residential zoning district along I -270 and said that she could not imagine residential uses overlooking I -270. Ms. Ray indicated that the intent of that district is to allow office and residential uses, because the district could go either way depending on market opportunities. She added that the existing development in that area will probably be there for a while as well. Mr. Fishman said he was surprised that, considering the magnitude of this rezoning, there are so few people present to comment on the rezoning. He said he thought that the room would be packed. He said he would like to have another meeting with an opportunity for the public to provide comment. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning has met with a lot of property owners, many of whom are satisfied with their proposed zoning designation and the language written for the Existing Uses and Existing Structures, and that is why there is not more activity or letters requesting different zoning districts — because of the work Planning has done to accommodate as many of property owners as possible. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that there will be additional meetings to discuss the code and area rezoning, and property owners would be notified of those meetings. She said that she agreed with Mr. Hardt's comments on draft code, that the regulations seem to be more function -based than form - based, and she said she did not understand why it would make a difference to anyone what happens behind the fagade of a building, and whether it is a shop or a parking area, as long as the building is properly interacting with the street and the traffic is functioning properly. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the comment that they are trying to change the character of State Route 161 so that it feels different from that of Sawmill Road. She said she disagreed that Sawmill will continue to be very commercial and auto - oriented, particularly if we get the type of mixed -use, regional redevelopment that is anticipated for that site. She envisioned that to be very different from State Route 161 now and in the future. She said she thought that State Route 161 is a natural place for businesses like Oakland Nursery. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the other Commissioners agreed that the zoning map should be modified to be consistent with the requests made by the property owners this evening, including changing the Oakland Nursery, La Scala restaurant, Bridge Pointe Shopping Center, and others along State Route 161 to BSC Commercial, and changing the Byers and Charles Penzone's sites to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Mr. Hardt thought there should be no distinction between the BSC Office and BSC Commercial districts Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 33 of 33 Ms. Kramb thought that the Fifth Third office building and others along the north side of State Route 161 should be part of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the public in attendance for providing comments on the proposed area rezoning. She confirmed that the Commission would take a short break before moving onto the discussion of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4400 • Fax: - 4490 1090 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: November 23, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that time. A special meeting for December 8 has been added to accommodate the Commission's continued review. The Planning and Zoning Commission continued their review of the code at the regular Commission meeting on Thursday, November 3, and a second special meeting that had been scheduled on Thursday, November 10, 2011. The Commissioners also reviewed the proposed zoning map and took public comment on the proposed area rezoning at the special meeting on November 10. A summary of the Commission's comments from these two meetings follows. November 3 PZC Regular Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. This summary represents most, but not necessarily all of the Commission's comments. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 15153.062 Building Types — Pages 24 -60 Commission members were concerned that having specific dimensional requirements for various architectural elements would be too limiting to designers and might not necessarily achieve the design quality desired. The Commissioners suggested that more language regarding the intent of certain building type requirements should be stated in lieu of dimensional requirements, and requiring that the architectural elements be appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. The building type sections where Commissioners commented that specific dimensional requirements should be eliminated include roof types (pp. 26 -28), entrances and pedestrianways (p. 29), windows and shutters (p. 30), and facade transparency and divisions (p. 34 and Building Type tables on pp. 36 -59). Commissioners recommended that the Architectural Review Board should continue to have authority to review all site and architectural modifications and to require adherence to the requirements of the BSC Code unless they determine that historic precedent should override the requirements. Requested clarification regarding the "Existing Structures" provisions and the circumstances when they apply. Commented that other architectural elements should be permitted on gable ends and long expanses of roofs in addition to windows, vents, and dormers. Suggested that cultured stone should be a permitted primary material, and that other synthetic materials may be permitted by the required reviewing body when the applicant provides examples of high quality installations in comparable climates. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Commented that the requirement for 1 /2 -inch thick fiber - cement siding was thicker than the industry standard, which is typically 5/16 -inch thick, and therefore could limit the use of siding. Suggested that green roofs be accommodated in the permitted roof materials. Requested clarification between Mid - Building Pedestrianways and Mid -Block Pedestrianways and suggested that the requirements in the Building Types section be coordinated with the requirements in Lots and Blocks. Discussed whether the standard allowing up to 10% of the fagade surface area to be an accent color should be more restrictive. - Suggested that fiberglass be a permitted window material. - Requested that porches only be required to be functional rather than include a specific dimensional requirement. - Stated that columns supporting vehicular canopies should be coordinated with the principal structure rather than required to use one of the primary materials. - Suggested that locations for any signs, including signs that may be added in the future, should be identified on buildings when they are approved by the required reviewing body. - Requested that vents, air conditioners, and other utility elements on building fagades or roofs not be visible without receiving special approval. - Requested that the building type diagrams be modified to have more legible notes and colors. - Suggested that towers be permitted on single - family detached building types instead of prohibited to accommodate certain architectural styles. 5153 063 Neighborhood Standards — Pages 61 -69 - Commissioners were concerned that some of the requirements listed specifically for these special districts might be redundant if they were addressed elsewhere in the BSC Code, and that requirements should generally be listed in one place. - Requested that the requirements in the tables be reformatted to match the format used elsewhere in the code. - Requested that the 1919 Building be eliminated from the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood District graphic since none of the other existing historic structures in the adjacent districts are identified this way. - Clarified how Historic Sites and Structures are designated, and requested that the ARB make this determination. §153.064 Open Space Types — Pages 70 -76 Commissioners requested clarification regarding how open spaces would be adequately distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor and how much space will be available. Requested that the requirement allowing an existing open spaces to be used to meet open space requirements be clarified to make clear that payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication would still be required. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 3 of 5 November 10 PZC Special Meeting The Commission's comments are listed below and grouped by code section. This summary represents most, but not necessarily all of the Commission's comments. The approved meeting minutes will include the broader discussion around these comments. 5153 065 Site Development Standards (SDS) — Purpose; Parking & Loading — Pages 77 -86 - Commissioners requested that applicants be required to submit a parking study and parking plan for any uses not listed in the BSC Code. - Verified that on- street parking spaces would continue to be publicly available and may not be reserved for private use. Requested the following changes to parking requirements for specific uses: - Dwelling, Live -work — require a minimum of 2 per dwelling unit instead of 1 space per unit. - Community Center — require parking based on an approved parking plan instead of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. - Community Garden — require a parking space for service vehicles and /or require a parking plan instead of not requiring parking. - Day Care — require a parking plan to demonstrate pick up /drop off areas in addition to the requirement for 1 space per 5 persons maximum occupancy. - Schools — modify the parking requirement to better accommodate vehicular traffic (concern that 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space per 60 square feet of auditorium or assembly hall will not be adequate). - Hospitals — use the standard that was used for the Dublin Methodist Hospital (concern that it is too difficult to determine how the interior of hospital facilities will be used in order to calculate the required parking, since the medical spaces are increasingly designed to be modular). - Religious or Public Assembly — concerned that the maximum requirement of providing up to 150% of the minimum parking will not be adequate to serve vehicular traffic (concern that 1 space per 6 persons maximum capacity in the largest seating area will not be enough). Requested that the Accessible Parking Space requirements be eliminated and that a reference to the federal standards should be included instead. - Suggested that there should be a standard city bike rack style for consistent character. - Requested that minimum parking space width be 9 feet instead of 8.5 feet. - Requested that all references to parking structure design standards established by Engineering that have not yet been established be eliminated from the code. - Commented that loading in alleys should not be permitted and that all loading should occur off- street. - Commented that asphalt curbs should be prohibited. 6153 065 SDS — Stormwater Management; Landscaping & Tree Preservation — Pages 86 -93 Commissioners requested that, like certain building type requirements, certain landscaping requirements should be less proscriptive with fewer specific requirements, with more general language that would allow the required reviewing body to determine whether the intent of the regulation had been achieved. These requests included street tree diversity requirements (pp. 86 -87), perimeter buffering requirements (pp. 88 -89), vehicular use area landscaping (pp. 90 -91), and foundation planting (p. 91). Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 23, 2011 Page 4 of 5 - Requested that the reference to the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Applicant Guide that will contain specific strategies and best practices for stormwater management and certain design standards for landscaping be eliminated until the Applicant Guide is created. - Requested that the structural soil requirements be clarified to ensure adequate quality and appropriate installation. - Commented that each street type that will permit street tree grates should be identified, and suggested that raised planters and ground planting should be permitted in addition to pavers and tree grates. - Commented that fencing should not be permitted as a buffer from I -270. - Requested that concrete wheel stops be prohibited or used in very limited applications. - Requested that the tree caliper measurement be modified to use the landscape industry standard of 6 inches above the ground rather than the diameter at breast height, which is used in the timber industry. - Requested that the intent of the tree replacement exemptions text be clarified. 15153.065 SDS Fencing Walls and Screening; Lighting; Utility Undergrounding — Pages 93 -96 - Commissioners requested that the only type of street wall that should be permitted in the Bridge Street Corridor be the dry-laid stacked stone walls, and all others including hedges and other masonry types be eliminated from the list of options. - Commissioners recommended that the regulations be modified to require that no fence exceed four feet except where they are used to separate the rear yards of single - family attached building types. Suggested that landscaping not be required along street walls. Requested that property management signs be prohibited from being posted on any fence. - Requested that landscape material be prohibited from being the sole method of screening dumpsters. - Commented that 100 watts would be too bright for decorative lighting, and that 40 watts would be more appropriate. - Required that all utility connections be kept to the side or rear of the building, instead of allowing exceptions for buildings in need of specific adjustments. BSC Area Rezoning In addition to the review of the BSC Code, Commissioners also discussed the recommended zoning map for the Bridge Street Corridor and the modifications requested by several property owners within the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members requested clarification regarding how the street network planned for the corridor will coordinate with the proposed zoning. Commissioners also commented that it appears that the proposed zoning districts are too use -based and will not allow an adequate mix of uses throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Commission members commented that the BSC Commercial District should be permitted along West Dublin - Granville Road on the east side of the Scioto River in response to the property owner requests. Planning had recommended BSC Office District for consistency with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision and to prevent commercial proliferation along the SR 161 corridor. Additionally, Commissioners recommended that the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (intended for large coordinated redevelopment sites) be extended west of Village Parkway consistent with requests from property owners in this area, where Planning recommends BSC Residential to support the commercial and mixed use development of the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Memo re. Update re. November 23, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following their next review of the Code on Thursday, December 1, 2011. CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dubl n. Oh o 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD 614 410.4600 Fox: 614 - 410.4747 Web Site www.dublln.oh.us RECORD OF DISCUSSION NOVEMBER 3, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topics: Building Types ( §153.062, Pages 24 -59) and Neighborhood Standards ( §153.063, Pages 61 -68). Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600 slangworthy @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission continued their review of the draft Bridge Street code focusing on the Building Types, Neighborhood Standards and Open Space Type sections. Commission members were concerned that having specific dimensional requirements for various architectural elements would be too limiting to designers and might not necessarily achieve the design quality desired. The Commissioners suggested that more language regarding the intent of certain building type requirements should be stated in lieu of dimensional requirements, and requiring that the architectural elements be appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Commissioners requested clarification regarding how open spaces would be adequately distributed throughout the Bridge Street Corridor and how much space will be available. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes Warren Fishman Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ,' f . Stare Langwo Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 26 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- O2OADM Administrative Request Chair Amorose Groomes introduced the following administrative request for review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said they were scheduled to review Building Types, Neighborhood Standards, and if time permits, Open Space Types. She noted there were nearly 50 pages of Code to review. Steve Langworthy pointed out Jeff Tyler, Dublin's Chief Building Official, and Ray Harpham, Commercial Plans Examiner were present to answer any questions about the proposed code modifications or the new edition of the Building Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was to be any discussion regarding the Draft BSC Review & Approval Process Chart that was included in the meeting packets. Mr. Langworthy suggested he would briefly explain it at the end of the Code review. Ms. Amorose Groomes began the Code review with Building Types on page 24. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained she would call out each section of the proposed Code for any comments or questions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements. Amy Kramb made a general comment that throughout this section, Existing Building9 is typically capitalized, but there are several times it is lower case. Dan Phillabaum agreed to make the corrections Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (d). John Hardt noted this requirement dealt primarily with parking and said it might be appropriate to include it in the parking section of the Code. Mr. Hardt said if he were a user of the Code looking for parking requirements, he would not look for it in this section. Mr. Langworthy said it could be repeated elsewhere, but explained that as it dealt specifically with existing structures, and in order to keep all that information in one place, it was placed here. Mr. Langworthy said his preference would be to include the requirement in both locations. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (e) Reconstruction or Movement (2). Todd Zimmerman referred to the first sentence; Any permitted reconstruction shall be started within 12 months of the time of damage and be continued until completed. He suggested a time limit for completion was needed. Steve Langworthy explained there were actually two time limits. He said one will be seen later in the approval section for abandoned structures. He said as long as there is an active building permit, that has to be allowed to be continued. He said the time limit is governed by the building permit itself. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was a definition included for reconstruction, and asked when construction is considered to have begun as it relates to the time limit. Mr. Langworthy explained the time limit starts at the time a building permit is issued Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (e) Reconstruction or Movement (3). Warren Fishman noted the amount of building expansion or reconstruction permitted was 50 percent He recalled it had been 25 percent in the past. He pointed out 25 percent on a large building could be a significant portion of the building, and asked if it was unreasonable to require a building to be brought into conformance at 25 percent. Mr. Langworthy said this was a new provision. He explained under the current Code 25 percent was the trigger requiring compliance with the landscape provisions of the Code. He said 50 percent was a common number used in non - conforming situations, so it was carried through. Mr. Fishman asked if everyone agreed they could tear off 50 percent of the building and still not bring it up to code. Ms. Amorose Groomes indicated if that was standard procedure, she was okay with it. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (B) General Building Type Requirements (2) Existing Structures (g) Exceptions Richard Taylor referred to his comments last week about maintaining the powers of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and said to make sure that the Code addresses those previous concerns. Mr. Langworthy said that will be seen in the new Procedure section. He said it has been revised to give the ARB the same authority they currently have. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (C) General Building Type Layout and Relationships (2) Shopping Corridors John Hardt referred to Shopping Corridors shall include building types that permit retail uses on ground floors..., and said that 'permit' feels like an administrative word. He asked if it should be facilitates retail uses.' He confirmed they were looking for buildings that accommodate retail on the first floor. Mr. Phillabaum agreed the language can be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements Mr. Hardt made a general statement about this section and those that follow. He said he had comments tonight on the paragraphs here, but said he was uncomfortable with a large portion of the language included. He said to the extent that they want to say a certain style or form of building is appropriate in different parts of the Bridge Street Corridor, he thought that made sense, and to the extent that we want to say a certain style of building should have either a pitched roof, a flat roof, or it can have any one of a number of kinds of roofs, that made sense to him. He said as soon as they got into prescriptive requirements saying the roof pitch and the overhang shall be a specific requirement, it felt to him like we were trying to legislate architecture. Mr. Hardt said he had previously gone on the record saying he did not think it was even possible or feasible to do that. He said he thought, although the intentions were good, the result is going to be something other than what we are really looking for. Mr. Hardt said he was prepared to comment on this tonight to help make the text as good as it can be, but he would prefer a lot of the proposed language not even be included. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested some justification as to why they would attempt to legislate the architecture as Mr. Hardt indicated. Mr. Phillabaum explained many of the architectural standards in the Bridge Street Code are included to achieve numerous building characteristics that are requested of applicants on a regular basis, but not addressed in the current Code. He said they tried to make it as predictable as possible for someone designing a building. He said, for example, an applicant might design a building with a principal roof pitch less than 6:12, to discover during the ART review that for most structures that pitch will not be acceptable and they will then need to go back to the drawing board. He said they think it is important to have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 numerical standards for many of these architectural elements. He said if the Commission preferred a different numeric standard would be more appropriate or lend more flexibility, they would certainly be open to discussing that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why developers needed roof pitch to be dictated. Mr. Fishman said the problem was the Commission does not have the control. He said for years, the Commission told applicants for instance, a 3:12 does not look good in a particular area, but now they will not be able to do that. Mr. Hardt suggested setting aside roof pitches as an example because a roof pitch is something that affects the fundamental shape and form of a building and that may be something, that in spite of his criticism, he might even be comfortable having in the Code. He said as they review the coming pages, it is much more than that. He said they were saying flat roofs, for example, must have an eave and that eave must be eight inches thick. Mr. Hardt referred the recently approved Piada flat roof and said he did not know if it met that number, but he could argue that it ought not. He said there are all sorts of fantastic architecture that do not have exactly an eight -inch thick roof. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Mr. Hardt could suggest any solutions, from an architectural perspective. Mr. Taylor said his feelings were identical to Mr. Hardt's. He said he kept returning to the goal and intent. He said he was in favor of the part of this Code that specifies the size of blocks, setbacks, and all of those things that specify where a building should be and establish the overall mass of the building with the goal of creating the street fabric. He said that sets the character of the space. He said the details of the facades and architecture are the things that really enliven that space. Mr. Taylor said all the diagrams provide a great example, but he thought more needed to be left to the individual designer to interpret. Mr. Taylor said based on the examples used in previous Bridge Street presentations and in the Code, the goal seems to be to create something similar to mid _191h century commercial block architecture. He suggested if the Code were more general. Mr. Taylor said one of his fears was that we end up with buildings like the picture on page 29 which was much too prescription. He said he was afraid that if the Code is so prescriptive the design choices would be limited and the result is not going to good. He said he would rather someone try something entirely new that they thought met the intent of the character. Mr. Langworthy asked if the basic question was whether they should take all of the numbers out and change the language to more intent statements. Mr. Taylor said his preference would be to have the references to the details be based on examples, and not include prescriptive numbers. Mr. Langworthy asked if it should be a certain number or provide an acceptable list. Mr. Hardt referred to, Windows and masonry bui ldings shall have architecturally appropriate Antels and sills. He said what it did not say was that lintels shall be X inches high and overhang the end of the window by X inches. He said that it did not stipulate the solution, but said if you have a masonry wall, lintels and sills are architecturally appropriate for the style of the building. He said that was all the Code said and did not prescribe a solution. Mr. Taylor said that language left the ART with room to play with it and not be stuck with something that met the Code, but did not look good. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum said they all shared the same objective. He said they did not want to tie any architects hands from being creative. He said when numbers are seen in most cases, it is to protect against a worst - case scenario or design of the lowest common denominator. Mr. Hardt said the Code read like a 30 -year old Code from a community that had been burned here and there on buildings, and someone went through it and wrote requirements to make sure that something never happens again. He said what they would end up with was a new ugly. Mr. Hardt said he would rather stick to the intent than the prescriptive requirements. Mr. Hardt said generally speaking, he was mostly against anything that was numeric. He said roof pitches might be different because they do affect the form and mass of the building and that is at the heart of a form -based Code. Mr. Taylor said he thought the removal of the specificity opens the possibility that now and again, they may get a building that is not as good as it could be, but it also allows the possibility that we will get buildings that are better than what they would be if they followed it specifically. Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners to state which numbers were acceptable and which needed to be changed to intent statements as they continued to go through the Code paragraph by paragraph, so that Planning could address that. Mr. Hardt said the Code does not say that you have to have a pitched roof. He said the Code states if you have a pitched roof, the pitch should be in this range, and he was okay with that. He said however, you also have the option to do a building that does not have a pitched roof for certain building types. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (1). Mr. Hardt pointed out the roof deck behind a parapet is often sloped, so they needed to clarify how the parapet height is measured, whether it is from the highest point to the roof. Mr. Langworthy said okay. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (2). Ms. Kramb recalled Mr. Taylor discussing the heights of parapets at the last meeting. She said she wanted to make sure this corresponded with the changes made last time. Mr. Taylor said it was not clear what the parapet height requirements were intended to achieve, and seemed contradictory. He said it was stating roof parapets must screen the mechanical equipment, but they must be no lower than two feet and no higher than six feet, and often times they cannot control the height of the mechanicals. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it might be more effective to state the requirement as a measurement above the mechanicals; a minimum of two feet and not more than one foot above the mechanicals. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (a) Parapet Height (3). Mr. Hardt suggested a period be added after facades in the sentence and to strike the rest of it because he thought it would be open to interpretation as far as what is visible from a public right -of -way, especially when there are tight blocks. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (1) Parapet Roof Type (b) Horizontal Shadow Lines Mr. Taylor confirmed that where the projection needed to create the shadow line was not mentioned. He asked the following sentence be changed as follows, An expression line sha# should, may, or might define Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 the parapet from the upper stories of the building..., because he could think of a number of examples of buildings where at least parts of the building do not have a line that separates the parapet from the upper story of the building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (1). Mr. Taylor suggested adding, Principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate for the style of the building, but should generally not be less than 6:12 or more than 12:12. Mr. Hardt agreed the additional language was needed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (2). Mr. Hardt said he was not sure of the intent of this paragraph. Mr. Phillabaum explained this provision was primarily to address roof wells where a pitched roof with no ridge is used to create the well and screen mechanicals. He said there may be instances where a pitch greater than 12:12 might be necessary, and they wanted to allow that flexibility. Mr. Taylor said he was concerned this provision may create the problem that we have with the BriHi buildings, where portions of the roof stick out and look unfinished. He said he worried a roof pitch of 18:12 is pretty close to vertical. He said he was not sure how that was going to work. Mr. Hardt said he would be more comfortable saying that pitched roofs shall be in the range of 6:12 to 12:12. He said if specific unique situations necessitate a steeper pitch they be dealt with on a case -by -case basis, depending upon what they are trying to screen and how much latitude the building has. He said he agreed 18:12 was close to vertical. Mr. Phillabaum explained that was the intent of the paragraph, but it could be reworded to be clearer. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Pitch Measure (3). Mr. Hardt said he would look for similar modifications with the 3:12 pitch for dormers and balconies. He said he would prefer language that just requires the pitch to be appropriate to the building style. Mr. Taylor confirmed that porches' meant porch roofs. Mr. Taylor said there are other important details on dormers which were very important and can be done either really well or done badly. He suggested language be included to address the appropriateness of the dormer for the style. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add language to deal with other important design details for dormers. Mr. Taylor suggested then, Appropriately detailed and scaled and roofed dormers for the architectural style. He pointed out there were many references available for what is considered appropriate for dormer design. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (2). Mr. Hardt said locally, in describing retail architecture, they have often referred to false shingled roofs with a well behind them as a mansard roof. He asked if that was what was meant in this section. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum clarified this section was dealing with true, dual pitched mansard and gambrel roofs. He said the Code only permits these roof types for detached single - family buildings, unless it is architecturally appropriate on another building type. Mr. Hardt wanted to make sure they were not prohibiting what the industry has always called mansard roofs on commercial buildings which are really are not a true mansard. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (3). Mr. Taylor said this requirement had the same issues with prescriptive wording as number 4 below and Mr. Hardt agreed the 75 percent was suspect. Mr. Phillabaum said this could be revised to be consistent with what is architecturally appropriate to the building type. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (a) Roof Structure (4). Mr. Hardt said he thought one dormer for every 15 feet was too prescriptive. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (b) Roof Structure (5). Mr. Hardt pointed out the materials listed were nice, but there are some that are notably absent, including asphalt shingles. He asked if that was deliberate. Mr. Phillabaum clarified there was a formatting error in this section. He said (b) 3, 4, and 5, should be indented, as all of those requirements deal specifically with gambrel and mansard roofs. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see good simulated materials permitted for roofs. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (c) Parallel Ridge Line and (d) Dormers. Mr. Hardt said these two conflict with each other. He said (c) When the principal ridge line runs parallel to any street, gabled end shall occur at least every 100 feet, which would tell him the longest ridge line possible was 100 feet, and then (d), If you have a ridge line greater than 100 feet, you must do these things. Mr. Phillabaum explained they are not actually mutually exclusive. He said there were scenarios where both requirements would be applicable. He said it sounded like in general, the direction from the Commission was to revise the language toward architectural appropriateness, so they could say dormer and cross gable spacing architecturally appropriate to the building type. Mr. Hardt said the provision, When the principal roofpitch is greater than 10:12..., requires you add dormers and he thought that would discourage people from putting steep pitched roofs on the building which is probably not what they want. He was in favor of architectural appropriateness over that prescriptive requirement. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (e) Gable Ends. Mr. Hardt said this section should include a number of architectural features. Mr. Hardt said he had no idea what ...measured by the average windowsize as used in the upper stories of the building meant. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained the paragraph was to be reworded to read a vent or window is required on street facing gabled ends. The size of the vent or window must be at least one -half the area of the average windowsize. He clarified it was not the area of the gable, it was half the area of the average window on the upper floor. Mr. Taylor said he preferred it say An architecturally appropriate ornamentation should occur in gable ends, and leave it at that. He said that could be a window, vent, or in a brick building, it could be a carved medallion of some kind or an accent stone. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (f) Roof Height. Mr. Hardt said he was not sure what they were trying to accomplish with this paragraph. Mr. Phillabaum said they were trying to avoid buildings in the Historic District that feature a roof mass that overpowers the rest of the building. He said limiting the height of these roofs to not more than the height of the upper story would assist in preventing that situation. Mr. Taylor asked if there was a reason to think that was a problem more in the Historic Core than other areas. Mr. Phillabaum said this part of the requirement is to preserve the traditionally intimate scale of buildings in the Historic District, which is why it was applied specifically to the Historic Core. Mr. Hardt said the second sentence referred to all other districts, and that was the portion of the paragraph he understood the least. Mr. Phillabaum said similarly to the first sentence, it limits in any other district, the roof cannot be more than one - and -a -half times the height of the upper story. He said it is to avoid a building mass dominated by the roof. He said if the upper floor can be 12 feet as measured by the Code, you could have an 18 -foot maximum height of the roof. Mr. Langworthy asked if it was preferred that it say something like, The roof mass should be appropriate both to the location, if it is in the Historic Core, for example, and the building. Mr. Taylor said he would like to add or as prescribed by the Architectural Review Board to the end of the first portion of the requirement. He said there are buildings in the Historic District of front gable facing cottage type buildings, where a taller roof is entirely appropriate. Mr. Phillabaum said ARB could make that determination. Mr. Taylor said if the ARB has the authority to apply this or not requirement, then he is very happy. Mr. Langworthy said the Bridge Street Code gives the ARB the same review authority as the current Code. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof (g). Mr. Hardt asked if an occupied space within a roof counted as a floor. Mr. Phillabaum said it did. He said it would be classified as a half -story. Mr. Hardt asked that be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (3) Flat Roof. Mr. Hardt said he disagreed with the provisions requiring eaves on flat roofs as well as the dimensional requirements listed in this section for the reasons he had previously stated. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed it be revised to read more as an intent statement to achieve architectural appropriateness. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Flat Roof (e)(2). Mr. Hardt said the four feet limitation for vertical walls seemed arbitrary and he did not know what they would be trying to prevent. Mr. Phillabaum agreed it could be removed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Flat Roof (f). Ms. Kramb said this section should be stricken because she did not know how there could be occupied space behind a flat roof type. Mr. Phillabaum agreed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Towers (c) Tower Width. Mr. Hardt said he thought 20 feet was building specific and arbitrary. He said it was all a matter of the width of the tower is proportional to its height, not to the rest of the building necessarily. Mr. Taylor said a solution could be to take the language from (a) and add it to this section to give the ART, or required reviewing body, the power to approve it. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (D) Roof Type Requirements (4) Towers (d) Horizontal Expression Lines. Mr. Hardt said he thought that, ...unless the tower element is a major architectural element extending from the ground story, was the definition of a tower. He said the requirement that an expression line must pass through the tower was fairly random. He said there are wonderful examples of towers that have expression lines and those that do not. He suggested striking all of (d) because it was situation specific whether horizontal expression lines were an appropriate design feature or not. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that (d) should be stricken. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (b). Ms. Kramb pointed this was a fragmented sentence. She suggested changing the period after doors to a comma to make it one sentence. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (c). Mr. Taylor said he had the same comment as he did regarding the roof materials. He asked if cultured stone was prohibited, and suggested there are excellent examples of cultured stone and other stone -like materials, that were not real stone. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add cultured stone. Mr. Hardt pointed out the thickness of one -half inch is noted for the fiber cement siding, but one of the market leaders in that category does not meet that requirement. Mr. Phillabaum said there are manufacturers such as James Hardi that have product lines that meet the requirement. He explained the objective of the greater thickness was to create very strong shadow lines across the fagade. He asked a minimum thickness be suggested for inclusion, to avoid the specification of paper -thin siding that results in a very flat fagade with no shadow whatsoever. Mr. Taylor said he agreed with intent, but he did not know if one -half inch was the right number or not. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (1) FaSade Materials (e). Mr. Hardt recalled that last time, they talked about striking the word local. He suggested instead, they might instead say... high quality installations in similar climates instead. He said what was relevant was if a product would hold up if applied in climates similar to ours. He asked if he was the only one concerned about it. He said he did not think it had to be local. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (2) FaSade Material Transitions (a). Mr. Hardt pointed out this did not distinguish between vertical and horizontal transitions. Mr. Phillabaum said a graphic would be added to depict the meaning. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (a). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 Ms. Kramb noted there was no material listed for flat roofs. She said shingles would not work on a flat roof Mr. Hardt suggested adding a paragraph, Flat roofs can use any appropriate material. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (b). Mr. Hardt said he had the same climate versus local comment for this section. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (3) Roof Materials (c). Ms. Kramb asked how possible it was to finish roof penetrations to match the color of the roof. Mr. Phillabaum said typically they are painted to match the color of the roof. Mr. Hardt referred to Where these elements on any other street facing facade are unavoidable, particular care must be taken to render these elements less visible. He said he understood it, but it was open to a lot of interpretation depending who is applying this requirement. Mr. Phillabaum explained the first part, prohibited roof penetrations from being visible along principal frontage streets, and the second part of the provision requires they be painted to match when visible from any other type of street. Mr. Hardt said the two scenarios were covered when it said they could not be on a principal frontage street and if it was anywhere else, they have to be colored to match the roof. He said it seemed there could be a period there and omit the rest of the paragraph. Mr. Taylor said there is a possibility that a two -story building is built next to an existing four -story building with windows that would look down on the lower building. He said in that condition, the roof color and the color of the roof penetrations need to be coordinated and may be more important than not seeing those elements from the street. He said many cities have a provision dealing with these situations. Mr. Taylor confirmed that green' roofs were allowed on flat roofs. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (E) Materials (4) Color. Mr. Hardt recalled Ms. Kramb had pointed out last time that historic palettes had not been defined. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled last time, the definition was going to be by the paint manufacturer, Sherwin Williams. Ms. Kramb said their National Trustcolor palette could be used. Mr. Phillabaum said nearly every manufacturer has a line of historic color palettes, and that are appropriate to a number of different eras and would allow a sufficient amount of choice. Ms. Kramb said she had issues with Other colors may be utilized for details and accents, ... which would allow for any color to be used and would not necessarily be from these historic color palettes. Mr. Langworthy suggested leaving it at historic palette that they could be contrasting. He said they would still stay within the historic palette, but it would be a different color. Ms. Kramb said that was fine. Mr. Phillabaum clarified the 10 percent permitted for details and accents was intended as 10 percent of each facade, and not as 10 percent of the cumulative area of the building fagades. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (a). Mr. Hardt said this read like Architecture 101 on how to design an entrance, and was unnecessary unless there was a particular problem to be solved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained the purpose is to avoid potential problems. He said in most cases, an architect or designer is going to understand how to effectively call attention to the principal entrance. Mr. Langworthy suggested language be included. Mr. Taylor said they should clearly call out the entrance, engage the street, and be pedestrian in scale. Mr. Langworthy suggested examples be given. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Langworthy's suggestions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (c). Mr. Fishman said he assumed this was for residential doors, and there were no other materials that you can think of except glass. Mr. Hardt questioned the need for this paragraph if almost every material a door could be made of was listed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design (d). Mr. Fishman said this seemed to restrict creativity for commercial doors. He said there could be very attractive solid doors proposed containing no glass installed adjacent to large display windows on either side. He questioned the need to require commercial doors include glass. Mr. Hardt said the purpose of this paragraph was unclear. Mr. Langworthy explained that it was preventing blank, inoperable doors along the sidewalk. He said this would require even interior emergency doors to be consistent in design with other entrance doors from the exterior. Mr. Hardt asked if it was for all doors, or just principal entrances. Mr. Phillabaum said the principal entrance is what this is primarily addressing, but added the total number of entrances required is dictated by the individual Building Types. Mr. Hardt asked if there had ever been a problem with the principal entrance to a business not having hardware on it. Mr. Phillabaum said the issue is not the door lacks hardware, but the hardware was not operable by patrons. He pointed out Mr. Sushi at BriHi Square as an example has two entrances —one on North High Street and one adjacent to the upper plaza. He said although the entrance door on North High Street is inaccessible to the public, they worked with the owner to maintain the appearance of an entrance door given the prominence of that door location. He explained an objective of the Bridge Street Code is for functional entrances along the public right -of -way. Mr. Hardt said this says one of two things. He said if the intent is that all doors to a business must be operable and have hardware on it, he disagreed because he did not think many businesses will want every door to be operable. However, he said if they are just talking about the principal entry door, then it is a requirement without a problem because a principal entry door is always going to be operable. Mr. Taylor said he disagreed with Mr. Hardt that there was a problem with the first sentence because to him, the intent was that if there was a door required in a location that looked like it should be an entrance, it should at least look like an entry door. Mr. Hardt said he was okay, now that he had heard the explanation. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (4) Mid - Building Pedestrianways. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 Mr. Taylor said he had commented at the previous meeting that this requirement should be coordinated with Mid -Block Pedestrianways. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (G) Articulation of Stories on Street Facades. Mr. Hardt asked about the sentence: Unoccupied stories are permitted only under the roof eaves. Mr. Phillabaum said that would be deleted. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies Mr. Zimmerman pointed out windows with glass divisions or grids were not addressed in the Code. He said if this was a quality they wanted to achieve some language should be added. Mr. Hardt said language should be included that windows shall have architecturally or historically appropriate lite patterns. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (b). Mr. Hardt pointed out this seemed to be in conflict with Section (N) Building Types General Requirements (4) Fagade Requirements (a) Fagade Transparency (1) on page 34. He said both refer to transparency percentages but were not the same number. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (d). Mr. Zimmerman noted this section referred to wood window frames. He explained the frame of the window holds the glass in place, so frames should be struck and replaced with wood windows. Mr. Zimmerman said in the Historic Core, specific window materials are required, but beyond that District fiberglass windows were not listed as being permitted. He said they were superior to vinyl windows and should be included as a permitted window material. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (e) Mr. Hardt said the 3 -inch recess dimension noted went back to a conversation they had at the last meeting. Mr. Phillabaum said they had discussed this requirement with Mr. Tyler and others in the Building Department. He said they understand there may be certain restrictions to achieve a three -inch recess in all instances, but it was a standard they would like to keep. He said they are discussing how these restrictions can be accommodated while still achieving the expression of wall thickness that recessed windows can provide. He said they would include their alternate language in the revision. Mr. Taylor said he agreed with the intent, and said the more you can push the window in, the better the appearance. He said Mr. Hardt's comment was regarding the practicality from a construction detail standpoint, and a typical residential window cannot meet that requirement, unless you have a masonry clad building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (f) • Mr. Zimmerman asked if they were doing away with transom type windows. He said transom windows are getting more use in the residential setting for bathrooms and living areas where the homeowner wants more wall space on the interior. Mr. Phillabaum said transoms could be included in the paragraph. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (2) Shutters (a). Mr. Hardt pointed out a typo, ...whether the shutters are operable or not. He explained if we are requiring operable hardware, then they are, by definition, operable. He said he thought it should say, ...whether they are operated or not instead. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (a) General (1). Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, and suggested, ...provided the bottom of the canopy is at /east eight feet from the sidewalk, to make it clear where the measurement was from. Mr. Phillabaum suggested adding ...the lowest portion of the awning. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (a) General (2). Ms. Kramb asked if we were saying you cannot have a canopy or awning by a door and the only place you can mount them is the window. She asked if they could be mounted on door frames. Mr. Taylor suggested removing the word windows, and say openings. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (b) Awnings 1. Mr. Hardt said this requires awnings to be triangular in section. He pointed out there are some retail centers in Dublin where the awnings are semi - circular in section. He asked if there was an issue with including those. Mr. Phillabaum said awnings that were semi - circular in section were not necessarily a problem and the reference to awning shape could be removed. Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes called a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Langworthy reported the Code was reviewed by three residential home builders in central Ohio who provided point -by -point comments and were provided responses to each point by Planning. He said some areas were modified to reflect their comments, explanations were given where they had questions. He said a couple of typographic errors were called to our attention, one of which will be pointed out when we go through the tables with the eight -unit single family attached units. He said they are still working through several of their issues, and those that cannot be resolved may be brought back to the Commission to have additional discussion. Mr. Langworthy said some of their issues we were unwilling to bend on, so we explained our reasons why, and hopefully they will understand and accept it. Mr. Hardt asked at some point after all the changes are made to the text, whether they are initiated by a third party or by the Commission, they come back to the Commission in a marked up format where they can see the changes. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (1). Mr. Hardt said the materials listed, specifically called out iron and steel, which are two kinds of metal, but do not include aluminum and several kinds of metal that are common. He asked if they just mean metal' or if there was a conscious decision to include just those two. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to change it to metal Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (2). Mr. Hardt noted the section said canopies can be of any shape, but at the end of the paragraph, it says they should principally project outward from the bui lding in a rectangular shape. Mr. Phillabaum said they would clear up that inconsistency. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies (3). Mr. Hardt said he understood the intent of them being supported by cables, but in reality they are rarely cables, they are more typically rods and he thought that was what was meant. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (1) Balconies. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that through the different versions, a Juliet Balcony had one requirement that was accidently omitted that dealt with Juliet balconies built in conjunction with doors may project up to 24 inches, and may be up to flue feet wide, and Juliet balconies used in construction with windows may not exceed the width of the windows... He said it will be included in the next version. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (2) Porches (b) FaSade Coverage. Ms. Kramb asked if the porch had to cover exactly 50 percent. She said it seemed odd to prescribe. Mr. Phillabaum clarified it was a minimum of 50 percent. Ms. Kramb asked if there was a reason for requiring porches on every residence. Mr. Langworthy explained that was part of the eyes on the street' common to more urban styles of residential buildings. Mr. Hardt asked why we were stipulating a minimum size of a porch. Mr. Phillabaum said in order for a porch to be functional, they needed to be of a minimum depth, and in order for porches to not be treated as an afterthought by designers, they should be a substantial component of the residence. He explained the width requirement was based on the narrowest potential residential building type and how wide a porch would need to be to be functional. Mr. Hardt suggested it be simplified to require a porch be incorporated of sufficient size to be functional. Ms. Kramb said you could have a porch a little narrower than the building fagade, but because it was deeper it would be used. Mr. Taylor said there are examples of porches that were extremely important architectural features in a building, and are not near 50 percent of the width of the building. He said that seemed like one of the more arbitrary things here. He said he understood the goal was for porches to be incorporated into the design of the building and be appropriate to the style, but thought prescribing the width went too far. He said the stipulation of the 50 percent is what concerned him. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested going back to Mr. Hardt's suggested language. Mr. Taylor said he got that they did not want someone to stick something on an elevation that looked like a porch. Mr. Phillabaum said he believed they had some other requirements in terms of the depth farther into this. He said a minimum six -foot depth was functionally what was needed for that to be usable space to have a chair and walk around. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 Mr. Taylor clarified the six feet was the clear dimension inside the porch to allow for a chair and someone to be able to walk past it. Mr. Phillabaum said they could change the minimum 50 percent requirement and might still achieve the objective through intent language, as long as the minimum depth requirement is maintained. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (I) Entrances and Balconies (3) Stoops. Ms. Kramb noted they began using the acronym, RBZ here and it was the first time she recalled using it. She asked if there was a place where acronyms were defined in this text. Mr. Phillabaum said that was introduced in Lots and Blocks. He said if this was the first reference to it in the Building Types, they can spell it out and parenthetically say RBZ to establish it in this section. Mr. Langworthy said they could carry that style through the document. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (3) Treatments at Terminal Vistas. Mr. Taylor recalled discussing this during the last meeting as it related to lots, blocks and streets. He said the concern would be how they deal with a situation where the building exists and then the street comes later and terminates at the building. He said unless the street locations were locked in, and they knew where terminal vistas would be located, a building design could not anticipate meeting the terminal vista treatment. He said he did not know how they can deal with that. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (3) Treatments at Terminal Vistas (2). Ms. Kramb asked when the term, 'bay' is used in the list of elements that can be used to terminate the view, are they referring to a window or door, and if not, to what they are referring. She said the term bay was not clear. Mr. Taylor said to him, it meant a structural bay. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they needed to work on that Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (K) Building Variety Ms. Kramb said in general this paragraph was awkwardly written, because the first sentence said ... atleast two of the following materials, and then nothing is listed for a while. Ms. Kramb said the reference to Figure Kwas also incorrect. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (L) Vehicular Canopies (3) Mr. Hardt referred to the last sentence, ...supporting columns shall be composed of or enclosed by materials matching the primarymaterials of the principal structure, and said that was another example of his issue with prescriptiveness. He said earlier tonight, they had a case where a canopy and its supporting material were entirely different than the primary materials of the building and they approved it as a consent item. He reiterated his point that generally, trying to legislate architecture is a failed endeavor. Mr. Phillabaum said that it could be reworded to coordinate with the architecture of the principal structure. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (M) Signs (2). Mr. Hardt asked if the section was talking about signs that were contemplated initially upon building opening or about all of the signs that might ever be installed on a building. Mr. Phillabaum said it was the latter, because in most cases the buildings are constructed speculatively, without all of the tenants lined up. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 Mr. Hardt said it needed to be clarified to say, ...locations of all signs intended to be affixed initially, or in the future, or something like that. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested adding ... by subsequent occupants. Mr. Taylor said that was an issue they had in the past where there was not a clear sign panel on the building and the signs got placed anywhere they could fit, with poor results. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (2) Height (a). Mr. Hardt asked if that was really what they wanted, or did they want the portion of the building in the RBZ to be the tallest part of the building. He said he thought if you had a building in which some portions were taller than others, you would want the tallest part on the street. Mr. Phillabaum said depending upon the degree that the building steps outside of the RBZ, it could look odd and fail to reinforce the streetscape if the shorter part of the building is permitted to count as meeting the RBZ requirement. Mr. Langworthy said it would be preferable to be more specific such as the portion of the building with the greatest number ofstones. He said they would work on that language. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (2) Height (e) (2)• Mr. Hardt said for measuring the uppermost floors of a building, using the ceiling height was irrelevant. He suggested finding a way to measure that uppermost floor to the eave, roofline, or something on the exterior that is more relevant to the height of the building. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) Uses and Occupancy Requirements (b) (3). Ms. Kramb asked what When parking is permitted within the building, a specked depth of space shall be occupied by users on a daily bases meant. Mr. Phillabaum explained that if parking is located within the building, it cannot extend to the front of the building. He said a portion of that building must be occupied space, and the required depth of this occupied space varies by building type. Ms. Kramb confirmed that meant that parking could not go to the front of the building. Mr. Hardt pointed out that it might be more clear if written the opposite way, ...from the front of the building, a certain distance back you have to have space that is occupied on a daily bases by people, not cars. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (3). Mr. Hardt referred to ...shall also be met on the upper stories of all facades with street frontage... He said for a multi -story building with retail on the first floor, they would not likely want the same degree of transparency on the upper floors as required for the retail. Mr. Phillabaum said they had noted this requirement needed to be clarified. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (5). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 Mr. Zimmerman said he would like to see the in -wall HVAC units eliminated and if an applicant is unable to eliminate them, the Commission should determine how effectively the vents are hidden. Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman agreed that should be really encouraged. Mr. Hardt confirmed there should be a period after ...shall not be placed on any building facade, and the rest should be stricken. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (3) FaSade Requirements (a) FaSade Transparency (6). Mr. Taylor said this requirement was related to the previous discussions on Mid -Block and Mid - Building Pedestrianways and should be coordinated with those requirements. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (4) FaSade Requirements (b) Building Entrances (1). Mr. Hardt questioned the necessity of the last sentence. Mr. Phillabaum said it went back to their discussion earlier. He said the principal entrances —those located adjacent to the sidewalk —could be potentially locked by business owners, forcing people to enter from the rear of the building to the detriment of an active street life. Mr. Budde pointed out some banks with double doors will lock one of the doors for security purposes. He said in the event that something inappropriate happens, they might hit the wrong door and slow down. Mr. Hardt said unlike the previous paragraph, this does not refer specifically to doors facing streets, so he thought it did not carry the same intent as what they talked about in the other paragraph. He asked why this needed to be repeated here if it was already addressed. Mr. Taylor suggested that maybe the intent of the word principal' here was less the entrance that was used and more the entrance that appears to be the principal interest. Mr. Phillabaum explained principal building entrances are going to be on the principal frontage street, or front facade of the building, and not off a parking lot or some other remote location. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested using the apparent' principal entrance. Mr. Phillabaum said you could have two principal frontage streets, but only one principal entrance. Mr. Taylor said this requirement is defining where the principal building entrance had to be located; not necessarily the door that is the principal means of access. Mr. Hardt asked suggested architecturally significant' entrance doors. Mr. Taylor said that would be another way to say it, but it was something that should be addressed. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (N) Building Type General Requirements (4) FaSade Requirements (c) FaSade Divisions Mr. Taylor encouraged there be a lot of flexibility. He recalled mentioning there were plenty of great examples in this genre of 18' century commercial block architecture where buildings have one very long facade that is uninterrupted by regular vertical facade divisions as required in this Code. He said they need to keep an open mind so that they do not end up with buildings with artificial divisions. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types (1) Single Family Detached Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 Ms. Kramb commented that more distinguishable colors would help the graphics be more legible. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Ms. Kramb said she was not sure what occupied space' meant. She asked if it was defined somewhere or was it a common term. Mr. Phillabaum said it was defined in the Definitions section. Mr. Hardt pointed out the information on the right side of the table talking about fagade requirements was appropriate with the exception of fagade divisions. He said as they get deeper into other building types, he did not feel it was appropriate to dictate the spacing of Fagade Divisions. Mr. Taylor said he thought they could either define in the General Building Requirements section, what those requirements are and then allow flexibility in how they should apply to each building type, or specify the details of the building in a format like this and then they do not need the General Building Type Requirements. He said there seemed to be some redundancy. Mr. Taylor said his particular comments on this page and most of the others, were that on all of the Residential Areas, the first floor is 2 1 /2 feet up from the adjacent sidewalk elevation. He said they need to make sure that they do not create a situation for handicap persons that will be an issue. He said he was more concerned about that on the larger buildings than for the single family. Mr. Taylor said under (d)(3) Building Entrance, he wanted to know if front, corner, side; porches are required'meant they had to have porches on three sides of the building. Mr. Langworthy said it said the Principal Entrance Location could be on the 'front, corner, side; porches are required. Mr. Phillabaum said they could add the word 'or' to read, ...front, corner, orside... Mr. Taylor said anywhere but the back. Mr. Taylor said under (d)(5) Fagade Materials, if the same information is repeated in the General Requirements, there is the potential for conflict if the same requirement is in several places. He suggested it all be in a simple chart in one location that could be referred to. Mr. Taylor referred to ...tower not permitted on sing /e family, and said he thought that would be one place they would want to have that because it completely rules out several prominent architectural styles for large residences. Mr. Phillabaum said in the majority of architectural styles for single family homes that had that type of element, it did not extend far enough to be defined as a tower. He said it would just be an architectural feature and would not meet our definition of a tower, and there would be no issue. Mr. Taylor said perhaps there are two different kinds of towers. He said maybe what they were talking about here as not being permitted were roof towers, as opposed to more integral towers. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to look at that how that could be addressed. Mr. Langworthy said generalizing some of the language as they had done earlier would also help here. Mr. Hardt asked about the Minimum Finished Floor Elevations, particularly as they related to residential. He said effectively, with that requirement, they are prohibiting slab on -grade construction. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 Mr. Taylor thought they were requiring porches or stoops. Mr. Phillabaum said the intent is give vertical separation from the sidewalk to the windows of the unit. He said given the RBZ and where these buildings will be sited it provides a measure of privacy. Mr. Hardt asked if there had been any feedback from the developers about that requirement. He said it dictates a certain construction method. Mr. Phillabaum said the potential ADA issue was raised, but as for the general requirement the bigger push back was on the whether it should be two and one half feet or a slightly lower height. Mr. Taylor said he had no problem with it. He said there were a lot of good reasons to elevate the first floor of a house and he did not think ADA will have a problem with single - family, but with multiple - family, there are fair housing issues that are required 100 percent. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types (2) Single Family Attached (a) Building Siting Ms. Kramb said it sounded like the two sentences were saying the same thing, but she was not sure what they were getting at. She noted that you are allowed to have a courtyard that is 35 percent and it counts as meeting the front property line coverage. She suggested changing the order of the sentence: The courtyard, when enclosed by bur /dings on three sides, may contribute to the front property line up to 35 percent of the front property line. Mr. Langworthy said they would work on the language. Section 153.062 BUILDING TYPES (0) Building Types - Diagrams Mr. Hardt said what he commented about on the first table applied to all of the tables. He said he agreed with Ms. Kramb's comments about the colors. He apologized if it seemed petty, but the font of the letters in the small gray circles was difficult to read. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Phillabaum said they could use capital letters and a different font. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that Mr. Hardt's comments on the detached single family table stood for all the tables. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (Page 61) Ms. Kramb pointed out that the descriptions for each Neighborhood District uses very informal language, for example in (A) (1), "it is a singularly unique area," for (B) (1), the Historic Residential Neighborhood is an "important neighborhood;' for (C) (1), the Sawmill Center Neighborhood "offers a unique opportunity, "for (D) (1), the Historic Transition Neighborhood also "offers a unique opportunity," and for (E) (1), the Indian Run Neighborhood "provides a signifcantopportunity." Mr. Langworthy said the language is intended in some respects to be richer and more descriptive because these districts are not typical zoning districts. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (B) BSC Historic Residential (Page 61) Mr. Hardt pointed out that there were many subparagraphs about lot width, height, and lot coverage. He asked if they already existed elsewhere in the Zoning Code. Mr. Langworthy explained that these regulations are the same as what is currently required for the existing Historic Residential District, and they promised the residents in that neighborhood that nothing would change for them. He clarified that the existing Historic Residential District would be eliminated in lieu of the new BSC Historic Residential Neighborhood District, but nothing in effect would change. Ms. Kramb asked if the neighborhood currently conformed to these requirements Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 Mr. Langworthy said that when these standards were drafted, Planning completed an inventory to make sure that as much development would be conforming as possible. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Sawmill Center (Page 62 -63) Mr. Hardt referred to the BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood District graphic on page 62, and asked if the slivers of land along West Dublin- Granville Road and I -270 were deliberately left out of this district. Rachel Ray explained that the graphics are intended to relate to the zoning districts. She stated that the land along West Dublin- Granville Road was recommended for BSC Office district zoning, while Planning does recommend that the land adjacent to I -270 be part of the Sawmill Center zoning district because its awkward dimensions may make it difficult to redevelop outside of a larger - scale, coordinated redevelopment. She said that the graphic would be changed for the final draft based on the recommended zoning. Mr. Hardt referred to Table 153.063 -B. He noted that the block size requirements were listed elsewhere in the code. He asked why the information was listed in both places, because it seemed redundant. Ms. Ray said that Planning would review the tables to make sure that they remain consistent with the changes to the other section, but she explained that the intent with the Neighborhood District standards is for them to function as a "one -stop shop," just like the building tables, because these areas are intended to function as unified character areas and to maximize coordination over the long -term. Ms. Kramb said that she would prefer that the regulations be listed as paragraphs in the column format rather than in a table format, which she found difficult to read. Ms. Ray said that Planning would reorganize the text and eliminate the tables. Mr. Hardt referred to Sign Plans. He said he thought it should read, "Signs shall meet the requirements of 153.065. " Ms. Ray said there was an intent statement in the sign requirements, saying that signs are intended to create a vibrant urban environment, so with these particular districts, they wanted to give the Commission the ability to approve all different types of signs to provide the most flexibility. She did not think they would not want to limit to the requirements of that section, just to allow for future flexibility. Mr. Hardt said he understood the intent, but he was saying that if you have to meet the requirements of that section, then the flexibility should be in that section. Ms. Ray stated that Planning would look at the language to ensure that the intent was clear. Ms. Kramb asked why shopping center size needed to be mandated. Ms. Ray said the intent is to create a critical mass of commercial activity in each of these important districts. She said these areas should function as the anchors for the Bridge Street Corridor, so that they do not end up with a bunch of spread out use areas that do not relate to one another and cannot be accessed except by car. She said the objective is to make sure that there is at least 300 feet of commercial area on each side of the shopping corridor street to achieve that minimum critical mass area. Mr. Hardt referred to the diagram. He said that he understood the desire for gateways on Sawmill Road and at the southern end of West Dublin- Granville Road, but gateways at the western edges of the district seemed to indicate that this is the end of the shopping area, and it shall not be located any farther west. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 He said that if this area were developed and was wildly successful, and someone wanted to expand the retail farther down the street to the west, he did not see why that would be a problem. Ms. Ray explained that the gateways are also intended to indicate the boundaries between the zoning districts and should be located generally where the principal streets enter into that district. She said the intent is to signal your entrance into a special area. Ms. Ray agreed that if the area was successful, and more shopping corridors were desired elsewhere, that would be fine, but they could determine the locations later. She added that Planning has had ongoing discussions with the property owners for the Sawmill Center and Indian Run Neighborhood Districts, and the graphics are generally reflective of their preliminary thinking on what they would like to do on these sites, particularly with regard to the location and orientation of the shopping corridor area. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Historic Transition (Page 64 -65) Ms. Kramb asked why the 1919 Building was the only building shown on Figure 153.063 -B. Ms. Ray explained that it is a historic structure that is an important placemaking element of the Historic Transition District that should be preserved. Ms. Kramb said that no other historic structure was called out in the text, and since no other structure is called it, she thought it made the 1919 Building seem more important than other historic structures. Ms. Ray said the Vision Plan recommended that the site be preserved, particularly because as a civic use, the result is that it creates a cluster of civic uses with the cemetery, the church and the potential for other civic uses in that area. She said for that reason, it is important that the 1919 Building be identified on the graphic. Ms. Kramb referred to Block Length: "Lots are not permitted between greenways and the street adjacent to Indian Run Westand North High Street." She requested clarification for this requirement. Ms. Ray said the intent was for developable lots. She said that land along the greenway should be open, with no building types to the north of that future street. She said Planning would check the language. Ms. Kramb said it should say, "buildings are notpermitted." Ms. Ray said they would need to check the language, because they may want to have other structures associated with a park or greenway in that area. She reiterated that the intent was that no development happens there, except perhaps park facilities or bikepaths. Section 153.063 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS (C) BSC Sawmill Center (Page 66) Ms. Kramb referred to Historic Sites and Structures and said "Ohio Historic Inventory" should be struck, because any building over 50 years old can be eligible for the inventory, but that does not mean it is historic. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to review the language with the Architectural Review Board before modifying the language. Ms. Kramb noted that she would also like to make sure that road names are clearly and consistently defined on all maps and graphics. Ms. Ray said that they would check all of the street names. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (1) (Page 70) Mr. Hardt asked if Planning had any further discussions regarding a strategy for open space distribution. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum explained that one of the requirements to deal with open space distribution is the provisions for subsection (D), Suitability of Open Space. He said that this section allows the ART or the approving body to determine whether the space that a developer wants to provide is appropriate, or whether they should pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, or whether they should be required to combine land with another existing open space where we want a larger park. He said the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will guide where we want to see some of the larger open spaces based on the anticipated development patterns and uses. Mr. Hardt asked if it was the reviewing body's responsibility to determine which is route appropriate, or if Mr. Langworthy said in the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria section, it states that the Planning and Zoning Commission has to authority to approve a fee in lieu of land dedication. He said that applicants have to provide the open space unless the Commission (or the Architectural Review Board) says they can pay a fee instead, but the fee in lieu is not automatic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not sure that was what the Commission wanted, because then, we might end up with all small parks, because no one would want to take the effort to request to pay a fee instead. Mr. Langworthy said that was where the Suitability of Open Space subsection comes in, to help the reviewing body decide when we want to set aside land for a new open space, add to an existing open space, or pay the fee in lieu. Mr. Fishman said he was not in favor of that approach. Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners not to dismiss the Suitability of Open Space subsection, which does not allow developers to simply put 200 square feet here and 200 square feet there. He said there has to be some consistency and reasonable decisions, and the criteria helps ensure that happens. Mr. Taylor asked if the Commission's review then would include situations where someone does not want to pay a fee because they have less building than land, and they just want a park there, and the Commission says that they will have to work to properly place the park. Mr. Langworthy said that would occur through the site plan or development plan process Mr. Fishman asked if there was a plan for how much open space the City will end up with in the Corridor, so that they make sure that they end up getting that space. He said he agreed with the other Commissioners that he did not want small patches of park space everywhere, but they certainly did not want to end up at the end of the development of the Corridor, 20 years from now, with a lot of money and no open space. He said there has to be some way to make sure that it is required that they are going to reserve so much open space for every development that comes in. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that there is no way to know where every open space will go everywhere in the Corridor. He explained that we have a plan in terms of the greenways and some of the programmed open spaces we already have. He reiterated that there will be combinations of public and private spaces, and there may be future land acquisitions that are made, but that land cannot be shown on a plan unless the City is ready to buy the land. He said as part of the fiscal analyses, Planning has calculated generally how much open space will result from the densities we might expect. Mr. Fishman asked if there was a way to assure that by the time that the Corridor is built out, that we actually have open space, and not just money. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 Mr. Langworthy said the plan for open space planning, acquisition, and programming is the very same as what has always been done everywhere else in Dublin. He said the City has always made purchases and programmed the areas where they want open space, but they cannot show that land on a map because it would be taking' a property and would be a legal problem. Mr. Fishman asked if the code could require open space to be provided in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said that the code already require that open space be provided within 660 feet (a walkable distance) of the development it is associated with. Mr. Hardt said he understood that it was not the developer's decision whether to pay the fee in lieu of land dedication; however, he was concerned that if the developer proposes an open space, and the ART reviews it and determines that the space is not suitable, and then it goes to the Commission for approval of the fee in lieu, then by the time the proposal reached the Commission, they would have no choice but to approve the fee in lieu. Mr. Langworthy said the language should probably state that a fee -in -lieu of open space may be paid to the City if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than shall. He said anything involving a fee would have to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman asked for clarification about combinations of open space provisions and payment of fees in lieu of land dedication. Mr. Phillabaum explained that there are dimensional and area requirements for all of the open space types, and if an open space does not meet one of them, then it cannot count toward meeting their open space requirement. Mr. Fishman said he just wanted to make sure that the city ends up with decent open space within the Corridor, and it is hard for him to imagine that it is going to happen using this process. Mr. Langworthy said what he thought would happen was that if several requests were brought to the Commission, and they flatly rejected all of them, then Planning is going to start suggesting to applicants that the Commission is not likely to just allow developers to pay fees without providing open space, so they better start looking for ways to provide their own open space. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (4) Civic (Page 70) Mr. Taylor asked why civic uses are not required to provide open space. Mr. Phillabaum explained that the civic building was the one building type where a building setback is required instead of a Required Building Zone, so the open space will be provided by the setback as a continuation of the streetscape. He added that typically, civic buildings are set into more of a campus -like setting or amongst other open spaces. Mr. Taylor noted that there was a distinction between a civic use and a civic building type. Mr. Phillabaum agreed to modify the text to require. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (C) Provision of Open Space (5) Existing Open Spaces (Page 70) Mr. Hardt asked if this requirement meant that if there was an existing open space, it can be used to meet the required open space provision, but if it is not big enough, then the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of providing the balance of the land, or add to the open space. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 Mr. Phillabaum said they would still have to potentially pay a fee, even if there is an existing open space that meets the 660 -foot distance requirement. He said the reviewing body would make the determination that the existing open space has been adequately sized and is in close enough proximity where we do not need another open space, but they still would have to contribute a fee for provision of open space. Mr. Fishman said his concern was that, since this will be a high density area, land is going to be very valuable, and it seemed that they are going to incentivize the developer to want to only pay the fees. He said if a developer has to build an acre park, that acre is going to be a lot more valuable than the fee will require, and so that is why they really need to make sure they require the right amount of parkland. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (1) Pocket Plaza (Page 71) Mr. Phillabaum explained that they added this as a new open space type since the previous versions of the code. He said pocket plazas would typically occur with commercial uses. He said in those contexts, smaller, intimate spaces are generally more desirable, rather than large plazas that often go unused. Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (2) Pocket Park (Page 71) Ms. Kramb called out a typo on the very long second sentence, ...special care should be taken to minimize potential conflicts... Section 153.064 OPEN SPACE TYPES (F) Open Space Types (5) Plaza (Page 71) Ms. Kramb corrected a typo, Plazas are usually located in areas eAwhere... Section 153.064-A— (Table) Summary of Open Space Type Requirements (Page 74) Mr. Phillabaum pointed out that previously, for each open space type, there was a table that repeated the same categories of information, but Planning thought this was a better way to simplify the requirements all in one area. Ms. Kramb said she did not like the two -page layout and that it would be better as one 11 x 17 sheet. She asked that at least the footnotes be fixed. She pointed out that the diagrams were very small and did not show much, especially the pocket plaza diagram. Mr. Phillabaum said that they could work on the layout. He said the pocket plaza diagram was a new one they created and the graphics need to be made consistent. Ms. Kramb asked if under the Maximum Percentage of Open Water requirements for Greenways, if the Greenway includes the river and streams. Mr. Phillabaum said that the width of the Greenway would have to include usable open space, but otherwise, the open water percentage would not apply to the waterways. Mr. Hardt said he did not know if fountains should be required in Central Ohio because they are empty seven months a year; however, he did not want to discourage them. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was any public comment with respect to the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. [There was none.] Mr. Taylor said he watched the City Council meeting that took place at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on October 17, and he was impressed with what he saw. He said he saw a lot of progress towards many of the things that the Commission had discussed, although he was straining to see the slides that were shown that did not show up well on the screen. He said he could not wait to see those slides because it seemed there was movement in the direction that the Commission had been talking about for some time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 Mr. Langworthy referred to the flow chart that had been handed out earlier in the evening, and said he had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Hardt about the review and approval procedures. He said obviously, the language is going to be a large part of how this works, but Planning had made a flow chart to show the outlines of what we are thinking now in terms of the process. He said that the Commission had suggested for example, a mandatory pre - application review, which has been included in the revised process. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that that was just one of the solutions that the Commission had provided. Mr. Langworthy said the main conversation he had with Mr. Hardt dealt with the informal review, which was similar to what we do now for informal applications, although they would be required for any project except those that are defined as minor projects. He said he was still working on a definition on what is going to be a minor project. He said he was mindful of Ms. Kramb's comment about small things that come to the Commission that should not have to come here, and he was trying to out some distinctions. He said the only thing he made optional for an informal review was with ARB because the Board's cases seem to be so specific and small that a mandatory informal seems like a waste of time, but if a larger project came forward, like the North Riverview project, an informal would be useful. Mr. Langworthy said the next step as you go through the development plan and /or the site plan review, the Commission had requested a two -track process. He explained that a new elective review track was proposed, where the ART would elect to send a plan forward to the Commission, and if the applicant chooses not to follow one or more of the provisions of the code like architecture, a path would be to come to the Commission for approval of those particular items. He said the difference between what he and Mr. Hardt had discussed was that Mr. Hardt talked about having a vote as to whether or not something ought to be reviewed administratively. Mr. Langworthy said his push back to Mr. Hardt was that it was hard to call that process predictable if an applicant had to go through a process to decide what process to end up using. He said therefore, something applicant- driven would let the applicant make the decision where they chose not to follow the code, and if the applicant makes that choice, it would be his choice to go through an additional review process. Mr. Langworthy said if the applicant makes that choice, he will have to obtain approval by someone else other than an administrative approval. He reiterated that this applied to the development plan and site plan. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that there are time limits, as there are for every approval. He said it was in the code now and would stay there that an applicant and the approving body can mutually agree to extend those time limits if they wish. He said it could be longer than 28 days if the applicant and the reviewing body agree that a time extension is warranted. Mr. Hardt confirmed that those were the minimums and they would not be guaranteed any more than that. Mr. Langworthy said if nothing else happens, a decision on the application has to be made within that time period. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they were not going to discuss this further tonight because they would rather see the actual language. Ms. Kramb said this was a step in the right direction. Mr. Langworthy said they tried to include as many of the Commission's recommendations as they could. Mr. Taylor said there were probably places where this can be tweaked, but the big issue he had was in the lower right hand corner of the chart, where basically, a two -step process has been added to the things that this code already allows the Commission to review. He said he thought the Commission was Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 asking to have this apply to everything, not just development plans with two or more principal buildings or five acres. Mr. Taylor said as written now, the bulk of the Commission's jurisdiction to make decisions is on development plans with two or more principal buildings or sites with five acres or more, which obviously is not going to be everything that happens in the BSC of substantial scale. Mr. Taylor said that this process only applies to those two things, and he thought what the Commission wanted to see was a two - track process that would apply to everything and they would see everything that came in for the BSC. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that would allow the Commission to take public comment on everything. Mr. Langworthy explained that was what the informal review did. He said that everything did come through the informal review, including development plans and site plans. He clarified that Development Plans are only required for developments over five acres or where there are two or more principal structures. He reiterated that the informal review was for all applications, unless it was a minor project. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see that made clearer. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Commission wanted to see these plans in that informal review process. He pointed out that informal reviews are also publically noticed. Mr. Hardt said he had a similar concern. He said that he did not necessarily understand and was not ready to agree with the notion that there are different submittal requirements, Development Plans versus Site Plans, for sites above or below five acres. He said it was a distinction that the Commission had not really discussed. He said a 4.9 -acre site is a pretty substantial development. He said generally speaking, his reaction was that what is labeled as Development Plan Process and the Site Plan Process are really one in the same, and he was not sure why. He said that for what was labeled Informa /Review, his image was that it would look and feel a lot like what they now call an Informal Review in terms of the level of information that the applicant would submit, being fairly simplistic in terms of the fact that it is very early in the process so not a lot of time or money has been spent. He thought it should have a different name because he did not think it was informal at all, if it was given public notice. Mr. Hardt said his suggestion was that at the informal review, that should be the time when it is determined whether a project goes down the administrative review process or a process that ends up back in front of the Commission. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that we may not know how the project qualifies, because it may not be developed enough yet to determine which process it should take. Mr. Taylor said he would guess that Planning would have a preliminary evaluation of the project in that regard. Mr. Langworthy said clearly, their intent for this part of the process would be to get them into the BSC code, and he agreed that by the time they enter the informal review process, we will have a pretty good idea of how close they will be to meeting the BSC code requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission will look forward to seeing the text to supporting the concepts in the chart. She said the Commission needs to make a decision about additional meeting dates. Ms. Ray said that since they reviewed everything they set out to review at this meeting, at the November 10 Commission meeting, they will be reviewing the Zoning Map. She said explained that on that Agenda, the remaining sections of the code, the Site Development Standards, pages 77 -100 will be included, and if the Commission gets through that, a special meeting may not be necessary. She said however, if the Commission wished to schedule one to be safe, it would be cancelled if not needed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was concerned about the amount of time that will be involved with reviewing the revised document. She pointed out that as scheduled, they are planning to review the entire revised code in one regular meeting, of which they may even have applications to review. She said the potential special meeting dates offered were November 15"' and 17"'. Ms. Kramb and Mr. Taylor said they could not do November 15. Mr. Zimmerman had no preference. Mr. Hardt and Ms. Amorose Groomes were not available on November 17. Flora Rogers pointed out that the Architectural Review Board was scheduled November 15 in Council Chambers. Mr. Langworthy said that they could move the ARB meeting to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce if the Commission met on November 15. Mr. Zimmerman asked what public feedback had been received on the Zoning Map. Ms. Ray said that approximately seven letters from property owners had been submitted, which were included in the meeting packets for the Commissioners to review. She said that they had tried to work with property owners to resolve as many of their issues with the code as possible. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would have a lot of material to review at the next meeting on November 10. She noted that on December 1, there may be cases and they had to review everything they had reviewed to date. She asked when the code and the area rezoning were scheduled to go to City Council. She noted that December 1 was the Commission's only meeting in December. Mr. Langworthy explained that it depended when the Commission took action. He said that December 8 or 15 were backup dates in case they did not finish by the target, December 1. He said he did not think it was possible to get everything to City Council by their last meeting of the year on December 12 because there will be no minutes or other items for the Council packets. He said even if the Commission finished in December, he did not think they would go to City Council until the first meeting in January. He said it would be helpful if the Commission took a consensus on the preferred date. Jennifer Readier explained that they were setting up a Special Meeting and if they did not vote on a date, they could not have the meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not comfortable missing three Commissioners for a meeting with this kind of information. She suggested December 8 for the Special Meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410.4400* Fax:b614 --410 -4490 1090 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: November 10, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Planning Memo Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 1, 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that meeting. Following the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 13, 2011, which was the first scheduled review of the draft BSC Development Code, the Commissioners continued their review at the regular Commission meeting on Thursday, October 20, 2011. A summary of the Commission's comments follows. October 20 PZC Regular Meeting The Commissioners began their review of the draft BSC Development Code with the following code sections reserved for discussion at the October 13 meeting (comments are grouped by section): 5153.060 Lots and Blocks — Pages 14 -17 Commission members were concerned that the maximum block lengths proposed for the different BSC zoning districts were not coordinated and would not line up evenly, especially for residential blocks built across the street from office blocks. Commission members suggested that the maximum block sizes be modified to require the same maximum block lengths for consistency and to facilitate transitions between different zoning districts. Suggested that the provision 'For increased energy efficiency, wherever possible blocks should be oriented with their longest dimension along an east -west axis to the maximum extent practicable. This block orientation will encourage development of buildings able to take advantage ofpassive solar technology' be removed because they did not feel it would likely be a factor in defining block orientation. - Commented that it would not be possible to prohibit vehicular access from principal frontage streets and that there would be more exceptions than adherence to this requirement. - Commented that requiring vehicular access to blocks to align on opposite sides of the same block and across the street may be difficult to manage and may be too restrictive for blocks that are developed later. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code November 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Requested clarification regarding mid -block pedestrianways and mid - building pedestrianways (see §153.062(F)(4)). - Confirmed that although building fa5ades along I -270 would not be considered "front" building fagades for the purposes of determining front property line coverage, entrance requirements, etc, elevations facing I -270 would continue to have increased architectural appearance standards. &153.061 Street Types — Pages 18 -23 - Suggested that provisions for delivery zones and /or on- street loading zones be included in addition to Building Access Zones for fire access. - Requested that the colors used on the draft BSC Street Network Map be modified to read more clearly. - Requested additional information regarding the various street type sections, how each type differs and is intended to function, and where each type might be applied throughout the Bridge Street Corridor prior to providing further comment on this section of the code. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following the reviews on Thursday, November 3, 2011 and Thursday, November 10, 2011. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dubl'n, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone / TDD: 614.4144600 Fax: 614410 -4747 Web Site. www.dublin oh. RECORD OF DISCUSSION OCTOBER 20, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following at this meeting: 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Vision Plan Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning and the Commission discussed Council member comments from the City Council Goal Setting Retreat and Discussion of the Bridge Street Corridor from October 17, 2011. The Commission will be notified when the meeting video is available and Planning encouraged the Commission to view the video. STAFF CERTIFICATION Steve Langworthy Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 3. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the administrative request for a review and recommendation to City Council of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said they are scheduled to go over Lots and Blocks, Street Types and if time permits Building Types. Mr. Langworthy recalled an earlier presentation by Planning that illustrated lot, block and street requirements and said this is the section of the Code that begins to lay the framework for what will develop within the blocks. He said they may only have time to get into an introduction of the building types. Justin Goodwin reviewed the changes to Lots and Blocks and Street Types sections from the June 20' version of the Code. He said Planning added an additional exception to the block size and layout requirements by including limited access restrictions that will exist on certain major thoroughfares such as State Route 161 and Sawmill Road. He said Planning has also modified the principle frontage street references in Lots and Blocks by referencing back to the Street Type section. He said the previous draft of the Code designated principle frontage streets by street family, while the current draft illustrates them directly on the street network map. Mr. Goodwin said the new draft provides more flexibility for the City Engineer to determine how block access may occur, specifically with regard to principle frontage streets. He explained that Planning recognizes there may be site constraints that warrant access from a principle frontage street although it would typically be preferable from a side street or an alley. He said Planning has also clarified the provisions dealing with front and corner side property lines on corner lots. He said there may be cases where a single lot line serves as the front property line for one building and the corner property line for another. Mr. Goodwin asked if there were comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission would review the Code page by page and began on Page 14 Section 153.060 Lots and Blocks. Code Section 153.060 — Lots and Blocks 153.060 —Lots and Blocks (C) General Lots and Blocks Ms. Kramb suggested moving the phrase "wherever possible" under (C)(1)(c) to the front of the sentence. She also suggested a clarification to (d) regarding the requirement that streets terminate at an open space or building fagade. She said that the referenced provision under Building Types requires a street to terminate at the front or corner of the building, but because (d) only says building fagade, it was unclear if it implied all elevations were acceptable. Mr. Goodwin said that because the general provision references back to a more specific requirement, the more specific requirement would apply. Ms. Kramb suggested that (d) should specify "front or corner" building facades to clarify the intent without requiring a reader to flip back and forth between the sections. Ms. Kramb said the phrase "development to remain" in the last sentence under provision (f) is an awkward statement, and suggested rewording to "remaining or existing development ". Mr. Hardt questioned the requirement under provision (c) that streets should follow natural features rather than interrupting or dead - ending at the feature. He said he doesn't object to it, but is confused by it because streets that follow natural features would run parallel to those features, but if a street were to dead -end into a feature it would be running perpendicular to it and would be a different street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 Mr. Goodwin said the intent was that streets should generally be aligned to follow features like stream corridors and not end at the stream with a cul -de -sac, but streets could terminate at a natural feature at a "T" intersection with another street. Mr. Taylor asked what would happen if a building is built along a street and then an intersecting "T" street is then built later. He said the building might not meet the street termination requirements under that scenario. Mr. Hardt said that although the block dimensions are maximums, he is concerned the sizes have no relationship to each other. He said if there are office blocks that are 500 feet in size and then there is a transition to a residential district at 425 feet in size they will not line up. Mr. Goodwin said it depends on how the transitions happen between different districts or blocks. He said there is an extensive greenway network envisioned throughout the corridor that will provide a transition point, and there could be larger blocks on one side of the greenway with smaller blocks transitioning on another, which could establish a different pattern in the grid. He said Planning has calibrated the maximum block dimensions to their best understanding of how development might occur in the different districts, including potential development plans for some of the denser development that may occur at the "bookend" locations of the corridor, while recognizing there are difference in character that they are trying to achieve throughout the corridor. Mr. Hardt said he has a similar concern regarding mid -block access described on page 15, which provides a number of different ways to divide up a block, but the last paragraph in the section says vehicular access to blocks should be aligned with other access points on opposite sides of the same block as well as aligned across the street from vehicular access points to another block. He said he is concerned that if one developer creates the "H" configuration and puts the street one third of the way across the site, the next developer has no choice where to put the street and there could be an entire infrastructure of blocks determined by the unit size of one apartment building. He said those cross block access points should be more stringently defined, maybe at the third points and half points, but thinks that as currently written, the Code allows the first developer to set the pattern for huge swaths of land that the City ends up having to live with. Mr. Goodwin said that Planning would discuss this issue with Engineering. Ms. Kramb asked on Page 15 if the term shopping corridor is defined. Mr. Goodwin said it is within the definitions. Ms. Kramb said she is confused with paragraph (C)(2)(c), which states the block length for a shopping corridor shall be 300 feet unless otherwise required by the neighborhood districts section, or if it exceeds 400 feet a mid -block pedestrian way is required. Mr. Goodwin said the requirement can be clarified. Mr. Taylor said he understands the intent of paragraph (C)(3)(c) dealing with energy efficiency but doesn't think it will have an appreciable impact in an urban district. He said if blocks are oriented east to west, the buildings on the south side get exposure to the sun throughout the day, but depending on building heights, they could be casting a shadow on the buildings on the north side. Mr. Langworthy explained this is an example of why the phrases " whenever possible" and "to the maximum extent practicable" have been added to the Code, to account for situations when the requirement may not be appropriate. Mr. Taylor said he thought the orientation of the buildings could potentially provide exposure for both, but that isn't necessarily going to happen and he recommended the requirement be removed. Mr. Goodwin said Planning would consider this. Ms. Kramb asked if the phrases "where designated" and "where provided" in paragraphs (C)(4)(b) and (c) are references to principal frontage streets. She also asked where this designation is actually made. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Goodwin confirmed the language refers to situations where principal frontage streets are designated and the text could be clarified. He said principal frontage streets are designated on the street network map in the Street Types Section. Ms. Kramb asked about the limitation on access to principle frontage streets in subparagraph (C)(5)(c), and suggested that it will be more common to have access. Mr. Langworthy indicated the intent to keep principle frontage streets as pedestrian- oriented as possible and not interrupt them with driveways to the extent possible. He said the Code needs to stress that to keep those streets as clean as possible. Ms. Kramb said she understands the Code's preference for access off of service alleys, but when she sees where the principal frontage streets are designated on the street network map in relationship to existing conditions, she does not think the access limitation is practical. Mr. Langworthy said that is why staff has built in flexibility for the City Engineer to waive the requirement if it is impractical. He said that is also one of the reasons to have maximum block sizes to ensure that streets are located frequently enough to provide reasonable access. Mr. Taylor asked if mid -block pedestrianways described in Lots and Blocks could be the same thing as mid - building pedestrianways described in the Building Types section. Mr. Goodwin said they could be the same in some circumstances. Mr. Taylor asked which requirement prevails with regard to street trees, and suggested that landscaping only be required when the pedestrianway is exposed to the sky. He said the different requirements for pedestrianway widths and windows should also be coordinated. Mr. Goodwin said the mid -block pedestrianway requirements were generally geared toward an open pedestrianway design, but the separate design requirement for shopping corridors could also accommodate a covered walkway. He agreed the Code can be clarified to deal with situations where a mid - building pedestrianway is used to meet the mid -block requirement. Ms. Kramb said she opposes mid -block street crossings due to safety issues. Mr. Goodwin agreed they are not appropriate in all locations and said they would be limited to locations such as dense shopping corridors where cars are secondary to pedestrians. He said this condition exists at Easton Town Center and works quite well. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any other comments on Lots and Blocks and said they would proceed with reviewing the Street Types Section. Code Section 153.061 — Street Types 153.061 —Street Types (B) Applicability Ms. Kramb suggested the phrase "as required by the City" be stricken from paragraph (B) Applicability, because the statement just added confusion. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see the street sections developed by Nelson \Nygaard and does not have any comments until he has a chance to review the preliminary designs. 153.061 — Street Types (B) Street Network Mr. Goodwin presented the street network map (Figure 153.061 -A). He said the street family concept has changed as introduced through the consulting work of Nelson \Nygaard and has been a useful framework for organizing street types. He said the consultant has provided nearly two dozen options for street designs and it was not feasible to put all of them into the Code. He said the street network map has also been revised to more accurately reflect the block size requirements and to ensure stronger street connections throughout the corridor. Mr. Goodwin said the corridor connector streets include streets that already exist (State Route 161, Riverside Drive, Dublin Road, portions of Post Road, and Sawmill Road), providing critical connections Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 across the entire corridor. He said an additional bridge option has been added to create an internal loop providing connectivity to both sides of the river with a district connector street system. He said the neighborhood streets are the ones the City has the least understanding of where they might happen, but is important to show some depiction of them to convey to potential developers the general pattern of development that the Code is trying to achieve. Mr. Goodwin presented a series of slides illustrating typical street elements. He the street right -of -way is divided into a vehicular and pedestrian realm, which both need to be coordinated with the private development along the street. He said most streets are recommended to be two lane streets with eleven -foot lanes and eight -foot on- street parking lanes on both sides. He said bicycle facilities include the option of sharrows that would widen a typical lane out to 14 feet to provide enough space for a car and a bicycle to share the lane, and another option is a dedicated cycletrack that would be located behind the curb. He said the next element of the pedestrian realm is a minimum four -foot wide planting or furnishing zone that could be a hardscape treatment with tree wells, a tree lawn in some areas. He said alternative stormwater treatments and street furniture could also occur in this zone. He said that sidewalks will require a minimum of 5 foot clear walking distance. Mr. Goodwin said Planning is working with Engineering to establish a set of guidelines that will help ensure streets are adequately designed for the development that is being proposed, with considerations for the overall character, land use, building types, building heights and setbacks to achieve an adequate dimensional relationship of heights of buildings and the widths of the street right -of -way. He said the Required Building Zone (RBZ) treatment is an important aspect of all the building types, because it is a transitional point between the public realm and the private realm. He said there are a variety of treatment options specified for each building type and in some cases for specified locations within the corridor. He said for example that in some cases the RBZ can be an extension of a streetscape and can function as semi - public space. Mr. Taylor said he would hope they would get more than 5 foot sidewalks. Mr. Langworthy indicated five feet is the minimum clear walking area, but patios and other streetscape elements can outside of that area on wider sidewalks. Mr. Goodwin explained that some street types include much wider sidewalks, depending on the adjacent land use. He said this is also why the streetscape treatment within the RBZ is important. Mr. Goodwin presented examples of recommended street sections. He said corridor connector streets typically include a four lane boulevard street design with the widest right -of -way at 112 feet, and another option is a four lane street without a median that could potentially accommodate off - street parking during off -peak travel hours. He said that is a potential option that could work within the Historic District. Ms. Kramb asked if the example section reflected the existing right -of -way for Bridge Street in the Historic District and said she did not see how the different sections could fit together. Mr. Goodwin said the sections should be viewed as concepts that may need to be adjusted for specific circumstances. He said the intent is to provide enough flexibility so that the street types are workable in different contexts and the primary goal is to provide consistent facilities for the different modes of transportation within street corridors, but also allow for appropriate transitions within the street section to accommodate changes in development character. He said the Scioto River Bridge or a potential roundabout at Riverside Drive and State Route 161 are examples of transition points that would allow a street section to change along the corridor. Mr. Taylor asked if this information could be provided in hard copy form so he could spend more time reviewing the different street section concepts. Mr. Goodwin said Planning and Engineering are in the process of adjusting some of the sections and developing the guidelines for how to apply them with development proposals and they would provide that information to the Commission when it is available. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Ms. Kramb asked why there is a reference to "existing or approved" alley locations in the explanation of the street network map in paragraph (C)(4)(e). Mr. Goodwin said there is one specific circumstance in Greystone Mews where alleys have been approved but are not yet existing. Ms. Kramb asked why there were no delivery access or loading zone criteria although there are fire access requirements. Mr. Goodwin said those are typically regulated through engineering general requirements, but Planning will consult with Engineering to determine if there are appropriate requirements that could be added to the Code. Code Section 153.062 — Building Types Dan Phillabaum presented the general building type requirements and said Planning had incorporated many of the previous comments from the Commission as well as comments from the development community. He said more specific building material requirements are now included in the building type tables. He said for example that wood and fiber cement siding is now limited to residential - scaled buildings, rather than commercial building types. He said the Code also now includes more stringent measures regarding reflectivity of windows. Mr. Langworthy stated the external reviews by the development community dealt primarily with elements impacting building quality. He said one example is the prohibition on flush- mounted windows, and although there were numerous comments that did not support this, Planning did not feel it was appropriate to change the requirement. Mr. Hardt said he agrees with the intent of that requirement, but explained there is a point in the wall where the cold air from the outside and the warm air from the inside condenses and forms a dew point. He said that is where the thermal break in a window has to be and if placed incorrectly there is thermal bridging where windows sweat on the inside or water will condense inside the wall. He said there is a delicate balance on window placement within the wall cavity, this Code should not try to regulate it. Mr. Phillabaum said the objective is to achieve some dimension or thickness to the walls of residential - scale buildings to visually convey a sense of quality construction and structural integrity. Mr. Taylor said he liked this explanation and suggested that intent language be added to the Code. Mr. Langworthy asked that as they go through the Code to let staff know if if there is an explanation or further information needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone that would like to speak to this application. [There were none.] 4. Bridge Street Corridor — Vision Plan Informal Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the informal discussion without a case number, it is a quick recap of the Goal Setting Retreat and Discussion that City Council had on Monday regarding the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Fishman was present for the presentation, but if they were not able to attend it there was video produced and will be up on the website. They went through a series of Goals as set each year, they reviewed the previous goals and indicated that one of the current goals is to complete the Bridge Street Corridor planning efforts. There was a good discussion and largely the same information that was presented to Planning Commission just in a different format of Transportation, Open Space and Land Use topics. The predominant issues was with open and public space and it was described to them the various kinds of spaces to be created. The major elements was the relocation of Riverside Drive to capture a portion of the park along the river and the actual Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 intersection improvement for Riverside Drive and SR 161 with a roundabout solution that will not affect the Bridge Point Shopping Center that much. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was one of the most productive conversation that has happened in the three and a half years they have looking at engaging the river front. Ms. Kramb asked if they were keeping the south bound lane under the bridge with the roundabout. Mr. Langworthy agreed they were. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that it is the intention to keep it and Engineering had indicated they could save it. Mr. Taylor thought they need to make it not just a traffic and engineering solution because of the prominent position that occupies there to the whole city and this corridor that be a place making exercise. Mr. Langworthy said they talked about an element within the roundabout itself and there will likely room in the corners to something dramatic as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes encouraged the commissioners to view the video when it is available online, that there was a lot of great discussion of the implementation and challenges for them to think creatively and find solutions and there was a conversation with Mr. Hardt that he had potential solutions that has been forwarded to Mr. Langworthy to working some of the bugs out and will hear about in the future. Mr. Langworthy agreed to send out an email with a link to the video when it becomes available. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were anyone from the general public that would like to speak to this application. [There were none.] DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MID YEAR GOAL REVIEW AND BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR DISCUSSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2011 6:30 P.M. — DUBLIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Members present were: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, and Mr. Gerber. Mr. Reiner arrived later. Mr. Keenan was absent. Staff present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Mumma, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Readler, Ms. Ott, Mr. Philabaum, Mr. Goodwin, and Ms. Ray. Update on Status of 2011 -2012 Council Goals Ms. Grigsby reviewed the goal update provided in the packet, including action steps and progress made. • Business Climate Additional economic development staff (two) has been hired. Continuing to look for economic development opportunities and identifying incentives. ED staff is actively making retention calls in conjunction with the Columbus2020 "watch list." The Battelle Cluster Analysis Study is scheduled for presentation to Council on November 14. • 21 Century Learning Initial discussions have been held with the Library regarding an expansion or a new facility, and what that will mean for an overall learning environment. Staff met with Beverly Sheppard, who was associated with the Institute for Learning Innovation. She is also the creator of the "Learning Cities Model." Information is included in the packet. There are opportunities to coordinate efforts for this 21 Century Learning initiative. • Bridge Street Corridor A separate update was provided on the status of the Code review, and this will be reviewed in detail tonight. • Community Culture of Health and Wellness The Healthy Dublin initiative has been re- launched at the community health fair on October 2. A HealthSpot Care4 station was unveiled at the DCRC recently and has garnered lots of interest. The City is continuing to work with Dublin Methodist Hospital, the Library, and the Schools as partners in this effort. The speaker series continues, focused on healthy living options. • Shared services. Staff has created an inventory of shared services that the City participates in and has also engaged in various regional shared services working groups to explore possible future partnerships. Ms. Crandall and Mr. Earman are also working with the School District on potential future additional shared services, Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 2 resulting in cost savings for both entities and reaching a larger audience. Following the retreat, staff met with reps from COSI and is working closely with them on rec programs and camps. They provide a learning opportunity for Dublin camps. Employee Training and Development A basic supervisory workshop has been outlined and a tentative curriculum identified. A new citywide customer service program will be implemented beginning this month. The first group of participants will be the frontline staff. She summarized that this gives Council a quick overview of the work done since February on the goals, noting that good progress has been made in these areas. Tonight's Bridge Street Corridor discussion is Council's opportunity to give input regarding areas they want to staff focus on, identify other information needed or gain a better understanding of the direction of the project to date. In the notebook is a clean copy of the updated Code, as well as a redlined version showing the changes made since the last version. Staff began the review of the Code with the Planning & Zoning Commission last Thursday evening. In the next packet, info will be provided about what occurred at that meeting. Members of Planning and Engineering staff are present to respond to any questions about the project. She asked Mr. Langworthy to outline the timeframes for the code review. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification about the "2020 watch list." Mr. McDaniel stated that Columbus 2020 assembled a list of identified companies throughout the region that they believe are potential candidates for merger, acquisition or downsizing. The region is teaming up for active engagement with those companies. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the relationship of the Battelle and the KPMG studies. Mr. McDaniel stated that the KPMG study was focused on the cost of doing business. They added a couple of competitive regions this year. This serves as a tool for comparison to other cities. Dublin and the region are very competitive, and the outcome was very positive. He noted that the Battelle study, focused on industry clusters will be presented to Council on November 14 and will include emerging clusters, the key clusters in place and those clusters that are waning. Mr. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the 21S century learning environment document included in the packet related exclusively to the urban city. Ms. Grigsby responded that this paper focused on Columbus as a starting point because of the contacts the Library had in Columbus and their connection with COSI. They chose Columbus, believing it would be a good place to begin this effort. It has since "sputtered" a bit. The group was introduced to Beverly Sheppard through Dave Baldwin, a work force development consultant, as well as Kim Kill at COSI. Ms. Sheppard has provided additional information and was impressed with all of the opportunities Dublin currently has. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 3 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the foundation of the report for Columbus indicated there may be a variety of inventory present, but they are not actualized. Ms. Grigsby stated that more of the learning occurs in the less formal settings versus schools. A good example is the Healthy Dublin initiative, and providing a learning opportunity about health. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the inventory underway of shared services, and whether that internal information will be provided to Council. Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively. Staff is working to identify areas where partnerships could be established or existing ones extended or enhanced. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that perhaps not - for - profit organizations could share in purchasing through government contracts at a lower cost. Perhaps they could join with the City and Schools in purchasing. Ms. Grigsby stated that a group initiated at a Mayors /Managers meeting has met to discuss sharing of services such as sign shops, fleet maintenance, cooperative purchasing and training opportunities. Vice Mayor Salay asked Mr. McDaniel how many jobs have been added year to date. Mr. McDaniel responded that he does not have that information available tonight, but the first quarter was very successful with the Alcatel relocation. There are 600 jobs associated with Alcatel, and nearly all of them are now moved into the building. Vice Mayor Salay stated she would like to have this information. Mr. McDaniel responded they are setting up a set of measures that will be shared at the operating budget workshops. Bridge Street Corridor Mr. Langworthy stated that the last revision of the proposed BSC Code was prepared in June, and Council has now been provided with the October version. P&Z began their review last week and has scheduled additional meetings to review the Code. They are reviewing it in sections. The goal is to have a recommendation for City Council by the December 1 P&Z meeting, with a first reading of the Code at Council on December 12, and the second on January 9. Staff has scheduled a public review session on November 10, which may bring some comments regarding the area rezoning. They have met with stakeholders and addressed nearly 80 percent of the issues raised regarding the text. Overall, staff is receiving positive feedback from P&Z, stakeholders, and those interested in developing in Dublin. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council has expressed interest in providing feedback on transportation, parkland and open space. Slides are available, beginning with the vision plan and modifications made recently, based upon the information obtained from the transportation and Code work done in recent months. She asked Council for their input. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 4 Mayor Lecklider suggested that Council proceed to review the topics as listed on the outline. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher expressed concurrence, but in terms of the process, asked if Mr. Langworthy will share with Council the specifics that Planning Commission recommended last week. Mr. Langworthy responded that the next Council packet will include a recap of the P &Z meeting, separate from the minutes which are not complete at this time. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted it may be relevant to hear this tonight. Mr. Gerber asked if staff could recap what P &Z is focusing on at this time. Based on the joint workshop, his understanding is they are reviewing the Code itself, providing opinions and feedback about each segment of the BSC, and discussing the P&Z role and how this will work going forward — from submission of application to permitting. Mr. Langworthy stated that the first and third items are related, and the second item is the subject of tonight's update regarding transportation, land use and open space. Mr. McDaniel confirmed the three focus areas for P&Z. The Thursday meeting was productive, and a discussion of the review process followed. Staff had asked them for input on how they view their role in the review process. On Thursday evening, staff received good feedback on how P&Z perceives the key issues. His assessment is that staff needs to continue working with P &Z to have a process that is predictable and efficient. P&Z expressed concurrence with this on Thursday evening. P&Z will bring recommendations to Council on how that section of the Code will work. Mr. Langworthy stated that the applicants have desired direction at an early point, prior to the administrative process. The other concern related to public input opportunity at some point in the process. Vice Mayor Salay asked if this is the desire for all projects. Mr. Langworthy responded that is not for all, but it has not been determined yet. Mr. Gerber asked about P&Z's progress with their charge' as outlined at the joint workshop. Mr. Langworthy responded that Thursday was the first P&Z meeting specific to the October 6 draft Code review. Mr. McDaniel added that P&Z has done some previous review on the earlier version of the Code as well. Mrs. Boring asked what will happen in a case where a building is proposed that has a nice appearance, but doesn't meet Code. Could the applicant choose to apply for a PUD zoning, knowing it may take longer? Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Langworthy responded that there will need to be resolution regarding this issue. Applying for an actual PUD zoning is contrary to what the City is trying to accomplish in the corridor. However, perhaps a two -track review process could be established allowing for a P&Z review as well as administrative — under certain circumstances. Staff is working on this issue. Mr. McDaniel added that this was suggested, but there are details to be worked out. Mayor Lecklider noted he is concerned to hear of a two -track process. Given this, why wouldn't an applicant opt for the hybrid PUD process, and therefore, what is the point of all of this? Mr. Langworthy responded that the Code has always included a process for an applicant whose application met all of the Code requirements to have an administrative process. If some aspects did not meet Code, these aspects would be reviewed by P &Z. But for the BSC Code, perhaps P&Z would approve a departure on some aspects, such as building height, if the other details warrant such a departure. The other portions would be reviewed administratively, with the height portion reviewed by P&Z. In other words, the applicant would essentially have an "out" through a public review process, if they choose to pursue such a departure from Code. This was also envisioned. Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification of the comment regarding a review early in the process. Mr. McDaniel added that this began as a suggestion by the Commission for a concept review and early feedback on a project. This would be fine, assuming the applicant doesn't need to have 80 percent of the design done and a significant investment made. It would be a good means to obtain early public input, but he would not want this to become the same informal concept plan process the City already has in place. Mr. Gerber added that in today's environment, with the desire to attract businesses from throughout the world, potential developers review the Code to determine the time required for approval in Dublin. How does this square with a concept plan review process prior to the ART process? Mr. McDaniel responded staff is working on that issue. He appreciates the desire by P &Z to have time constraints for the administrative review process as well, as the focus is on predictability of the process. Staff would want the same for any P &Z process implemented. Staff will bring back some suggestions to P &Z after an internal review. Vice Mayor Salay asked how that process would work for an applicant who receives feedback from P&Z. Who determines whether the applicant met what the P &Z requested? Do they return to staff or to P&Z? Mr. McDaniel responded that one item proposed along with the ART review, as with the EAZ Code is an option of having architects available to advise staff early in the process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 6 Mr. Gerber stated that it was always his assumption that Council would likely ask P&Z to monitor the process and identify any problems that are occurring with the new Code. That would give P&Z an opportunity to review the process and report back to Council. Mr. Langworthy responded that the function of monitoring by P&Z is included in this draft of the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that Council agreed to this in a previous meeting, so that the ART process works as Council intended. Although she does believe in efficiency and predictability, she also believes strongly in public engagement in the process at public meetings — not only engagement with staff administratively. Meetings with staff are not viewed as public meetings, and it is essential that occurs. She is not certain this is provided for in this draft. Mr. McDaniel stated that it is not. There was discussion at P&Z about this, and how it could occur, which brought up a concept plan process and what that would look like. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that, historically, issues have been raised about predictability. The timing of approval is often lengthened because of both staff and the Commission. The applicant receives feedback from either party, then returns and receives different feedback. This results in increased costs and frustration. Mr. McDaniel stated that this is not just a P &Z issue. He has challenged City administrative staff to review internal processes to make sure that the processes are as seamless as possible. Mr. Gerber stated that he does not disagree with Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher. The Dublin Methodist Hospital project review was thorough and efficient, using a team approach. He is hopeful that this is the type of process envisioned for the BSC Code. Mr. McDaniel stated that, internally, staff is working to model the successful processes used for IGS, Cardinal, Dublin Methodist, Piada - -using a design team approach. The goal is to educate the real estate /development community about coming in early and often. Most of the problems occur when the design proceeds too far and investments have been made only to find out a project is not viable in the location. Mr. Gerber suggested that creative ways of allowing for public input be considered. Mr. Langworthy commented that all applications that come to the Administrative Review Team (ART) will be posted online and available to the public — similar to what is done now for P&Z applications. He acknowledged there are limitations in terms of finding the information on the website. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the public will be notified of rezonings as presently occurs. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff is working out those details at this time regarding which parties are noticed. All public meetings are noticed. Vice Mayor Salay asked what occurs in terms of public notices if a project meets the Code. Mr. Langworthy responded that currently, buildings in standard zoning districts do not require review outside of the administrative process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 7 Vice Mayor Salay stated that she understood that was what was being created for the BSC was a process in which a developer could review the Code, design a project to meet the Code, have it reviewed by ART, secure approval and then build it. What she hears is being considered now is that there will be a public meeting, feedback from P &Z, the applicant will then massage' the project, and return for another review to ensure they have complied with requests of P &Z and staff. Mr. Langworthy emphasized that the details have not yet been worked out. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Code is already very detailed, and he wants to be cautious that people are not discouraged in the review process. Mrs. Boring stated that it is important to work internally as Mr. McDaniel has suggested, but there is also a need for balance and a need to be cautious in terms of those who want something different than prescribed Code. There needs to be an appeal process if something doesn't exactly meet Code — whether it is a height deviation or whatever. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff certainly advocates those cases sent to P&Z as exceptions. Some of those processes are already built into the Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that he envisions a situation where an applicant has checked every box and expects to begin construction, after expending lots of effort and dollars. The City needs to be creative about opportunities for public input or P&Z input, but it can't occur too late in the process or it will add costs to the project for architectural fees and will not accomplish what the City set out to accomplish. Ms. Grigsby agreed that the entire premise of the BSC and Code is that if an application meets the Code, it should be able to move forward. Until there is a chance to demonstrate how all of this works, there may be a need to have a follow -up review process. The goal is not to require a P&Z process for every project. As long as the applicant follows the Code, they can move forward. If there is disagreement regarding interpretation of the Code between the staff and developer, or if the developer wants to do something other than what is prescribed in the Code, that is when it goes to P&Z. It is important that everyone is in agreement about this. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated she remains concerned with the lack of ability for the public to have input. Online input is not public input. She envisions an interchange in a public setting taking place. It is hard to comprehend that the Code will be so dynamic that a great project results from all applications. She can't understand the lack of public input proposed for this process, as public input has been so important to this and former Councils over decades of experience. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of this entire process has been the public input process and the review of the Code at P&Z and then at Council. Recognizing that as projects are proposed and the City does not obtain what is envisioned, then it will be necessary Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 8 to revise the BSC Code. In the past, there was really not a Code that was adhered to and there was nothing specific. Essentially, each PUD has its own Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that this Code may not be perfect, but with tweaking over time, it will hopefully be closer to what is desired. The concern is with what will occur if the application meets the requirements in the ART review, seems to "pass muster," and then a public meeting occurs with public displeasure with the application. What is then the next step? Mr. Langworthy responded that the way to account for that is to have that type of review early in the process. The Commission suggested that maybe a pre - application process would be required so that the applicant is forced to come in early and often. Mr. Gerber asked if that step is envisioned as requiring public notification. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, noting staff is still working on this process. Staff will bring back some options to implement this suggestion. Mr. Reiner stated that the positive aspect about this process is that it is so detailed that it won't require the negotiations that can drag on for years. But is there still opportunity at the end of the process to have P&Z do one review to consider any concerns of the community? Is that out of the question? Would that defeat what the City is trying to do? Mr. McDaniel responded that is the key issue — how to involve the public, at what point, and how often. No one is opposed to this, but the issue is how efficiently this can be done. If the expectations are known, the predictability of the process improves the timeline and the efficiency. Mr. Gerber stated that this Code is written like a PUD. Public input is certainly important, but he is not certain he would want a body to decide there should be deviation from this prescribed Code. The Code will be carefully monitored. It is an issue of balancing all of this. Mr. McDaniel stated that perhaps public input only needs to occur based on certain trigger points — size, density, certain districts. These need to be better defined. Mr. Gerber stated that he wants staff and P &Z to do two things: 1) determine how to get through this Code or an application quickly; 2) how to consistently apply the law; and 3) with that, determine how best to incorporate the public input. There needs to be a dialogue between staff and P&Z about this. No one at this table wants to discard this process in lieu of a huge PUD. Ms. Grigsby stated that, clearly, the process is very different than what has been done previously. A level of comfort is needed, after it is clear how the guidelines will work. The first few projects may be different and should provide a level of comfort going forward, based on experience. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Langworthy added that staff has been applying the Code to some buildings and sites to understand how it would work. Based on this, staff has made some adjustments to the Code. The Code also includes a "kick -up" clause if staff believes the project has some wider community impact and should be reviewed by P&Z. Vice Mayor Salay asked who makes up the ART. Mr. Langworthy responded it includes the Director of Planning, the Economic Development Manager, the Director of Parks & Open Space, a Fire Department representative, and the City Engineer. The ART can also request consultations from architectural experts. Mr. McDaniel added that staff believes they need the ability to reach out to architects who have expertise and experience with similar projects. Mr. Langworthy added that was a suggestion made by P &Z. Mr. Reiner stated he is supportive of the concept of having architects as consultants to the ART. The mission of the BSC Code was to expedite and make this a more predictable process for the developer. Perhaps there could be one P &Z meeting at the end of the process so P &Z could have one review of an application. This would provide for community involvement and involvement by P&Z. Mr. McDaniel stated that the Delta Energy project was a straight zoning, and it was taken to P&Z for review. It is a good example of a case with one P&Z review, although it was not required by Code. There was good input from P&Z, and the architects were appreciative of their suggestions and made some modifications. Mr. Langworthy stated it was a use review only. Vice Mayor Salay stated that P &Z made suggestions regarding this straight zoning but they were non - binding. What about the concept of a P &Z Commissioner serving on the ART as the public and the Commission's representative? If he /she was not comfortable with the application, it could be referred to the entire Commission for review. Mr. Langworthy responded that he understands there were some issues raised by Legal staff related to this suggestion. Vice Mayor Salay asked how other communities do this. Dublin is certainly not the first community to have a form -based code. Mr. Langworthy responded that the form -based code is a relatively new process, which has gained prominence over the past 5 -7 years. They are numerous processes, but they are generally tailored to the community. Nearly all emphasize administrative review as the key to speed the process by having precise procedures. However, in the end, they all are different varieties. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that several months ago, Council indicated they have been told that New Albany had created a process to accomplish these goals. What has staff learned about that? Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Langworthy responded that Mr. Elliott was asked about his experience in different locations. New Albany's version of form -based code affects only 5 -10 acres. Many of the others referenced are also for small areas. Dublin's is the largest form -based code he is aware of outside of a community wide form -based code such as in Miami, Florida. The process differs from one location to another. Mr. McDaniel stated that the initial view of the speed to build idea came from Carey, North Carolina. Their streamlined process was impressive, and their one stop shop was very appealing, creating a seamless internal process. Dublin benchmarked off of that and models itself after that. Mrs. Boring stated she believes there should be a vision in place and a code that brings it alive. However, in this case, it seems the code is creating the vision. Years ago, in the Community Plan, there was quite a different vision for the central corners of Historic Dublin. Then the buildings were developed and changed that earlier vision — right or wrong. Currently, she is not comfortable with the lack of vision for the Historic District. She is concerned that projects will be proposed for the BSC and will eliminate the possibilities as Council envisioned them. Mr. Gerber stated that at the last workshop with P &Z, he understood the intent was for P &Z to discuss each of the six districts, the comments would then be provided to Council, and then perhaps there would be another joint workshop to better define these. Mr. Langworthy responded that the presentation was provided to P &Z, highlighting each of the districts, and highlighting the various issues. Mr. Gerber stated that P&Z has now begun their review, and their concerns at this point are with process. Once the process questions are addressed, P&Z will move back to focus on each of the sectors and the characteristics of each — similar to a mini community plan review. Mr. McDaniel stated that he doesn't believe P &Z envisioned doing this. The feedback he heard from P &Z is that they believe that the Districts as defined are fine. Mr. Gerber stated that he recalls that at the last workshop, the discussion was -- and the consultants agreed - -that it was a good idea for all in the room to review each district, highlighting items of interest in each area, potential themes for areas, items such as a park on Riverside Drive, ideas for preserving the Historic District, etc. Mr. Langworthy stated that there are two ways to look at this: one is the code review process to get the code in place, but the second item is the physical aspects yet to be discussed — such as road improvements, parkland acquisition. There are decisions yet to be made, but these items don't affect the Code one way or another. Mr. Gerber stated he is well aware of that. Mr. Langworthy stated that some of the materials prepared tonight will highlight some of those items. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 11 Mr. McDaniel stated that one thing staff has struggled with is that it seems there has been a missing link in this: there is a code, a vision and principles adopted. People gravitate toward the Community Plan and area plans. One thing staff informally agreed to do with the Commission was to go back through the vision plan Council adopted and make sure that in each of those character districts the things heard from the public were incorporated so that Council could consider them and adopt them+ Mr. Gerber commented that is what he has just indicated. Mr. McDaniel stated that since that joint planning session, Mr. Langworthy reviewed each of the districts with the Commission, explained the changes, and what staff heard back from the Commission was that it was "good to go." Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that there was the vision plan, the things Mr. Langworthy overlaid in that meeting, and P&Z's recommendation was to overlay those in the vision plan and move forward. Ms. Grigsby stated that in some discussion after the presentation at Council, it was mentioned that when he met with Planning staff, he felt the transportation lead -in was a good way to identify some of these issues and demonstrate how the original conceptual plan of the vision has changed, based on what has been learned. Perhaps it would be helpful to begin with those transportation elements and review them so Council can see how it ties in, and the connectivity through the district, focusing on specific districts where there are concerns. Vice Mayor Salay agreed. Her hope was to discuss the vision tonight and hear any new information from staff. What she hears is that everyone is working through the process issues, the Code review is underway, and Council now needs to review policy issues for transportation and open space, focus on those and make some decisions so that the entire package is ready when it is time to approve the Code. Mr. Reiner stated that it is somewhat of a "chicken and egg" process. Is the City waiting for a developer to bring in a project in order to determine the road network based on the parcel? Does that dictate where the bridges should be to span the river? For this to work, more connectivity over the river is needed. The same with greenspace. How much will be donated, will there be larger parks or packet parks. There is not a plan set for parkland locations. Is the City waiting for a developer to begin the process — and those development plans would then dictate the bridge locations and street width. He is somewhat confused about how this plays out. Ms. Grigsby responded that the City should set the general guidelines, recognizing that, depending upon what is learned, there may be minor changes. Similar to the Community Plan, the actual road alignment may change based upon development. Natural features to be preserved will impact all of this. Perhaps the City can't acquire properties that it desires for what it wants to pay. Changes have occurred from the original version, based on what has been learned — and now it is possible to say this is Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 12 generally where roads or park spaces need to be located. The developers will either provide land or money, and this will be in addition to greenways shown in this plan. Mayor Lecklider suggested that staff proceed with the presentation. Mr. Langworthy stated that staff began with the district framework, working within each district to highlight the issues, who they need to talk to and what about. The character districts are the same as those laid out in the vision plan. The street network underlies what was in the vision plan. One thing to highlight is that the vision plan was done before the modeling, so therefore, the transportation modeling took place after the vision plan was adopted. He showed the changes in the street network that have been made. From the original depiction, there are several changes (he pointed these out). Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Willis and Ms. Wawskiewicz have worked hard to rationalize the street network, providing more connectivity, adding a bridge as result of modeling — not needed from a traffic standpoint, but from a circulatory standpoint. He highlighted other significant items — the Post Road realignment, the Sawmill Center connector, the Bridge Street /Dublin Road connection, connecting to what is now being called "Sawmill Center" as a working name (currently the Dublin Village Center). Lots of other streets are shown, although the layout is not certain, as it will be determined by future development. As lots and blocks are created, streets will go along with that. Therefore, there are limitations in how wide those blocks can be to maintain walkability and to disperse traffic around multiple routes. This also shows the new alignment of Riverside Drive, which will be discussed further tonight. In terms of environmental aspects, the Post Road realignment, the Dublin Road connector, and a road into Historic Dublin will all involve crossings of Indian Run and must be done sensitively. The same is true for the Scioto River bridge crossing, and it will be costly. Mr. Hammersmith will discuss what happens with the existing bridge later tonight. Vice Mayor Salay asked if a pedestrian bridge over the Scioto is included. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, and more detail will be provided in the parkland discussion. He noted that the Frantz Road intersection with 161 had involved discussion with many property owners, and included development potential with relocated Post Road. For Sawmill Road, as development occurs, the entrances into what is being called the Sawmill Center off of Sawmill Road are important. This will involve working with Columbus, finding out how the intersections need to function, and creating some special entrances for the development. Connectivity across Sawmill Road is also important. For Bridge Street and 161, enhancements to promote walkability and pedestrian friendliness will be done in the future. Mr. Langworthy described the staff process for reviewing land uses and intensities. Once the vision plan was established, staff looked at the overall patterns and began to rationalize the street network and how it interacts with land use -- land use first and Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 13 then streets. From there, staff began to look at the open space network, and how to connect open spaces and have them all function together. Staff has been talking with developers (OCLC, Dublin Village Center) about how to integrate their concepts of greenspace with the City's. The focus is on connecting the public and private greenspaces. There would be a wide variety of open spaces — from small, public plazas to walkways (such as the one along Tucci's) in private spaces, BriHi corner square, along with fields and open spaces — a variety of spaces allowing people to congregate. A large greenway is planned through the BSC and all the way to the EAZ. Vice Mayor Salay stated that is essentially all the way to the Metro Park. Mr. Langworthy stated that continuous open space would exist all across this space. Multi -use paths are shown with dotted lines, and plans for connections to outside the corridor are shown as well. This green space network occurs in many ways — through donations, acquisitions, requirements for greenspace, development — and it is important to understand what the City wants to create. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the greenways shown east of the river, and the fact that they don't seem as wide as those on the west side. Is there a reason for that? Mr. Langworthy responded that greenways are not meant to be recreation spaces, but rather as ways to move from point a to point b. In some places they will be wide and some narrow — 60 or 80 feet is the minimum width. In the scale of the map of 1,100 acres, it is somewhat difficult to demonstrate. Ms. Grigsby stated that the majority of those wide spaces on the west side relate to the Indian Run, both north and south forks. Mrs. Boring stated that in creating this walkability, particularly for the main greenspaces, she asks that staff consider wider paths to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles heading opposite directions — wherever that is possible. The paths along 745 are eight feet in width, and there are sometimes conflicts between all of the various users due to the width. Mr. Langworthy added that another aspect of public spaces are the sidewalks, and the requirement is for extra wide sidewalks to accommodate sidewalk cafes. There are also some possibilities for cycle tracks. The street then becomes part of that interconnected network of pedestrian movement as well. It is an interconnected network of various kinds of greenspaces, accommodating various pedestrian movements. Mr. Reiner stated that staff has done a great job with this. Lots of work has been done since the last draft, with small infill of pocket parks provided. Mr. Langworthy credited the planners for this work — Mr. Philabaum, Mr. Goodwin, and Ms. Ray. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 14 Mr. Gerber commented that it would have been helpful to have had this information three months ago. Vice Mayor Salay noted that staff did not have the information ready at that time. She noted that she likes the plan, and it makes sense on many levels. But in terms of crossings of the Indian Run, she cannot imagine vehicular bridges overhead of the ravines. Mr. Langworthy responded that the north bridge has the least moving parts and there has always been one crossing planned at the north. The location shown is likely acceptable. The others must be studied carefully. It would be important to the network leading to the south bridge, but if the south bridge isn't built, this then becomes a connector between OCLC's development and Historic Dublin and so the question is how can that be accomplished. Mr. Reiner stated that this bridge could have a pedestrian component allowing one to view the ravine from above. He reiterated that staff has done a great job in assembling all of this. Mr. Langworthy stated that Mr. McDaniel asked them to focus on how the open space along the river will work and connect up and down the river. The concept is for a continuous connection along the river. He showed the immediate area north of 270, including Scioto Park, the Holder Wright earthworks, the Dublin Arts Center, connecting down to Kiwanis Park to the Riverside /161 connection. The Dublin Springs Park now has a stairwell installed to provide access down to the river. Mr. Hahn is working on several aspects of the park concepts. Riverside /161 Open Space Options Mr. Langworthy stated that staff has assembled three options and two alignments, as shown on the slides. Options A and B have essentially the same alignment, coming off the Riverside /161 intersection as it goes north. The only difference is how the parks are programmed — whether with open space or development. Option A slightly impacts the Bridge Pointe shopping center, but does not involve a total take. The intersection at Dale Drive remains and the City garners about 18 acres of open space. The central core area is approximately 12 acres, and a rendering has been assembled to show the size of this large space. This shows two bridge crossings and also shows a pedestrian bridge. One of the issues is with landing the pedestrian bridge. Shifting the roadway alignment provides a decent landing space for the pedestrian bridge. Council will recall viewing the Greenville bridge. There are various options for potential programming of this area, including a path underneath the bridge or perhaps an esplanade. There is a desire to better interact with the river, through cliffs or plateaus along the river for observation. This is all conceptual and is designed to show the programming that could occur in the space. Option B is a development option. It adds in some development to have a central point, perhaps nice retail or restaurant space that is a walkable distance from Historic Dublin on a pedestrian bridge. It is similar to the Greenville riverwalk. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 15 Option C is more dramatic and includes a roundabout. Options A and B can also include a roundabout, and both a traffic signal or a roundabout will handle the traffic — the decision is one of character /atmosphere to be created. Option C keeps the larger open space and pushes the development area down toward Bridge Pointe in the space garnered by moving the roadway. Mr. Hammersmith can discuss the implications of other things needed, based on the intersection decision. Aside from the acquisition of Bridge Pointe, the other issue is replacement of the 161 bridge and at what point that must occur. He shared an overview slide of the three open space options as discussed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what the City is doing currently to the 161 bridge. Mr. Hammersmith responded that currently, a stairway is being constructed by Parks to provide access down into Dublin Springs Park. Ms. Grigsby stated that this project is interesting, and she encouraged Council Members to visit the park. Riverside Drive /SR 161 Intersection Options Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intersection decision is not so much about operational issues as character and feel. The various alternatives were reviewed by Council a few years ago. A benefit of the roundabout shown on the slide (shared previously with Council) is that it maintains a south bypass lane with through movement north to south and provides for left turn movements at the intersection. With a signalized alternative, the left movements would be restricted and therefore left turns would have to be done at Dale Drive as now. With a roundabout, aesthetic features can be added in the central island that ties in with the greenspace initiative along the river. There is flexibility with the bridge, allowing time to rework the bridge. Under the signal alternative, a right turn is needed going eastbound on the bridge itself. Because of delays at the signal, there is a need for stacking storage. That is one of the disadvantages of a signal. The roundabout, however, does require a right turn lane going into the Shoppes at River Ridge. Staff is somewhat concerned with stacking at the signal, which would cause back -ups in the roundabout. Therefore, this drives the need for the right turn lane into Shoppes at River Ridge. A con to the roundabout is the impact to the parking at the Bridge Pointe shopping center, due to the much larger footprint needed and larger right -of -way acquisition needed. Mr. Reiner asked if that Center could still be functional with diminished parking. Mr. Hammersmith stated this really would involve the outparcels, and some of those businesses previously located in the outparcel locations are now closed. Another con of the roundabout is that there would be need for a retaining wall, based on the difference in elevations. Presently, there is not the need for a retaining wall. Yet another con for a roundabout is there would not be protected pedestrian movements as would exist Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 16 with a signalized intersection. The signal would assign a right of way /protected phase for the pedestrian movement. Vice Mayor asked if there would be adequate breaks in the traffic to allow for safe pedestrian crossing. Perhaps the key is having a break and a safe haven island available. Mr. Hammersmith agreed that even under the signal alternative, there is limited space for the pedestrians due to landing on the "pork chop" island. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that if a pedestrian bridge is added, it would land just to the north at Dale Drive, so this is an alternative to consider. Staff expects the area to the northeast to develop at fairly high density residential, generating lots of pedestrians. It is important to know where the pedestrians originate from and are traveling to so safe travel can be provided. Ms. Grigsby stated that when modeling was done for this intersection, it was prior to any consideration of the possibility of additional bridge crossings to the north of this intersection. Some of the updated modeling could change the conditions, and would warrant additional review regarding need for lanes. Vice Mayor Salay asked when Council will need to make a decision about this. She assumes that modeling information may influence the decision, and there are cost implications as well. Mr. Hammersmith stated that obtaining the modeling information will require a couple of months. However, Council should make their decision based upon the character desired. Staff can then affirm if the decision will work with the traffic. With two bridges to the north, they will help provide for connectivity in the corridor and district. However, there will still be heavy through traffic movement on 161. He does not expect huge differences in the modeling results. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for confirmation that "Alternative 2" would still preclude having left turn lanes. Mr. Hammersmith responded it does not. It could allow them, but if a left turn lane is added to Alternative 2, the level of service greatly diminishes. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that this does not therefore seem a viable alternative, although it is less expensive, as it does not accomplish some important goals. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in terms of vehicle maneuverability, that is true. In response to questions, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher clarified that, currently, cars traveling east on SR 161 cannot turn left (north) on Riverside Drive, so instead they turn left (north) on 745 (Dublin Road) and turn east onto the Emerald Parkway bridge. Mrs. Boring asked where these motorists originate. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 17 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded they are coming off the freeway and onto 161, or from the businesses at Metro. Mrs. Boring stated that would be a benefit of a loop road taking traffic around Bridge Street. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the completion of Emerald Parkway will remove traffic from the 161 corridor. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it likely will not significantly reduce traffic, as the destination remains I -270 and out to Marysville. Mr. Gerber stated that if 270 is backed up heading north, drivers exit at Tuttle and cross over to Dublin Road, bringing traffic to Historic Dublin. Mayor Lecklider stated that Alternative 2 may be less expensive itself, but may require other improvements to the bridge. Mr. Hammersmith responded that the estimate for bridge components is $14 million. Adding another lane on the south side of the bridge is not practical. It forces the reworking of the entire bridge structure. Mr. Reiner stated that one advantage of Riverside Drive is the few traffic lights on a major north /south corridor, which keeps the traffic moving. For this reason, a roundabout is appealing, as it also keeps the traffic moving. Mayor Lecklider asked about the timeframe for this decision. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff needs to complete some modeling before any decisions can be made. Vice Mayor Salay noted that, for her, it seems the roundabout would have some attractive features built into it. It's a traffic control device, but can be aesthetically appealing and contribute to the character for the corridor. But in terms of impacts to pedestrian walkability/mobility, does a signal slow and stop traffic and provide a better pedestrian environment? She recalls hearing this previously. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Nelson- Nygaard mentioned this. In an urban area like the Short North, signals lend themselves well to a pedestrian environment. But in this corridor, the pedestrian movement will generally be coming from Historic Dublin. Having a signalized intersection would result in a very large intersection — larger than Frantz /161 -- and would be intimidating to pedestrians. In signalized corridors and with a downhill movement, vehicles build lots of speed. It is difficult to control speeds. Mr. Langworthy commented that from a character standpoint, Planning believes a roundabout is acceptable and doesn't dramatically affect the character the City is trying to create in this location. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 18 Vice Mayor Salay stated that her concern is that everyone expected to have a roundabout in this location, but someone had indicated it could really impact the pedestrian character of the Historic District in the corridor. What she hears tonight is that it would not be a factor as was once thought. Mr. Hammersmith stated he does not believe it would be. A roundabout provides a calmer, more tranquil environment. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she has recently observed walkers in this corridor, coming from south of Riverside Drive, walking in the street. She is not certain of their destination. She also observed someone walking who may have been shopping at Kroger — they were walking east over the bridge. There is a noticeable increase in pedestrian traffic in this corridor. Mr. Langworthy noted that the sidewalk connection required of Bridge Pointe will help with pedestrian traffic. Mayor Lecklider summarized that he is hearing a preference from Council for the roundabout design for the intersection of Riverside /161. Vice Mayor Salay and Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated they support a roundabout at this location. Ms. Grigsby stated staff will continue to gather information for Council. Vice Mayor Salay stated she would be uncomfortable with the size of the intersection needed to accommodate a signal. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her issue relates to the continued inability to turn left with the signalization. Mr. Hammersmith stated that with moving the intersection east -- either scenario will work. Mrs. Boring asked if the bypass lane under the bridge will be retained. Mr. Hammersmith responded it is possible, noting there is much benefit from this operationally. Mr. Langworthy stated that the bike /pedestrian connection would also be improved for this lane as well. Vice Mayor Salay noted that as there is more diversity in the community, this brings more walkers to access grocery stores on a daily basis. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked Ms. Readler to comment about why a Planning and Zoning Commissioner cannot serve on the Administrative Review Team for the Bridge Street Corridor. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 19 Ms. Readler stated that this issue came up on Thursday at the PZC meeting. Historically, the City has not created hybrid commissions that include administrative staff and appointed /elected officials. Staff is reviewing whether or not this is a feasible option and will report back. Vice Mayor Salay commented that this would be an option to involve the public and PZC, yet keep the process streamlined. Mrs. Boring asked about the bubble illustration previously shared with Council. She noted that mixed residential is identified on it. There was discussion of flex space in outlying areas. Is there not a need to define flex space differently, so that shops could be located in the bottom of apartment areas? It doesn't appear that the typical definition of types of zonings are being changed as Council has discussed over past yea rs. Mr. Langworthy responded that what is shown on the bubble illustration is the predominant land use. The way the form -based Code is set up is that there are possibilities for mixed uses to occur, but they don't dominate the building. What is being shown is the predominant land use for the area. It could include retail on the ground floor. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in the Easton area, separating the residential from the retail area was a flaw in the design. She hopes the City can improve upon this. It seems that the Easton area resulted in two distinct communities. Vice Mayor Salay agreed that the Bridge Street Corridor should stay away from that model of separating land uses. Mrs. Boring stated that she hopes that for residential use, there would not be that level of traffic. She assumes this is a smaller scale than Easton. Mr. Langworthy noted that the lots and blocks must be walkable and smaller, and will have higher density residential and more livable environments. Vice Mayor Salay stated this is different from any residential development Dublin has previously done. People will be drawn to this location due to the active nature of the development. Mr. Langworthy added that, currently, this type of land use generates the highest level of inquiry and activity. Mayor Lecklider commented that he is familiar with this market interest, based on his daughter residing in the Victorian Village /Short North area. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 20 Mayor Lecklider noted that on the last page of the staff memo, it indicates some decision points related to policy issues in the corridor. Have they been addressed tonight? Mr. Langworthy responded that there is more detail needed to be brought to Council. Staff is now looking at what are the implementation phases /steps needed — what must happen in each of the districts in terms of future CIP projects. This information will be brought to Council in the weeks and months to come. Mayor Lecklider asked how Council will be involved, short of the first reading of the Code anticipated in December. Mr. Langworthy responded that, much like the roundabout decision discussed tonight, there are some key decisions needed — but adequate information is needed for consideration in future work sessions or joint sessions with P&Z. Key capital project decisions must be made, as there are alternatives to be considered. Council can provide input and then decide. Mayor Lecklider stated that as those arise in the next couple of months, he expects that staff will request that Council schedule workshops as needed. Ms. Grigsby stated that there has been a lot of interest and discussions with those looking at some type of development on the OCLC site as well as Dublin Village Center and the Sawmill Center area. As information is available, especially regarding transportation systems, staff will continue to bring information to Council to obtain policy direction. Vice Mayor Salay asked if staff believes more workshops are needed, and if so, these should be scheduled at this time. Ms. Grigsby responded that can be done. Mr. McDaniel stated that some of the priorities will be opportunity driven. Council commended Planning staff for the graphics prepared for this meeting. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there may be certain PZC meetings that Council could observe — particular sections of the Code that may be of interest to Council based on the difference from past practice. Council could benefit from their discussion. Mr. Langworthy stated that Thursday's meeting will focus on lots, blocks and street types and building types. The Code is being reviewed in sequence. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what has been decided in terms of the review process of the Commission and the public input. Mr. McDaniel wants staff to have continued dialogue with the Commission to see what consensus can be obtained regarding the review process. Council Bridge Street Corridor Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 21 Mr. McDaniel added that the TischlerBise study is now essentially completed, and staff should be able to present the results very soon. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Pho 614 - 1 410-4400* Fax:b614 --410 -4490 1090 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City ManagerVA;�'--. Date: October 20, 2011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Planning Re: Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Background At the October 6, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commission members were provided a final draft of the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code with the understanding that the draft code will be reviewed in sections at upcoming meetings. The estimated completion of the review is by December 1, 2011, with a vote on a recommendation to City Council on the code and area rezoning expected at that meeting. A special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, October 13, 2011 where members of the public, including property owners and other interested stakeholders, were invited to provide comment on the draft development regulations. (Comments on the proposed area rezoning have been reserved for the November 10, 2011 special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.) Following the public comment, the Planning and Zoning Commission began their review of the draft code. A summary of the meeting follows. October 13 PZC Special Meeting Public Comment Summary Time was set aside on the agenda to allow public comment on the text of the final draft of the BSC Development Code. The Commission requested feedback from the public in attendance regarding the draft code. Although several interested stakeholders were in attendance at the meeting, only one registered person spoke. The speaker commented on the proposed review and approval process in the draft code and indicated that the proposed review process by the Administrative Review Team (ART), which would afford greater predictability and efficiency in the development review process, was favorable; however, the speaker would appreciate the flexibility to deviate from certain regulations, either through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process or through a special appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for specific provisions. BSC Development Code Review Summary The Commissioners began their review of the draft BSC Development Code with the following code sections reserved for discussion at the October 13 meeting (comments are grouped by section): &5153.057-.058 General Puroose BSC Districts Intent — Pages 1 -6 - Requested that the date of the Vision Report adoption (October 25, 2010) be removed or modified. Memo re. Update re. Planning and Zoning Commission Review of Draft BSC Development Code October 20, 2011 Page 2 of 2 - Requested that references to the BSC Districts Applicant Guide be struck from the code since it has not been completed yet. The BSC Districts Applicant Guide will include additional graphics and design details for items such as the specific street sections and stormwater management techniques that are either not ready yet or inappropriate for inclusion in the code. - Commented that PUDs should continue to be permitted in the Corridor. §153.059 Uses — Pages 7 -13 - Questioned whether it may be appropriate for certain uses to be restricted to the ground floor of certain buildings, since some uses are restricted to upper stories. - Suggested that the use category for Library, Museum, Gallery also be permitted in the BSC Commercial district in the use table (Table 153.059 -A). - Suggested that additional accessory uses be permitted in the BSC Residential district, including ATMs and eating and drinking facilities. - Commented that the screening requirements for outdoor recreation areas for daycares may need to be adjusted for the urban environment anticipated in the Bridge Street Corridor. - Requested clarification regarding the use specific standards for drive in /drive throughs, accessory dwelling units, and outdoor display and seasonal sales. - Suggested that furniture for outdoor dining and seating areas should be coordinated among tenants within each building. - Suggested that all renewable energy equipment using wind power be subject to conditional use review, rather than just ground- mounted equipment. §153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria - Pages. 102 -109 The discussion for this part of the Code was more general in nature, rather than a review of specific language. Accordingly, the points made below, while brief, were discussed in some detail. - Expressed concern over the lack of public notification for applications for administrative review. Commission members emphasized the importance of public involvement in the development process and wanted to ensure that the public had adequate notice of applications and opportunity for meaningful involvement in the process. - Suggested that the pre - application review process [ §153.066(D)] be mandatory and include review by the Planning and Zoning Commission for certain application types. - Commented on the potential for a "two- track" process for applicants who may not wish to follow some provisions of the form based code. - Suggested that additional criteria be provided for administrative departures to ensure that adequate flexibility is available to encourage unique site design and architecture. Recommendation Information only. A summary of the comments on the draft BSC Development Code will be forwarded to City Council members following the next scheduled review on Thursday, October 20, 2011. 7t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION OCTOBER 13, 2011 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 6 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www -dubi n oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code to establish a number of new Zoning Districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. Topic: Proposed BSC Districts, Uses, and Approval Process (Sections 153.058, 153.059, and 153.066). Public Comment regarding the proposed BSC Code modifications is encouraged at this meeting. Request: Review and recommendation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Section 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us RESULT: At this special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting members of the public including property owners and other interested stakeholders we invited to provide comment on the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Development Code draft development regulations. The Commissioner's comments and concerns included the applicant guide being referenced in the draft code even though this document is not yet created, allowing PUDs to continue in the Bridge Street Corridor, permitting certain uses only in certain districts and limiting the permitted uses in the BSC Residential District, and the lack of public involvement in the proposed review and approval process. The Commission suggested the pre - application review be made mandatory and include PZC review for certain applications. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 1. Bridge Street Corridor — Code Modification 11- 020ADM Administrative Request Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request for review and a recommendation to City Council to establish a number of new zoning districts and regulations for the Bridge Street Corridor. She said it was the first meeting where the Commission is to review the Code in detail. She explained the purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the General Purpose, the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Intent, the Uses, and the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria of the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said time had been set aside for public comment on the text of the final draft Code, and the Commission will address the public comments as they pertain to each section of the Code, which may be at future meetings. She said the Commission may request feedback from the public in attendance and discuss their general thoughts on the draft Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the public should know that the proposed Bridge Street Corridor Zoning Map is scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission on November 10, and comments regarding the proposed zoning of any properties in the Bridge Street Corridor should be made at that meeting. Steve Langworthy pointed out that the Commission had a very ambitious schedule for reviewing the Code, so after they got through the public comment portion, he asked that any minor corrections to grammar and punctuation be given to him or Rachel Ray after the meeting. He also asked that if the Commission got stuck on a particular section, that it be set aside as a topic to be covered later, so that they can get through as much as possible. He said that Planning may be able to provide additional information or research those items if needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that they begin with Sections 153.057, 153.058, and 153.059, pages 1 through 13, covering the zoning districts, general provisions, the uses, and the use specific standards. Mr. Langworthy suggested that because this meeting was set aside for the public to comment on any portion of the draft Code, some members of the public in attendance may have comments on sections not scheduled to be covered this evening. He suggested that the Commission receive public comment first to record the comments to address as they reach each section. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission would go through the first part of the Code, and then take public comment, and conclude with the section on Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. She stated that if at any time, anyone had any questions or comments regarding a specific Code section, to please raise their hand so they may be afforded the opportunity to comment. Code Section 153.057 — General Purpose John Hardt stated that he would like to make a general comment about this section. He said the General Purpose statement and the introduction to the Bridge Street Corridor Districts repeatedly refer to the creation of walkable, vibrant, mixed -use districts, which he thought they all agreed was one of the primary intents of the Bridge Street Corridor. He said then, by virtue of the title of each zoning district, the location of each district on the zoning map, and the uses permitted in each district, they seem to go back to use separation, limiting residential in certain districts, commercial in other districts, and office in elsewhere, which he did not feel was conducive to creating a mixed use environment. He said for example, if he looked at the BSC Residential District, the permissible uses in the next chapter do not even allow a coffee shop or a walk up ATM, and so he thought the intent was missing. Mr. Langworthy said he understood Mr. Hardt's concern. He recalled that when Planning reviewed the very first draft of the Code, Planning also noted that the uses were very restrictive and did not really seem to allow a great deal of mixed use. He said that since that time, Planning added more uses to a lot more districts, but suggested that if the Commission thought that there was more that they should or could do in terms of permitting a greater range of uses in each district, Planning could look into that further, but they were not really supportive of permitting all uses, everywhere. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 Mr. Hardt said that was not necessarily what he was suggesting, but when there is a district called Office Residential, certainly by name alone, it implies that retail is not welcome there. He said he was not suggesting anything should be permitted everywhere, but he thought they ought to consider that a mixed use environment is exactly that, and if someone wants to construct a four -story building with retail on the first floor and condominiums above, and the second building next door makes sense to have offices above retail, that is what the Bridge Street Corridor is about. Mr. Langworthy said Planning would take another look at the uses permitted in each district. He explained that in Mr. Hardt's example, the BSC Office Residential district does permit retail, it just size limits it so that the retail does not become the dominant use in the building. Rachel Ray added that Planning also wanted to try to concentrate certain land uses to specific portions of the Corridor, simply to obtain a critical mass for the uses to be successful and complement one another. She said that for example, the BSC Sawmill Center and the BSC Indian Run districts are to be centers of activity, so instead of spreading everything out, those areas benefit from the advantages of concentrating uses in specific areas. She said another point to consider is that certain densities and land use types were modeled with the transportation, infrastructure, and other studies, so there are some general assumptions about where certain types of land uses are anticipated in the overall Bridge Street Corridor. She said that a mix of uses was assumed in every district, but there will be a predominant land use in each district. Richard Taylor said he agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said when the Commission first began looking at the concept of a form -based code, he took the opportunity to review a couple of form -based codes used elsewhere. He said he liked the form -based part of it, but he was concerned that this was turning into a use -based code, because there are at least as many use -based regulations as there are form - based, although he thought it was clearly necessary to have some use direction. He said he would like to make sure that they keep the emphasis on the form. Mr. Taylor said that when he looked at the draft Zoning Map and the street network map in the Code, and then compared it to what we have now, it seems as though we are wiping the school site clean, along with Wendy's Headquarters, Lowe's, Dublin Village Center, the OCLC Campus, the Golf Center of Dublin, and Digger and Finch. He said that the roads on the street plan suggest we are going to wipe all those buildings off the space between Tuller Road and I -270, and yet in all of these, the Indian Run Estates and Greystone Mews neighborhoods remain untouched. He said he did not understand why, when the others are shown to be eliminated. Mr. Langworthy said that Mr. Taylor's comment was a good one. He said that when Planning was looking at the proposed street network, although the Greystone Mews neighborhood is a very nice development, it is somewhat disruptive of the proposed grid street network. He said that in creating the conceptual street network map, Planning had to make some assumptions about which developments were likely to remain in their present location over the long term, and which were likely to redevelop at some point. He said both neighborhoods are ringed by greenways and district connector streets. He explained that the street network included a hierarchy of streets, with some roads that are intended to carry higher volumes and carry traffic in and through the Corridor, while we do not necessarily know where neighborhood streets are going to go, since those will develop over time. He said for the purposes of the street network map, the concentration is on the major streets. Mr. Taylor said that would make more sense if there were lines drawn through the Indian Run neighborhood. He pointed out that there was a roundabout and road that went south through the middle of Lowe's. He said on the Zoning Map, the school site is designated Public, but elsewhere, it is shown with commercial development. He said he understood that they draw lines that might represent future roads because it allows them to plan for street connections; however, he asked why these two neighborhoods were not treated similarly. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said that Planning and Engineering are satisfied that there are enough roads to accommodate traffic. He pointed out that there is a potential road shown along the west side of Greystone Mews to connect to the land uses on the north and south sides. 153,057 — Genera/ Purpose (A) Mr. Hardt reiterated his comment that the Vision Report that is referenced in this paragraph be updated before the Commission votes on the BSC Development Code. Amy Kramb and Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Hardt's comment. 153,058 — 85CDistricts Intent (A) Scope Mr. Taylor stated that he would reserve his first comment regarding the provision that prohibits planned unit developments in the Bridge Street Corridor for the discussion on the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria. He referred to the last sentence about the Bridge Street Corridor Districts Applicant Guide. He asked when the Commission might see that document, or what it might contain. Mr. Langworthy said he was waiting for approval of next year's budget before they can finalize the Applicant Guide. He said that Planning has started on the Applicant Guide, and timing of its conclusion would depend on the changes made to the Code. Mr. Langworthy said that perhaps an outline of what is expected to be included in the document could be provided to the Commission. He explained that, for example, the City had received 24 different street types from Nelson \Nygaard for potential application in the Corridor, and Planning determined that there was no way to include that many different street sections in the Zoning Code without becoming confusing, so Planning and Engineering intended to show the different street types in the Applicant Guide, where there would be flexibility in determining where each type could be applied. Mr. Langworthy added that the document would also illustrate some of the more complicated Code requirements and would help applicants navigate the Code and approval processes. Mr. Taylor suggested that if the Guide was not going to be completed, he would like to strike all references to it now, and when it is complete and the Commission has a chance to review and approve it, it can be added back into the Code. Mr. Langworthy said it was not critical that there were references to the Applicant Guide included in the Code at all. He said Planning would check the entire Code to see all the places it had been mentioned first, but it was likely that the references to the Applicant Guide could be struck. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that it would be helpful for applicants to know that there was an Applicant Guide, so she said it would be important to add it back in once the Guide is completed, reviewed, and approved. 153,058 — B.SCDistricts Intent (B) Intent Mr. Hardt asked what street- oriented office' meant. Mr. Langworthy explained that most of the time, street orientation refers to retail, window shopping, and the like. He said this is intended to suggest that there can also be a similar kind of environment, only with offices instead. He said the intent was to ensure that even though it was office and not retail, it still needs to have a street presence by having visibility on the street. Mr. Hardt said that street - oriented retail uses were the types that the public would wander in to, so what he took from this was that they were describing an office use that the public would wander in to, like a medical office or a financial advisor. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 Warren Fishman asked if this type of development would be in one specific area of the Corridor Ms. Ray said the BSC Office district is primarily located along S.R. 161, east of the Scioto River. She said the intent throughout the Corridor is to have buildings oriented toward the street, but the point was to have it reference West Dublin- Granville Road, but not have to name all streets in all cases. Mr. Langworthy explained that one of the consultants' comments was to not use so many specific geographic references because we do not always know exactly where the districts might be applied in all cases, since the zoning districts may shift around some in the future. Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, The district will accept bui lding types that are consistent with the historic development pattern of the Historic District. She asked if that should be Historic Dublin, which would be consistent with the other references. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Historic District' would be changed to Historic Dublin.' Mr. Taylor said his comment was for (5) BSC Historic Core and (6) BSC Historic Residential, relating to the scope and the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). He was concerned that in the Bridge Street Code, the ARB's review authority is inconsistent with the review authority of Zoning Code Section 153.172. He said he also noticed that on the Draft Zoning Map, the Historic District included BSC Public, BSC Historic Core, BSC Historic Residential, and part of the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood, but that did not match the Code text. He asked how that would be reconciled. He noted that the ARB uses the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, and asked if the duties of the ARB would be changing. He explained that he had previously served on the ARB, and he thought it was special because of the relationships they formed with the residents and merchants in that area. He preferred to see that the ARB maintains complete control over everything in the Historic District. Mr. Langworthy said there would be no change in the Historic District, and the ARB would maintain the same authority under the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Taylor noted that under the Code, the ARB would be constrained by the building type requirements, where before the details were up to them to decide. He said he would prefer to see the ARB continue to have that power. Mr. Langworthy asked that they wait until they get to the Building Types section and see if there is something there that can be done for the building types that apply to the Historic District to address some of Mr. Taylor's concerns. Mr. Taylor said he did not think that would satisfy his concerns. He thought that part of the charm and vitality of the Historic District is a result of the relationship that the ARB has with the Historic District itself in having total control over what happens there in terms of architecture. He said currently, if the ARB members find that a particular project that meets this Code is inconsistent with what they believe the Historic District should be, or vice versa, they would not have any flexibility to make those judgments, except through the appeals process. Mr. Taylor said for the record, he would prefer that this Code exclude the Historic District, perhaps with an exception for buildings fronting on Bridge Street. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning would look at the Code to make sure the ARB has the proper review authority. He noted that the changes really only applies to development in the BSC Historic Core, since the Historic Residential district was left unchanged because that was what they promised the residents. He said the intent of the Code was not to completely restrict the ARB. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 Ms. Kramb pointed out that the word Neighborhood', was not used in the titles of the three neighborhood districts, but it was shown on the Zoning Map. She suggested removing the word neighborhood' from those districts on the map, or adding that to the titles in this section. Mr. Hardt said that each district intent paragraph that they had just reviewed referred to uses listed in Code Section 153.059(8), which is just a reference to Table 153.059 -A, which he thought was confusing. He asked if it could just refer to Table 153.059 -A instead of having a five -word paragraph. 153.059 — Uses (A) General Provisions Mr. Hardt referred to the descriptions of what P, U, and C meant in the table. He asked should there be uses only allowed on the first floor. Ms. Ray said none had been contemplated. 153.059 — Uses (A) General Provisions (6) Existing Uses Ms. Kramb pointed out that paragraph (a) was a run -on sentence that was difficult to read. Mr. Hardt asked about the intent of paragraph (b). Mr. Langworthy said these provisions are intended to be similar to requirements for nonconforming uses, because if a nonconforming use goes away, and a conforming use is established in its place, it cannot be replaced with another nonconforming use. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning was less clear about how to address multi- tenant buildings, because if you deal with them one tenant space at a time, it is a lot more difficult from an administrative perspective than if the uses are addressed per building or per lot. Ms. Kramb referred to the last sentence, This provision shall be app lied separately to each individual building on the lot or parcel. She said she thought that would create a problem in centers like the Bridge Pointe shopping center, which had multiple buildings. She thought it would be easier to apply this regulation to the entire complex. Mr. Langworthy agreed that Planning would think that regulation through a little more because he wanted to check to see how other sites in the Corridor might be affected. He confirmed that the intent as written is per building. He said he was less concerned about multi- tenant buildings than he was about single tenant buildings on lots with multiple buildings. 153.059 — Uses (B) Use Table (Table 153.059 -A: Permitted & Conditional Uses in BSC Districts) Mr. Hardt noted that all the residential uses are obviously permitted in the BSC Residential district, but farther down, basic things like banks, personal services, walk up ATMs, even eating and drinking are not permitted. He said that went back to his earlier comment that if he lived in a "mixed use area," he would want to be able to walk across the street to get a cup of coffee or cash from the ATM. He thought some re- evaluation of the use distribution would be appropriate on the table. Mr. Hardt said that in addition, Park and Rides and Transit Stations are not permitted in the BSC Office Residential district, which he did not understand because every other city clusters residential and office uses around transit. He noted that Parking Structures and Surface Parking Lots are not permitted in the BSC Residential district either. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the distinction between lots that are only used for surface parking lots and parking structures as principal uses, as opposed to accessory parking lots and structures, which are permitted (or conditionally permitted) in the BSC Residential district as long as they are associated with a permitted principal use. He said for example, a multiple - family building could be built with either surface parking or a parking garage incorporated into it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said regarding ATMs and other types of commercial uses, the intent is that most of these types of uses will be within a walking distance of the residential areas. They may not be at the front door, but they may be within a walkable distance. Mr. Hardt said he understood in principle what Mr. Langworthy was saying, but if he was living in a condominium building in the BSC Residential district, he would not want to have to walk all the way down to S.R. 161 to get a cup of coffee. Mr. Hardt said this goes back to his earlier comment about uses that might be limited to the first floor of certain buildings. He said he was not suggesting that every use across the board should be allowed in every district, but perhaps certain commercial uses could be conditional uses and reviewed by the Commission on a case by case basis. Mr. Langworthy noted that restaurants and coffee shops are permitted in the BSC Office Residential district, generally located on the north side of Tuller Road. He said that he understood Mr. Hardt's intent, but Planning thought that there ought to be some places in the Corridor that are fairly limited to residential uses to establish a neighborhood character, but make sure that commercial uses are available within a walkable distance, but agreed that Planning would take another look at the table to address Mr. Hardt's comment. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why Libraries, Museums, and Galleries are not listed as permitted or conditional uses in the BSC Commercial district. She said they did not seem like objectionable uses that we would want to specifically exclude in certain districts. Ms. Ray explained that the parcels designated as BSC Commercial district do not seem as likely to develop with these types of uses, but she saw no reason why those uses could not be added to that district. 153,059 — Uses (C) Use Specific Standards Todd Zimmerman referred to the use specific standard for Live -Work dwellings, which states, Up to two non - resident employees are permitted in addition to the resident(s) of the dwelling. He asked if there was a specific size limit on the live -work units, because if there was a live -work townhouse with 1,500 square feet on the first floor for only up to three employees, that might be too limiting. He asked if it would be possible to regulate the number of employees to square footage instead. Mr. Langworthy explained that the intent was that for uses at that size, the use qualifies more as a principally commercial, and less as a Live -Work unit, and should probably be located in a different, more appropriate building type or zoning district. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the number of people in the Live -Work unit would also have an impact on parking. He said if there were six employees, plus the resident, there may not be enough parking in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Langworthy agreed to look into the best way to regulate the size of the commercial aspect of Live - Work uses. Mr. Taylor asked with reference to the Day Care uses, what landscaping requirements are envisioned to be appropriate, because when he thought of dense, urban areas, he was not sure that an outdoor recreation area surrounded by shrubs and trees would be a great idea, or even feasible. Ms. Ray said that the landscaping requirements were taken directly from the recent Zoning Code update regarding Day Care uses in residential districts and the Suburban Office and Institutional district. She thought that they could limit the landscaping requirements to address more urban conditions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 Mr. Taylor referred to the use specific standard for Bed and Breakfast uses, and said that the requirement almost matched the definition, and if it was repeated in the definition, it should be eliminated from this section. Ms. Ray explained that regulations cannot be written into definitions, and therefore if the regulation is intended to apply to the use, it would need to be stated in this section. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the requirements for commercial Eating and Drinking facilities include size limitations that state "whichever is smaller," while elsewhere in the Code, the language states "shall not exceed the lesser of." He said he would like to see a consistent use of language for these types of requirements. Mr. Taylor referred to the use specific standards for Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair facilities regarding the limitation from locating these uses on corner lots. He recalled a similar discussion in the EAZ Code regarding gas station locations that these facilities could try to locate pretty close to a corner without actually being defined as a corner lot. He suggested a distance requirement instead. Mr. Langworthy agreed to look at revising the requirement. Mr. Hardt noted that the second paragraph beneath Drive -in /Drive- through uses contradicts itself. Ms. Ray stated that Planning had already noted the error, and explained that the intent was that Drive - in /Drive- through facilities should not be permitted to face a Principal Frontage Street, but it could be on the side of a building facing a lower priority street, in which case the screening requirement would apply. She agreed to clarify the language. Mr. Hardt pointed out that the third paragraph was redundant. He said the end of the paragraph after principal structure' should be deleted. Ms. Kramb asked why Accessory Dwelling Units could not be located on upper floors of townhomes. Ms. Ray said she the intent was to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units in attics, and to make sure that each unit would have a separate entrance. Ms. Kramb said it was unclear, because it suggested that Accessory Dwelling Units could only be located in the basement, and it did not seem to allow that instance where the Acessory Dwelling has its own door on the first floor that could take you up to a second floor unit, which she thought would be fine. She said that as long as there is a separate entrance, it should not matter what floor the Accessory Dwelling Unit is on. Mr. Langworthy said they would look at making the language clearer. Ms. Kramb asked what conducted entirely within the principal dwelling' meant with reference to Home Occupations. Mr. Langworthy said that a business could not be run out of a garage, for example, which would mean that the use was taking on something more characteristic of a commercial area rather than a residential use. Ms. Kramb noted that for Outdoor Dining and Seating, speakers and amplification would be permitted on patios. She recalled that this is a topic that had received a lot discussion in the past. She asked what would happen to the restaurants with patios that have been specifically denied outdoor speakers. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 Mr. Langworthy said that all potential noise would continue to be governed by the Noise Ordinance, so if the noise is offsite, the City would maintain the ability to cite the business for the nuisance. Mr. Hardt asked whether, if this regulation is approved as it is written, the City would be undoing all of those previous conditions, or whether this only would apply to future site redevelopment. Mr. Langworthy explained that it depended on where it was located, but if it was written into a development text for a PUD, the development text requirements would no longer be valid since the Code would govern development on all sites that are rezoned to BSC districts. He said he thought that there will need to be a balance between encouraging activity and liveliness versus creating disturbances, and the reason for making the reference to Chapter 132, the Noise Ordinance, is to address the potential for disturbance. Ms. Kramb said she continued to be concerned about allowing any outdoor dining area to have speakers and amplified sound, because there has been a lot of public comment on this issue, which is particularly concerning if a new process eliminating public involvement is used. Mr. Hardt agreed with Ms. Kramb. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the language be reviewed to reflect the Commission's comments. Mr. Hardt asked if the statement, Dining furniture shall be of the same design, material, and color for all furniture associated with the use was intended to be regulated by use, or whether it should refer to each site. He said hypothetically, if two restaurants shared a patio, or even if separate patios for each restaurant were at opposite ends of the same building, the Commission has required the furniture to be consistent in the past, whereas they have not required the same thing in other places. He said he could see it either way, but he wanted to know what the other Commissioners thought. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the same furniture for the entire building would look best. Mr. Langworthy agreed to review the language. Ms. Kramb noted that for Outdoor Display or Season Sales uses, the regulations stated, Merchandise shall only be displayed during the hours of operation for the principal use. She did not think this would be reasonable for retailers selling Christmas trees, flowers, hay bales, or things of that nature. Mr. Langworthy said this was intended to address sidewalk sales. Ms. Ray said that Zoning Code Section 153.099 deals with the outdoor plant materials that Ms. Kramb is referring to, and that is why the reference to that Section is in the Code. She said the rest of the regulations for this accessory use are intended to address sidewalk sales for books, clothes, etc. Mr. Hardt said that with reference to Renewable Energy Equipment, the first paragraph states that only solar and geothermal energy equipment is permitted, and then the fifth paragraph and the following subsection (k) goes on to talk about wind power. He said that seemed like a conflict. Mr. Taylor noted that these provisions were identical to what was approved for the EAZ, but if the concept for the Bridge Street Corridor was to create a dense, urban district, ground- mounted wind equipment could be up to 40 feet higher than buildings, even if the facility would have to be set back by at least 40 feet from the property line. He said he was concerned with how well the wind equipment would even function, and if it is even appropriate to have the same requirements for this portion of the city. Mr. Hardt recalled that for the EAZ, after much discussion and with some exceptions, they decided that there are so many unknowns about this type of equipment; they felt like wind power equipment just Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 needed to be approved through a conditional use process to look at facilities on a case by case basis. He said he was in favor of requiring conditional uses for all wind power equipment, including ground and building mounted. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment on any section of the code that had been reviewed so far. [There was no one.] 153.066 — Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced the next Code section for discussion, the Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria on pages 102 — 109. She suggested that the Commissioners discuss this section in terms of big picture comments, rather than going section by section. Mr. Zimmerman referred to subsection (E) Applicability. Development Plan and Site Plan, (6) Abandonment. He said these provisions reminded him of the partially built structure on Stoneridge Lane, and asked if there was something tighter that could be written about responsibility for restoring the site to its previous condition. He said that if the owner had abandoned the structure, he assumed they were already bankrupt, so the demolition expenses would presumably come from either a bond posted, or from the City. Jennifer Readier said that abandonments could be problematic, because the implication is that there is not enough money to finish the project or return the site to its original condition. She noted that the City does not currently have provisions like this, and therefore the City has to proceed to take action under nuisance provisions. She said this regulation was another tool that the City can use, but ultimately the owner is responsible for the parcel. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the City could salvage the abandoned material. Ms. Readier explained that could be a possibility. She said that under this provision, the City could clean up the site and then attempt to put a lien on the property to recover the costs. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed with Ms. Readier that this was the best approach to address these types of situations. Ms. Kramb pointed out that in the (6) Abandonment paragraph, it states, Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if work is not started within one year..the approval shall lapse. She noted that on page 102, in paragraph (13)(5), it states, All Development Plan and Site Plan approvals...shall be valid fora period of two years. She asked for clarification regarding the difference in approval times. Ms. Ray said that Planning would review the provisions and clarify the timing. Mr. Fishman asked about the Pre - Application Review, which is encouraged, but not required. He assumed that developers would still be able to submit an application, follow the Code to the letter, and there would be no way the Commission would be able to make any changes later. He said there should be a Pre - Application process where the applicant could come in with their preliminary plans to ask the Commission if they are heading in the right direction and following the intent of the Code. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had debated whether to require a mandatory Pre - Application Review. He explained that they had debated whether or not it would be a good idea, particularly for out -of -town applicants who are not used Dublin's process and requirements. He said if the Commission had a preference about mandatory Pre - Application reviews, Planning would not have any issues with making that change. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that Mr. Fishman was suggesting an informal for the Architectural Review Team (ART), and asked if the other Commissioners agreed. Ms. Kramb referred to paragraph (E) Applicability.' Development Plan and Site Plan, (2) Site Plan on page 106, where it states that minor modifications do not require a site plan, regardless of whether it is a new improvement or a modification to an approved site plan. She said that suggested to her that developers would not be required to submit a site plan with minor modification applications. Mr. Langworthy clarified that they would still be required to submit a site plan, but not necessarily require prior approval of a Site Plan application. He said that was similar to the existing process for minor modifications to approved Planned Unit Development Districts, where developers submit a new site plan showing the minor modification, and it is administratively approved. Ms. Kramb asked if the term new improvementwas intended to refer to a modification to an existing site or structure, or if it was intended to be something new entirely. Mr. Langworthy said that it was intended to refer to a modification, and there can be no modifications unless there is something already approved there to modify. Ms. Kramb noted that it was not clear that applicants would be required to submit anything. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning could make the intent clearer. Ms. Kramb referred to the flow charts on pages 106 and 107. She said the graphics seemed to indicate that there will be a public hearing or meeting if the application involves new roads and infrastructure, or if the application goes to the ARB, or if the developer appeals a decision; otherwise, she stated that there would be no public involvement under the Site Plan review process. Mr. Langworthy clarified that anytime an application is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Board of Zoning Appeals, there would be public notice. Ms. Kramb asked if she understood correctly that a Development Plan would only be reviewed by the Commission if the developer appealed an ART decision. Mr. Langworthy said that was correct. [Joe Budde arrived.] Ms. Ray clarified that the graphics could be modified to be easier to understand. Ms. Kramb noted that within ten days of receiving a complete application, a letter would be sent to property owners within 300 feet of that property to inform them when the ARB or Commission is going to meet and when that meeting will be held. She said the applicant will be given at least five days notice before an ART meeting (Section 153.066(8)(3) on page 102). Mr. Langworthy explained that the noticing requirements are similar to the existing requirements. He said that notices were not sent to surrounding property owners for building permits for development in standard zoning districts, applications just go directly to a building permit. Ms. Kramb asked if there would a sign or any other indication that something was proposed on a site. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that there would not, just like the current process in standard zoning districts. He explained that an ART application number would be assigned to the proposal, and the application Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 information would be posted online so anyone could look at the material submitted. He said that would be more than what is done now, because building permits are not posted for public review. Ms. Kramb asked if there was an existing timeframe used now. Ms. Ray said there was a timeframe for the ART to make decisions on applications in the EAZ, but there are no timeframes for applications that are reviewed by the Commission or the ARB. Ms. Kramb stated that if the intent is to speed up the process, she questioned why the ART would have 28 days to make a decision. She said that seemed like a long time. Mr. Langworthy said that 28 days is shorter than the required decision timeframes for building permits. He asked if Ms. Kramb had a suggestion for how long the review timeframe should be. Ms. Kramb said she did not have a suggestion, but she was concerned that if the purpose of this administrative process is to expedite reviews and approvals, the 28 days could add up, particularly if new information needs to be submitted in order for the ART to make a decision, which could add another 28 days. She reiterated that it seemed like it could take a long time. Ms. Ray pointed out that the Code required a maximum of 28 days, so there could feasibly be shorter review periods for simple applications. Ms. Kramb reiterated that she did not like that public involvement was being eliminated. She said if a new Code is being drafted, she thought there should be room for public input, particularly for what goes into public spaces. Mr. Hardt said his general views on this section regarding Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria are well documented. He said he found it difficult to add constructive feedback on text that he fundamentally disagreed with. He said the notion that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board would only be involved in development in the district in very limited circumstances, and the notion that the public would not be notified of most development applications are just two aspects that are really uncomfortable for him. He said he put a lot of thought into what they are trying to do here, and he thought he would like to suggest an alternative approach. Mr. Hardt said the first paragraph of this section states that the intent of these regulations is to have predictable and expedited reviews. He said he had been through the process himself as an applicant, and he understood this intent, which he thought was a laudable goal. Mr. Hardt said he tried to think about how he would accomplish this objective if he was an applicant. He said the developers that he has spoken to want predictability more than anything. He said the way the process works now is, an applicant comes in to the City and meets with staff, and they have discussions about the proposal and work through the site plan, building details, and other site details. He said they eventually get to a point where they submit an application, and then Zoning, Landscaping, Engineering, Fire, and all the various entities review the application, which can take about 28 days. He said that a staff report is then issued and the application goes before the Commission. Mr. Hardt said he thought the complaint from the development community is that if there is a hang up at the Commission review, there is the potential that the rug will be pulled out from underneath a project at the eleventh hour after they have already spent thousands of dollars on architecture and engineering fees. Mr. Hardt said this approach is one way to resolve this problem, but it was not one that he is comfortable with, nor did he think that others in the development community would be comfortable with this approach. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 Mr. Hardt suggested that an alternative is to move the Planning and Zoning Commission review to the front end of the process. He said the Commission currently looks at informal applications with a brief presentation of a basic site plan, description of the proposed use, and conceptual. Mr. Hardt suggested a scenario where projects would go before the Commission for a review that is very similar to the informal review process, and at that time, the Commission would take public input to potentially resolve some of the concerns of the Commission or the public. He said this process would allow the development community to leave the informal review knowing whether the use is acceptable, whether the site layout is acceptable, and it would allow them to hear any input or concerns from the public, and they can walk out knowing that the project is acceptable before they invest countless dollars in architecture and engineering fees. Mr. Hardt said that once the developer gets over that hurdle, he thought there could be two possible review tracks. He said one track would require applications to go before the ART and continue to work out the details of the project to ensure that it meets every requirement of the Code. He said that on the other hand, a developer could have an awkward site that may not be able to meet every Code requirement, or perhaps they want to do something truly unique that does not fit neatly within the bounds of the Code. He said that being the case, it seems like they ought to be able to offer the development community, either at their discretion or the City's, the option to go back before the Commission for a subjective review. Mr. Hardt said that it seemed to him that if basic feedback and public input is provided at the front end of the process before a lot of money is invested and then offer two paths for approval, one being a "check box" approval process through the ART and the other being a subjective review by the Commission, we have offered the development community the opportunity two possible routes for approval. Mr. Hardt said that he had talked to colleagues that develop in central Ohio on a regular basis, and they seemed to think that getting an early review would be helpful to alleviate most of their concerns. He suggested that staff may need until the next meeting to think about these suggestions and give the Commission feedback on the possible pitfalls, but he wanted to offer a suggestion for the Commission to consider. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that sounded like a great suggestion, and at least a step toward resolution. She thought there were a host of problems with the approval process as it is currently written, and therefore they need to come up with alternative solutions before the Commission can get comfortable with the Code. Mr. Zimmerman noted that if they are looking for the Commission's stamp of approval somewhere in the process, then the Code should be written as tight as possible with all of the high quality standards. He said that if an applicant came before the Commission for approval, the Commission would also be limited to the Code in their review and approval. Mr. Hardt stated that it was also intended to provide the public an opportunity to have input, which can only happen in a public meeting. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that they are looking for a different approach in this part of the City. Ms. Kramb stated that she was not opposed to doing things differently, but she was opposed to what has been presented, because she was not convinced that this is the correct change. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was important to note that it does need to be different, and no one is arguing that point. She thought the issue is with what is efficient,' and whether it is intended to mean fast or good. She asked if efficient' meant that the citizens of our community are satisfied, and that they feel they have been heard. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that the intent states that the objective is to enhance Dublin's reputation for high quality development, while a/ /owing the Bridge Street Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 Corridor property owners to compete efficiently and effectively for development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. She said that assumes that all Bridge Street Corridor property owners think that speed is equal to efficiency. Ms. Amorose Groomes continued that the review and approval procedures and criteria are also intended to ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as to not burden the fiscal resource of the City, and generally to protect the health, the safety, and general welfare of its residents, occupants, and users. She said that said to her, the way that the administrative approval process is set up is the City saying to the people, we know what is best, so trust us and we will implement it, which she did not believe was a core value of this community. She thought there was a core value in this community that states that we want to involve the community in the process, let them have a say, and give them the opportunity to take a leadership role in the process. Mr. Fishman agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes, and stated that he felt the process had worked well in the past. He said the community has put its stamp of approval on most development in the city. He stated that, for example, he remembered that the Lowe's developer said that this store looked nothing like any other store that they have built in the United States, and it was due to community input. He said what bothered him about this process was that it is mandatory. He said they are eliminating the public review process, and therefore development will not have the community's stamp of approval on it. He agreed that public input was important and that it should be mandatory. Mr. Langworthy said that specific suggestions of what the Commissioners are looking for are very helpful, and Mr. Hardt's solution was something that Planning could look at as an option. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled a discussion about a hybrid committee or board that would call on the strengths of various professionals, particularly for architectural design elements. Mr. Langworthy stated that he had budgeted for architectural consultants to advise the ART. Mr. Taylor said the philosophical point that he wanted to make, and what he was hearing from the other Commissioners, is that they are not suggesting anything that would slow the process down from what is proposed in the draft Code, and in fact it might even help simplify the process. He said he had also heard that the bulk of this Code is great, and that it will be easy to edit later on if necessary. Mr. Taylor said that he sits on three architectural review boards outside of this Commission, and on each one, he has required that they institute a concept review in the beginning. He said that whatever is brought in can be changed, and the idea is to direct applicants and set them on the right track before they spend too much time or money on the project. Mr. Taylor said he had also experienced, particularly in neighborhoods with very complex and detailed codes, that it was easy to create a building that meets the Code in every detail, and still not be a very good building. He said he talked to many people over the last ten years about the Residential Appearance Code in Dublin, which has lofty goals, but often results in mediocre buildings. Mr. Taylor said while that may not be the case here, he thought the point is that there is room in the process for someone that represents the public to review projects with a more aesthetic objective. Mr. Taylor reiterated that from a broad philosophical standpoint, he was extremely uncomfortable with a process that essentially eliminates public input. Mr. Taylor preferred Mr. Hardt's second two -track suggestion, where applicants are offered the opportunity to meet every aspect of the Code and go right through the process, or they can choose to pursue a different route that would still be subject to the same Code requirements, but with another layer of subjectivity so that it could go through something similar to the PUD process. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she also liked the two -track approach, with one caveat. She said that, when looking at the proposed Zoning Map, there are areas that are significantly more sensitive to the rest of the community. She said the BSC Indian Run Neighborhood district as it is redeveloped will probably not have the same connection with residents as the BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood district would. She thought one of the triggers could be generated from the public input portion of the meeting, and she liked the idea of having that meeting up front. She said if there was a lot of public input at that meeting that might trigger an application to take a different path so the public can be assured that they were heard, even if not necessarily implemented. Ms. Amorose Groomes thought both tracks on some level should provide for citizen leadership and input. Mr. Langworthy said these suggestions give Planning something to consider. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Planning had considered other alternatives. Mr. Langworthy said that Planning had explored a series of ideas before this draft. He pointed out that even this draft has changed quite a bit from earlier drafts. He said he really appreciated having specific suggestions about what the Commission would like to see, because it would help Planning think through the implications of what they are proposing while trying to maintain efficiency. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought one of the expeditors will be the Code itself. Mr. Langworthy agreed that was the predictability part that would help speed up the process. Ms. Kramb said that with regard to deciding which projects would proceed along which path, she understood some applications would be simple, and would not require the public meetings. She suggested having a checklist with standards to indicate the complexity level of the project and identify which track it should take. She thought public interest should be a big component in determining which path an application should take. Mr. Hardt suggested that the Pre - Application review could help with this, so that Planning could try to ascertain whether there is public interest in a project before the applicant even gets started. Ms. Amorose Groomes was concerned that staff is not necessarily ingrained into the community well enough to make that determination, and that is why it is important to offer a real avenue for input early in the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to (H) Administrative Departures, paragraph (3), and stated that it is unclear to her how the administrative review process is resolved. She noted that it refers to each 'required reviewing body's decision.' She asked about the criteria that each body would use. Mr. Hardt said he had a similar question about this section, because if the ART is not able to come to a determination on a given issue, it is sent to the Commission or the ARB, who can only review the issue based on the same criteria the ART used. He asked if the ART was not able to come to a determination, what makes them think Commission or the ARB can? Mr. Langworthy pointed out that different reviewing bodies can reach different conclusions. He asked the Commissioners if they felt that more criteria would necessary beyond the four listed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there should be more options, perhaps allowing the applicant to present their case in a new way. She said if everyone looks at the same exact thing from the exact same perspective, with all of the same information, they will most likely reach the same conclusion. She thought there should be more discretion, since that is why applicants seek an appeal. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 Mr. Fishman agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes, and said he did not want to forget that the Commission was appointed by City Council because they represent the citizens of Dublin. Mr. Hardt said in the scenario he was suggesting, that was exactly what the second parallel process would be for. He said it would allow a developer that says he knows he is in the BSC Residential district, but he thinks it is appropriate to put a small coffee shop in the building even if it is not permitted by the Code. He said the developer should have an avenue to make the case that it makes sense. Mr. Langworthy said there was an avenue for that in the use variance process, which involves a public review. He said that approving additional uses is not something that the ART can do. Mr. Hardt said that the public should be allowed to chime in and the Commission should be able to make that decision based on subjective criteria. Mr. Langworthy said he wanted to be careful because decisions should never be entirely subjective. He said they always have to review applications against a set of criteria because there has to be some expectation on the part of an applicant that if they meet the criteria, they ought to be approved. Mr. Hardt that was the first path he was describing. He said they have the option of complying with every requirement of the Code. Joe Budde referred to page 104 where it described the members of the Administrative Review Team, and asked if it made sense to suggest that either the chair of the Commission or their designee be a member of the ART. Ms. Readier said they had to be careful because the whole concept of having the ART was having it staffed by Directors who have the authority and expertise to make decisions based on objective criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were other comments or questions. Mr. Langworthy said the discussion was helpful. He said that getting specific ideas was very helpful and allowed Planning to think through the process to address the Commission's concerns. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment on the Code. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Interests, 565 Metro Place South, said he had more questions than comments based on what he had heard from the Commissioners. He said the Stavroffs and other developers he had talked to had envisioned this Code as being a very clear -cut process, meaning if a project met all requirements, it would be approved. He said it was very clear that the Code was very specific and on their end, they believe it to be very one -sided with no room for public comment or the vagueness that exists in the current Zoning Code. Mr. McCauley said he agreed with this idea, but he did not know if he liked everything about the Code. He said if it was his choice, they would rather come back and say that a lot of great groundwork has been laid, and they all want a walkable environment that people will want to visit, but still have the ability to go through the PUD process with some of this on the line. He said he thought the two -track process made sense, but he did not understand why the review would be necessary if they met all the requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not know that they would have answers to all of those questions this evening since the discussion was conceptual. She thought the big focus behind that was that every project on some level ought to have an avenue for public participation. She did not think any of the Commissioners knew what that would look like yet, but she thought that was critical to the success of this community. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 13, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 Mr. McCauley asked how that would be different from the existing PUD process Mr. Hardt said the idea he suggested was that both processes could exist simultaneously. He explained that he was suggesting that either track would begin with a high level, informal review that allows for public input at the beginning of the process. He said if they get a room full of people who are all concerned about a particular issue, then hypothetically, the applicant could leave the meeting knowing that it is an issue and knowing that they would need to deal with it before designing the project. Mr. McCauley said he appreciated the concept. He said from his perspective, efficiency is related to predictability. He said if he had a use in a building, and he met every Code requirement and could therefore get an approval, that is efficient because it is predictable. He said if another element is added, saying that even if they meet the Code, the public still gets to review and comment on the project, that was fine, because the predictability would still be present. Mr. Taylor said he believed that what Mr. Hardt was talking about was a process that is informal and not regulatory, and if there are comments from the public up front about an issue with some aspect of it, some aspect of it, the public still has their opportunity to provide input, and the developer could choose to address the comments, which he hoped they would do. Ms. Kramb said she could foresee a list of projects that would be exempt from the formal public review process, or could be expedited based on a set of criteria. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she understood Mr. McCauley's concern, but she did not know who should 'win,' either the citizens of the community that have made Dublin what it is, or the developers that want to come in, build something, and leave. She said they knew they needed to get to predictability, and her goal was to have the most predictable process possible without silencing the community. Mr. Taylor said it seemed like Mr. McCauley was having the most difficulty with the initial, up front review. Mr. McCauley said that, assuming his project could meet every Code requirement and go straight to permitting, he would always go that route instead of going through the PUD process, unless there was something new and different not addressed in the Code. He said the Commission review would be a great alternative in that instance. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Mr. McCauley had ever brought or seen a project come through the public review process that was better when it was finished than when it started. Mr. McCauley said he had, but he had also seen projects that he thought were not better than when they started. He reiterated that he was not against public comment, and most of the time, they had more success than not with public review, but it does not always add something to the project. Mr. McCauley clarified that he was not suggesting that they completely skip the public review process, but that they should choose a predictable approach, and they have historically had the most success with informal reviews. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, September 26, 2011 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present Council Members: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Mrs. Boring was absent (excused). Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Smith, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Ray, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Crandall. Mayor Lecklider stated that the purpose of the meeting is for Council to receive an overview of the Bridge Street Corridor form -based code. Mr. Langworthy stated that the presentation will address the various elements of the Bridge Street Corridor form -based code. It will include many familiar elements — parking, signs, landscaping — but some unfamiliar elements as well. The first part of the discussion will focus on how the streets and buildings relate to the properties. The second part will address building requirements. Streets and Building Orientation Mr. Goodwin stated that he will review how the draft Bridge Street Corridor development code will create the walkable urban form depicted in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. The slides depict a hypothetical block of residential development that could occur under the Code. The discussion will address requirements concerning street types, street blocks, street frontage or building siting, parking location, and open space. The City's zoning code traditionally divides the City into different districts, each with a different set of permitted and conditional uses. The Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) code does that as well, but it is only one part of the larger strategy of form -based zoning. The BSC code allows for a greater mix of uses within the various districts. Each district is intended to foster a different balance of uses, so that there are different character areas and or neighborhoods. The BSC code contains an emphasis on building types, as it is recognized that streets play an integral role in creating vibrant, walkable places. The BSC code contains a draft street map. It categorizes the different streets, existing and planned, for the BSC industry families, two of which are the primary address streets and the neighborhood address streets. They are similar to the functional classifications used in the Thoroughfare Plan within the existing Community Plan. They do not focus only on the traffic volume function of the streets. They also emphasize that the street is part of the development area, a place where the buildings interact with the public realm, through which people travel via different modes. The primary address streets are a higher level of street, similar to collector streets, which are intended to connect different neighborhoods to provide a higher visibility front door to development within the corridor. The neighborhood address streets do not receive a high volume of traffic; they serve local destinations. A new term within the BSC code is "principal frontage street," which recognizes that certain streets receive priority in establishing a pedestrian - friendly Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 2 of 6 streetscape. With pedestrian - friendly streets, there are designations concerning how buildings are located in relationship to the street and how vehicle access within the block is permitted. Within the BSC corridor, the various districts have different maximum block sizes. The intent is to ensure that all the blocks in this new street network are walkable with multiple safe crossing points. For example, in the BSC residential district, the maximum block size is 425 feet x 300 feet. A 425 -foot block length is approximately a two - minute walk. Vehicle access into blocks must be through rear alleys, service streets, and private driveways. Blocks cannot be located off the principal frontage streets. For blocks longer than 425 feet, mid -block pedestrian ways are required. Different building types in the BSC residential district include: apartment buildings, single - family attached, and loft buildings. All lots must have street frontage. The Code establishes the concept of a required building zone. Unlike the typical minimum building setback, residential building zone (RBZ) states that the front fagade must be located five to 20 feet from the front property line. The purpose of this is to reinforce the character of the street, and begin to create a street "wall' -- not of continuous buildings per se, but to create a frame for the pedestrian realm — avoiding vast, open areas. Parking cannot be located between the front door and the public sidewalk. The building type requirements establish a minimum distance across the front property line that each building must cover. For instance, with an apartment building, 75 percent of the front property line must have a building fagade. A front courtyard could meet that requirement. Generally, the BSC code requires parking to the side or rear of the buildings. For some commercial areas, parking along the street would be permitted. There would also be vehicular use area landscape requirements appropriate for urban areas. The BSC code contains specific parking landscape requirements, which could include alternative stormwater management as part of the parking lot design. On- street parking is an integral part of the BSC street types. It will provide additional parking, slow vehicle movement, and serve as a barrier between pedestrians and the street. Open Space Requirements in Residential Districts Every dwelling unit is required to provide 200 square feet of open space. Every 50 square feet of commercial development must provide one square foot of open space. All development must contribute to the open space requirements within the BS corridor. An apartment building with 36 dwelling units would therefore require over 1 /10 acre, which would require a pocket park open space. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the Parks Master Plan did not contemplate requirements for the BS corridor. Mr. Goodwin stated that it would be reviewed to ensure that it provides sufficient spaces in response to the BSC vision plan. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she envisions a different type of park within densely created areas. Perhaps the terminology should be updated. For this type of area, it appears to be a landscape engagement with the building. She would not call that a park. Mr. Goodwin responded that the term "pocket park" can mean many different things. In the latest Code version, a pocket plaza for commercial areas is also included. The streetscape treatment can also provide open space. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that initially the concept was to have immediate engagement with open space, even in walking to your car. Mr. Keenan noted that in Savannah, there are many squares surrounded by many types of buildings all around, and that is engaging. The BSC concept is almost the opposite in terms of the engagement with the landscape and the topography. Is the Savannah concept not possible here, due to the economy? Mr. Goodwin stated that there is a limit in the illustration he has provided. What Mr. Keenan describes is actually what this code is intended to achieve. With this illustration, he was attempting to address the relationship of size to the number of dwelling units being developed. Mr. Langworthy stated that the BSC code deals with 1,100 acres in a wide range of environments. There will be a wide range of different spaces within the corridor, beginning at the street and moving on to larger parks. Some of the spaces will be public; some will be private. Mayor Lecklider asked how a private developer would provide a required open space, if the space is not available on his lot. Mr. Goodwin stated that the size and timing of individual developments will have an impact on how open space is provided. Either the developer would need to acquire more land or pay a fee in lieu. The development could therefore occur and the open space would be provided at a later time in coordination with other development. In larger development plans, it is possible to plan that open space earlier in the process. An entire block could potentially become an open space, surrounded by buildings. Mr. Langworthy noted that the Code requires that larger parcels be divided into smaller, walkable blocks. When they subdivide the property, one of the blocks could be set aside as open space. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Building Architectural Requirements Mr. Reiner stated that a developer shared with him a concern that the City was taking a major risk by not establishing an architectural style for this area. He is concerned that the requirements have been written sufficiently tight to achieve a unified look for the area. Ms. Ray stated that she would address the intended form and character of the buildings, and how the Code requirements will ensure the expected Dublin quality is achieved, while at the same time allowing for creativity and diversity on the part of architects. Mixed -Use Buildings A building type permitted in many of the districts in the BSC corridor is the mixed -use building. There are several key requirements of this building type. The BSC form - based code differs from the traditional code in respect to building height. In the BSC code, height is measured by the number of stories per building with specified floor -to- floor heights. A mixed -use building is required to be at least two stories and a maximum of five stories. When a building is located in a high pedestrian activity area, the ground - floor height is permitted to be slightly taller than the other stories to accommodate commercial uses. Because ground -floor commercial uses are anticipated in mixed -use buildings, there must be opportunities for window shopping and other ways to create an interesting pedestrian experience. The BSC code has a ground -story street facade transparency requirement that requires glass to make up at least 70 percent of the area of highest pedestrian visibility, between two and eight feet above the sidewalk. The upper stories have lower transparency requirements due to the more private nature of the uses on those floors, such as office or residential. A minimum of 30 percent transparency is required. The Code prohibits large expanses of blank building facades. The required building mass is broken down in order to provide comfort to the pedestrians. In addition, vertical facade divisions are required a minimum of every 45 feet along the building facade. That is achieved through recesses and projections a minimum of 18 inches along the facade. The height of the building appearance is brought down by requiring a more horizontal facade division, which can also be created by recesses and projections, or a cornice or brick course at the top of the ground story. The roof planes are divided to coordinate with the vertical facade divisions. Entrances to the buildings are required along the principal frontage street. This will help achieve the active, vibrant streetscape desired. Certain architectural features on building entrances are also required to provide emphasis. In summary, very specific architectural elements are required to help ensure that buildings are constructed with careful detailing and scaled to the pedestrian level. That is a fundamental element of the form -based code — bringing the mass of the building down to a pedestrian scale. Building Materials and Windows Another critical element to the pedestrian environment is building material. The buildings are meant to be experienced "up close and personal' and therefore, high Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 5 of 6 quality materials are necessary. The BSC code requires that at least 80 percent of the building be made up of primary building materials, specific for each building type. Up to 20 percent may be of a secondary material, which will allow accents to give a building character. Windows are also critical to have buildings of enduring quality and character. In residential buildings, flush- mounted windows will be prohibited. This will create shadow lines that help to depict depth and thickness to the buildings, giving an impression of both age and endurance. The overall design parameters for the Bridge Street Corridor buildings are intended to create buildings of the lasting, high - quality character that is expected in Dublin, but also allow design flexibility for architects to create buildings that are interesting. Mr. Gerber stated that during planned development reviews, Dublin has traditionally asked one final question: "Does the building aesthetically fit with the surrounding area ?" Will there be that type of "catch all" provision in the BSC code? Mr. Langworthy that the review criteria for the site plan and development plan provide for taking in account the surrounding environment. In regard to Mr. Reiner's comment concerning an architectural theme — none has been defined. There are 1,100 acres and a wide range of activities throughout this corridor. It may be that themes are developed along the way in different subareas of the corridor. For example, the Historic Dublin theme is not desired throughout the entire corridor. It is important that a building fit within the environment of its subarea, not the entire corridor. At this point, the design details appear specific, yet there are many ways in which to accomplish them. A uniform look is not desired throughout the entire corridor. Mayor Lecklider agreed that unique areas -- not the same from block to block -- are much more interesting. Mr. Langworthy stated that the BSC code also provides the ability for the Administrative Review Team (ART) to have architectural consultants. This will provide staff an outside viewpoint on how one style of architecture fits with another and how to create statements in different locations. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Short North provides an attractive visual example of architectural variety from block to block. Mr. Reiner stated that he recently returned from Europe, where he had an opportunity to tour approximately 20 neighborhoods -- some by bus, some by foot. They were interesting, built in different time periods with different architectural styles. He noticed that, although there were variations in architecture, all the neighborhoods were tied together with street trees. Dublin City Council Study Session September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Langworthy responded that the streets will be included in the design process, along with the lots, blocks and buildings. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is familiar with the building in Grandview that was provided in the presentation as a visual example. However, there is also a building on Tremont in Upper Arlington that she finds overpowering when driving by, and assumes that it is particularly overpowering for passing pedestrians. What is provided in the BSC code that will prevent that type of building design? Ms. Ray responded that the second building she references is residential condominiums and it stands out in stark relief next to adjacent single - family buildings. In the BSC area, building heights within the same district must have a relationship to one another, particularly if there is an adjacent development that is not within the BSC. Much of the BSC corridor is constructed near I -270, but there will be some instances in which there will be a non - Bridge Street Corridor lot next to a Bridge Street Corridor lot. The height requirements in the code will help address those situations. Mr. Keenan asked about the setback on the building on Tremont in Upper Arlington, which was mentioned. It seems to be much less than that of the Grandview building -- perhaps that is the problem. Ms. Ray stated that one building also has landscaping along the frontage. The building on Tremont does not have much transparency along the ground floor. Having transparency and breaking up the mass of a building make it more comfortable to pedestrians. Mayor Lecklider thanked staff for the presentation. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Clerk of Council CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614 - 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us RECORD OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan Character District Elements Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning presented an update on the special features and critical development characteristics within the seven character districts of the Bridge Street Corridor which have been identified over the last several months by City Council, Board and Commission members, and staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission had an informal discussion regarding the various topics and challenges provided, which included development, land use connections, architectural, transportation, street, open space, aesthetics, and environmental characteristics. STAFF CERTIFICATION S�- Steve Langworthy Director of Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 1 of 13 1. Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan Character District Elements Informal Discussion Chair Amorose Groomes introduced the Bridge Street Corridor informal discussion regarding the special features and critical development characteristics desired within the Bridge Street Corridor which include development, land use connections, architectural, transportation, and street, open space, aesthetics and environmental characteristics. Steve Langworthy explained the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) has been divided through the Vision Plan into Corridor Character Districts. He said since the Vision Report came out, there have been various meetings, open houses, discussions with property owners, Joint Work Sessions with City Council, and discussions at the Commission meetings and at City Council meetings about various aspects of the corridor. He said the results of these meetings and discussions have been organized by each of the character districts. He said tonight he would describe some of the major elements within each of the districts. Mr. Langworthy said at the end of this discussion, that he would provide the Commissioners with information to study for another discussion later. Mr. Langworthy highlighted a few of the major character elements of the districts. Character District 1: Bridge Street Gateway District Mr. Langworthy presented a map showing this area. He said issues described for this district were the natural and aesthetic character of the Indian Run. He said one of the major elements is the greenway connections across the OCLC property. He explained there had been discussions with OCLC before the Vision Report about greenway connections across their property and they have been amenable to it. He said staff has been working with OCLC in their planning efforts to incorporate the greenway connections along that portion of the Indian Run. Mr. Langworthy said another important element was how to transition from a purely suburban character to more of an urban character. Mr. Langworthy said from the beginning there has been the concept of how to transition from the highway traffic speed element down into the pedestrian -scale environment into Historic Dublin. He said this district begins the transition out of that character into the other. He said we need to be careful how the street is designed and how the buildings are built up to the street and how we begin to transition that character. Mr. Langworthy said the other part of it is the redevelopment of Post Road. He said as it exists, it has some inconveniently shaped properties affected by the Corridor Stream Protection Zone of the Indian Run. Mr. Langworthy said the planning challenges are: is Post Road going to be realigned and how to cross the Indian Run. He said there are multiple options. He said the biggest problem is the resolution of the Frantz Road and Post Road /Bridge Street intersections. He said if Post Road were aligned north of the Indian Run, then it opens up the properties and provides the area with more cohesive development potential. Mr. Langworthy said the relationship of Post Road to the Indian Run is important both in the crossing and how development backs up to and how we use the Indian Run. He reiterated the biggest issue is the resolution of the Frantz Road /Bridge Street intersection with the left hand movement from Metro Center and Blazer Parkway offices getting to I -270. Mr. Langworthy said numerous options for solutions have been discussed, and the redesign of the I -270 interchange also has an impact. Character District 2: Indian Run Mr. Langworthy explained the same issues exist in the Indian Run District regarding how to treat the natural and aesthetic character of the Indian Run as in the previous Bridge Street Gateway District. He said there are green way connections, working with OCLC, the existing greenway along the Indian Run, and greenway corridor along I -270. Mr. Langworthy said another important aspect is how or do we connect, and how to get from one district to the other, such as how to get out of the Gateway Bridge Street District into the Indian Run District, then out of the Indian Run into the next district. He said OCLC and the Vision Plan show a connection across the Indian Run to connect with areas through Historic Dublin and the anticipated gridded street. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 13 Mr. Langworthy said the high visibility areas along I -270 and the uses are another aspect to consider for this District. He said existing corporate entities such as Cardinal Health anticipate building significant structures. Mr. Langworthy said the planning challenges are how a highly- urbanized character transitions out into a quaint' historic character and how the residential areas are maintained. He mentioned the Post Road realignment and the Indian Run crossing continue to be a challenge in this District. Mr. Langworthy said fiscal analysis is another important factor and becomes a very delicate balance between what the City and what the developers need to do and how it gets paid for when it comes to structures, parking, bridges, roads, and utilities. He said fiscal analysis is mentioned multiple times throughout the presentation and should be completed shortly to provide a better idea of how the larger capital improvements are funded and by whom. Character District 3: Historic District Mr. Langworthy said transitioning from the modern into the Historic District and integrating new development that complements the existing Historic Core is important. He said if at any time the school site should choose to be available for redevelopment, the question is how do we transition from and utilize the street pattern and the building pattern that exists in Historic Dublin from the school site to the Indian Run District. He said the pedestrian environment also needs to be improved. He said a big issue was how we do cross Bridge Street, as it is seen as a psychological barrier within the Historic District. He said improvements have begun. Mr. Langworthy said another important aspect is civic space and how new civic space is integrated in Historic Dublin to complement existing uses and activities. Mr. Langworthy said access to the Scioto River is needed. He said it has to be determined what is meant by access,' because at different points it will likely mean different things. He said some areas of the river are inaccessible due to cliffs and topography. Mr. Langworthy said some of the challenges were locations of pedestrian /vehicle crossings and how they will function and work. He said that was also very important in the parking situation in Historic Dublin and where people can park and walk to their destination. Character District 4 Riverside District Mr. Langworthy said the greenways and civic spaces that were shown are more organized because they have to be constructed' and planned since the natural features that occur like in Indian Run do not exist. Mr. Langworthy said regarding connectivity across the Scioto River, in the Nelson /Nygaard study, four new bridges were offered, but realistically four were probably not needed, but it was likely that at least one and maybe two would be needed. He indicated on a map where a new bridge could be built and where a pedestrian connection could logically be located. Mr. Langworthy said in this district, they will be transitioning from office to residential and residential - related uses. Dana McDaniel reiterated the Nelson /Nygaard model determined one bridge would be sufficient, but additional bridge(s) would create better connections. He said the additional crossings are beneficial, but not a requirement to make the system work. Mr. McDaniel said the City would reserve the right to provide additional crossings if and when opportunities present themselves. Amy Kramb asked for clarification about the areas and connections included in the traffic analysis. Mr. Langworthy explained the Nelson /Nygaard study assumes 40 percent of the trips would be captured within the Bridge Street Corridor by either transit trips or inner - district trips within the Corridor, not move outside the Corridor. He said the results show the City could function with one bridge because 40 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 3 of 13 percent of the pedestrian, bike, or transit traffic is captured, which significantly reduces the need for new bridges. He pointed out that during the interim period, until you reach the 40 percent capture, it creates a potential problem and may require additional bridges and connections to accommodate the increased traffic. Ms. Kramb asked for the level of service from Dale Drive to SR 161 with the added connections. Mr. Langworthy said he would have to check the available data. He said it actually worked better to have the cross streets because it diffuses traffic and all the traffic is not concentrated on one or two streets. Mr. McDaniel recalled in Nelson /Nygaard's presentation, the data and modeling were shown validating Mr. Langworthy's description. He said Ms. Kramb could meet also with Jeannie Willis to discuss the model. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that traffic movement in this corridor was different than what the city is used to doing. He said it takes a while to get through the corridor and depending on the level and type of development, some of these streets will you will not be traveling 35 mph. He said it was an urban environment as opposed to the suburban model that we are used to having. He said it would be a different character that will look, feel, and drive differently. Mr. Langworthy said the development relationship with the Scioto River was also important. He said that we will look at what happens to Riverside Drive, what the character of it is, whether or not it is relocated to capture additional green space along the river. He said another key element was the intersection of Riverside Drive and SR 161 and how it gets reconfigured. Warren Fishman asked if staff were going to gain input from Dublin residents about the different traffic patterns and congestion. Mr. Langworthy said the feedback received from the open houses and workshops is residents are interested in seeing this kind of development in this corridor. He said there was a clear understanding that it is going to be a different part of Dublin. He pointed out they were not only planning for residents today, but the generation of people who want to live here 10 -30 years in the future and the kind of living environment they will want as well. He said residents will still have a suburban choice like Muirfield or Ballantrae. He said the Bridge Street Corridor was only 6 percent of Dublin and the other 94 percent of Dublin will be as it is today, unless a future Council decides to do something different. Mr. Fishman said everyone will be affected who drives SR 161. He said he heard at those public meetings people are stressed about existing parking and traffic in Historic Dublin, but he thought it was wonderful. He said at meetings he is often asked why it is so congested and when is there going to be a parking garage. Mr. Fishman said he wondered what kind of feedback they were getting from the Dublin residents. Mr. McDaniel said the challenge with Historic Dublin has been they are trying to retrofit an existing area with a number of constraints. He said the City continues adding parking and working toward solutions within the District. He said when making an investment like a parking garage, we want to make sure it is done in the right place. Mr. McDaniel pointed out when you look at the Bridge Street Corridor as a whole you have a greater opportunity to address more situations than you do when you look at Historic Dublin on an individual basis. John Hardt said he did not agree with everything the consultants had done, but one thing he did agree was that a dense street grid as shown does not equate to congestion. He said it provides distribution. He said the cars get spread over multiple smaller streets instead of one major street. Mr. Langworthy agreed and said it would be a higher density of traffic because there would be a higher density of use, but the proposed grid gives multiple streets to reach the same destination. Mr. Hardt said in that philosophy, count him as one that believes all the bridges are needed, and that is why. He said he was not sure that he subscribed to the fact that one bridge was enough if you have the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 4 of 13 proposed development on both sides of the river and then everyone gets put through a funnel to cross the river. Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Mr. Hardt. He said he liked the additional connections, but he was asking is this what Dublin residents want. Mr. Hardt said in Woodlands, Texas they have a manmade canal running through the commercial area with restaurants, bars, and condominiums on both sides, and a span of the canal has six bridge crossings. He said he visited it and there is a certain feel to it he thought the City would like to achieve. He said if you are walking around and you see a restaurant on the other side of the canal, getting across the canal is easy and you do not think twice about it. Mr. Hardt said to get the kind of environment that we are after, that is what we have to have. Todd Zimmerman mentioned a similar span in San Antonio at the River Walk. Character District S. Dublin- Granui0e Road Mr. Langworthy said Dublin- Granville Road to him is probably the most challenging area. He said establishing the gridded street network is almost entirely new and they have to work around existing development. He said the Greystone Mews development complicates how a gridded street system is established because it interrupts the grid and it is too new to think it is going to go anywhere soon. He said the gridded street system is going to be a difficult factor, but it is one we can work through. Mr. Langworthy said this area has office development and will have commercial anchors. He said there is a commercial node at the other end at SR 161 and Sawmill Road. Mr. Langworthy said this area has been discussed more than any other single area in the District. He said there is a lot of exciting redevelopment potential in this area. Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed concern about the predictions the consultants make regarding how successful the development of this corridor is going to be and the pent -up demand. She said she did not know and she is concerned that the consultants are equally as likely to be correct than wrong. She asked if we were trying to do too big of an area all at once rather than to do from just east of Riverside Drive to I -270 and if it is wildly successful then expand to the larger area. Mr. Langworthy said it was a fair point. He said one of the things to be remembered is this corridor will be market - driven. Ms. Amorose Groomes said imposing a new code on our residents may be viewed as an imposition. She said she was wondering if we are going to be as successful as the consultants think and if that is the case she would think a line would be forming outside the door, knocking wanting to come in and develop. She said that doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. McDaniel said he had spoken to quite a few owners and there are some who are unsure about how the proposed code impacts the significant investments they have in their existing property. He said therefore, when we began talking about the rezoning and the code, they got nervous, because they are concerned about their future and how the proposed changes may impact the success of their businesses. He said the key became how can we bridge you to the future and provide an opportunity to redevelop or change in the future if they desire it. He said we have talked to companies about what they desire in the future, without saying anything to them about Bridge Street, and the concepts they want are everything the Bridge Street Corridor offers. He said these businesses want to be able to have a campus that recruits and retains the next generation worker. He said so much so, that they are willing to leave an existing campus to create a whole new dynamic environment. Mr. McDaniel said that he found in talking to residential builders, they were very excited about the opportunity. He said there is truly pent up demand that has wanted to be in Dublin for a long time. Mr. McDaniel said there was a study validating the residential piece, which states retail and commercial will Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 5 of 13 come slower because of the market. He said if we get the residential, the other uses will follow, meaning residential may have to take the lead to make this successful. Ms. Kramb asked if big places like OCLC, Dublin Village Center, and Wendy's would prefer this new Code over a PUD. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the people she had talked to wanted to be part of the PUD process and come to the table to work through the process. Ms. Kramb asked what makes the Code better or more encouraging to those people rather than the PUD process. Mr. McDaniel said predictability and speed are all he ever hears from site consultants or developers. He said they liked the concept of the Code for predictability purposes. He said there were companies who have an existing PUD they fought hard for and got approved and they would like to stay with that model. He said however, there are others who would like the option to have the Bridge Street Code process. Mr. McDaniel said it was a mixed bag. He said he has heard both, but he thought the ones that wanted to advocate for a PUD are the ones that already have it and do not want to lose their approved text and plans. Ms. Kramb said developers are familiar with the PUD process and to them it was not cumbersome and to them it is predictable. She said this new Code is not predictable. Mr. Hardt said at the Open Space Workshop there was a lot of discussion and an amazing amount of consensus about people interested in the possibility of relocating Riverside Drive. He said he understood there were political and financial implications, but the over - riding concept he thought most people had in their minds was the notion of creating a large public gathering space, a green space, a park along the river. He said he was among those that thought this was an obvious solution. Mr. Hardt said since then, it occurred to him that one of the challenges they have been struggling with in the BSC and the City in is how to make the river an amenity and something to draw people to rather than an obstacle that is to be overcome. He said one of the ways to do that is by making that small section of riverfront between SR 161 and I -270 special by making it a gathering place that you cannot find anywhere else in the near area. He said he realized there is green space all the way from Griggs Reservoir up to SR 42, and one possibility for this small piece would be to do a 180 degree opposite of what has been discussed, and that is build it — build down to the waterfront, put restaurants, shops, patios, and things like that down on the river and draw people to it that way. Mr. Hardt asked if that had been thought about. Mr. Langworthy said three different options and two variations of one of them have been discussed. He said one option, 'the development option' where we have more or less of promenade with development which would be kind of the Greenville model, which meant not too much would need to be done with Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy said the second option is what was shown on the screen, which was to capture the larger green area. He said some of the details were on the handout. He said our pedestrian bridge, making both landing points attractive so that people would cross the river and have something on the other side that would be attractive. Mr. Langworthy said a variation in the larger green space is to do both, development and green space with a dog park, an event field, or an amphitheater. He said they have calculated on the alignment of up to seven football fields worth of area available there. He said they are looking at all those options, and the development option is one that they are studying. Mr. Hardt said the development option is becoming more intriguing to him the more he thinks about it. He said as nice as green space is, we have a lot of it, and dog parks and all those kinds of things and amphitheatres exist or can exist in other parts of the City, including Coffman Park. He said if the goal is for something truly unique, he thought most Dublin residents would enjoy being able to sit on a patio and Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 13 have a drink on the riverfront, as opposed to in a building that just happens to be in the vicinity of the river. Mr. Langworthy said those were options they have to provide City Council to review and decide. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Mr. Langworthy to continue his presentation. Mr. Langworthy said with the development that could eventually take place in this district, one of the things we are looking at is the different varieties of open space. He said we tend to think of open space as parks and big green areas, but open spaces are also plazas and squares, and places where pedestrians sit, walk, and communicate. He said all of those options will be available in this district from green space down to the small spaces that are more intimate in nature. He said challenges include a huge power line easement that divides the area that we will have to use some creative solutions. Mr. McDaniel said he would like to hear the Commission's thoughts on the greenways, green spaces connections because he thought he heard there is not enough green space in this plan. He said when he saw the plans there was a lot of green and he wanted to be sure he heard and understood the Commission's concerns. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was no argument they want good pedestrian, bicycle and automotive connectivity. She said when Mr. McDaniel heard the Commissioners say a green space — they probably are misspeaking and they probably would be better served to use the term public space.' She said it had been amazing to see since Mezzo has opened, the number of people standing on the corner. She said the corner is not a desirable corner because it was busy, loud, and hard with no green buffering, or trees on the street. She said if it was a more desirable location imagine how many people would be there. Ms. Kramb agreed and added the word useable' in front of public space because on many of the maps there is green fluffy areas that will never be used, such as a detention pond. She said she did not want to see green visual connections. She said she wanted a few key usable public spaces. Mr. Langworthy agreed. Mr. McDaniel thanked Ms. Kramb for her comment. Mr. Hardt said his comments at the Joint Work Session were misunderstood. He said the reaction from consultants was to give an example of Dublin Village Center when it is redeveloped perhaps there might be some town square or some kind of element as part of that redevelopment, and they argued that the developers ought to have the latitude to be able to figure out that goes and how it fits into their development. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with that. He said it was never his intent in the comments he made here or in the Joint Work Session to imply they should try to micro manage the location of every speck of green. Mr. Hardt said what he was after and he thought was missing from the overall effort was the large public spaces that are going to be actively used by the City for community events and public gathering spaces. He said it was important for the City to identify desirable locations for those and put a stake in the ground early. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they should believe in themselves enough to go out there and get it. She said the Nelson /Nygaard representative opened his comments for the evening talking about the great public spaces in the world and how the cities went out and made the places happen. She said he closed the meeting telling them that they should not do that, and that was really confusing to her. Mr. McDaniel said his interpretation of the comments were if the City has a great amenity or locations, like the riverfront, that opportunity could slip through our hands very quickly. He said those opportunities were far and few in between, and you have to grab them when we are able, and the City has done a great job of grabbing those opportunities for generations. He said he did not see us doing anything any different with the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. McDaniel suggested if they had an idea of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 7 of 13 where those opportunities are, to circle a map and give it to the staff. He wanted to make sure the staff was hearing and capturing it. Mr. Hardt said part of the criticism is the Open Space Workshop resulted in all these ideas, and subsequent to this, the Vision Plan Map has not been amended. He said he had asked for a version 2.0 of the map because collectively, they have learned a lot since the Vision was published. He said there have been a lot of conversations and input from the Open Space Workshop and other conversations that should be included. He said he thought the time was right to take all that collective wisdom and put it into a new version of the map so it reflects the thoughts and conversations that have happened. He said that was part of the reason for the Commission's reaction, is they see all these ideas that came out of the conversations in March of this year, yet they still have a year -old map that does not reflect these ideas. Mr. McDaniel said we are trying to get there. Character District 6: TuiierlGreenway District Mr. Langworthy said this district is primarily residential in nature and where we expect a large part of the residential development to take place. He said we want to make sure that there are clear, well- defined neighborhoods that are not isolated. He said we want them to have connections to each, either through green space, pedestrian, or some other way so the neighborhoods do not develop in an isolated manner and turn their backs on each other. He said that is one of the aspects the Code requires, as well. He said this area would be concentrated for a lot of the high density residential, 35 to 40 units per acre. Mr. Hardt said this subarea is primarily residential, and immediately north of this area on the other side of I -270 is a planned extension of Emerald Parkway that presumably will have major office buildings and major employers. He said having a dense residential area and major employers and no way to get from one side to the other seemed short- sided. Mr. Hardt said he was asking for an arrow on the map showing that the City wanted to see a connection happen when the area develops. He said this would ensure developers know it was thought about and planned, and should be incorporated when development happens, as opposed to getting ourselves in a situation where we decide 20 years later this connection would be beneficial and have to retroactively account for it and construct it. Mr. McDaniel said he loved the idea because as he has been marketing properties along Emerald Phase VIII he discusses the great potential of the livability and walkability within the Bridge Street Corridor, and Mr. Hardt suggestion would add to the vision. He agreed drawing an arrow or a cloud showing a future connection was appropriate. He said he agreed with Mr. Hardt 100 percent. Mr. Hardt explained he had the same concerns regarding crossing the river because possible connections are shown and he was not sure it was actually possible to build those connections. He said they collectively need to think through what we would like to see happen in the future so opportunities are not missed. Mr. Langworthy agreed. He said they investigated the ODOT rules for a connection in the area Emerald Parkway, Phase 8 and ODOT does not care as long as the City does not want an exit ramp and is not affecting I -270 traffic. He said the only hesitancy he had was that City Council was pretty clear about staying within the defined boundaries for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said he thought if they had some support for it from the Commission or others this connection could be shown. Mr. Hardt said at least 50 percent of his criticism' for lack of a better word, is coming up with this amazing plan for the Bridge Street Corridor and stopping at the boundary and not thinking about how it connects to the rest of the City. He said that approach does not do the city any good. He said if we do not have a way to get from the neighborhoods into and out of this corridor, let alone move around in the zone in the Corridor, all the plans will be for naught. Mr. Langworthy agreed with Mr. Hardt's point. Mr. McDaniel said he could not agree more Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 8 of 13 Mr. Langworthy said the development character in these areas against I -270 is constrained and we have to be aware how that development character works, because it is another area of high visibility. He said the other aspect that is important in coming out of this district and through the Riverside District is how it crosses the river. He said the character is affected by the bridge crossings because, as Mr. Hardt mentioned earlier, the bridges become the funnels, and impact traffic movements. He said the number of bridge crossings has a big affect on the character of the roadways and the types of roads and streets used through the area. Mr. Langworthy said defining the neighborhoods without isolating them is a planning challenge for this district, as well as, continuing the grid street network, and providing connections to the east are two more important aspects. Character District 7 — Sawmill District Mr. Langworthy said in this district, he would like to see the name, Dublin Village Center stop being used because he thought it had a bad connotation. He said the issue in this district is going to be creating the blocks and lot connections we need, both with the street connections and the open space connections. He said the open space connections will probably shift to more of a greenway down to hardscape and then integrate themselves into the development that occurs in the Sawmill District. He said they expect this area to be an urban core with a high density of uses. Mr. Langworthy presented an early view of a drawing provided by the Stavroffs about how they expect development to occur. He said they have been studying it with the Stavroffs as to how we can make it work. He said they began to put the block and lot descriptions that more or less came close to what the code requires. Mr. Langworthy said they expect this to be an area of a more contemporary design, different looking than the buildings they've seen in the past. He said one of the planning challenging efforts is balancing a hardscape and greenscape. He said the developer has been looking at the potential of a long greenway boulevard running through the center. He said other challenges include how Dublin Village Center relates to the other districts, how they get connectivity into and out of the district, and connections into and traffic through this area. Character District 8 — Scioto River Mr. Langworthy said they previously discussed the park area along Riverside Drive and how it might occur. He said they were also very concerned about making sure they protect the existing neighborhoods, such as the Indian Run Estates. He said preserving the unique character of the Scioto River is important and determining what access' means, and what are we going to do for connectivity across the river needs to be decided, such as what we are going to do for bridges, pedestrian crossings. He said the questions are how we are going to integrate the river and use it to connect the two sides, instead of using it as a barrier. Mr. Langworthy said as we talked about earlier the number and location of the bridge connections, how the park is programmed, whether it is a developed area or a green space; how it is programmed, and the public contribution are key components. Mr. Langworthy said this was a list of overriding issues that begin to paint a picture of ideas and challenges within the Corridor, which is important because it helps define how we connect and transition between the various districts so they do not appear to be separate, but are blended to work together and appear as one. Mr. Langworthy it could be done by using the greenway connections throughout the Corridor. He said how they program the open space and the character and variety of those open spaces are important. He said even the small intimate squares are just as valuable as an event field. Mr. Langworthy said sensitivity to our river and natural features such as the Indian Run, how we get the transportation network alignment in place, what we going to do and how are we going to contribute to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 13 making this corridor a success and be fiscally responsible at the same time are major themes and challenges. Mr. McDaniel said tonight's presentation was meant to reaffirm the issues that have been identified throughout the Bridge Street Corridor process. He said we looked at how the connections between these districts take place, the greenway connections, the open space character and programming. Mr. McDaniel said we are sensitive to river's natural features and how you interact with the river corridor so it is an amenity and draws people to it. He said he gave staff the challenge to take a hard look at Greenville as an example and how they have positioned commercial, relative to the river. Mr. McDaniel said regarding the transportation alignment, the grid has been laid out and modeled. He said the consultants identified several key public contributions we would need to make for infrastructure. Mr. McDaniel said he wanted to make sure they were not leaving the Commission with the feeling that there are more questions than answers. He said it was the opposite, in that we have a lot more answers than questions. Mr. Hardt said using the river as an example, there are a couple of different scenarios being explored for how the riverfront might be developed and as those are being evaluated, presumably the City's collective wisdom will land on a preferred option. He asked where in all of this does that get decided. He asked where is it documented and how does it fit. Mr. Hardt said the only thing that they have gotten to look at is a Code, which tells him what the building needs to look like that is built across the street. He asked how the City's overall intentions were laid out, who is participating, and how does that process work in terms of figuring out what the best of those options are. Mr. McDaniel explained when the City expresses and interest in purchasing any tract of land, there is a process to interact with City Council and get their guidance or direction to secure an interest and enter into discussions with the landholder to determine a way to acquire a particular property. Amy Kramb said she appreciated the summary before Mr. Hardt's question because as they were watching the presentation, 99 percent of it the Commission had seen, many times. She said she would be interested in hearing the next steps, such as list of the improvements the staff is moving toward. Ms. Kramb asked what the next step might be. She asked if the vision plan would be revised to show the issues and challenges identified during the presentation. She asked what was being asked of the Commission. Mr. Langworthy explained this is an evolving process. He distributed the detailed version that the summary was based on to the Commissioners. He said he wanted them to look at the list and compare it to the Vision Plan and identify anything they think was missed. He stated Planning wanted to ensure all the issues have been identified if the Version 2.0 process happens. He requested the Commissioners make notes and provide them to Planning. Mr. McDaniel said he and Planning understood the direction from City Council at the Joint Work Session to include three main items. He said the first item was to continue to review the Code and get to a final draft. He said the second item was to garner more feedback or insight into these districts, which includes drilling down into the districts, which may include open houses or another joint work session. He said the third item of direction was to define the role of the Commission relative to the Bridge Street Code. Mr. McDaniel said this presentation tonight was an attempt to keep the dialog going with the Commission on his second point, which was these districts. Mr. McDaniel said he it was incumbent upon the Commission and staff to move forward and continue feeding solutions and ideas back to City Council. Ms. Kramb asked if Mr. McDaniel envisioned taking this gigantic list and coming up with the top five things that the City is actually going to do to move this forward, or were they just going to keep compiling lists of what they want to do. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said staff was asking the Commission whether there were other issues or topics that have not been covered regarding the districts, or whether the Commission was done and had no more input to provide regarding the districts, and the detailed list included what they would like to see in the districts. He said staff kept raising the issue because they have to get this to fruition and make sure that they have everyone's final say. Mr. McDaniel said that was what they need to start driving towards. Ms. Kramb asked what would be the next step. Mr. Langworthy said whether or not they do a Version 2.0, the issues and challenges provided will be used in our discussions with the individual property owners about what we are looking for when development is considered in a particular area. He said staff wanted to make sure they have a complete list of all the things the Commission and City Council feel important so they can go to the development community and lay out the items in front of them and say these are the things we are looking for when you consider your private development. Mr. McDaniel said Version 2.0 could drive towards that end, so if they needed to come back to the Commission with a multiple versions to get to 2.0, they will keep bringing that back to the Commission so we can collectively take Version 2.0 back to City Council and tell them we have done what was asked and this is the vision. Ms. Kramb said she thought was necessary. She said a new, more detailed vision plan is necessary to show the work that has been done, because the new Code will reference the Vision Plan, and we do not have a revised Vision Plan to support it. She clarified she was talking about the map within the Vision Plan. Mr. McDaniel said it seemed productive to take a map of each district and identity the critical items in each district. Richard Taylor said they had been there. He said it had been three years and the Commission has been saying the exact same thing, over and over and over. He said specifically, they have been saying 'big gathering space in the center of Dublin; and tonight they were hearing 'do you want a space or do you not want a space ... is that important, or is it not important', He said the Commission has been really clear about this topic and other topics for three years. He said for the past year, they have heard nothing new and he did not know why. Mr. McDaniel asked when they said they want a big space in Historic Dublin, the questions are where is it, what does it look like, and what do you want. He said big space in Historic Dublin does not mean anything to him. Mr. Taylor pointed out there were consultants and 19 people in the Planning department. He said the Commission's job was to review this, but not design this. He said the Commission was being asked what they wanted and he thought they could not have been clearer. He said he came across an email he received from Greg Dale in January when he was interviewed for an hour in Council Chambers. He said he laughed because there were ten things Mr. Dale listed, and they were the exact same things he was being asked tonight. He apologized for getting upset. Mr. Taylor recalled when the last Joint Work Session was set, the charge was extraordinarily clear that City Council and the Commission were to bring to that meeting what they thought was important to include in the Vision Plan. He said the Commission brought four things they worked a great deal of time on and City Council brought zero. He said the Commission had done their part and was waiting for everyone else to do their part. Mr. Taylor said the Commission wants to see a true vision plan and they do not like the one they have because they do not think there is any vision in it. He said there is no vision in the Vision Plan and the Commission has said that over and over. He said that he talked to Don Elliot and David Dixon after the Joint Work Session and told them the Commission was asking to identify the big items. He said they Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 11 of 13 want to hear the City is going to have a big park, and let's not talk about whether it is a developed or undeveloped park or whether we are moving Riverside Drive or not. He said the Commission wants to see that the City is committed to making a park at the river, to turning SR 161 into a boulevard, to putting City Hall downtown, etc. He said all they ever keep hearing is what are your ideas.' He said the Commissioners have given their ideas and they were looking for some action. Mr. McDaniel said he heard Mr. Taylor loud and clear and he accept that he had all of the Commissioners' input and they were done collecting. Mr. Taylor said they were waiting on the 2.0 Version. He referred to his long email to Mr. McDaniel a couple of months ago where he very clearly said until they had a new Vision Plan that addresses these things, he cannot support any more of this stuff, and he had not changed his opinion on that. Mr. McDaniel said they could report that back to City Council that until there was the 2.0 Version, the Commission was done. He said they would take what they had and make sure that City Council understood that and if City Council wanted a Version 2.0 that is what they will be given when they tell him to do that. Mr. Taylor said all he could tell Mr. McDaniel was what this Commission has said. He said he did not get anything out of exploring the details of this until they know what we are applying it to. Ms. Amorose Groomes said perhaps part of what is being asked of the Commission is to create a vision plan in a written format, but the Commission is more interested in a vision plan in a picture format. She said it was difficult to say in the Bridge Street Gateway District what the architectural character should be in three bullet points or less. She said she did not know that character was a bullet -point communicated item. She said character is what you touch, feel, and experience. Mr. Hardt referred back to Ms. Kramb's points and a Version 2.0 with more specifics in it. Mr. Hardt said in terms of deliverables, what he thought would be helpful is almost having a document similar to the Community Plan, or perhaps just forget the Vision Plan map, and maybe just update the Community Plan for this area. He said the Community Plan provides the rest of the City a map and lays out the City's intentions and expectations for an area, and all of the other details in terms of infrastructure, pedestrian connections, and all things are noted, not in specifics, but the City's goals are outlined. He said we probably cannot get there with a single map, but we do not need a 400 -page book, but a few pages that outline the objectives and ideas would work. Mr. McDaniel asked what the difference would be between the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan, which broke things down by principle, character, and district and the Community Plan. He said the Vision Report is almost better than what we see in the Community Plan, because the Vision Report provides much more detail. Mr. Hardt said that format might be fine, but it is dated at this point. He said he had a comment similar to Mr. Taylor's about the Code in the last version was in May and there was meeting where the Commission provided some high -level feedback on various components of it to staff, and the Commission has not received an update since. Mr. Langworthy said the June 20"' version was the last version. He said the final draft will be provided within the next two weeks. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought something was posted on the website that the Commissioners did not get. She said she did not recall seeing something in June. Mr. Langworthy explained the June 20th version was provided at the Joint Work Session in their meeting packet. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 12 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said they committed to updating the website on a routine basis whenever there was an update to each chapter of Code. He said there has not been a posting for a while because the staff is reviewing and trying to completely rescrub the Code based on comments provided by the Commission and others such as OCLC, the Stavroffs, and Smith and Hale. Mr. McDaniel asked how the Commission would like to receive the updated version when it is complete, via the website, email, or hardcopy. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it did not matter how the updates were provided, just that they needed the Code to talk about it. Mr. Hardt said if the Commission's previous comments have been incorporated, that was not clear to him. He said if he was expected to go to the website to get it that was not clear either. Mr. McDaniel assured them as soon as updates are made, they will be on the website. Mr. Hardt said he would like to have a redline version so that he could see where the changes have been made. Mr. Langworthy said they were creating a clean version and a redline version and the Commission will be provided both. Ms. Amorose Groomes said even with meeting minutes, it is going to be challenging to know if what the Commission discussed in May was captured in October. Mr. McDaniel said he wanted them to be aware that they will probably see changes that have been proposed that the Commission did not propose, but others did. Mr. Hardt suggested that changes by others could be flagged. He said he did not want a document where he had to hunt to figure out what had changed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in response to whether the Commission is finished with their feedback about the Vision Plan. She said she thought the Commission had exhausted their activity on the existing vision drawing, and they felt like elements were missing, and they have outlined those at length. She said the Commission was looking for the plan to come back rather than a bullet point. Mr. McDaniel confirmed the Commission was looking for a map that reflects things that they have identified to date. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Taylor said one of the things the Commission said several times since the original Vision Plan is that the first time a design solution is presented, it is not the final design. He said the process is that comments are requested as to what is liked and not liked, and what changes were wanted. He said then, that information is taken and the plan is revised. Mr. Taylor said that was his expectation, without asking because that is the way these things work. He said the Commission gave quite a bit of feedback on that plan over the past year, and he would like to see what it has led to. Mr. McDaniel said they would do their best to respond to that. Mr. Taylor said it seemed to him that it ought to be told to David Dixon and Ben Carlson that there is feedback on your drawing, and ask them to do a new drawing and include the Commission's feedback, and the work that was completed at the Open Space Work Shop. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were additional comments Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2011 — Minutes Page 13 of 13 Mr. McDaniel said another one of City Council's directions was to define the role between administration of the Code and the Planning and Zoning Commission role. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission had discussed what the consultants' had drafted, and they were not thrilled with it. She said the Commission started to pursue another discussion, and the City's legal counsel advised them that they should not engage in that discussion because it was not published on the agenda. Mr. McDaniel said they would put it on the next Agenda because they definitely needed to have the discussion. Ms. Kramb recalled they wanted a special meeting held with only the process on the agenda. Mr. Taylor confirmed it would be on the October 13"' Special Meeting Agenda. He asked if the architects and developers would be coming to that meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that Mr. Langworthy had said there were architects and developers who would be invited to discuss this topic with the Commission. Ms. Kramb asked if the October 13"' agenda would be the whole Code. Mr. McDaniel recommended they review specific sections of the Code and public comment would be permitted with each part of the Code. Ms. Kramb said she the Commission needed a meeting just about the process. Mr. McDaniel asked for some feedback from the Commission about what they would like their role to be in the process, so staff does not have to play a guessing game. He said at the end of the day he would like to look them in the eyes and tell them we have found something that works for all of us, and that they can take back to City Council and say this is what we would like to recommend as a process and a role for the Commission. He said he would like to find something half -way. Mr. Taylor said he thought the Commissioners all agreed on that, but his specific recollection on that topic at the last meeting, the Commission said to get there, they needed a better understanding of what the architects and developers who might be working in this area feel about the role of Planning and Zoning Commission, because the issue of PUD versus form -based code was one that came up. Mr. Taylor said his recollection at the end of last meeting was that they were going to have a meeting on or about October 13"' that focused on a discussion with members of the public on what they thought would be the best process. He said from there the Commission and staff would begin to formulate what the Commission's role might be. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested the minutes of the last Commission meeting reflected what the Commission talked about regarding expediting the process and what the gains, losses, and risks were. Mr. McDaniel said Mr. Langworthy had shared the Commission's discussion. He said he recommended any thoughts that the Commission could share with staff ahead of time about how they would like to see the Commission's role in the process would be appreciated. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think there has been any pushback from the Commission going forward with reviewing the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 Bridge Street Code Monitoring — Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the memo from Steve Langworthy regarding the Bridge Street Code Monitoring discussion at the August 11' Joint Meeting with City Council. She said that the Commission was asked to begin outlining what they thought was the appropriate role of the Commission as it relates to the Bridge Street Code moving forward. She said that Planning had asked the consultants to list what they thought the Commission roles should be which need to be discussed. She asked for the Commissioners' thoughts on the subject. Richard Taylor said he did not like what was proposed in the memo because it did not address the concern that the monitoring takes place after the fact. He said he thought what they were looking to discuss and craft language for a way that the Commission can have a role that occurs before projects are approved. Amy Kramb said she agreed. She said her thought was that the Commission's involvement should be left exactly the way it is because it has been working for years and that it made a great City. She said she could be open to change it, but she had not seen anything better. She said she did not think reviewing it after the fact was better. Ms. Kramb said she did not know what was presented in the memo was much different from what was already in the proposed Code; except that the Commission is getting a courtesy look at it after it has been done. She said the only thing it did was to give them a chance to change the code later, which can be done in other ways. Ms. Kramb said she did not think this was an improvement on what has already been proposed to the Commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would have the power to change the Code whether or not it was written in this code. Todd Zimmerman said the monitoring is supposed to be a streamlined process and it needs to be seen how it works. He said if there are kinks in it, they can be fixed later. He said there will be times that they will come before the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the proposal was well written and hits the high points of what needs to be done. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the Commission had not been shown that going to an administrative review team is any more expedited than coming to the Commission. Steve Langworthy explained that the Administrative Review Team (ART) could meet within two to three days of being noticed, whereas a ten -day public notice was needed for the Commission meeting. Ms. Kramb noted that the process would be expedited by eliminating the public input. Mr. Langworthy said it would be similar to what the Commission does now, which is to review only about 25 percent of the development. Ms. Kramb said she did not know if expediting it at the cost of not allowing the public is the best solution. She said if they limited it to what is in the code, they would not have some of the great developments the City has today. Mr. Zimmerman said he looked at it as similar to a PUD in that it has been worked up and out and there were times it fell out of that line. He said it would come to the Commission if it is not exactly within the Code. He said there were times he thought they would see more of these projects than they think they will. He said he did not think they would be able to streamline as many through as Ms. Kramb thought. Joe Budde said he did not have any comments. Mr. Taylor asked if it did not meet all the check boxes on the form -based code checklist, did it automatically come before the Commission. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 Mr. Langworthy explained that they can apply for an administrative departure, or if it does not qualify and they want to do something other than what code requires, they can come before the Commission to request permission to do it. Mr. Taylor asked what the process was if an applicant had a project different from the form -based Code document in every way. Mr. Langworthy said it would probably go straight to the Commission because it would not qualify for an administrative departure. He explained that administrative departures tend to be tweaking rather than major departures. John Hardt said he did not think the proposed language was bad, but it differed completely from what he thought the Commission was asked to do. He said it laid out a mechanism by which the Commission monitors the Code and how it is performing in the Bridge Street Corridor, and whether it needs to be changed. He said it does not lay out a process where the Commission monitors development in the Bridge Street Corridor. He said those are two completely different things. Mr. Hardt said he thought the Commission was being asked to work on a mechanism where they could actually monitor development, but do so in a streamlined way that is the best of both worlds or come up with some sort of hybrid approach. Mr. Hardt said he was not comfortable with putting the Commission in a role where they are simply monitoring the Code and being offered a chance to periodically update it. He said that he had a fundamental disagreement with the consultants that put the Code together in that they seem to be selling the notion that if they just write a good enough Code, they will guarantee quality. He said the Commissioners heard in the Joint Work Session that if there was something missed, let the consultants know and they will put that in too, as if they just add more words, eventually, they will get to the point where quality is guaranteed. Mr. Hardt said as someone who has designed commercial buildings all over the Country, using dozens of different codes, he has never seen a code that by itself, guarantees quality architecture, quality development, and quality projects. He said he thought the Code was great as a basis for development and it was well written, but he did not feel comfortable implementing this brand new Code that is completely untested locally and nationally, unlike anything they have ever seen, lifting the review process completely away, and just trusting that everything is going to be okay. Ms. Kramb said that she thought the Code was fine and she thought the Code could be changed, but she did not think everything should be changed at once. She suggested that the Code be changed, see how it works leaving the regular review process as it is, see what they get, and then go from there. Mr. Hardt said to change everything at once and just hope for the best was crazy. He said he had never seen it work. He said it was too many variables at once. Mr. Taylor said he thought the Commissioners all agreed that the goal still has to be to find a way to make this a shorter, easier, quicker path for development to happen. He said it just becomes an arbitrary piece of legislation to help guide projects. Mr. Taylor said he was in favor of the idea of this Code existing to help expedite that. He recalled that he began getting uncomfortable at the third Joint Work Session when he asked Don Elliott from Clarion and Associates for examples of where this has succeeded in the past, and Mr. Elliott mentioned a couple of places and referred to the website to see what was done. Mr. Taylor said he told Mr. Elliott that he was interested in hearing those communities' opinions of whether the form based code achieved the goals they set. He said he asked again for examples where this succeeded, and the only example provided was a place where Mr. Elliott thought that maybe six buildings had been built. Mr. Taylor said that is not an indictment of the form based code process or of this form based code at all, but thought it raised a concern that before they turn over this extraordinarily important chunk of the City to an untested system, they should have to have some opportunity to participate in seeing that this meets the goals that this Commission was formed to address in the first place. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Taylor recalled that Ms. Amorose Groomes once said that it was a lot easier to add stuff than to take stuff back later. He said if they had a situation where they had a hybrid that they began to see that this is working and is making sense, they could dial it back a little, but he would hate to start with it gone and go from there. Mr. Taylor said he did not know what the solution is and he thought that maybe they were there tonight to see if they could suggest some ideas. He said there was a little bit of a two track system built into this now and he thought it was a good place to start where an applicant has the opportunity to propose it. He recalled that he had asked Mr. Elliott and Mr. Dixon what about the building that does not meet any of the form based code requirements, but it was still a great building, and the two of them said that cannot happen. Mr. Taylor said he thought that should be allowed to happen and if they had an applicant that came in with a world class, fantastic building that did not happen to meet the specifics of the form based code, but still meets the spirit of it which was a building that engages the sidewalk, other buildings, and the public, they are allowed to give it a shot. He said he would like to see the path for that building and application be made easier so that they can come, if it is appropriate, to the Commission to have that reviewed. Mr. Taylor said another possibility would be to have a review by the Planning department where a score was given and if the proposal scored very high and needed to be reviewed by the Commission, they would have a situation where they had a straight up and down vote on it. He said if the Commission approved it, it was gone and they could go for it, and if not, it needed to either go through the administrative process or it had to come back to the Commission for a full review. Mr. Taylor said he understood that there were large chunks of the City that they had no input on, but they were talking about Codes for the most part that have been in place for a long time. He said this is an entirely new form of Code for the Commission and many people. He said he first heard about a form based code in Minneapolis at the APA Conference and he found it fascinating and excited to see it happen. Mr. Taylor said he would be thrilled to see the development community latch onto this and use it in this area and have the whole area take off. He said he would like to see this as the driver for development, but he thought they needed to move a little slower than has been proposed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission really had only one experience with talking with an architect about this form based code in this part of the City and what they were thinking of doing, and Gerry Bird was there that night. She said that Mr. Bird presented some cool projects that they were considering with a residential component and a commercial component. She recalled that they spent approximately 45 minutes discussing it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if she called him, he would have said that the time was valuably spent, that there were ideas that came to pass that he perhaps did not have before. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that was a positive experience for both sides and she was not convinced that architects like that, if they truly have a fantastically designed building, would not be hesitant to come before the Commission because they had full confidence in what it was that they designed in knowing that the Commission would recognize that. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Mr. Langworthy said the ART could convene in three to four days versus ten days for the Commission. She said she would be categorically opposed to silencing our community for six days of gain. She said this community was great because the people have voiced their opinions repeatedly and what is being attempted is to put duct tape on their mouths. She reiterated that she was completely opposed to it. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that removing oversight is very difficult to take back. She said they all have made their comments, but the charge for the Commission, from what she heard City Council ask was to come up with something. She said she did not hear Council ask the consultant to come up with something, so the Commission needed to start that business. She said they have to continue to try to explore those answers and come up with something that is a win. She said that was how the Commission can lead in this process. Ms. Kramb said it would be helpful to know how long a project goes through the Planning department before the Commission sees it and what in that timeframe changes in putting the ART in place. She said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 that would give the Commission some insight as to where days could be trimmed. She pointed out that if there was a great new Code and an applicant came in with a much better product that could speed up the entire process. Mr. Taylor said he assumed that there would not be the big concept, preliminary, and final reviews. He suggested that some of the design and development community could come to tell the Commission what they think. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they could be asked to come to the next public meeting to help the Commission help them and understand what they want. Mr. Langworthy said Planning had already suggested a public meeting where people who had already commented on the Code and others would have the opportunity to come before the Commission to make comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission might want to choose from who they want to hear comments. Mr. Langworthy said the architectural community has been commenting on the Code instead of the upper level executives or companies. He said that such a meeting is being planned in early October before the Commission begins their comprehensive review of the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they should not be set up or told what the Commission wants, but be explained that the Commission has some questions for them. Mr. Langworthy said that the architectural and development community members also had things they wanted on the record as well. Mr. Taylor said it would be a great first step to hear from the end users about to approach this to find out what was and was not appropriate. Mr. Hardt said he had been through the process a few times himself. He referred to the consent agenda approval process and suggested that perhaps the ART could have a mechanism to review a case using a score, and then it came to the Commission for some cursory level of oversight, and handled like a consent agenda item. He said then, if things came to the Commission with their hands being somewhat tied, with only a few things under their prevue, they would still have the opportunity to hear public input, which was important. He said as pointed out by Ms. Amorose Groomes at the last Joint Work Session, the Commission has the ability to behave in different ways in different instances. Mr. Hardt said they have projects now that are in "straight- zoned" sites where they all know are not before the Commission regarding the architecture, but for signs or other things, and they do what they are supposed to do. He said he saw no reason why Bridge Street Corridor projects cannot be some iteration of that. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the Land Use Principles established by City Council on August 21, 2006, talked about the principles to be utilized as development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of pending development applications. She said she thought the Commission could come up with some principles for the Bridge Street Corridor that would govern the issues that they review and that those issues would be narrowed down. She said if it was outside of the issues that are governing their focus, then they were off limits. She said it would provide some framework for evaluation that would be, as Mr. Langworthy has requested, more predictable because the focus is more narrow. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think the Commission was particularly unpredictable at this point in time. Mr. Hardt provided as an example, the Commission reviewed a couple of projects where some of their biggest heartburn has been over just the fundamental, where the structure sat on the site and they have had developers who disagreed on the Commission's opinion on that. He said in the Bridge Street Corridor Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Code, it successfully governs that and there will not be much discussion about those kinds of things. Mr. Hardt reiterated that he thought the Code was very well done and can be a great base for development and take many issues off the table, but not all of the issues off the table. He said he agreed that there was an answer in that they all understood that there is the intention here to be development - friendly and streamline the process. Mr. Taylor said he had heard in the past that maybe one of the reasons that this is happening is that they hear from different sources and people, that there is a kind of reputation among some developers, people in town, that Planning and Zoning is an impediment and that it is an obstacle that causes projects to move slower than they should. He said the reality is that in those cases, the Commission acts to prevent projects that should not be built from being built, and gets them corrected. Mr. Taylor said the Bridge Pointe shopping center came before the Commission twice as a great project that the Commissioners universally complimented. He said a few details were left to work out, but they gave approval to begin the project. He said the result was that the applicants could not have been happier and they were on their way. He said he did not know why that process is not suitable for anybody that would build in the BSC. He said the difference in that and projects where the applicants left unhappy was that it came in at a very high level of design, development, and acceptability in this area. Mr. Taylor said that the question has always been that if the projects start with a blank slate, with land having very little context in terms of the physical site around it or in context of regulation on the site, how do they get to that point and where do they start in order to do a building that will please the Commission. He said that the form based code seemed to be a gigantic leap in that direction. He said if they were to maintain a process very similar to what they have now, but review projects that need to go through the BSC, by the time they get to the Commission, they are going to be 95 percent there. He said the Commission will not have site location issues and it will give them the opportunity to be the public's eyes and ears to make sure it is done right. He said if they were to execute that successfully, and later it turns out that the gears are well lubricated and things are going well, they could look at some options for streamlining it even further, but again, the furthest they could streamline it is to remove a few days off the whole process. He said he did not know if on a couple of million dollar project, a couple of days were worth the risk. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the EAZ had a review process similar to this Mr. Langworthy explained that the EAZ was treated like a standard zoning district and it was similar to this with an ART. He said they were trying to consolidate all the language so that the language is only in one place in the Code. Ms. Kramb pointed out the difference was that there was nothing in the EAZ. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was a small, but important part of the City. She said she would like to make it look as good as they can. Ms. Kramb pointed out that tonight, an applicant went beyond the Code by removing gooseneck lights and adding concrete curbs merely because the Commission asked. She said if this realm was taken out, all that they would get was the bare minimum Code requirements. She said that the forum provided variety. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that she heard four votes saying that this language, written by the consultants, was not what the Commissioners wanted. She said however, the request was that the Commission review the proposed intent and language and provide appropriate comments. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was time to come with solutions. Stephen Smith said he had concerns with moving into the solutions part tonight because this item was not on the Agenda advertised to the public, and he did not want to get too far away from providing comments on this because it was purely an administrative matter as opposed to an agenda item. He said Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 the concern as indicated earlier was not having public involvement. Mr. Smith suggested keeping things focused. Ms. Kramb reiterated her request that for the next time this Code is discussed, the existing timeframe be presented with what the proposed timeframes are with the proposed Code procedure. Mr. Taylor suggested a special meeting be held with the only this discussion on the agenda so that they could spend as much time as needed, the public can be there, and they could decide how they are going to approach coming up with a solution. He said they could take notes and see if they cannot provide a primer. Mr. Langworthy said that a list of proposed dates and topics for Special and Regular Meetings would be presented at the September 15, 2011 meeting. Mr. Taylor requested that as soon as a list of invitees is compiled, it be provided to the Commissioners. He said he would like to see who might be invited and what part of the building design community they represented. He suggested that the meeting Agenda briefly describe this item with one line: A discussion of what the Commission has agreed is City Council's request of the Commission to come up with alternatives to the review process. Mr. Taylor and Ms. Kramb agreed that it was not about the Bridge Street Corridor Code, but the review process. Mr. Taylor summarized that the Commissioners were clearly concerned that in one hand they were completely out of the process for all practical purposes, and on the other hand they were totally in it, and they were trying to find some functional middle ground that everyone can agree to, hence the interest in having the development and design community here so that they know what works for them. Mr. Hardt said he could take that Code back to his drafting table and design a building that meets every single letter of it, and it still would be awful. He said that there are a lot of architects and developers who could do the same, if their hearts were not in the right place. Mr. Hardt said if this Code were adopted by the Commission tonight, it would be in place for 50 years. He said the only opportunity the public has to have any input into any project is to write a letter to the Planning Director. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that there were no notification requirements included. Mr. Hardt pointed out that not too long ago, the Commission had a hypothetical project on Avery Road where there were about 20 residents that lived adjacent to an institutional use that walked in the door imploring that the Commission vote against it. He said the Commission listened to what they had to say and the applicant talked, then they voted in favor of the rezoning. He said however, by the end of the night, all of the residents left understanding why the Commission voted for it and understanding that by voting for it, they actually made the things they were worried about a little bit better. He said that was a dialogue that would have never happened under the BSC as it is drafted. Mr. Smith interrupted the discussion and pointed out that they were getting off track for what was not advertised for discussion tonight. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any additional comments. [There were none.] She adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT COUNCIL /PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Monday, August 11, 2011 Council Chambers Record of Meeting Attendance: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent. Planning & Zoning Commission Members Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Mr. Budde and Mr. Hardt. Ms. Kramb was absent. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Tyler, Ms. Willis, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Noble, Ms. Martin and Ms. Husak. Consultants David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Don Elliot, Clarion Associates Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. He noted that the Bridge Street Corridor (BSC) Plan has received positive recognition at the national and local level. This is a transformative undertaking that will, hopefully, ensure the vibrancy of the City for decades in the future. A video created by MORPC, which focuses on the importance of this project and the planning themes that form the basis of this vision follows. [Video presentation of "Rethinking Streets for Successful Communities "] Mr. Dixon, Goody Clancy, stated that this is an opportunity for Council and PZC to bring up questions in the following three areas: • Has the plan matured as it ought; are the right elements present? • Does Council have all the information needed to make decisions about the Code? Are the Vision, the Code, Transportation, Planning and Fiscal Planning integrated and producing mutually consistent and reinforcing answers? • What should the next area of focus be to achieve your aspirations? He has been asked what is the big statement or what defines this project. Watching the MORPC video, he was struck that Dublin thinks regionally and acts locally. Dublin acts with a regional responsibility. To do so, Dublin has the ability to change course and remain a model. With this plan, Dublin wanted to create a community that would continue to appeal to a changing population; to become even more competitive as a desirable place to work and live; to appeal to the changing values that drive investment; and create the "heart' of the entire community. All of these efforts translate into a truly walkable environment, although it can take a variety of forms. Ms. Grigsby stated that this video was shared at a previous MORPC meeting. There was some concern regarding whether the vision was big enough to accomplish what is desired. The Bridge Street corridor is the first major component. However within the overall corridor and planning area, there will be other components, such as pedestrian bridges, that will be incorporated. The question of focus tonight is how the Code achieves that. Council and PZC will discuss their concerns. Mr. Gerber has met with Mr. Langworthy to discuss the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 2 of 16 form -based Code, and additional training sessions or discussions for Council members can be scheduled. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC has extensively discussed this process, and identified some issues. To maximize the time, PZC members decided to come to consensus first, then provide those consensus items at one time. Mr. Hardt has compiled those items and will provide PZC's perspective to Council tonight for purposes of discussion. Mr. Hardt stated that PZC attempted to distill their thoughts into four areas of concern that PZC members believe are either unfinished or need further attention: 1. Concern that the Vision Plan results in the appropriate distribution and configuration of open space. Although the Vision Plan in its current form does include a considerable amount of open space, the draft Code indicates that the Vision Plan is conceptual, not regulatory. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the greenspace on the map will necessarily materialize. Although the proposed Code dictates that each development must have a certain amount of open space associated with it, that approach is no different than the City's current requirements. With existing planned districts, there is a certain threshold for maximum lot coverage, which dictates that any given parcel of land must have a certain amount of open space on it. It does not, however, create cohesive public spaces, nor does it create connectivity. The best parks and open spaces in Dublin occurred when the City took the lead. PZC members believe a similar approach should be taken with the Bridge Street Corridor, versus leaving open space decisions up to future unknown development plans. There should be City- driven direction for open space. 2. Non - vehicular connectivity. The Vision Plan outlines several pockets of very high density development, including the OCLC site, Dublin Village Center, and the Historic District. Those subareas are separated from each other by natural and man -made barriers. Establishing connectivity can be very difficult to do after the fact. Without paying specific attention on how to establish those connections now, there is a risk that the vision in the video will not be realized. The subareas will remain isolated from each other, rather than walkable and connected. They will not succeed as part of an urban fabric because, individually, they do not have the needed critical area. 3. Development review and legal processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is a leading edge, comprehensive approach that will fundamentally change the core of the City in an unprecedented, profound way. There is no room for error. It is important to "get it right" the first time. But the draft Code also proposes that the City simultaneously eliminate the public review process, which has been used successfully for four decades in the City. That seems to put too many variables in play at once. PZC is not opposed to eliminating PZC review, but whatever new system is considered, it is necessary to be able to guarantee the same results in quality and public participation that have previously been present. 4. The Vision Map is conceptual in nature, illustrative, non - binding, but nevertheless, it will serve as a key indicator of the City's intentions. The map has an incredible Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 3 of 16 amount of work and ideas represented in it, but something significant is missing. What is the one singular unifying objective that the City is trying to accomplish with the Bridge Street Corridor Plan? What legacy do we want to leave behind? The map in its current form does not make that clear. It is not easy to identify the primary goal. The Plan needs to be tweaked to crystallize that, and leave behind a plan that future leaders can refer to, where the over - riding goal is apparent. PZC members are all very supportive of the Plan. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that PZC believes that staff has done a fantastic job in the research, and has provided much information regarding transportation, utilities, etc. However, the Commission does not believe that a plan has been created that is ready to be presented to the public. The Commission believes they are a well- suited group to participate in this effort, and are very hopeful that Council will entrust to them the ability to work on this project. At the appropriate time, PZC would like to work with Goody Clancy or other identified consultant to "drill down" on the things in the Vision to ensure that the final plan is the best that could have been achieved. Mrs. Boring stated that these things have also been of concern to her, especially the map. It is appears the Code is now being written to satisfy that map. There have been issues with it from the beginning, particularly in regard to the appropriate configuration /distribution of open space. At this time, the map is a "handicap." Mr. Dixon stated that the Plan is not an actual plan. It is instead an illustration of how the vision and the principles would unfold in the area, given the property ownerships and likely market and distribution to different uses over the next 20 years. It is not a bible or a strict interpretation. There is a core idea that could develop in many different forms. For instance, in some places, such as the Stavroff development, it could be a place to go to a movie, shop, live nearby — an urban village. Midway between that development and the river would be a residential neighborhood, perhaps also with corner stores and cafes. Then, next to the river would be a river -front central park where civic events would occur, perhaps with a pedestrian crossing of the river. On the other side of the river would be Historic Dublin, then further west, a newer -scale district; finally, on the far side of this corridor would be OCLC — envisioned by a single developer, a potentially mixed -use subarea. Although there will be a tremendous variety of opportunities to do things, they are all united by the opportunity to interact with the environment in an urban way. The other four factors mentioned have to succeed for this basic vision to come forward. Their firm does much urban campus planning, and everyone wants a "signature" place. With this project, he believes it will become the place that people love within the area — perhaps the river. It is not the core idea, but the best expression of it that occurs. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that they are fine with the Code. What they really want to hear is how this will be made Dublin's. Mrs. Boring stated that in regard to the central park — if it is not made clear now what is desired and planning for that occurs now, developers will be coming in before the Code is finished. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Dixon stated that there is always a little of the "chicken versus the egg" in moving this type of process forward. It is important now to determine which aspects need to be better defined. He agrees that the best public realms are City- directed. Private sector may help create them, but the public sector conceived them or championed them. Dublin has a history of this, and it will be true here with the BSC. The best way to move the central park forward will probably be by completing the Code first, and by not approving development until Council has a good sense of the park. Until the Code is complete, it is difficult to say whether the City will need to acquire a certain property. The Code will provide a lot of answers as to what the built environment can be like. When the Code is complete would be a good time to do a public realm plan. That will determine the public policy decisions —what is Council's position on moving streets, buying property, programming and management of a space such as this; also, how does that link to and what is the role of a town green. What will make this a more confident plan is the fiscal piece. Through private - public partnerships, it is possible to invest a lot in creating a great public realm. It will be easier to understand how that will work when the fiscal piece is completed in a couple of weeks. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission does not want to find itself in a position of hoping that when 20 million square feet of space is developed there will be a great park at the river. It would be preferable to set aside the land, call that area on the map the new central park, and let that direct the development around it. PZC does not want to take the chance of ending up with something Council does not want because there was not a sufficiently clear vision in the beginning. Mr. Dixon stated that more engineering and planning information to more specifically target what Council wants to do is needed. It should be possible to stay ahead of development by making it clear that it is the City's intent to solve this piece. This is in everyone's best interest because it will enhance the value of the land around it, so the private sector should be willing to cooperate in giving the City time to do that. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how Council should do that additional, more targeted visioning. Mr. Dixon responded that Council would direct staff to select a team of consultants whose expertise is in designing great public spaces, with a full understanding of the planning, programming, design, funding and management involved. They would be requested to develop a conceptual vision that will allow Council to make the policy decisions. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that her frustration is that what Council has so far is consultant- driven, and it appears to have lost the big vision. How can Council have a big vision by asking a consultant to give it to them? She would prefer that Council first articulate that vision. Who is best able to help Council do that, because Council needs an organized, facilitated meeting that helps them articulate the big vision sufficiently after which the map could be drawn. Perhaps it is a bubble map that is drawn while Council is articulating it. It should result in demonstrating the connectivity and significant open space desired. Mr. Dixon responded that he believes Council has enough information to state the foundation upon which they desire to build. Council can now request someone to work with them in a visioning process. In the process, the consultant would bring Council up -to -date, and provide information on what is being done elsewhere that is relevant to Dublin in order to stimulate discussion. From that, Council would then formulate a charge to bring back a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 5 of 16 proposal that accomplishes the vision that Council, in a more informed way, has been able to develop. Mr. Gerber stated that this project began with a vision report. This was followed by a discussion of what form -based code is or isn't; Council then looked at a code. That code can be worked on. When developers have a picture, that is what they work toward. Therefore, Council wants to have a vision picture that encompasses some of Dublin's core values — open space, scenic areas, etc. Council needs some assistance in putting forth its stated values in the report, thereby letting developers and others know what Council desires. Mr. Dixon stated that it doesn't have to be a completed document for Council to point out to developers that they have heard the intent for the Corridor, and they can figure out where they need to be. Mr. Gerber stated that he is looking for a consensus regarding the vision. He had the opportunity this week to meet with Mr. Langworthy and his staff to learn how form -based code works. It is a good concept, but if there is not a vision on which there is consensus, then the City will lose sight down the road of what it is doing. Mr. Elliott stated that this is not a PUD, not a development by a single owner, but of many owners that will come forward over 20 -30 years, and in an order not anticipated. Because of that, it cannot be viewed as a master plan, as if there were a rich landowner of all that acreage, and all that was required is to create a prettier picture than exists. The comment has been made that there is no big idea here. He believes there is; there always has been. The big picture is a walkable, mixed -use downtown at too big a scale for anyone to identify a site plan, or PUD. It is a process. They did not write a code to implement the picture /map. That picture is very controversial — some did not want one at all; others did. To him, the picture illustrates a flavor of the place that the City desires. That is also what they tried to accomplish with the code. He did say that it was necessary to have a road framework, which will change more than once during the process. The fact that it will be changed does not mean a framework shouldn't be included to align the roads and buildings. The plan is there, and it is a better, more visually compelling and complete plan than many cities have when they have hired their firm to write their code. Therefore, based on his personal experience, this is not an inadequate plan. It is as good as most entities have, and better than many. It is good to resist the temptation to focus on creating a better picture before writing the code. That would be a fundamental mistake. That is thinking as if there were one landowner, you had control over the site plan and could determine where you wanted to place a trail or park. Dublin does not have that control. There are many landowners, and in the future those properties could be divided into more parcels with more landowners or combined with fewer landowners. Whatever may occur, it still must work. Therefore, they have attempted to "get the fabric right" — send a message about lot sizes, mixed uses, and buildings near the street, so that whatever order the development proposals come in, they will be contributing to the overall density, walkability and mixed -use character of the corridor. Does that mean the City does not have an overall vision of what it wants? No -- it is because the City does not have control over the order in which that will occur. The City has control only over the public realm, not the private landowners. There is a plan, but a "snapshot" cannot be taken of that plan. That would be malpractice on their part, because it is only a "guess" as to how the future could unfold, consistent with the values the City identifies. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Gerber responded that he understands this needs to be very fluid, as it will occur over a long period of time. However, is there a way to put forth those stated values and objectives? He would like to have more of that type of clarity, which he could share with developers or others. Mr. Elliott responded that can certainly be done. This is a big area, and the City does have a plan, but will never be satisfied with it. With a plan in place, the most common failure is not to zone it at all, which are the very tools that will accomplish what is desired. The City must now do the zoning, knowing that they don't have all the details and cannot. There is a third process involved. The City can help build roads, infrastructure and parking structures. It can decide to build a large central park and determine, through the planning process, its location and on whose property it is located. However, he believes it would be a mistake to attempt to draw that big park on the plan and zone it as such, unless the City has the cooperation of that property owner. The owner might be willing to give that parkland to the City in return for something — for example, giving them a higher density or something else in return. That can be negotiated, but typically in an area this large, the landowner does not want to lock that down in terms of zoning. However, the development will occur predictably, and the City will want to use its powers to decide over time where the best investment of parks is. In his past work, he has tried to lock those things in a Code, but he has very little comfort it will turn out the way it is drawn. There are too many variables in play. What he would likely accomplish is a complaint from a landowner that the City has decided the use of their property. It is preferable that the City lock in the "fabric" and the tools that will eventually achieve the City's vision. In regard to the open space, what is contained in the Code does not paint a picture of a central or big park. The plan indicates that everyone needs to contribute to the open spaces, but it does not have to be on -site; it can be done by a fee in -lieu of. The funds will be used to aggregate open space in the order in which it unfolds over time. That decision does not need to be made today. He recommends that the City not try to visualize the end result. Mr. Taylor stated that PZC does not want to define the open space that closely. They want to look at the bigger picture. There is a lot of green in this drawing, the prospective sketch and in the Code, and that is good. It is the organizational principles that are missing. The concept of a central park has been proposed as an organizing principle to pull this together. The Commission recognizes that designating a large amount of land owned by several property owners for a civic use would result in issues, but that is the hard work necessary to establish a priority of what the City wants to see in the overall plan. It may "step on some toes," but the City will have to deal with that. Cities are often planned and the great spaces of the world are often very well planned, and the pieces fit together to accomplish that. Although the City cannot totally predict how this will all build out in the future, if the City does not have some organizing principle beyond a grid, than there is no hierarchy, no priority. When a project is proposed, it is important that the City approve it only if it still meets the large vision. As an example, the City had an earlier Community Plan that showed the corner of Bridge and High Street as two parks, one on each side. Now, there are buildings in place on both corners. Because the plan wasn't "nailed down," it changed. If what was originally decided was really important, the City should have negotiated with those property owners and developers to have the buildings in place, but still ensure the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 7 of 16 open space. That is what the Commission does not want to happen with this plan. There is a vision for something, but not the wherewithal to ensure that it happens. They are looking for something to pull the vision all together, and that vision is not just one of density or walkability. If the Code is the "fabric," we still want to define what will be made of the fabric. Mr. Gerber noted that at his earlier meeting with Mr. Langworthy, he pointed out that greenspace can be accomplished in different ways. It can be a street with walkability. The flexibility of this plan is what makes it attractive. He does not believe it would be wise for Council to decide today where that open space will be located. He would prefer that the vision statement clarify the City's values and objectives. This is different than a PUD. Mrs. Boring stated that the present practice has been that the City states where it wants connectivity and has asked developers to contribute greenspace or fees in lieu of land. Isn't it necessary to have a vision of where connectivity of the pieces should occur? Mr. Elliott responded that it is important to work on the issue of scale. This area is twice the size of downtown Denver. He could not have predicted 200 years ago where the trails or streets would go in downtown Denver — it's too big. So, what you do when you can't know exactly where they go is to say the blocks cannot be bigger than this. This achieves the fabric of connectivity, if the blocks are walkable. The reason downtown Portland is a great walking city is that the blocks are small. People can get where they want to go without walking around large areas. The connectivity is built into the street pattern. That does not need to be drawn today; rather, it must be established that as the area subdivides and is platted, the blocks may be no bigger than a certain number. If the block must be bigger for some reason, a mid -block throughway or connection must be made. All those will not line up; they don't line up in any city. If the fabric of the streets is at the right scale, it will be walkable and connected. Their work is not in PUDs. They are typically hired by cities who want to move away from PUDs. Therefore, what he is trying to achieve is not a map where you can see it, but a rule that says they must see it and figure it out as development occurs. Ms. Amorose- Groomes stated that the disconnect seems to be with the consultants' perception of allowing the public space to work itself out. However, she believes Dublin is more inclined to work out the big public space first, make the investment now, and then take the payments in lieu of to reimburse itself in the future. This process ensures that the City gets the right space, in the right place, at the right time. The vision will never be achieved if the City does not believe sufficiently in what it's doing to make the financial investment to "get the ball rolling." Mr. Dixon stated that there are many plans that have been constructed for multi -owner areas. The Daniel Burnham plan for Chicago is the "grandfather" of them all. That plan did certain things very right, and those methods have been successfully copied by succeeding plans. One of the things the Burnham Plan did brilliantly was identify Grant Park and some other very important public places in Chicago. Because of its location next to Lake Michigan and an existing downtown, the focus was on how to let the private sector of Chicago build the city out from there. There are certain aspects of fixing the public realm that are visible. Similarly, Dublin has the Indian Run, and the way in which development occurs next to that natural space is critically important — specific zoning requirements are necessary. Obviously, Dublin cannot move the river or Historic Dublin, so there is a pretty clear area in Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 8 of 16 which Dublin will be doing a lot of planning for a great central park. One great characteristic of Dublin is that the City is able to discuss and work with property owners on its area plans. For some time, Dublin has had in place plans to create a riverfront park on both sides -- it will not be news to anyone, and more specific planning on how to define and accomplish that can be anticipated. There are obvious places where greenways should go. The Stavroff group, which owns much of that land, is conducting planning at this time. What Dublin can state is that the City wants a great public space in that location -- a lively square, but the City cannot tell them where to put it. The best method is to work with Stavroff to find the right place, right configuration, and right uses surrounding it. Also, with the OCLC property, it is in everyone's best interest for them to create a public square, one very different from the Stavroff square. That is the partnership process — the City states its goal, and the property owners decide how they will create it for the City. The next step in the planning process is to determine those things that are very important and how fixed they are by circumstances. The City desires a downtown central park. It now knows more about what is hoped will be created around it. Now is the time to decide what the space could be that would make it the heart of Dublin, and what is the range of things that would be within that space — natural versus programmed elements. How much land is needed for that space? This will involve discussions with property owners, which could best be held during this process. Before long, it will likely be clear what that park should be. It might now be good to look at all the sector plans and identify what needs to be fixed, the important goals, and the qualities to embody in the Code. Vice Mayor Salay asked if he is suggesting breaking this plan down by subarea and defining what is desired in those subareas. Mr. Dixon agreed and indicated the obvious subareas. How those subareas are connected needs to be fixed, including the adjacent activity, so that pedestrian activity is encouraged. There is an opportunity for a transit connection from OCLC to the Stavroff property. It needs enough density around it to work. There are some things that can be understood and fixed now and memorialized in a diagrammatic way, so that goals and place- specific directions are visibly clear and provided as an underlay to the Code. Ms. Grigsby stated that the City has long had a Future Land Use Plan as a guide, along with general area plans that are not specific as to what will be there. The concern is that this diagram would also serve as a future land use map. Vice Mayor Salay asked if the consultant creates future land use maps with this type of project. Mr. Dixon responded that they do, but it is not similar to those the City has had in the past. It might say "mixed -use housing emphasis," or "mixed -use entertainment emphasis," or "mixed -use address street" (Bridge Street). A desired public square for civic use could also be indicated in the Stavroff and OCLC subareas. The next - generation document is developing, which will memorialize these discussions. It will be a foundation document that will serve as a basis for zoning and other decision making. An illustrative plan is not needed, but something that translates policy into land use and other goals. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that everyone is in agreement that is what is being requested. Mr. Dixon responded that the knowledge exists. They can confer with staff, and it should not take long to put together. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 9 of 16 Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the Commission would actually like to do that work. Mr. Elliott stated that Mr. Dixon has addressed the planning perspective. From the zoning perspective, there are three capital places here, not counting the river, that need to work together. This plan is too big to be one thing; it is three or four things. If those three or four things turn out well, even though they are different from each other, the sum total will be better than making it all one thing. The OCLC area, the Stavroff area and the Historic Dublin area can all be exceptional places. Trying to micro - coordinate them into something that hangs together as one thing is not an effective use of time. There are neighborhood development standards. Perhaps it would be more comforting if it were articulated along with those standards, and shown in a visual way, what open spaces will be there when they are developed. That would be more appropriate than in the overall vision drawing. The open space provision is within the text, but he is aware of a concern about big open spaces, as they are not specifically articulated. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not concerned about the land use, which is pretty clear. Her concern is making sure the connectivity is in place and that the public spaces are gathering places versus baseball fields, etc. She is particularly concerned about the area along the river. Mr. Reiner stated that Council views the river as one of the most important attributes of the City. In a recent visit to Portland, he observed that smaller city blocks allow for improved pedestrian traffic. He believes codifying that in this code will help ensure that occurs in Dublin. He agrees that the big vision is a big urban center. Another vision is the greenspace and river and the connectivity to it. What access does someone in a condominium above a Stavroff area shop have to an open space? He assumes it would be the riverfront. Portland has a lot of bridges, however; Dublin does not. Perhaps the additional street connectors will result in a need for an additional bridge or two over the river. He does understand PZC's concern. Dublin has been a PUD city, and has been very successful with them, creating a superior place in which to live. Many of the best ideas have come from PZC over the last 25 years. They are concerned with eliminating the review process. There cannot be any room for error, and how can the new process ensure that? Is a review process still needed to guarantee the perfection desired? Vice Mayor Salay acknowledged that this first effort will not bring perfect results. After some things are built, revisions to this Code will likely be made. This is a 20 -50 year vision, and things will change over that time. She views this as an evolution. There are many great neighborhoods and buildings in the City today that could be improved upon. However, it is important that everyone agree on the development review process. The goal of this entire undertaking was to achieve a development review process for the BSC that would be much easier and less cumbersome for developers. Instead of a year -long approval process, it would be a three -month process before construction could begin. That is how the City was attempting to make this area attractive for economic development. There is a conflict between an expedited process with a form -based code versus a full Planning Commission review process. The two processes do not mix. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Elliott stated that he has been writing code for 20 years. In the last 10 -15 years, without exception, cities that have asked them to re -write their codes have moved toward more objective and specific development standards that are administered by staff -- with the provision that if the proposed project is complex or controversial, it can be pushed up to a higher level of review, usually a planning commission. He has not had a client indicate that they have a staff - driven process that is not working and they want to switch to a commission review process. However, he is aware that Dublin has had success with a public review process based on close review and intense negotiations. It is not the way he observes cities evolving their codes. He believes it is more important for the Planning Commission's focus to be on whether the standards are right, the right messages are being sent to the private sector, and the results are satisfactory. If they are dissatisfied with the results, the answer is to fix the standards. This is the "safe harbor" for developers — if they do what the City's code tells them to do, they will obtain a permit. It is not just a start of negotiations. It is important to re -write the code with higher standards and to articulate what the City wants. Once that has been done, no negotiation is necessary. That is the role most planning commissions play — managing the system, rather than reviewing individual projects. He has researched for places that are similar to Dublin, either in their quality of life or dominance in local markets, who have a form -based code combined with a public review process. In Livermore, California, projects above a certain size are sent to a planning commission, and in Denver, Colorado, a project that meets a certain number of factors can be forwarded for planning commission review. Projects do not automatically go to planning commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there is a place within that process for the general public to weigh in. Mr. Elliott responded there is not. The trend is to say that the public has a responsibility to provide its input during the City's periodic review of its standards to ensure they are accomplishing the desired development. Mayor Lecklider stated that the public has traditionally had that opportunity in Dublin. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when this process began, we understood it would be substantially different for this area of the City, but this part of the City only. Developers have told us that they will not build here because our process is too long and costly. We have to have a different process for this part of the City. The public may not understand that now is their opportunity to weigh in, not later. They are accustomed to waiting until the public review meetings to weigh in. The next BSC public meetings must be aggressively advertised and public interaction encouraged and allowed. The remainder of these meetings must be held in a space that facilitates that public interaction, before any vote occurs. Then, if the standards do not appear to work, in three or six months it may be necessary to revise them. It is important not to wait until this code is seriously outdated. Staff has to also consider doing things differently, not just holding public meetings. There is an urgent need to aggressively educate the community on their need to be involved now. Mr. Gerber concurred. Even with this new process, there will frequently be work for the Commission to do, such as re- reviewing the standards. There is a significant role for everyone. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Reiner asked if these standards will achieve the desired elevations and materials that result in the same quality of buildings in the City that PZC has provided to date. The City's consistent "high bar" for quality is an assurance that attracted people to Dublin. PZC is concerned that some architects will now take the opportunity to take short -cuts and produce buildings that are not as high quality as the City has always demanded. The assurance for people coming into Dublin has been that if they build here, they are confident their investment will be solid, because other developers must meet the same standards of quality. Everyone loves that aspect of Dublin — that investments here are sound. Do these standards assure that same level of quality? Mr. Elliott stated that they believe they do so, but they appreciate hearing Council's views on them. If Council believes the materials, signs or elevation requirements are too loose, he urged them to indicate that. He does not advise the government on how they should run their processes. However, if government proposes some requirements, they would advise them as to whether they are good enough. That's the rule of law. If government establishes the rules for a permit, and the public performs according to the rules, then they should obtain a permit — that is how America operates. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that she believes PZC has the opportunity to react differently on different things brought before them. The Commission operates differently on a PUD than it does on sign permits and informal reviews. PZC operates differently, depending upon what the application is for and the intent of it. She believes PZC should continue some review. She can't agree with eliminating the public input component. The public is simply not going to comprehend that now is their time for input. Frankly, how can that occur if this plan is evolving over the next 30 -40 years? People cannot provide input now if they don't even live here yet. PZC members agree that the development of this area needs to be handled differently than the City has previously handled development applications. It might be more of a "check the box" review of whether the required standards regarding architecture, street orientation, etc. are met. If it is possible to codify the rest of this, those standards could be codified as well. Mr. Gerber stated that he envisions a situation where PZC would actively monitor the process and provide a report back to Council or staff. Then the process can be tweaked as it moves forward. There is a very active role for PZC in this area. Its role will be different, but still a fairly vital role. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that perhaps it won't be this body, but another review body that is developed. Regardless, she believes that a citizen -based body should provide that review. Mayor Lecklider stated that, conceptually, this bears some similarities to the COIC zoning and some other recent rezonings. The overarching motivation with this effort was to respond to the economic times and the evolution that is taking place in the development world. Ms. Grigsby responded that part of the PUD process for this area will be replaced with its code and the code's review. Typically, every proposed project begins on the ground floor and then is moved through a review process. The effort with the code for this area is that the application received will essentially be where it needs to be -- or close to it, allowing for some variation based on size or the type of project. However, the Code and the zoning will basically be the PUD. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 12 of 16 Mrs. Boring stated that the concern she has is that some applications will meet the criteria, but with others, staff might decide it sufficient that they meet the intent. Meeting the intent is not acceptable in this case. Mr. Dixon responded there are both zoning and planning perspectives, and they're in sync. It is not conceivable that Council will not find a way to incorporate an appropriate level of community review of this district as it develops. It probably won't be building by building, but people need to have the ability to tell Council whether the environment that is being created is one that they support. This is a community that is very inclusive in its thinking. It will not be comparable to the sort of public hearings or open session design review that the City has provided for other projects, because design review probably will occur at the staff level. There will likely be a comparable checking process, which is yet to be determined. Perhaps PZC will be doing that, but Council will determine the approval process. However, this review will never be simply "checking boxes." While there will be some boxes that always have to be checked, this Code will have to be realized in spirit as well as in letter. There will always be some art to this — it will never be a science. As an example, years ago he shared a brief conversation with the director of the Boston Development Authority, who had been presented with a project that met every legal requirement of the City of Boston. Yet, he hated the project, and indicated that although he could not disapprove it, he could extend the review process significantly, meaning, the City will always have some leverage. Conscious of that, Council can be assured of liking the results. He doesn't know what form that approval process will take, or the public input. Clearly, the entire process will need to be monitored, and not by the staff that is implementing it, because it is their activity that will be monitored. The code for this area will not provide the overview; somebody who has the awareness and legitimate responsibility would do that. That body will have three review roles: (a) determining if the system is working; (2) determining how the public is involved, yet in a very different way than in the past because this is a different challenge; (3) determination of when something in the process needs to be changed and how. The review process is something you will need to resolve with each other. Mr. Taylor concurred. It isn't necessarily that PZC needs to be involved in every project review, but PZC is concerned that a proper level of public input be assured. Commission members have all reviewed projects that meet every requirement, but are really bad projects. However, there is also the project that doesn't meet any of the requirements, but is a wonderful project. There should be room for both types of projects to be massaged to achieve a satisfactory result. Mr. Elliott responded that the last criteria is that the application complies with all other requirements of the BSC district on which the land is located except as authorized by administrative departure, and that departure not be by more than a minimal percent. Their intent with the draft code was to require that the application meet the Code, not just the intent of the Code. The application must meet the standards, or in one of four situations, a request to the director can be made to change the compliance for that situation by a minimal amount, such as 10 percent. With that limited level of flexibility, the City will not get something that is very different from the Code. Council will inform staff how they're supposed to make those decisions. Outline them as clearly as possible, so it is apparent when it isn't done right. This draft has attempted to achieve that, but perhaps it needs to be tightened up. The direction with this area is more objectivity, clearer standards and more discipline, but the process will not get there completely. The goal is to have government operate the process by a few rules and then see if they work. If not, the rules are changed; the applicant is not the problem. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Mrs. Boring inquired if the process could include that, if an application does not meet the standards through negotiations with staff, at that point the application must be forwarded to PZC. Mr. Elliott responded that the draft code already indicates that the director can forward those up . if they choose. However, the code could indicate that it MUST be forwarded. In general, if it's a complex project, it should be sent up; otherwise, it should not. In his experience, staff's judgments are made on sound planning bases. Some triggers for forwarding applications could be provided in the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes Council may need to have a draft of what the proposed role of PZC would be in regard to the BSC area, including how they will monitor the process and the tools that staff needs to provide PZC to be able to monitor the decisions that have been made and the results of those decisions. Also included in the document should be a proposed process for public involvement. Council needs a draft document that they can "massage" and agree upon a process /policy to begin with, and then re- evaluate it after implementation. Mr. Reiner noted that PZC members are very knowledgeable about architectural detail. He would suggest that as they're going through this process, they observe what refinements could be made to tighten up the architectural issues. Is this draft the strongest code the consultants have seen in terms of controlling aesthetics? Mr. Elliott responded that it is, in terms of materials and articulation, but Council and PZC may identify issues they would typically raise. He is not a professional architect; he is a lawyer and planner who writes codes. Whatever level of detail this body wants can be written into that code. He would suggest caution, however. What makes a great city is not that every single building is a beautiful building; instead, it is the place. The goal is to achieve a place that attracts people because it is high class. In such a place, people can invest with confidence, and they will not be undercut by their neighbor. Their neighbor may not have the same level of fapade articulation that they have, and have preferred to spend their money in a different way, but that is acceptable. That exists in downtown Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, New York — all these other places. People are attracted because of the place, the public realm, the framing and the overall experience — not because every building has won an award. He would suggest adding everything in, then eliminating 20 percent of it. That allows architects to spend the money in the places the clients want them to spend the money and have some varieties. Mr. Taylor clarified that PZC has already reviewed the proposed Code thoroughly, and reported back to Planning several times on it. In return, Planning has incorporated much of what PZC recommended, and a certain level of detail has already been included in the draft Code. Although some additional tweaking may be necessary, essentially, PZC is in agreement with the draft Code. Mayor Lecklider noted that there are examples of similar areas near Dublin — the Short North, North Market, Victorian Village, Italian Village, the Arena District, where various districts all work. Although they weren't the result of a form -based Code, such as Dublin is doing in the Bridge Street Corridor, they are examples of subareas, which in and of themselves have distinct character, but work together as a larger district. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Dixon noted that the exact same Code could exist for the Arena District and the Short North, but they will not look like each other because one has single ownership and one has multiple owners. The goal is a process that will work for both and will produce very different kinds of results in different areas. Dublin will have a similar combination to the Arena District, Short North, and Italian Village, that is much different than Dublin has been. Everyone agrees that City leadership is important here. While Dublin is good in terms of City leadership and doesn't want to lose that, Council must realize that transition at this point in time with this charge. Although it will be different from how things were done in the past, it will not constitute abandoning any responsibilities. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if her suggestion would be an appropriate assignment for the consultants -- that is, defining the role of PZC, etc. Could they draft something for discussion by the group? Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that is a fantastic way to do it. The one comment she has heard is that if the people don't like what is occurring, they will elect a new Council. Planning staff doesn't work at the pleasure of Council. The Commission does not necessarily want to perpetuate anything. However, it is perfectly appropriate that the Commission look at the Code and the implementation process in consideration of what might best serve the City to maintain the best of the past and embrace the best of the future. She is not interested in being like every other city or working like Portland. She is interested in working like the best Dublin that Dublin can be. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher recommended that this assignment be given to PZC, along with whatever assistance is needed from staff in terms of materials to review. It is an appropriate assignment for the group who would be doing it to think through what their appropriate role would be in this different environment, for this part of Dublin only. Their role would not change for the other parts of the community. What things should PZC monitor, and how would that be done? Ms. Amorose- Groomes suggested that perhaps the current process could be scaled. It is much easier to remove review processes than to add them back in. Depending upon the level of success, if PZC did not feel that some area of review was necessary, that part could be removed. This method might help PZC to become more comfortable with the process as it moved forward. Vice Mayor Salay requested clarification of the proposed assignment Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Mr. Dixon has suggested that the City needs to define the role of PZC in this form -based Code. The form -based Code doesn't define PZC's role; it defines what the developer has to do. He has suggested that PZC's role would be a monitoring role to ensure that the Code we agree upon achieves what we want. The PZC skills and review would be used at a different place in the process than they have been used traditionally. To begin with, a written draft of their proposed role is needed, so that everyone is on the same page when discussing their role — the materials they would use, the process, the timeframes. Ms. Amorose- Groomes asked if she is suggesting the Commission look at the review process as a whole, or only at the role of PZC. Would she like to have recommendations for a holistic review process, including staff? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded she would assume that would be included Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Vice Mayor Salay asked if the intent is to define the point in the process — after a certain amount has been built -- at which PZC would then review the results and evaluate what has worked and what has not. Is that the role of PZC contemplated for this draft document? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked Mr. Dixon to articulate this more clearly. Mr. Dixon responded that he had pointed out three things that clearly were not yet resolved, but need to be part of this process. Those tasks appeared to be those in which PZC could probably have significant responsibility. These items would need to be part of the process, and perhaps PZC could do these: (1) A form of public consultation -- public engagement, that is both about education to the public and hearing back. How to keep people informed and aware, for their benefit, as well as the City's? (2) Monitor the whole process to evaluate if it is working — is it catching the egregious projects that are absolutely correct but are "just awful," and the projects that are absolutely incorrect yet absolutely wonderful. Mr. Gerber added: are the policies set forth by Council being achieved? (3) Evaluate when there is a need to change the rules or add to them — they've got to evolve. (4) A fourth role could be defining a safety valve -- it was supposed to go forward, but we need to find a way of dealing with it. Mr. Elliott stated that they were tasked to write a chapter that was very different than anything Dublin has done before. That has been done, and he is sure it will be revised along the way. The things you're talking about would be included in a modern development Code. When he is hired to re -write a development code for a whole city, there is always a section on the role of PZC in each type of approval process, what is the role of Council, and the role of ARB. Because modern development codes typically address those roles for the entire city, he had deferred including it here as this code is for one part of the City. However, that can easily be included and he would advise it. However, he would advise that it be put in once for the whole city, rather than for a section. Similarly, many modern codes have a very clear statement of how public involvement is achieved in the city. Some of the cities who have had the most pleasant experiences with zoning over the years are the ones who treat it as a two -way street — they listen to the citizens and also educate the citizens as to the right places to get informed in the process. The level of education increases dramatically, but the City receives better feedback when the public has a good idea of where they're supposed to be engaged in the process. In addition, although this is not included in the Code as Council is not required to comply with it, there should be a periodic review of the whole Code every six months or annually. A six month or annual review of whether the standards and procedures are working that is based on what was approved in the past year, is good policy, not just for the BSC, but for the whole city. It keeps the Code from getting out of date, and it helps the citizens because they know the defined periods of time when the City will make a concerted effort to get citizen input on any changes needed. Public input doesn't occur when citizens become angry. Instead, it occurs on a schedule that nonprofits and citizen organizations are aware of. Mayor Lecklider stated that he appreciates the discussion regarding community involvement, and that it is a two -way street. The citizens expect their leaders to lead, and that is part of Council's charge. He thanked Mr. Dixon and Mr. Elliott for their contributions to the discussion, and noted everyone's participation is appreciated. In looking at the next steps, in view of Mr. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, August 11, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Gerber's positive experience with the form -based Code workshop with staff, he suggests a similar opportunity be made available to other Council members and to PZC. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted that PZC has already had this workshop provided to them. Vice Mayor Salay stated that Mr. Gerber has indicated he benefited from the one -on -one discussion with staff versus a workshop with everyone present. Although it would involve more staff time, it is important that Council becomes more knowledgeable regarding the form -based Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that PZC's workshop involved only the Commission and staff, so they were able to ask many questions. A small group was beneficial. Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer a group session so she could hear the questions and ideas of other Council Members. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can do both. A group presentation can be scheduled before a Council meeting, or on a separate date. If a Council Member also wants an individual session with staff. that can also be scheduled. Mrs. Boring asked about the next step for the BSC plan process. Ms. Grigsby responded that the next step would be a discussion of the draft document of PZC's role in the BSC review process. Because of their familiarity with the things that should be considered in the draft document, she believes it would be helpful to have the consultants provide their ideas and draft the draft document. That document could then be presented to PZC, and then PZC can draft their proposed role. Finally, we can work on merging the two documents. Mr. Gerber stated that a suggestion was also made to create a subarea map, and discuss each subarea with input from all, regarding the features and expectations of each district. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that there could be an illustrative vision and a text vision. Mr. Gerber agreed, or it could be a combination of the two. There could be another joint workshop for that discussion. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff and the consultants would work on the draft document of PZC's role, then work on scheduling another next joint session to review the subareas. The form -based Code workshop could be scheduled for the next Council meeting, or on an additional off - Monday. It could also be videotaped and posted at the web to educate residents on how the form -based code would be used and implemented. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would be very helpful to have it available at the website. Also, even if Council members schedule individual discussions with staff, a form -based Code presentation should be provided to Council as a whole. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and JULY 7, 2011 Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 4301 6 -1 23 6 Phone/ TDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting; 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion RESULT: Planning presented an overview of the modifications made to the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, demonstrated how the Code may be used for a development proposal and highlighted the architectural requirements based on a mixed -use building type. Commission members preferred to discuss the Vision Report and the Illustrative Vision Plan rather than the details of the Code at this point in time. The Commissioners commented that the Vision Plan lacked an organizing vision / "big idea" to inspire development in the corridor, that a green space /public space plan was needed, that connectivity among the districts throughout the corridor was very important as is the Scioto River access and meaningful connections across the river. The Commission was also concerned about the approval /implementation process to ensure quality development. STAFF CERTIFICATION 4 v e Steve Langwort Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 Additional Administrative Business BSC Code Discussion Steve Langworthy, Justin Goodwin and Rachel Ray presented a PowerPoint overview of the modifications made to the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, demonstrated how the Code may be used for a development proposal and highlighted the architectural requirements based on a mixed -use building type. Steve Langworthy said staff has been working for 3 months on a Code with consultants that would normally take 12 - 18 months, therefore it is not perfect. He said there are several items which have not been tied down, mainly the street types, which is very important. He said a lot of things flow depending on the street type. He said staff has been reviewing current projects to determine how they can be changed to be made closer to the Bridge Street Code, knowing those projects would be a head of where the code adoption is. He said we have been testing using the information we have against that. Mr. Langworthy said in the past we discussed how to explain this complex code to the public. He said a User Guide will be developed to give a simple explanation of how the pieces fit together. He said staff will review the building and building types, what the terminology means and how it will be applied. Mr. Langworthy said this is inserted into the Zoning Code much like the COIC was when it was developed. He said when changes are made to the Code it triggers changes to be made elsewhere, this is true in this case. He said at some point we expect the BSC Definitions section to be incorporated into the current Zoning Code Section 153.002 so that there will be one consolidated section. Mr. Langworthy said that the BSC Code starts with the uses table that shows what uses are conditional and which ones have a time limitation on them, which uses are upper floor zoning and which uses are permitted. He said Planning spoke to property owners to see which uses they would like to see and added some new uses, such as banks. He said banks are unique because they have drive thrus, and the Code has them separated by banks and banks with drive thrus. Mr. Langworthy said the changes with the drafts is that there are currently viable uses in the area which will be there for while, but on the other hand one of the aspects of the existing use has to do with non conformities. He said if a property is a non - conforming use the owner has difficulties financing from a bank and so the Code considers these types of uses as existing rather than non- conforming. He said it is a subtle change but it allows staff to write letters to owners without using the phrase non - conforming use. He said it is language many property owners have been soothed by. Mr. Langworthy said that the Code allows the owners to stay in place and use the uses, which were in the district just prior to rezoning to the BSC district. He said the language will state the business can continue as is or the business can be sold to someone with the same type of business or a business which would have been allowed in the previous zoning. He said he is not sure what else needs to be done to make business owners not feel as though they are being pushed out of the corridor. Mr. Langworthy said he would like to discuss the philosophy of neighborhood standards. He said the two major neighborhoods are the OCLC property, referred to as the Indian Run neighborhood and the Stavroff Development, the Dublin Village Center area, which is referred Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 to as the Sawmill Center neighborhood. He said we are trying to work with these businesses in their planning process to incorporate their concept and their plan into the neighborhood standards. He said both are very close in nature to what we want to achieve in the rest of the corridor. Mr. Langworthy said the exception is the historic transition area; this is a sensitive area because the bulk of the historic transition is the school site. He said the zoning proposed for the school site is going to be public because it is a public use, the zoning plan will move that into historic transition. He said we are not doing specific standards for the historic transition area until we get that area under one ownership. Mr. Langworthy said open space is a hot topic, when we first saw the open space provisions do not do what we wanted them to do. He said the previous draft did not deal with all sizes and types of developments; it has been changed to deal with those situations. He said diversity was added to the open space types. He said open space works in different ways. He said traditionally people only think of large areas as open space, what we want people to understand is there are different functionalities to open space. Mr. Langworthy said at street level, for example, the Bri -Hi street area is open space, it is not thought of that way because it is not green with grass, but it is a space where people can interact which makes it open space. He said another open space area is between Tucci's and Krema, there is a bench which is also considered open space. He said even in an urban environment one can find a small intimate setting where a few people can gather. Mr. Langworthy said the in the Village Green area is more public space for gathering and up to the levels of parks. He said what we need to get people to think of is there is an array of areas that can be considered open space. He said there is also a new type of open space called pocket plaza or pocket park. He said one thing being considered is if for whatever reason open space is not able to be provided. He said we have developed a payment in lieu of option which allows the applicant to not provide an open space area. He said the fee would need to be approved to prevent applicants from foregoing an opportunity to provide open space. Mr. Langworthy said another aspect of the open space section deals with reducing the amount of open water provided in terms of the percentage of open space to create more usable space. He said we are also looking at doing more innovative stormwater management techniques. Mr. Langworthy said in the past two months there have been a number of requests to rezone properties, the Bridge Point property has requested to be in the Commercial Zone. He said there has been a request from Oakland Nursery, essentially asking to be left alone. He said their request is that they do not want to be altered in anyway. He said these types of requests would come in front of this Commission to make their pitch about what they want to do and why they want to do it. He said at that time the Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council about these individual requests. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any questions Amy Kramb asked if the Commission will get to see the Zoning Map as a part of this Code Mr. Langworthy yes, but it is also on the Bridge Street Corridor website. John Hardt said he has visited the website, but would like actual documents submitted. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 Ms. Kramb asked if there is any intention to put a map in the open space section Mr. Langworthy said the problem is designating someone's property as park. He said doing that states that the City has the intention of buying part of that property, which drastically brings down the property level. Ms. Kramb said that you can state you are taking private property for a road. Mr. Langworthy said yes, that has been commonly accepted because a road allows access to property. He said the open space is another question. Mr. Langworthy said we want to have a map with the intent to put together an acquisition map that would be placed in front of Council at an executive session. He said City Council can go into executive session for the purchase of land. He said there is a process for purchasing land which can be extensive. Richard Taylor said he understands the potential problems that come with informing a property owner that their land is going to be used for something other than what they are currently using it for. He said at the same time if someone purchases a piece of property with an investment in mind and they do not know the future intent of the property then they will have wasted their money. He said there has to be a way to allow those properties to be programmed in a way that allows this program to exist and allows the owners to still enjoy their property. He said we need to have a plan that has strength and character that we want to proceed with and not one that gets so chopped up until there is not a plan at all. Mr. Amorose Grooms said no one in this room has control over that; it is going to be City Council who has control of it. Mr. Taylor said AI Vrable's project is an example because his project does not meet the guidelines. He said the very first project that is to go in does not do what we want it to do and becomes a hole in this plan. He said those types of things are the things we need to ensure we have the fortitude to take the risks of making people mad or making it more difficult to get a loan from the bank. He said those are things we do not want to make happen. He said those issues are going to happen at the beginning of any major change like this. Mr. Taylor said we want to make sure people see that this is going to be what we are saying it is going to be. He said places like Oakland Nursery could be more valuable if they are a part of this rather than if they are islands. Mr. Langworthy said that point has been made, but the owners know the value of what they currently have and do not know the value of something in the future. He said that is part of the education. Warren Fishman said he if the property owners have the ability to choose zoning then there may as well not be any zoning assigned. He said if the property owners have the ability to pay rather than have open space, they will pay. He said we've been through this before with trees: we really need to make these things specific. He said we have not laid out the ratio of open space to begin with. Mr. Langworthy said there is a portion of open space that must be provided based on the number of units based on square footage. He said the amount of open space provided will be directly proportional to the amount of density. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 Mr. Fishman said but we do not know how the land is going to be divided or who the owners are going to be. He said if someone comes in with an application and he is stuck with a ratio of space he will have to give up that he is unaware of. Mr. Langworthy said it is dependent on the amount of development you have, it is not dependent on where you are or when you develop. He said it is what you develop. Mr. Hardt said the latest edition of the text does say you must have 200 square feet of open space for every dwelling unit. He said it is very methodical and he disagrees with Mr. Fishman because that approach, he fears, could result in what we do not want. He said if we require every development to require a set amount of open space, we will get a developer who only designates the required amount. Mr. Langworthy said that will be addressed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said we may not want every developer to supply green space on their parcel, the city may want to have the fee in lieu of green space and acquire green space for the developer. Mr. Langworthy said we want to write criteria in which that would be decided and a fee would be appropriate rather than providing open space. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would have to be pertinent open space. Justin Goodwin presented a demonstration of how the site development standards for street types, lots and block requirements, and building type requirements are intended to work together. He explained that when applicants begin a project, they do not typically start at the beginning of the code and work through it from start to finish; rather, how they apply the code depends on the conditions specific to the site and work from there. Mr. Goodwin began with the street type requirements, which he acknowledged is a section that still needs some work because the transportation consultants are still in the process of producing the entire palette of street types that will be recommended for the different areas of the Bridge Street Corridor. He noted that the current draft contains a street network map, which has changed since the original version of the draft. Mr. Goodwin stated that the concept of street families has also changed, since the transportation consultants are recommending a more generalized approach to organizing streets in terms of general character and function. He said that street families are different from our typical Thoroughfare Plan, which runs from arterial streets down to collector streets, then to local streets. He said there is an element of function necessary for any street type, but categorizing streets by function is a vehicular- focused approach. He said the transportation consultants want to make sure that all modes of transportation are considered and that the land use character of the surrounding areas are also considered. He said most of the specific street sections will ultimately be located in the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Applicant Guide after they are completed. Mr. Goodwin stated that there was confusion at the last Joint Work Session about Bridge Street being included as a street family, which staff agreed was confusing. He said Bridge Street will have its own street sections that will be specifically geared toward Bridge Street in various portions of the Corridor since it would be inappropriate to have one street section for the entire Corridor. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 Mr. Goodwin explained the primary address street family, shown in orange in the presentation, intended for cross -town connections with a higher density of development along them. He continued that another street family is the neighborhood address street, shown in blue in the presentation, and how these street types relate to lots and blocks is very important. He stated that the lots and blocks section of the code lays out maximum block dimensions for each zoning district, and depending on the street types in a particular zoning district and the types of uses a developer might be interested in developing, the lots and block section will provide the maximum size of a block that can be created. Mr. Goodwin presented the three building types that are included in the code demonstration, including the Apartment Building, Single - Family Attached, and Loft Building. He started by showing an example apartment building on a hypothetical lot with parking located to the rear of the building. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that parking could be located in a structure beneath apartment buildings. Mr. Goodwin affirmed and added that there is also a separate building type for parking structures if the parking is located in a separate structure. Mr. Goodwin reported that the Code requires 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space for each dwelling unit. He referred to page 66 of the Code where all of the different types of open spaces that would be appropriate in different districts were listed with dimensional requirements. He stated that one of the issues with the open space types and one of the reasons that Planning thought it was very important to provide a fee -in -lieu of land dedication option, is that it may not always be possible for one of the open space types to actually fit onto a site because there are minimum dimensions and minimum area requirements for each open space type. He said for smaller lots, it would probably not be possible to provide the open space on- site. He referred to the Pocket Park open space type, which is a residential- oriented type of close -knit open space that is a minimum of one -tenth of an acre up to one -half acre. He said each open space type also has different street frontage requirements. He said the intent was to not allow the open spaces to be buried into a site and no longer be publicly accessible or to feel like the public can also access the space. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned about open space in terms of how to make sure that there is a logical connection between where open space is provided and where residential units or office spaces are located. Mr. Goodwin said that was something that they were aware still needed work in the Code. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the dedicated open space would be required to stay in the zoning district. Mr. Goodwin said that was not how it was written, but he thought that was a fair point to consider. Mr. Hardt said that he feared that developers would figure out how to avoid the open space type requirements and provide open space in the left over land available on the site. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Code more clearly state that the ultimate decision of where open space occurs is with a specific body. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 Mr. Goodwin explained that the open space section was written to provide discretion not necessarily for the applicant, but for the reviewing body, whether it is the ART or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Taylor asked about the purpose of requiring open space, what the open space requirements are expected to accomplish, and why they would not want some blocks to be completely built out, or others to be entirely dedicated to open space. He asked why, in reference to Mr. Goodwin's example, they would want to have one corner of the block open space and the other three developed. Mr. Goodwin said the example was very generalized and not intended to suggest that that exact spot was the most appropriate location for the open space. He said his intent was to show the relationship between the development density and the amount of open space required. Mr. Taylor said he understood the intent of the demonstration, but asked why we would want individual parcels to be required to provide open space. Mr. Goodwin suggested that perhaps one way to think about it is what we do not want to do, and maybe the language needs to be fine tuned, but we do not want to require specific individual parcels to provide the required open space, but every developer should be required to make sure that sufficient open space is provided, not necessarily on the parcel. Mr. Hardt commented that in dense urban environments, the purpose of open spaces is to provide relief from the density. He said it seemed that in Bridge Street, we have yet to create the density before we need relief from it, rather than providing parks that are relief from something that does not exist yet. Mr. Langworthy said that was an important distinction because they are showing residential, but there are also open space requirements for commercial. He said those open spaces adjacent to more commercial- oriented development would not likely include playgrounds with a lot of trees and fields, but it could be a plaza, for example, with a different set of amenities. Mr. Taylor said when he looked at Bri High Square; the green space in the back did not get much use, so he would view it more as half an open space. He said that, had where the veterinarian building is located been designed to be a mirror image of the Bri High Square green space that is similar in size, it would be big enough to function. He asked if by requiring developers to provide open space, are we really gaining anything? He referred to Mr. Goodwin's example of open space and asked if it would not just be better to locate more parking or building on the area shown as open space, and provide a bigger, better open space on its own block across the street. Mr. Goodwin said that the requirement on page 66 in the Open Space Type section is intended to try to make that distinction. He quoted that, in dealing with provision of open space and existing open spaces, If the ART determines that an existing open space can be used to meet the open space requirement, then the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu. He explained that if there are circumstances such as what Mr. Taylor is alluding to, and that block is developed and enough open space is already provided nearby when the next block develops, then in this case, the ART could actually prevent that duplicate open space from being created if it is determined that it is not appropriate to create another pocket park in close proximity to an existing pocket park when one larger park would be better. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 Mr. Taylor suggested that in an area with a gridded street network, where we would want relief from density, if we say that one block is going to be entirely dedicated to open space, and the six blocks surrounding that block would not have any smaller open spaces of their own, then the density of the residential buildings surrounding the open space block would result in four strong street edges with six blocks of residents and employees who all view that space as theirs, and are all going to share that space and find ways to use it together throughout the years. He said the small corner space in the example would only be used by the people in that block, which is a small number of people. He said he thought we might end up with small islands of open space if each development is required to provide one open space for itself. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the criteria in the Code, which seems to require either funds or space, and the administration would determine if funds or land is desired for accomplishing what we want with open space. She said if funds were provided, then the City could buy the block in the middle for a larger open space with the funds generated from the six blocks on the perimeter. She said she agreed completely with Mr. Taylor, but the decision lies with the administration. Mr. Taylor agreed and clarified that the idea of where we want those larger open spaces are decisions that need to be made in advance, because if someone drops an apartment building on block that we all wanted to be a park, it would be too late. Mr. Langworthy said this scenario would probably work the best in the three neighborhood districts where we will have the ability to work with a single property owner to identify where the developer will agree to one large block being developed as dedicated open space with development on the surrounding blocks. He said that type of development would be harder in the areas where there are lots of smaller parcels that are split between different property owners, but it would be easier to do in a Dublin Village Center or OCLC development. Mr. Zimmerman asked how the fees in lieu are calculated. Mr. Goodwin explained that the amount is based on the assessed value of the property multiplied by the amount of development. He said that appraisals of land per acre is periodically updated by Finance. He added that the same method of calculation is currently used for open space dedication with residential subdivisions elsewhere in the city. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that the purpose of the Commission's discussion this evening is to understand how the Code is applied so that they will have a better understanding when it is time for the Commission to review the code page by page. She wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the potential holes, then when the draft Code is finalized by staff and the consultants, the Commission can go through the Code and see if the holes still remain, and if so, discuss solutions. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the Code was not finished. He said he thought what Ms. Amorose Groomes was requesting was to try to identify what might be missing. Mr. Fishman stated that development is market - driven, so we cannot control how and when development occurs. He said the Code needs to have some flexibility, but also a good deal of structure. He was concerned that the Code may require open space to be located a certain way, but it might not end up that way because the developer will argue that it is a hardship. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that the administration of the open space requirements will be vital. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 Ms. Kramb said she could not find requirements for curb cut location and the amount permitted in the Code. Mr. Langworthy explained that there are still access management requirements that exist elsewhere in the City's Codes, and will still need to be adhered to in the Corridor. He explained that if topics are not addressed specifically in the Bridge Street Code, then the requirements of the rest of the Code will continue to apply. Ms. Kramb suggested that Engineering carefully review the curb cut standards number allowed because with small blocks and alleys, there could end up being a driveway every ten feet. Mr. Goodwin said the intent of the lot and block requirements is, if there is an alley or a mid - block access point, then vehicular access would occur from the alley instead of the street. He added that vehicular access is also regulated by building type, regardless of whether or not there is a principal frontage street adjacent to a lot. He said most building types would not allow vehicular access from the front property line. Rachel Ray presented a demonstration of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code Building Type Requirements. She explained that the requirements were applicable to building facades, which are intended to give buildings a sense of character, authenticity, and architectural diversity. She presented photograph of an existing four -story, mixed use building located on Grandview Avenue as an example that nearly fits the character and requirements of the Mixed Use Building Type requirements. Mr. Hardt noted that the example building clearly indicated where signs are intended to be placed on the building through the architectural design. He said that he would like to see sign location added to the list of building requirements. Mr. Fishman was concerned that 80- percent of these buildings could be wood and fiber - cement siding, which are listed as permitted primary building materials. He said that was not appropriate for Dublin. He thought buildings should be at least 80- percent brick or stone, not wood siding or Hardiplank. Ms. Ray said they would want to be careful in applying that across the board. She said some building types, such as the historic building types, it might be more appropriate to have wood siding or more siding instead. She agreed to look at it to see it made more sense to limit siding as a primary material particularly for certain building types. Mr. Fishman said with the density we are going to see, we do not want buildings built mainly with Hardiplank. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Fishman, because when buildings exceed two stories, it gets expensive, if not impossible to maintain non - durable materials, and Hardiplank, although more durable than regular siding, is going to fall into that category compared to brick or stone. He said it could end up looking bad, quickly. Mr. Zimmerman asked if tinted windows were allowed on residential buildings, since Low -E glass, which is more energy efficient, is considered "tinted." Ms. Ray said tinted glass was not mentioned Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 Mr. Hardt pointed out that all glass is now tinted, and regarding being reflective, the text referred to highly reflective glass, which is hard to define. He suggested research to find appropriate percentages or thresholds and to put numeric values to that term. Mr. Taylor was concerned that there was too much homogeneity in the example building. He said he would like to see that there is plenty of provision for a lot more variation in architecture, as long as the forms fit. He said specifically, they needed to make room to allow for a more innovative use of synthetic materials. He said he would hate to see every building brick, stone, and Hardiplank. He said alternative materials would fit wonderfully on that. He said he liked this part of the Code because a good designer could work with it and make really special buildings even with the amount of prescription given. He said he thought even the worst designer would make a tolerable building out of this, although hopefully tolerable buildings will not be accepted. He said he thought it went far enough to make sure the worst stuff we get still generally fits and allows enough room for great things to happen. Mr. Taylor said he hoped that when they get into the sign discussion that they get away from the propensity that we have in Dublin that all development signs should be the same. He said he thought it would be entirely appropriate and with the essence of this kind of development that we end up with unique signs. Mr. Langworthy asked if the three color limitation was still desirable for signs in the Bridge Street Corridor. The Commissioners agreed that there could be a greater diversity of sign color in the Corridor due to the type of development desired. Ms. Ray said the draft Code currently allows sign plans to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the three neighborhood districts to allow a greater variety of colors or types of signs, or something totally different, so they would like to have that flexibility instead of trying to define what all signs have to be right up front. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she appreciated the effort taken in putting these presentations together. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was a lot of discussion on the table based on the City Council discussion at their July 6, 2011 meeting. She recounted that, through the course of Council's discussion, the pendulum seemed to swing from reengaging public meetings to only having the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council sit down and discuss the main issues. She said the direction would probably fall somewhere with the Planning and Zoning Commission and maybe some other boards and commissions or maybe consultants, because if they start engaging in public meetings again they will have taken a step backward. Ms. Amorose Groomes said her goal for the Commission at the Joint Work Session is that she would like the Commissioners to come as a unified body with one voice about the things that they really want to drive a stake into the ground about, and things that they would be more flexible with and things that they would be less flexible with, and things that they believe are really wrong and things that they can live with. She said there is no doubt that they will see the draft Code and will go page by page and dig into all of the details, and she expects that to be a lengthy process. However, she said when it gets to that point, they are just going to be talking about the Code and tonight, she would like to talk about the vision so they can be prepared to be on the same page at the Joint Work Session. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Ms. Amorose Groomes said she wanted to keep the vision separate from the Code. She said she would like to let Planning finish their work on the Code and save the discussion of the Code for later. She would like the Commissioners to talk about the vision and what things in the vision are most important. She said that rather than to try to articulate those things separately, if they could be of one voice, she thought they had a better shot of communicating those points effectively at the Joint Work Session. Ms. Amorose Groomes said when it comes to visioning; they really needed to talk about what was their vision for the Corridor as a Commission, and what they feel the vision should be. She asked if the Commissioners had the opportunity to refine and built upon the Vision Report, which she agreed was a good start, what the Commission feels is missing and how can they get the elements incorporated into the vision that they feel are not there presently. Ms. Amorose Groomes said at the last Joint Work Session, she walked out thinking that there is no vision, and although we have a Vision Report, we do not have a 'vision.' Mr. Taylor said what he heard from Council was a discussion of the physical drawing for the Plan, and that Council had concerns about things that might be missing. He agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes and Council's comments, that the descriptions in the text of the Vision Report are good, but he thought it was interesting that many of the things articulated in the text are not realized fully in the drawing of the vision, and he thought that was where there was a disconnect. Mr. Taylor thought they had all the input needed, and they have talked about elements that may start to satisfy that vision. He said they were at the point now of deciding which of those elements are most important. He said it seemed like a small step to define those important elements and give their feedback as a Commission to Council. He hoped they would then put their feedback together with Council's and then go back to some entity, perhaps Goody Clancy, and ask them to incorporate these missing elements into a new version of the plan. Mr. Fishman said one of the concerns was that they had to make sure that this vision is shared by property owners, Council, and everybody so that it is implemented because they do not want to just put it on the shelf. He said there needs to be a consensus. Ms. Amorose Groomes said a consensus is important, but more than a consensus, that once the vision is agreed upon that the will is mustered up to implement the vision. Mr. Taylor said he did not see the Vision Plan as being very far off track. He said the Code is something that they will continue to tweak and revise, and he thought it would be easy enough to modify the Code when needed. He said he thought there was plenty of time and room to make the plan right and incorporate the ideas that the Commission feels are important. Ms. Amorose Groomes shared a compliment from Council member John Reiner who in their discussion, said that he was looking for the vision to come from the Planning and Zoning Commission because he felt that they had the best skill set to do that. She thought that was a great compliment and a charge. She agreed that the vision is not clear or defined enough to what the Commissioners feels it should be. Ms. Amorose Groomes opened up the discussion to the rest of the Commissioners and asked what elements they thought were missing from the vision. Ms. Kramb said the vision principles were fine and everyone generally seemed to be in agreement with them. She thought however that it was derailed with the Illustrative Vision Plan, the rendering that is in the report that the public sees and that everyone is going by, and she thought that needed to be redrawn. She said the Illustrative Vision Plan did not need to be Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 redrawn by a consultant who does not live here, but by the Commission and City Council, and then it should be shown to the public for their input. She said in her opinion, the only problem with the entire Vision Report is that rendering. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for the comments discussed at the Open Space Workshop in March. Mr. Langworthy agreed to provide the notes to the Commission. Mr. Hardt said that in his opinion, the Illustrative Vision Plan does not have a big idea. He asked the Commissioners, if they thought 50 years from now, if the legacy for this Corridor is the creation of 'X,' what is that? He suggested engagement of the riverfront, the creation of a town square, or 'X' number of residential units. He asked what the one thing was, more than any other that they wanted to accomplish in the Corridor, and based on the Illustrative Vision Plan, that seemed to be a little bit of everything. He said it was surprising that they could lay out a plan for hundreds of acres in the core of an already developed city and not somewhere along the way find themselves saying in order to make this successful, what they really have to do is this one thing, and it is going to be really hard to do, but we have to do it because it is the right thing to do. Mr. Hardt said the location, distribution, and how green space and public space is handled is universally important to everyone. He said the connectivity between the various areas of the Bridge Street Corridor is enormously important. He said he was fearful that the way this is playing out is that they could end up with five or six little Easton -like pods that do not connect to each other. He said getting them all to work together and feel connected is hugely important. Mr. Hardt said he still had a lot of concern about the approval and implementation process and how quality will be assured going forward. Ms. Amorose Groomes said those were four great points. Joe Budde said although he was a new Commissioner and had not been present during many of the early discussions; he thought that the Scioto River had not been not sufficiently addressed. Ms. Kramb said she thought the Parks Department would be a key contributor to this discussion in knowing what they have planned. Mr. Fishman said his experience with the Parks Department was that there was a certain way parks are positioned and how big they are to how they can maintain them. He said he thought they should provide input. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that would be part of the fiscal analysis. Mr. Taylor agreed that programmed and specifically placed open spaces, better use and access to the Scioto River, and meaningful and purposeful connections across the river need to be discussed further. He said if Dublin is going to have a grid street system, that was great, but he thought it needed to be organized and arranged around some strong visual concept. Ms. Kramb said regarding the grid system, there would need to be main arterials, and there cannot be curb cuts along Riverside Drive every 400 feet or so. Mr. Taylor said one of the best things about Dublin he had heard from many people was the roadway underneath the bridge. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized the main points that the Commission had discussed: That the Vision Plan lacked an organizing vision or one "big idea" that would inspire development in the corridor and leave a legacy; That a defined green space /public space plan was needed; That connectivity among the districts throughout the corridor was important; That access to the Scioto River access and meaningful connections across the river are critical; and That there be an approval and implementation process will ensure that quality development will result throughout the Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for feedback regarding how best to organize their comments regarding what they would like to see incorporated in the illustrative vision plan. Mr. Langworthy thought it would be useful if one or more of the Commissioners were able to report at the August l ltn Joint Work Session that they had discussed this topic and found that there are five critical ideas that they thought needed to be addressed in the Vision Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes offered to present what they felt was missing and then they could assign the specific items to individual Commissioners. Mr. Langworthy suggested that as the Commission put their notes together, that if they have an idea of what they would like to see on some slides to back up their presentation, let Planning know in advance so they can help prepare the Commissioners. Ms. Amorose Groomes said perhaps at the July 21 meeting, assignments could be made. She suggested the Commissioners individually think about what they would want to do that they could briefly speak with some expertise and clarity. Mr. Langworthy suggested that they could adjourn the meeting to the Council Planning Room after the July 21 meeting to discuss what they would like to do at the Joint Work Session. Mr. Langworthy asked that the Commissioners not to forget to read the Character District descriptions in the Vision Report. He suggested they think about what they see when driving down Bridge Street, as you come off the highway in the first block, coming to Frantz Road and what they saw in the next stretch coming into the Historic District, where does the Historic District begin and what do they see from that point, and crossing the river, what do they see. He said they do not really have that level of detail or the answer to those questions. He said part of that was because they have transportation issues remaining to be resolved such as what happens at Riverside Drive and SR 161 and Frantz Road and Post Road. Mr. Langworthy said those things have to be decided before they can really decide those issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Meeting Page 9 Mayor Lecklider commented that he is appreciative that Ms. Grigsby has pointed out the staff efforts that have brought this project forward. Ms. Grigsby commented that this also reduces the City's dependence upon petroleum products. Staff anticipates it will continue to be less costly to use natural gas. By having reduced fuel costs and having secured grant funds and the contribution from IGS, this project will bring significant savings for the City. OTHER Discussion re. Bridge Street Corridor Mayor Lecklider stated that tonight's agenda includes a free exchange of comments among Council Members regarding the initiative to give some guidance to staff. Each Council Member will have an opportunity to make comments. Mr. Reiner commented that at the last Council meeting, there was discussion about the "missing vision" and he is hopeful that tonight's comments can be shared with the Planning group. One of the ideas that came up previously was the riverfront park that now is missing, and there was concern over that. He views the Corridor as three pods that are very important to develop: the OCLC pod, the Historic Dublin pod, and the Dublin Village Center pod. The 161 Corridor is already well handled, as established businesses exist along this corridor, including an international corporate headquarters, a jeweler who has built a beautiful new building, La Scala Restaurant and others. Currently, these active businesses pay taxes and therefore this portion is not in need of redevelopment at this time. There are potential sites for the new type of urban development, and he would like Council to develop a limited statement about what they believe is missing in the vision in the master plan, so that this can be addressed and incorporated. As Chair of the Community Development Committee, he urged Council to keep tonight's discussion brief and to the point. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that in reading the vision statements again, she was struck by the words contained, which supported her concept of what the City was planning to do with the Corridor. However, at this point, she feels she has not heard, or she has missed, or the communication is different from what she reads in the vision statements. There are words such as "exceptional greenspace preserved" and "outstanding natural features." However, she does not see exceptional greenspace, but rather pockets of greenspace, not dramatic enough to draw attention to them. The vision statement speaks to "inviting walking and gathering" — which suggests an area that people are drawn to, with lots of activity within, and not so much passive pedestrian use as a combination of passive and active use. On page 6, it talks of "reinforcing economic development strategies through an enduring commitment to exemplary planning and design" and "will help create places that make Dublin stand out and stay competitive." That is what she does not see in the recent documents — something unique and different. It is simply "cookie cutter pieces," without interconnection to make a dynamic area and statement, drawing people to live and work there, and to enjoy while walking around. On page 8, it speaks of "great cultural connections with expanded civic uses such as libraries." Council talked at length at the goal setting retreat about placing the library in a learning center and discussed exciting ideas of partnership and opportunities between OCLC, the Columbus Metropolitan Library, the Dublin Schools and the City. Recently, there has been extensive coverage in the Columbus Dispatch about the opening of the Scioto Mile park. Alan McKnight, Columbus Parks and Recreation Director spoke of the Scioto River, which has long existed, yet only now is being opened to the external area with the Scioto Mile project. She had anticipated Dublin would do the same with the Scioto River in Historic Dublin -- that the river would be the centerpiece and all of the interaction of the public would be inclusive of the river. In more recent discussions, she has heard nothing of this for the Corridor Plan. Tonight, she envisioned this learning center and, depending upon placement, how the river could be incorporated. She is concerned that the exciting ideas previously discussed are being lost. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of_ Dublin City Council Plcctin July 6, 2011 Page 10 Mr. Reiner mentioned the three pods — with OCLC at the western end and which has a great desire to open their complex to the world, and with the Indian Run close by; the middle portion, which could be the 21 century learning center; and then the river and what could be a central park that extends up into Dublin Village Center. It could be a combination of an entertainment district — retail, business, residential components — with a more urban feel. She is aware that there are many districts included in the Corridor Plan, but perhaps the overall vision is lost in this division. Perhaps the pods need to have more interaction within and be more integrated to the adjacent pod. She had expected this project to be a dramatic centerpiece for Dublin that would complete it in a way that would be comprehensive, with a place in town accommodating all of the lifestyles people desire in different phases of their lives. She does not feel there is "drama" in the presentations to date. Even the transportation system can be dramatic, and she wants Council to consider bold ways of moving people through town — not depending upon COTA or federal and state government. What could Dublin do in a small geographic area that would be unique and different? These are her comments to share. Mrs. Boring noted that she was not present at the last Council meeting, but sent Council Members a memo with her comments on the Bridge Street Corridor. She is looking for more interaction between Council and the Planning department. Council has not had the opportunity to provide ideas to staff for them to explore. The vision plan was approved by Council, but since that time, there has not been opportunity for this discussion. In terms of the pods, there are too many and they are not integrated as they should be. Someone at the last meeting indicated that Dublin has always been proactive, but is now being reactive. This is reflected in the Bridge Street Corridor plan, as well. When questions arise, the response from staff is that, 'The Code will address that issue." The way this is developing is that Council is not setting the standards — the developers will address these issues when development comes forward. There has been no opportunity for "give and take" in the process. She believes the library placement must be determined before street locations are finalized; the grid streets make sense, but they do not work in scale. The City should not be so tied to an idea as to lose flexibility. The shocking aspect of the plan is that the greenspace near the river has disappeared. She would like definitions of walkability and connectivity. The last plan included green strips of connectivity, but what about walkability? Is there a difference? Currently, it seems the tool is being developed, which will create the vision. She wants to have a more active discussion between Council and Planning Commission and an opportunity to share and discuss ideas. The interaction needed has not occurred to date. She is not certain about her support of a form -based Code, but perhaps more education is needed. At the present time, she is totally uncomfortable with the form -based Code concept, as it does not result in the vision that Council adopted. Mr. Gerber stated that there is clearly a need to vet the vision for this Code. He has spoken with several architects, and they all seem to have a different concept of form - based Code. The best definition he has received to date is that a form -based Code is not straight line Code, but instead is based upon a concept or vision. On page 16 of the vision report, it indicates, "This conceptual plan should be interpreted as one possible development outcome that reflects market opportunity and the intent of the vision principles. Actual outcomes that differ from this illustrative concept are inevitable, but all development should make every effort to embody the vision principles." He is not certain that everyone is in agreement with what those vision principles are. In keeping with the tradition of thoroughly vetting this, he would prefer to have a workshop where Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and staff — not consultants -- have in depth discussion in a roundtable fashion. This would help everyone to understand each visionary principle. Otherwise, this is just another version of urbanism, which is not what he expected and is not exciting or different. There is clearly a need to "Dublinize" this — as has been done in the past with other plans. There has been discussion of a new 21 century learning center, and now is the time to discuss this. There has been discussion about green space and Riverside Drive, and these items can be discussed in the workshop as well. There has not been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Page 11 an opportunity for these three groups to review the vision report and make sure the principles are fully understood. He wants to have staff's assistance in helping to understand what form -based Code is. In addition, discussion is needed about who will serve as the gatekeeper. There is an architectural review team established in the Code, but who comprises that team? Those are the people who will carry out the vision. What discretion do they have, and what are the expectations of Council? It is important to have this discussion among Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and staff so that everyone is on the same page. At this point, his sense is that everyone is not on the same page. He is aware that business owners have concerns about property rights, and he is confident that these concerns will be addressed to their satisfaction. For him, the Code is simply a "menu" after the concept is in place. Absent a good concept, he is not certain what the Code will mean. Mr. Keenan commented that he has the least amount of experience among Council Members in this area, but he wants this Plan to encourage the opening of a critical land mass needed to make the entire corridor work. That could range from the relocation of Riverside Drive, opening up the east side of the river and having a learning center as discussed. In terms of connectivity and walkability, a pedestrian bridge across the river, as Council viewed in Greenville, South Carolina should be considered. Continuing to work with the Schools with respect to gaining a critical land mass in the District is important as well as continuing to encourage walkability. In the long run, the City will need to improve its walkability and connectivity, and at some point, if there were a viable option to close roads and redirect traffic to have a walkable area, that should be considered. Perhaps consideration should be given to diverting roads through some of the OCLC grounds, behind the School land, or other possibilities. His belief is that creating a critical land mass is very important for the District. Vice Mayor Sala v stated that she is concerned that in the meetings held up to this point, there were many presentations about important elements of the Plan, yet much of this information could have been provided in a memo — indicating that the utility systems are adequate and can support the Plan. That meeting time could have been used in a different way. In terms of the park along Riverside Drive, someone noted at the recent meeting that the land mass was somewhat smaller, and that became a stopping point for any further progress at the meeting. She wants to understand the decisions that are being made with respect to Riverside Drive — including a roundabout or not, the location of the future road and the existing shopping center viability going forward. She does not want the vision abandoned for the Riverside Drive park for the sake of a shopping center that may not be viable long -term. This park is an important part of the vision, although it may not come about in the short term. This is clearly a policy decision for all of Council. She had understood that a roundabout was planned for Riverside Drive /161 intersection, which would be easy for bicycles and pedestrians to navigate. She would like to hear about the ideas the engineers now have for this intersection. She wants to ensure that all of Council understands the form -based Code, and it is important to have architects who understand it on board as well. In previous field trips, Council has learned about pattern books, which helped everyone to understand the vision of a plan in other communities. This may be a good tool for this Plan as well. In terms of the library, a great opportunity exists for this initiative. She is not certain how such a facility can be sited, as the land mass is not under the City's control at this time. In terms of the business owners with concerns, attorney Ben Hale who represents some of these businesses complimented staff for addressing their concerns and their willingness to meet. On the other hand, she does not want a car dealership that has changed ownership to dictate what will occur in this corridor in the future — it is too important and will transcend these businesses over the 20 -year timeframe for implementation. Perhaps the excitement about the vision has diminished because of the format of the meetings, with many presentations and attendees. She was pleased that Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher recently brought up MORPC's Complete Streets video, which has reinvigorated her thinking about the concepts being implemented in the corridor. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M iauies -o Meeting Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Page 12 He] Perhaps another speaker or another vision discussion, revisiting the concepts and reinvigorating the process would be worthwhile. In the meetings to date, the focus has been on individual parts of the Plan, and not on the vision as a whole. It is important to recapture this excitement, use what has been learned, and go forward with this vision. She is very excited about the vision plan that Council has adopted. Mayor Lecklider stated that it appears there is the most consensus regarding the east side of the river. Council has also heard from staff about some of the changes that have taken place after the initial vision document, to the extent that the vision identifies the east side of the river as someplace for this pedestrian bridge that many have had in mind since the field trips. He does not believe that there is any particular project such as that which Council necessarily wants to duplicate identically, but the Greenville field trip presented a concept of something that was embraced by many. What he hears everyone articulating, and what he agrees with is that everyone wants a place to go on the east side of the river — something relatively substantial, perhaps including the redirection of Riverside Drive. That is as specific as he wants to be with respect to any portion of this Plan. There are reasons why this is otherwise conceptual, not unlike the Community Plan in some respects. There was some discussion in an earlier meeting about green spaces and he felt the direction at the time was headed to specifically identifying green spaces throughout this entire Corridor area, and very nearly specifying exact dimensions. His understanding of what was underway was trying to formulate a vision, allowing that to be carried out over a period of time, and having it be market driven. That could change over a period of time. In page 16 of the vision report, it indicates that development will occur incrementally, in different stages and in different places over a timeframe of 20 years or longer. To the extent the City might identify a specific area for a green corridor or specific green space, he is not certain how that might change if the development does not occur for ten years. Although Council has indicated they would like to see a certain amount of greenspace, connectivity, etc., he does not necessarily want to be more specific than that — with the exception of the east side of the river and if there would be strong consensus for a town green in the central Historic District. He envisions that this Plan is purely conceptual, with opportunity for input, but allowing for the Plan to be market driven, with control existing by way of the form -based Code. Personally, he does not have experience with form -based Code. He does not want Council to lose sight of the vision for this Plan. He is hearing tonight that there is much positive feedback about the vision document. In terms of the Plan being "dramatic" — as Ms. Chinn ici - Zuercher has mentioned — a concern he has is that the City has been moving toward a more "Dublinized" urbanization — instead of something that will surprise people 20 years out as something dramatically different for Dublin. Mr. Reiner's comments about the three primary areas are on point. The City cannot necessarily site the library of the future, but some believe the OCLC property would be a good location for it. He noted that on NPR radio, he recently heard a story about the early stages of the development of Manhattan. The government leaders engaged in the effort of extensive use of eminent domain, creating a grid system of streets, and made many existing property owners unhappy. Manhattan is now some of the most expensive property in the world. He is not advocating this for Dublin, but is hopeful that Dublin can maintain the vision, while protecting the interests and property rights of those businesses that currently exist, particularly along 161. The City should be sensitive to their concerns. He is hopeful, going forward, that a connection can be drawn between the vision and the Code, recapturing some of the excitement felt at the outset. The meetings held have been useful, but it is now important to let the vision be the guiding force in terms of what is done with the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher noted she is pleased that Vice Mayor Salay referenced the pattern book viewed in field trips. The developers in those communities indicated that the pattern book helped them understand the vision. The problem with the form -based Code is that it is just that — a Code — and not a vision as articulated in a pattern book. In terms of parks, she personally does desire having a central park and is willing to purchase the land for it. Things will then come together around a publicly -owned RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS M trim, of _ Meeting Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Page 13 Held central park. The proposed pocket parks are more similar to the parkland donation set aside by developers at the current time. In terms of vision statements, she supports the ones included in the document. What is troubling is how they are being implemented, and this seems to be where the disconnect has occurred. She does not disagree with the bigger concepts of the vision statements. She added that, following the Greenville, SC field trip, Commissioners Freimann and Taylor proposed a vision for a bridge for Historic Dublin, connecting the river and the east side. They did not receive positive feedback to their proposal. For her, she is seeking something that dramatic — a long term vision — one where people someday would be amazed that Dublin could carry out such a progressive vision at the beginning of the 21 century. Mr. Freimann and Mr. Taylor had imagined that type of dramatic vision for Dublin — putting Dublin on the map with more than pedestrian walkways. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff appreciates the feedback. When the memo was prepared in mid -June for the joint session on June 20, staff recognized that the Bridge Street Corridor timetable needed to be adjusted to allow more discussion time. Currently, staff is proposing the date of August 11 for the next workshop, which will allow the discussion that Council has requested. Other key points that have come up relate to the library and the 21S century learning environment. Staff has continued to have discussions with the library and various universities regarding that vision. From their perspective, it will require time to determine the location, the components, and the university presence at the location. Staff will provide updates to Council when that information is available. In regard to the parks and open space, the discussion held over a year ago was that the concept plan is based on the vision and will not likely be what is implemented. The principles and vision statements with the vision report will guide that development. She acknowledged that there have been many presentations by consultants, but the form -based Code is a major change for the City and the grid street transportation system is also quite different for Dublin. Staff recognized that there is now a need for further discussion in follow up to these workshops. Staff will work to assemble some information, and on August 1 will have a draft agenda for the August 11 workshop for Council to review, if that is desired. Vice Mayor Salay commented that a draft agenda would be helpful. She is interested In staff's recommendations about how to move forward, in view of the feedback provided tonight. She knows that the consultants from Goody Clancy have worked through this process with other clients. Ms. Grigsby responded that in reviewing potential dates, David Dixon's availability was an important consideration. He does a good job in marrying the vision, the Code and transportation systems, as evidenced in other cities where they have worked. Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with staff providing a draft agenda for the August 11 workshop. She noted that the consultants presented information at the workshop sessions, but there was no follow -up discussion among Council. She is hopeful that Council can discuss the critical aspects at the next workshop. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she recalls a workshop at the Rec Center with working groups, generating wonderful ideas. However, no one took notes at the session. She would like an agenda that allows small group engagement in a dialogue with someone taking good notes and reporting out the concepts to the larger group. The concepts can then be fleshed out in the bigger group. She was very disappointed that the ideas were lost. Other board and commission members have had wonderful suggestions, such as Mr. Souders and Mr. Taylor. People are very interested in this initiative and want to articulate their desires for the Plan. The environment needs to support this dialogue, and the dialogue needs to be captured successfully. Mr. Keenan agreed with having staff provide a draft agenda on August 1 for the August 11 workshop. He encourages Ms. Amorose Groomes to have P &Z members view this segment of the Council meeting on the cable broadcast so they can weigh in on August 11. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meet July 6, 2011 Page 14 Mayor Lecklider stated that it would also be useful for Mr. Dixon to hear this dialogue. To clarify, his understanding is that everyone has positive feedback about the vision plan, and no one is suggesting going back to the beginning of the process. What is being suggested is engaging in a discussion to refine what has been done to date. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher clarified she is not suggesting starting over with the process. She is suggesting more open dialogue about the land and the vision statements. Mrs. Boring stated that everyone has been positive about the concepts in the vision plan. Her issue is with how they are being carried out. Vice Mayor Salay commented about the structure of the meetings. She acknowledged that it is important that everyone be in the same room, but with such a large group and everyone wanting to comment or ask questions, and with the different roles and the individual perspectives of the various bodies of ARB, BZA, P &Z and Council, there are challenges with this structure. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher suggested that all of the groups should be intermixed so they can share their ideas as well as hear ideas of other groups. The tables need to be mixed with citizens and board - commission members. The City should also encourage citizens to attend the August workshop, which will be an interactive meeting. Mr. Gerber stated that he supports the principles of this, but this is not his expectation for the workshop. The Planning Commission has been asked to vet the Code, and his expectation is that they will vet the visionary principles as well. This may be the appropriate time to define what form -based Code means to staff so that everyone can be on the same page. The vision report must be taken to a place where everyone is working from the same idea and concept in terms of interpreting the Code. He is supportive of this, but wants to ensure that P &Z and Council and staff are on the same page for implementation. His vision of the August 11 workshop is for Council, P &Z, and staff as participants. This is now time to carry out some of the policies for the implementation phase, and that is the role of P &Z. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Gerber about the meeting structure, noting that P &Z needs to refine this because they are charged with the planning and development review for Council. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher asked what they are being asked to refine. Mr. Gerber stated that he believes it is time to flesh out the visionary principles. He is not sure what they will look like within a form -based Code. Mayor Lecklider stated that Vice Mayor Salay, Mr. Gerber and Mr. Reiner have agreed with respect to those who should be at the table in order to have a productive workshop on August 11 — based on the decisions that have to be made and by whom. Mr. Gerber clarified that he is not advocating anything other than fleshing out the visionary principles to ensure everyone is on the same page for implementation phase — the type of buildings that will come forward, etc. Ms. Grigsby stated that some good points have been made in terms of Council adopting policy that P &Z then implements. BZA and ARB have a more narrow focus, and staff will need to identify how the new Code will impact what they do. As far as the policy discussion and issue of taking the form -based Code and transportation concepts and implementing the vision, it makes sense to have Council, P &Z and staff at the table. This will ensure the focus is on the policy and the citywide implementation. Certainly, the BZA and ARB members can be present in the audience and provide feedback, but this will make meeting management easier. Mrs. Boring stated that she supports what Mr. Gerber and Vice Mayor Salay have indicated. However, she is not convinced that everyone is aligned regarding the vision. She is not certain that it is defined adequately in order to be applied. She thinks the process is somewhat in reverse — the Codes are being drafted and the vision is following, Her frustration is that in the past, Council has set the expectations in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _Minutes of. Maetina Dublin City Council July 6, 2011 Page 15 vision. Now, there have been questions about the vision, but the response has been to wait until the issue is addressed in the Code. Mr. Gerber stated that he is hopeful that the workshop will address this very issue so that the process can move forward. Mrs. Boring agreed that there is not the need for a huge group in this discussion, given the outcome expected. Mr. Reiner stated that In the final analysis, there will be either a well written, form - based Code that everyone supports and that will be implemented appropriately or there will be the need to move away from this and have P &Z return to a modified PUD process to review the vision of this new urban site. These are the two choices. He is hopeful that P &Z will be able to tighten this up so that all the loopholes are closed. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mayor Lecklider commented that he is not suggesting that Council not strive for a 100 percent comfort level, but, personally, he can accept not achieving this. It seems inevitable with something as new and different as this Code. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Grigsby reported: 1. The Irish Festival packets will be sent out to Council on Friday, July 22, together with an informational Council packet. Mayor Lecklider asked if Council needs to respond to the letter from Mr. Driscoll, which was included in the packet. Ms. Grigsby responded that there have been discussions in the past with The Edwards Company regarding this matter, and staff will continue to engage in these discussions. Staff will review the impacts of this situation on The Edwards Company and ensure that what they are requesting does not place any unreasonable risk or liability on the City. If The Edwards Company can demonstrate how the City can achieve its security, the City will consider this change in policy. Mr. Smith commented that he had discussions with The Edwards Company today, and staff is seeking additional information from them. Mr. Smith introduced Jim Smolik, an intern now working at Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn who is a junior at University of Dayton and has also worked this summer for Senator Portman in Washington. He is exploring public sector careers and will work at SZD the remainder of the summer, prior to returning to UD. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS /COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mrs. Boring: 1. Stated that the City has excellent master plan documents and, typically, they include policies, issues and strategies. Recently, there has been much discussion and interest in the topic of public art. She believes that it is an appropriate time to refer the Arts Chapter of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission to work with staff to develop some draft policies and strategies. This Committee has expressed interest in becoming a vital part of City policy development for recommendation to Council. It is an ideal time to establish a framework with the public art strategies included in the adopted master plan. She moved to refer this chapter to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission to work with staff to begin developing some draft policies for Council's consideration. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she is very supportive of this, but wants to ensure that staff is able to devote resources to this assignment at this time. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff can do so, because there are some issues related to the pending agreement in process with the Dublin Arts Council. This work could 71 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RECORD OF DISCUSSION JUNE 30, 2011 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD:61A- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Board of Zoning Appeals took no action on the following at this meeting: 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Discussion: An informal discussion to allow Board Members the opportunity to provide comment on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and implementation studies. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner I Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin,oh.us RESULT: The Board members reviewed the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code in terms of their responsibility for reviewing variances, appeals, special permits, nonconformities, and other specific applications. The Board discussed the existing uses and existing structures provisions and how the draft Code differs from the existing Zoning Code. Board members requested clarification regarding how each component of the Bridge Street Corridor relates to the vision for the corridor, including the draft Code and the street network plans. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 5 2. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Rachel Ray began this Informal Discussion by thanking the Board members for their participation in the Joint Work Sessions regarding the Bridge Street Corridor. She announced that the next Joint Work Session with City Council is scheduled for August 11 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. She said the intent of the August Work Session is to talk more about the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and how it relates to the vision and the Planning work that has been completed to date. She invited questions or general suggestions about the Bridge Street Corridor code process for the record before the August Work Session. She presented slides which explained the process thus far regarding the draft code to help facilitate the Board discussion. Kathy Ferguson asked about existing structures. Ms. Ray said for example, the previous applicant wanted to make improvements to the facades of the existing building, and with the new Code, the building would otherwise be considered "non- conforming" because it is not consistent with the building types included in the draft Bridge Street Code. She explained that with the existing structure provisions that have been crafted for the Bridge Street Code, a 50 to 60 percent expansion of the existing building footprint could be made without requiring the entire site to come into compliance, which would provide greater flexibility over the long term to make small improvements over time. She said if they wish to redevelop to be consistent with the Bridge Street Code, they would have the ability to do that whenever they chose to do so. Ms. Ray said the Board of Zoning Appeals will continue to be the approving body for non -use (area) variances, the variances to the form -based elements of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, Special Permits, Administrative Appeals, and Building Code Appeals, as they currently do. She said differently, the special administratively reviewing body, the Administrative Review Team (ART), is made up of City department heads, the Chief Building Official, the City Engineer, and the Director of Planning, and several others, and they would make recommendations to the Board on many of these applications. She said that the Board will continue to make recommendations to City Council for use variances. Patrick Todoran asked if the ART currently exists. Ms. Ray explained that the ART was formed when the Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC) zoning district on the western edge of the City was created; however, since it was formed when the economic downturn occurred, nothing has gone through the COIC ART process. She said in some cases, ultimately, the department heads will make the final determination or recommendation to the appropriate reviewing body, but staff will be set up in teams or an individual will be assigned to take lead on certain applications as they currently are. Ms. Newell said that for expansion of existing structures it made sense if it was a conditional use to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, instead of allowing a percentage expansion by right. Ms. Ray said that was a good suggestion. She said that Planning had recently discussed the same process, allowing some expansions by right, and requiring certain expansions to be reviewed and approved by a reviewing body. She said in some cases, expansions might be appropriate or very innocuous, but in other situations, they want to make sure that they are all working towards the ultimate vision for the Bridge Street Corridor to the extent possible, while Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 5 preserving existing property owners' rights. She said that might be a good middle of the road solution to help us get there. Ms. Newell said she liked the form -based code, but she did not see the final vision of what the code is supposed to be. She said she always envisioned a kind of overlay. She said her biggest concern was street development, which may not work everywhere in the corridor. She said the City has always been excellent at looking at the road network before it was needed, but this Code does not appear to do that. Ms. Newell said anytime she asked the question about what is going to happen to the Post Road /Frantz Road /US 33 intersection, no one can give an answer, which tells her that it is not defined. She thought to have a good development, some basic framework is needed that is developed along with the form -based development. Ms. Ray said that was a good point. She said working with the street network and the form - based code is an area that there may need to be policy direction that helps us to define what street character is going to look like in specific parts of the corridor and how that starts to define development character in the area. She said street character is often reviewed as planned unit development districts or subdivision plats go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council, or alternatively by action of the City, like with Emerald Parkway where they made the decision to create a roadway, with development to follow. She explained that with the form -based code and the street network and street types, it is a little different, and that is something they are currently working through, making sure that we have that clear direction and understand how those decisions are going to be made. She said they are actively working with the consultant teams and with the City administration to make sure that we understand how the street network in particular is going to work. Ms. Ray said as they have been working with the consultants, they are working on creating street types, and the street categories, or street "families." She explained that within the street families, the street types have similar characteristics that will allow the different types to be used together seamlessly. She said it might seem more confusing than it otherwise would, but the differences in the different street types might just be on- street parking or no on- street parking, or cycle track versus bike lane, those types of minor differences. She said however, Bridge Street is probably going to be a very different than the rest of the street families, just by nature of the fact that it goes from an arterial, to the Historic District, to an arterial again. Mr. Page said there seemed to be confusion about seeing an overall vision for the City in the Code. He said that the main focal points that we want to draw the City together and help make the Code make sense and come alive seemed to be missing or unclear, and as a resident and not a planner, those elements were striking. He said he did not have a feel for where they wanted the City to go and that the Code seems to be driving something that seems very business - focused and not in his opinion, resident - focused. He said there has to be a combination of business and resident focus, and we obviously have to be a place where we are a thriving community business -wise and also we want people to feel great about where they live. He thought some of that went back to the vision statement and some of those key words in the statement. He said he was trying to see if we met the vision statement, and he did not think they were there yet. Mr. Page said there were a lot of good ideas and a tremendous amount of planning and discussion that had gone into the Bridge Street Corridor, but when it came down to someone like a resident who wants Dublin to be a great city, he said he did not know what was guiding the planning in the Corridor. He said if he did not have a good answer to that, the people in his neighborhood, who have even less understanding, definitely do not have an answer either. He Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 5 said as this moves forward, he would like for things to be put more in layman's terms to what is driving what we are doing. Ms. Ray said she thought Mr. Page's sentiment and thoughts were shared by other Board and Commission members as well based on the feedback Planning has heard. She said staff regretted not having this conversation a little more thoroughly earlier on in the process. She said that zoning codes are rarely very exciting documents, and not very interesting because their intent is to regulate land development. Ms. Ray said while people should be excited about getting behind the possibilities that the type of development can create for this portion of the city, it is ultimately a code document; the vision for the Corridor sets the policy direction that the code is intended to implement. Ms. Ray said part of staff's job at the next Joint Work Session is to explain how the Code came about and how it is intended to work. She said part of the question was, is the Code going to get us what we want, and if not, how can we tighten it up to help get us there. She said that is part of the discussion they want to have and want to hear from the Board and Commission members. Ms. Ray said that they have this vision which was put together by working with many property owners and stakeholders. She said there have been several open houses which many Board members have attended. She said they looked at national demographic and market trends, and providing other choices for housing and transportation options, and a greenway system throughout the corridor. She said the final product of all of the background planning work is the Vision Plan, and what it is intended to do is to embody what the Vision principles are; what the community says - that we want something kind of like this, 20 - 30 years down the line. Ms. Ray said staff's job is to deal with property owners, like OCLC, who want to do major redevelopment and jump to that point in the vision a little faster than folks like the applicants this evening. She said the challenge for Planning and the Code consultants is, how do we help get to that long- term vision, while accommodating existing property owners in the short term? Ms. Newell said that what she envisioned happening is development actually happening in very small pieces where it is going to be difficult to coordinate with the overall vision, and there is a point at which there may result in so much of one type of development that they have lost the intent of providing variety. Ms. Ray said that in the first draft of the Code, parking structures were required in almost every situation for buildings greater than 50,000 square feet. She asked the Board members to picture the 100,000- square -foot IGS building and said that a building half that size would have been required a parking structure, which in an ideal situation would be great in an urban environment. She said however, realistically, the market probably is not there for that kind of development immediately. She said that they have had to pull back on those types of code requirements through discussions with property owners over the past several months and just taking a look at the code and asking ourselves if this will really work in the short term. Ms. Ray said that was one area where they have had to say that maybe those requirements are not really realistic in the short term, so maybe they need to figure out how they can make surface parking work in the short term, and then ultimately set ourselves up so that we could get parking structures in the long term. She said those were the types of situations that are being worked through, so when they say the draft Code is a "90 percent solution," it is only to the point that they are testing the Code and actually looking at specific sites, thinking how buildings would fit, and if it is going to get us what we want. She thought when they get to the August Work Session, they will have an even better understanding of how everything fits together, and they are continuing to work with the consulting teams on that. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Newell asked if there had been any discussion in terms of defining how those street changes might occur and in conjunction with, if they are going to entertain getting what she perceived more development within this area between retail and housing mix and then having the need for parking. She said she had been in several communities when she read through this code what her mind pictures, that have done similar types of things that she would describe as having a very walkable environment, where there have been publically- funded parking garages, free to visitors to the area, which encourages them to park once and not drive all over the place, and walk around. She asked if there had been any staff discussion about that being something that the City might want to incorporate within the overall design. Ms. Ray said the transportation consulting team had actually first recommended that we do not even have parking requirements in the zoning code at all, with the idea that parking would occur on- street, in municipal lots, or in municipal parking structures. She said that was something that would work great in a big city like Boston where there was a parking authority to manage all of that, and there was already a great mix of uses limiting the need for cars right now, but it is not something that would work for the City in the short term. She reiterated that they had the interesting challenge of working toward a 30 -year vision that is different in many ways from today's market, and figuring out a way to get there. Ms. Ray said as far as how we look at streets transitioning from type to type, that is something that again, as we refine the different street families, she thought would become clearer. Ms. Newell said she was interested in hearing from the fiscal analysis consultant about what contributions the City had to make to make this economically viable or inspiring to the development community. She said we are fortunate to be in a community where we can make those improvements; it was just how we choose what improvements to make. She said she was eager to hear what those recommendations would be. Mr. Page asked what communities had been used as examples in developing the Code. Ms. Ray explained that every zoning code is unique to individual communities, and that was even more the case with form -based codes. She said when originally designed, form -based codes tend to work best in communities where there is already an existing character, scale, or development pattern. She asked the Board members to think of the Historic District, where there are very specific types of buildings, primarily one to two stories in height, having a cottage commercial look with homes converted to businesses over the years, or row -like storefront appearances. She said it has much more of a distinctive character, whereas the rest of the Bridge Street Corridor really does not have anything to define what development could look like in the future, consistent with the vision plan, so that in and of itself is very unique to Dublin. She said they are looking at the types of buildings like the mixed -use buildings where there would be residential, commercial, and office uses in much closer proximity to allow easy bicycle /pedestrian connections. She said it is understood there are going to be vehicles to deal with especially in the short term, and that would need to be dealt with. Ms. Ray said form -based codes are really unique to every community and there is nothing that they can pick up and drop here. She said they are looking at the Columbia Pike code, which is a special district in Arlington County, Virginia that has a form -based code and has not been impacted with the economic downturn as much as other places have. She said they have several projects approved that have been posted on their website. She noted that the Columbia Pike web page also includes a list of minor amendments they have made to their form -based code since it was adopted two or three years ago. She said that staff expects to continue refining the Code, since getting it right 100 percent the first time is not something that any community ever does. She said there will be areas to tweak to make sure we have exactly what we want. Ms. Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals June 30, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ray said Peoria, Illinois also has a form -based code, and that New Albany has their draft form - based code on their website as well. Mr. Gunnoe said that he had not had a chance yet to read the lighting section of the draft code. He asked how it dealt with lighting and light pollution, and from a utility standpoint, when it addresses power lines being buried. Ms. Ray explained that there is a section in the code that requires utility undergrounding. She said that for example, the overhead power lines at the Bridge and High development were buried with the redevelopment of that project. She said for certain projects, they would be encouraged to factor that into their redevelopment plans. She said there was a 100 -foot wide power line easement running through the Corridor along the west side of Dublin Village Center which is a major transmission line that would cost several million dollars to bury, so that is probably one of those overhead lines that we will probably have to live with for a while. Ms. Ray said for the most part, more standard neighborhood- serving lines would probably be buried as development occurs. Ms. Ray said regarding lighting, the consultant team, when they drafted the lighting standards, started with Dublin's existing lighting requirements. She said the existing requirements were developed with the International Dark Sky Association Standards, because the City's policy has always been to minimize light pollution to the greatest extent possible. She said there is recognition that in areas like the Bridge Street Corridor that are expected to be more entertainment - oriented, with pedestrians on the streets later in the evenings, that there could be additional lighting that would be needed or desirable than elsewhere in Dublin. Ms. Ray reiterated that she appreciated the Board members' questions and comments. She said they would like the opportunity with Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals members to walk through the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code, how it is intended to work, and how we can make sure that the Vision for the Bridge Street Corridor is implemented. She said that, as a young professional herself, she was very excited about the possibilities for the Bridge Street Corridor contained in the vision. She said staff wanted to make sure that the vision was clear to everyone, so that all can have a better understanding of the vision and the direction for the Corridor, and a desire to get behind the vision to make it happen. Ms. Newell said it would be nice to hear that presentation from staff instead of the consultants, which would give everyone a better understanding about how they envision the Code to work and how they are going to enforce it. Ms. Ray said Planning heard the same comment from the Architectural Review Board and this kind of feedback was helpful. Ms. Ray concluded by reiterating that Board members' questions, concerns, and suggestions were welcomed and appreciated. She acknowledged that the draft Code is complicated, and she gave them a lot of credit for doing their best to work through it and giving constructive feedback. She said that staff appreciated the Board's time and thanked them for their comments. Ms. Newell adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. As approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DUBLIN, RECORD OF DISCUSSION Land Use and Long Range Planning JUNE 29, 2011 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Discussion: An Informal discussion to allow Board Members the opportunity to provide comment on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code and implementation studies. Planning Contact: Rachel Ray, AICP, Planner I Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin,oh,us RESULT: The Board members reviewed portions of the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code pertaining to the Historic District and discussed how the proposed regulations relate to the existing historic character of the district as well as incorporate the requirements of the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines, Board members provided feedback regarding some of the proposed building type requirements and discussed how the regulations would apply to specific properties. The Board requested clarification regarding the process for using the Code, applying the street network, as well as how all of the components of the Bridge Street Corridor Plan relate to the Vision, the Code, and the Community Plan, STAFF CE FICAT N 1 R heI S. Ray, AICP Planner I Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 10 3. Bridge Street Corridor - Informal Discussion Rachel Ray began the presentation by thanking the Board members for their participation in the Joint Work Sessions over the previous months. She announced the next Joint Work Session with City Council is scheduled for August 11 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Ms. Ray suggested the discussion be focused on the Historic District. She said she would provide a brief overview to highlight the summary of the memo provided in the packets. William Souders pointed out the draft Code was very new to everyone, and he was more interested in the impact to the Historic District, and how the requirements differ from the current Code. Ms. Ray explained the Draft Bridge Street Corridor development code was a 'hybrid' code, with form -based elements for lot and block dimensions, pedestrian- oriented building types, and specific standards for neighborhood districts. She continued that the Code also has elements typical of a conventional zoning code as well, including zone districts, uses, parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and signs; however, the overall emphasis is on form, creating the type of environment desired with the Bridge Street Corridor Vision. Ms. Ray said the draft Code is intended to build on the Vision for the Corridor. She said the challenge she thought was particularly interesting for the Code was working toward a long -term, transformative vision for the Corridor, but recognizing there are some property owners in the Corridor who might not be interested in developing in the manner envisioned for the Corridor for a while. She explained therefore, we have to recognize the Code must allow development to occur over the long term and recognize transition will occur over time. She said the ability to transition was a key component of the Code. Ms. Ray said her presentation would focus on the aspects of the Code which might be specific to the Historic District. She explained there are three districts related to the Historic District. She explained the intention of the Bridge Street Corridor Historic Districts are intended to preserve existing residential properties zoned HR, Historic Residential District, to preserve existing development character. She said the BSC Historic Core District is intended to be applied to all of the commercial properties in the Historic District, primarily along Bridge and High Streets. Ms. Ray said portions of the Historic Transition Neighborhood are also located in the Historic District. Ms. Ray reported the building types in the Code would be applicable to all new and redeveloped buildings within the Historic District, but only at the determination of the Architectural Review Board. She explained form -based codes work best when they are modeled after existing development in terms of scale, the fabric of an existing area, and building types are created which respect the existing architectural character. She said the building types developed for the Historic District are modeled after the existing buildings to respect the character and historic of the Historic District. Ms. Ray said however, the existing Historic Dublin Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code requirements in Chapter 153 will continue to apply at the Board's determination for those special considerations when the Board determines the Bridge Street Code requirements are not applicable. Tom Currie asked if the form -based code would become part of the Zoning Code. Ms. Ray explained the Bridge Street Code will be folded into the existing Zoning Code, and Section 153.170, which deals with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and their criteria will remain. Mr. Currie asked if the Board could pick and choose which elements of the Code should apply. Ms. Ray explained the Board's decisions would continue to be based on the existing criteria with which the ARB currently reviews applications. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 10 Mr. Currie referenced the Permitted Building Types section, and asked if the Historic Cottage building type was all one type, Cottage Commercial. Ms. Ray presented an example of a Historic Cottage Commercial building type. She said it was intended to model the character of the existing commercial buildings that are commercial structures converted from historic single - family structures. She said the Historic Mixed Use building type was similar to Town Center I and other existing multi- tenant structures. Ms. Ray highlighted the Sign Standards in Section 153.065(H), which has been modified to reflect the Board's discussion on signs which occurred at the April meeting. She said they worked with the consultants to provide a greater variety of sign types to create an exciting, pedestrian - oriented shopping area. She said they also included additional requirements for sandwich boards and display signs. Ms. Ray said in the Architectural Review Board Review and Approval Procedures section, it states the ARB will continue to approve site and architectural modifications, and the ARB will continue to make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rezonings, code amendments, and conditional uses. Ms. Ray concluded by inviting questions and general comments from the Board. Mr. Souders asked for a summary of the major differences between the draft code and the existing Zoning Code. Ms. Ray said at the next Joint Work Session, staff is proposing to demonstrate how the Code is intended to apply and how the various requirements build upon one another. She said the biggest difference is the fact there are building types which have specific relationships to different types of streets. She said a color coded street map was presented at the last Joint Work Session which showed the different types of streets, ranging from large, SR 161 or Bridge Street, down to alleys. She explained instead of a conventional zoning code, which limits specific uses on a parcel that can be built as long as setbacks and parking are factored in to the site plan, the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code is intended to take the overall public realm into consideration to help create pedestrian- oriented streetscapes through street type and building type requirements. Mr. Currie asked if a street network plan was expected from the transportation consultant. Ms. Ray explained the street map which has been presented and included in the Code was developed for transportation modeling purposes, to show street connections from place to place throughout the Corridor, and whether the streets occur exactly as shown or whether they vary will be determined at the time of development. She said the other purpose of the street network map is to generally show where the different types of streets are expected to occur within the Corridor, from significant principal address streets to less significant neighborhood streets. Ms. Ray said the transportation consulting team with Nelson Nygaard worked closely with Goody Clancy and Associates and the code consulting team to develop the zoning districts and the street network to implement the vision. Ms. Ray asked the Board to remember the Vision Plan illustrates a long -term development scenario, and it is not intended to function like a master plan showing exactly where streets and development must go. Mr. Souders recalled, as an example, a project the ARB reviewed which had four stories on a residential street (North Riverview), and it looked to him like North Riverview Street was coded as a residential street. He said if it was coded as a residential street, how multi -story buildings could be permitted. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 10 Ms. Ray referred back to the building types. She said for the example Mr. Souders was referring to, the concept was created before the building types for the Bridge Street Code were developed, so it probably does not exactly fit any specific types shown in the Code. She said the building types are intended to model the existing form and character and scale of the existing development in the District, and taking that specific example, when that development comes back before the Board for review and approval, the Board would take that character into consideration. Mr. Souders confirmed once City Council adopts the Bridge Street Code, it is part of the bigger Code and it is also part of the Historic District, so if a person comes in and wants to do something that large, right off the bat, it meets no zoning which relates to the Historic District. He said it could be built with a variance, but there is nothing in the code provisions for the Historic District which would allow that building to be built. Robert Schisler pointed out only Single - Family Detached buildings are permitted in the Historic Residential District. He said as it is proposed in the Code, a single home can be three stories, which is not appropriate within the District. He said the Code should have a single family building type that limits the height to two stories within the Historic Residential District. Ms. Ray said that was intended to be consistent with the existing character of the area. Mr. Souders said he was concerned that so much time has been spent drafting a new code that he wanted to make sure it would actually work in the Historic District. He said he needed to know what parts would not work. Ms. Ray explained between now and the time the Code goes through the formal review process, Planning would be checking all of the numbers with the consultants to make sure situations are not created that cannot actually be built. Carl Karrer said the Zoning Map for the Corridor seemed to be a work in progress. Ms. Ray said it had not been changed since the Joint Work Session in April. She said there have been requests from property owners to switch districts, and those requests will be raised to City Council for consideration. Mr. Karrer said he had reviewed all three drafts of the code. He pointed out the first draft had no ARB review authority over development in the Historic Transition District, the second draft had full ARB review authority for development in that district, and in the third draft, the review authority was split so the ARB would review development in only a part of the district. He was interested to know what was guiding these changes. Ms. Ray said much of the discussion had centered on the redevelopment of the school site, which may not occur for a very long time, if ever. She said half of the school site is in the Architectural Review District, and the other half is not. She said the intent with that is if development were to occur within the Architectural Review District, and /or within the area that would go to the Historic Core District, would be reviewed by the ARB and the other areas that might not develop at the scale or with the same kind of building types which would be found in the Historic District, would not be reviewed by the Board. Ms. Ray explained as the approval process section is drafted, development in the Historic Transition District would go through the Administrative Review Team and then on to Building Permitting. She said certain areas where development on one side of the streets might be in the Historic District and development on the other side of a new street, like if Franklin Street were extended for example, they would want development on the west side of the new Franklin Street to be reviewed by the ARB because of its relationship to the Historic District's scale and character. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 10 Ms. Ray clarified the school site is recommended for zoning into the Public District while the schools are occupying the site. She said if they were to redevelop, they would determine the appropriate zoning at that point in time. She noted that the 1919 Building would continue to be preserved. Mr. Karrer understood the Historic Transition District was to be just that, that it would relate architecturally to the Historic District with the caveat that it starts to transition toward the objective of having more development infill to allow larger buildings and more population density than we might want in the Historic Core or the Historic Residential Districts. Mr. Karrer asked what the tallest building height was expected to be in the Historic Transition District. Ms. Ray said she thought the code would allow up to three stories. Mr. Karrer asked how a 'story' was defined. Ms. Ray stated stories are measured from finished floor to finished floor, and from floor to ceiling height for the top story. Mr. Karrer asked if a pitched roof was not gabled, would it be considered a story, and if it was, if it was considered a half -story. Ms. Ray said answered it depends on whether there is an occupied space within the roof, and that determines half stories, or if there is a half- exposed basement, that is also considered a half- story. Mr. Karrer stated when he looked at building elevations, and the first floor was a garage with four more stories plus a peaked roof on top, he would not consider that a four - and -a -half story building. He said he would consider it a five - and -a -half story building because the garage was at grade level and is therefore a full story. He noted at the 1919 Building, you go down half a floor to get to the basement level and up a half -floor to get to the first floor, so it is a two- and -a- half story, flat -roof building at street level. Mr. Souders pointed out the Single - Family Detached building type would allow up to three stories. He thought three stories could be appropriate in other parts of the Bridge Street Corridor, but he was concerned about three stories in the Historic district. He thought 'detached single - family residential building' should have a different definition and requirements in the Historic District than elsewhere in the Corridor. He said he was concerned the table just shows a 'dot' in all the districts where the building type is permitted, and perhaps the requirements for single - family residential building should be different for the Historic District. Eugenia Martin explained the building type tables include minimums and maximums, and that was where the review criteria for ARB would become applicable, so it might not necessarily grant everyone three stories across the board. She said the Board would look at the application contextually to see how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Souders said he was concerned if the table states the maximums are permitted regardless of whether the Board thinks it is appropriate, someone might spend a lot of money on designing architecture to the maximums because the Code says they can do it, and if the Board feels it is inappropriate, and then they will complain about hardships. He said he would like to avoid that conflict up front. Mr. Karrer said the difference between the Historic Core and Historic Residential is the Historic Residential acknowledges the single family detached and the cottage, and that defines well what is residential use now. He said the Core is sort of the Historic Business District, and building height is limited. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 10 Ms. Martin said the maximum height for the Historic Cottage building type is two stories and for the Historic Mixed Use it was two -and -a half story. She said it also defines the minimum and maximum heights of the ground story and upper story. Mr. Karrer asked if that was the only other structure in the Historic Core District. Ms. Ray explained that permitted structure types in the Historic Core District were Historic Cottage Commercial, Historic Mixed Use, and Civic. Mr. Karrer said his point was that there used to be a building where the Library is now, which was a school building many years ago before the 1919 Building was built. He said it was also the City Hall, civic center and recreation center, and it was three stories high. He said to him, that height was not inconsistent with the Historic Core, given the simple structure. He said they were looking at not only existing buildings but also what would be new infill in this area, most of which is likely to occur on what is now the school property. Mr. Karrer said he thought the old three -story limit was not unreasonable and should be permitted in limited circumstances. Mr. Currie asked if the maximum height was based on what the Fire Department could reach. Ms. Ray said to some extent, fire access is taken into consideration, and if they cannot reach it, there are sprinkling requirements which can help mitigate fire access. Ms. Ray said a building like Mr. Karrer referred to might be classified as a Civic building, and she thought a Civic building would allow up to three stories in the Historic Core, so there could be a city hall, library, or school building that could stand out a little more, which would be desirable for that type of building. She said the Board would continue to have the ability to look at Civic buildings to ensure that they are appropriate based on the character of the surroundings. Mr. Karrer said there had been a lot of discussion that people will no longer drive cars and no more than one car per house is needed, but that would not happen for many years yet. He said they have to allow for a mobile population, and if more residential infill is desired, ground floor parking might be an option. He said he would like the Board's considerations on what is or is not appropriate to be less subjective by having more definitive Code requirements. He said however that a historic town home over a garage would be considered a three -story building or a three - and -a -half story structure and that would not be permitted. Ms. Ray said it would depend how the structure was configured. She asked if Mr. Karrer was suggesting buildings over garages should be allowed or did he have a suggestion on how that scenario could be handled. Mr. Karrer said it merited more discussion before it is locked in stone. Mr. Karrer said the road matrix plan works well as long as somewhere there is a way to get out. He said if they go exclusively with a grid pattern, there are no arteries for fast egress or ingress. He pointed out there was an increasing contention with travelers on US 33 and SR 161 that are going from somewhere else to somewhere else, none of which is the Historic District. He said traffic is bringing us to a shut down today, and yet we want a more dense population in the Corridor. He said we would either have to give up the idea of a Historic District or find a way for that through traffic to get through in a hurry that is neither coming from nor going to Dublin. He suggested an artery was needed, the counter part of Emerald Parkway on the inside of 1 -270. He said something was needed that would extend Frantz Road and come inside the beltway and join with Tuller, so that there is a link to the Sawmill development for the Frantz Road traffic. Mr. Currie said you cannot plan for a massive evacuation from a historic built district with small streets. He recalled at the last Joint Work Session, it was said the street type could change four or five times on SR 161 as you come into and leave the downtown. He asked who makes the decision on how and where the street types will change. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page b of 10 Ms. Ray clarified what is currently in the Code for the street types are four illustrative examples of what four of the possible categories, or 'families,' of street sections are expected to be. She said maybe five or more examples of street sections are expected within each of those street families, based on the character of the surrounding area. She said the decision will be made through recommendation to City Council by the ART, a member of which is the City Engineer, in conjunction with the other department heads. She said when streets are approved, they go through the platting and subdivision process and that will ultimately go to City Council who will decide how the streets are developed. She explained that each of the street family types would work together. She said there may be a bike lane or a cycle track or on street parking or no -on street parking on different sections. She said it would be fairly minimal in terms of the differences among the street sections. She did not think anyone would disagree that the Historic District warrants a special character. Mr. Currie said he could not see how a bike path could go from Roush Hardware to Lowe's. Ms. Ray said that was just an example. She said there might be other streets where a bike path might be more appropriate because there are streets that are not developed yet. She said it would depend on what those street segments are and she had not seen them all yet because the consultants are still working on them. Ms. Ray said they will have them early in July, but every street type will have some pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to facilitate this walkable, less auto - dependent environment in the Corridor. Mr. Currie said he asked last week if they had overlayed these street network maps on the actual street map. He said he did not see how a bike path can be squeezed into the corner of Bridge and High Streets. Ms. Ray said maybe that was an area where bike paths are inappropriate simply because of the lack of space. She said with a grid street network, there are going to be other options and other types of bicycle facilities. She said bicyclists might switch to just being on street for that limited section of Bridge Street as the best solution. Mr. Schisler pointed out there might be other greenway bicycle connections as well. Mr. Currie asked why flag lots are not permitted. Ms. Ray explained flag lots are not permitted because form -based codes require buildings to be located near the street, and you cannot have building frontage along streets if the building is accessed from a long driveway. Mr. Kanter said presently, zoning classifications are parcel- based, but there are also zones like the COIC zones. He said the COIC approach was similar to what they were defining as districts within the Bridge Street Corridor. He said he sensed concern at the last Joint Work Session about what the code is and what it is supposed to do, and what the Community Plan is supposed to do, because there did not seem to be a cohesive relationship between them. Ms. Ray said ultimately, the Bridge Street Plan or what is adopted with it would be an amendment to the Community Plan. She explained it was a refinement of the 2007 Community Plan, which would require a new Future Land Use Map, based on the Bridge Street Corridor zoning classifications, and a new Thoroughfare Plan based on the street network modeling. Ms. Ray said one of the things they will talk about at the next Joint Work Session is how the Bridge Street Code and zoning works with the Vision Plan and Community Plan. Mr. Kanter said his perception was the Vision Plan is just that - it something to use as a basis for making decisions. He said it was not the document that governs what we do, but simply a suggestion and the consultants' recommendation. He said the code they are preparing for approval defines what a zoning district is in a way that has not been defined previously. He said Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 7 of 10 in the Code, they are defining what the Historic District is and what the Historic Transition District is in terms of building types and land uses. Mr. Karrer said the Code is a new venture and they are using the Vision as a prototype for modification of the City plan to apply the Code. He said the Code defines what the Historic Core is, but it does not legally define where it is. Ms. Ray said not yet, because the legal definition would be part of the zoning map. Mr. Karrer said street types are defined in the Code, but not where they will be. He presumed that there would be a place in the Community Plan that would show where the districts and street types will be located. Ms. Ray reiterated the Thoroughfare Plan in the Community Plan would be amended to be consistent with the street network. She said ideally, when a comprehensive plan is created, the next step in implementing it is to amend the zoning ordinance to allow the zoning districts to be consistent with the future land use classifications, and to allow the Thoroughfare Plan to be consistent with the street types. She explained that the zoning classifications were created with the consultants based on the general characters of the different land uses that were shown in the Vision Plan. She said the Vision Plan was created as a result of market analyses, stakeholder interviews, and a general visioning process, much like they did with the Community Plan. She said that was how the zoning districts came to be proposed. Mr. Karrer asked what conflicts in the Code still needed to be resolved. He thought there was concern that there is not a clear perception of how everything works together. Jennifer Rauch explained the purpose of the next Joint Work Session is partly to make sure everyone understands how these pieces fit together. She said a third piece that remained to be discussed was the area rezoning which establishes where the zoning districts apply. She said the draft zoning map shows all the properties within the Corridor and how they are recommended to be zoned into the particular districts. She said the standards City Council will be approving as part of the Bridge Street Code would apply to those specific areas. Mr. Karrer confirmed the Code would legislate review authority for each of the reviewing bodies. Mr. Schisler said if an architect followed the Code which allowed up to 80 percent glass to be used for a primary building material, and someone wanted a three -story structure that was 80 percent glass, they would argue they should be allowed to have a building that is 80 percent glass. He said it would be hard for the ARB to say they do not like it if it is permitted by the Code. He said it was important for these distinctions to be made for buildings in the Historic District. Ms. Ray encouraged Mr. Schisler to submit any additional specific comments to Planning for further review. Mr. Currie referred to Page 93 (D) 1), regarding the requirements for screening of outdoor waste and storage containers. Ms. Ray said the intent was dumpsters would be fully enclosed, consolidated, and not visible. Mr. Currie pointed out enclosure doors are always left opened. He also referred to Paragraph (C) 3): Standards of this section shall not apply if the only feasible location for screening would impede the functioning of solar wind or geothermal energy equipment. He asked what kind of geothermal equipment. Mr. Schisler explained for ground source heat pumps, instead of having a condensing unit outside to transfer the heat, the rods go into the ground so that the condensing unit disappears. Mr. Currie said he had one in his basement and could see no reason it would be outside. Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 8 of 10 Mr. Souders said his perception is there is some overall disappointment because there are some missing elements from the code. He said the perception he was getting was there is the intent that the Corridor plan should be a master plan, but the focus of all the presentations at the Joint Work Sessions has been the Code itself. He noted the Code is very specific, and as architects and engineers, they prefer everything to be black or white, and straightforward. Mr. Souders said he thought part of it was everybody was looking for the overall master plan, so when you do not see how everything comes together, there is some concern. He said it is difficult to deal with subjective information related to a master plan that will result in a Thoroughfare Plan and a Parks and Recreation Plan. He asked if the relationship between the Vision Plan and the Code will be discussed at the next Joint Work Session. Ms. Ray said they wanted to make sure it was understood that the Vision Plan is not intended to be a "master plan" which tells us where all the buildings and all the roads will go, because they cannot be that specific for such a large area that will develop over such a long period of time. She said there are property owners in the Corridor who have no desire to develop their properties in accordance with the Vision Plan at this time, although perhaps they will in the future. She explained the Code was intended to deal with the long term desire to achieve the intent of the Vision Plan, but also to deal with the short term property owners who might just want small expansions of their buildings or other minor modifications. Mr. Souders said he agreed there should be a master plan. He said when large buildings are developed, regardless of who has the ownership, the master plan sets the vision, and if there are two or three components of the master plan, it may shift because one particular owner does not want it to be there, but it does not change the overall master plan. He said to him, by not showing certain things because someone might be offended, is a lack of having the guts to say that the master plan says there should be a significant greenbelt and the road should be moved, even if it never happens. He said the plan should show these things, and we can worry about reactions to it later. He said he was looking for leadership, and it did not seem like there was any leadership with this document, because they are stuck in the mentality that code only tells them they can and cannot do. He said if he was a property owner, he would not want someone to tell him what to do with his property, but he would want something that says somewhere there should be a greenway which links the east and west together and Indian Run in its concept is extended. He stated one of the goals they discussed at the open space charrette was they would have a wide greenbelt, and that should be included on the master plan. He said if it is not on the plan, no developer is ever going to know that there is a desire to have a large greenbelt outside of the little parks in each small development. Ms. Ray said based on the discussion at the last Joint Work Session, they may end up with something like an open space master plan or something along those lines that would provide the guidance. She explained the Code includes the concrete rules of the game, but we also have the overarching Vision Plan that is going to continue to guide those major decisions for development as it occurs. Mr. Souders thought the Scioto River had hardly been addressed in the Vision Plan. He stated shifting the road may be impossible and may not ever happen, but why not include what we want in the plan. He asked about alternatives if the road cannot be moved. He thought there were other concepts which would work with the grade changes, and he gave Louisville and Cincinnati as examples. Mr. Souders thought there are lost opportunities in the vision for the master plan. He said the Vision Report was an excellent book, and the consultants are top- notch, and everything has been done well, but in his opinion, some of the vision is missing, and he thought that was where the opportunities are missed. Mr. Souders said it is important to get Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 9 of 10 people to buy in to what the Corridor can be because the developers will be the ones implementing the Vision. Mr. Currie said he agreed with Mr. Souders. Ms. Ray said they heard tonight that they needed to have a clearer vision for how the green system will function throughout the Corridor, and they need to highlight the natural features which were discussed during the visioning process. She said many of the Board's comments are likely to be discussed at the August Joint Work Session. Mr. Souders said the other part he was concerned with is, with all of this undeveloped land, we are going to add several thousand people, who will all be driving cars for the next 10 to 20 years at least, and the transportation consultants are saying we will not have transportation issues and we do not need additional bridges. He said even now, when he leaves work, he cannot get off of 1 -270 because of the traffic on SR 161, and the Corridor has not even started to develop yet. He said the point is now, there are five lanes going through the Historic District, and cars will be added to the population of the Bridge Street Corridor, and he already cannot get through during peak hours. Ms. Ray said she was not qualified to address all of Mr. Souders' concerns, but she stated Staff actually shares some of his concerns. She said in some ways, the consultants are jumping ahead to the 30 -year conditions, assuming the vision has been implemented, and everybody is walking and biking everywhere, so there are no problems. She agreed they all understand maybe 30 years from now we will be in that position, but today, tomorrow, ten years from now, we will be dealing with vehicular traffic. Ms. Ray said she thought that was something that as the consultants are working with Engineering to finalize in the transportation model, and Staff will be tempering what the consultants are reporting with our understanding of how traffic works in Dublin. She said staff understands this particular concern and will definitely continue working on this topic, which is a legitimate concern. Tasha Bailey suggested an explanation about how the various decisions are made or will be made would be helpful. She said when they are presented information at these Joint Work Sessions, they never really know what takes precedent in the decision making process. She asked as they scope the plan for the next five, ten, fifteen, to twenty years, what will take precedent in how decisions are made? She asked if cost was the primary factor, or if the vision was, or if timing was number one. She said that would help her understand better. Ms. Ray said Staff could provide information on that, if it is not covered at the Joint Work Session. Mr. Karrer asked what was the origin of the detail in this proposed Code. He pointed out today was the ARB's first formal review although they had attended Joint Sessions to discuss it. He said they had not met as a Board and reviewed the code page by page yet to talk about specifics. He asked if the specifications came from the consultants or Planning. He asked if the consultants' Vision Plan was translated to the zoning map by staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Ray explained a consultant team was hired to develop the form -based code for Dublin. She said they worked with Goody Clancy and Associates who did the visioning, and staff to understand how Dublin's system works, and then they put the drafts together. She said staff also worked with the consultants on honing the language. She said they have received comments from property owners who have certain concerns, and Staff has debated endlessly talking about all the sections, and really digging into the details of the code. She said that was where many of the changes that the Board has seen to date have originated. She said that at this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission has not thoroughly reviewed the code page by Dublin Architectural Review Board June 29, 2011 -Minutes Page 10 of 10 page yet either, but that is expected to come later. She concluded by thanking the Board members for their time and discussion that evening. She reiterated comments are always welcomed. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, June 20, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Attendance: Council Members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Reiner. Mr. Keenan was absent. Planning & Zoning Commission Members Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Budde. Mr. Hardt was absent. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Souders, Mr. Currie, Ms. Bailey, Mr. Karrer. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Ms. Rauch, Mr. Goodwin, Ms. Cox, Ms. Noble, Ms. Willis, Ms. Martin. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion Farr; Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; and Carson Bise, TischlerBise. Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in Council Chambers, noting this is the third joint session of the Bridge Street Corridor Plan. From this point forward, the zoning process will follow a more traditional path in terms of review by Planning & Zoning Commission (July review at PZC with recommendation to Council), and Council will then consider the ordinances at the two August meetings. Currently, the target date for passage in some form would be late August /early September. He encouraged everyone with questions /concerns to contact staff. Introduction Mr. McDaniel noted that tonight, staff will provide an update on the ongoing analysis being done of the Code. He encouraged everyone to ask questions in conjunction with the presentations being made tonight. Tonight's agenda includes Mr. Langworthy speaking to the greenspace /open space feedback from the Planning charette held. A presentation will be made by Jason Schrieber, Nelson /Nygaard regarding the outcomes of the transportation /traffic modeling. The pattern book and regulatory framework will also be discussed, and staff is recommending this adoption in a form -based code. Staff can walk the group through the various sections of the form -based code. Staff will provide any information about major changes made over the last 30 days in follow -up to the open houses, and what outstanding issues remain with this code. He introduced the consultants present. He noted that Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Study, eight months ago, which established a vision creating a vibrant, walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, enhancing long -term sustainability, while preserving and highlighting the Corridor's natural features. The study was developed with significant public input and market analysis to develop the planning principles and the framework. This resolution further adopted a vision statement, the vision principles, and authorized staff to commence the Bridge Street Corridor implementation strategy. Regarding this strategy, Council authorized funding in the 2011 operating budget to move Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 2 of 15 forward with the appropriate consultants to address the various components of the implementation strategy. From a staff perspective, they believe they are significantly complete and are advancing the outcomes of the studies to the policy- making bodies, as evidenced in these joint work sessions. Staff is proposing to meld the district pattern book with the regulatory framework in the form -based code. Staff believes they are at the 90 percent plus mark for completion of this, and continues to receive input. They are working to address the issues raised as they are brought forward. Much written input and phone calls have been received and staff has tried to address those as they arise. The utility modeling is basically complete but for the final written report. Relative to infrastructure cost analysis, staff believes as a result of the studies and ongoing dialogue with several potential near -term and future developments, there is a good sense of what some of those infrastructure investments will be in order to have the Bridge Street Corridor concepts move forward. The fiscal analysis and the operating costs and revenues will be presented by Tischler. in accordance with the schedule. He noted that the recommended schedule has been somewhat modified. Staff is not recommending any formal adoption or vote tonight. The Bridge Street Corridor zoning and Code will be reviewed by P &Z in July and a recommendation made to Council by August 1, 2011. The Commission has added a special session on July 14 to review the BSC items. Council will review the Code and zoning in August. Based on some a -mails and questions after the green space charette, he has asked Mr. Langworthy to provide an update tonight. Open Space /Greenspace Mr. Langworthy noted that the purpose of the open space Code section was to develop a statutory requirement for both diversity and type of use of open spaces, and also have some minimum sizes and requirements for those spaces. They have incorporated the March 9, 2011 workshop findings. This is the vision plan, and he has highlighted the open space network, dominated by the floodplain of the Scioto River and the Indian Run branches, and also a number of open space provisions that are part of the greenway corridor and other small open spaces scattered in different places, including those that are City- owned. He shared an overview of the various zoning districts within the corridor, also the location of the individual greenways and important elements of the greenway termini points that are set. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked what is considered to be a greenway. Mr. Langworthy responded that in the Code, there is a description of a greenway, with a width and a characteristic of what happens there. Essentially, a greenway is an elongated space — not a park per se, but an area used for pedestrian connectivity from major open spaces and major roadways to reach other highlighted points within the corridor. There is a continuous greenway desired from Sawmill all the way to the EAZ. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for its width and whether it is significant. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is on page 76, which indicates that a wide variety of open spaces are programmed — some on the map and some will occur with development. There are seven different open space types, including pocket park, green square, pocket plaza, plaza park and greenway. Mr. Currie asked for the difference between the brown and green highlighting on the map. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Langworthy responded the brown reflects hardscape -- streetscape, pedestrian walkways, which could include brick walks, sidewalks, a variety of things. Mr. Karrer asked if bicycle paths are included. Mr. Langworthy responded these pedestrian- oriented pathways are addressed here. The vehicle portion will be addressed later. Bikepaths fit in different locations and in different ways. Some of those ways will be introduced later. The notations on the maps are from the open space workshops. These include the greenway into Riverside Park across the river; central green in Historic Dublin; the new riverside park along the river, which will be challenging due to the narrow area in which to work. There was a request for improved access to the Dublin Arts Council building, Scioto Park and the Holder Wright earthworks. Part of that will be due to Emerald 8 and improving other projects outside the corridor, in terms of access. Mrs. Boring asked for clarification. Is the park along Riverside Drive going to be narrow? Mr. Langworthy responded there is not much space between Riverside Drive and the river edge. There may be opportunities to capture park space on the east side of Riverside Drive as well. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if this plan relocates Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that this plan does not. It is an issue that remains to be resolved. Mrs. Boring stated that she is very disappointed, as she understood this was part of Council's "wish lists" from long ago and part of the vision. She asked Council for input. Vice Mayor Salay asked for the rationale for not relocating Riverside Drive. Mr. Langworthy responded that tonight's discussion focuses on the Code. There are some other issues yet to be addressed in road improvements. Until other decisions are made, the plan is based on the current conditions. As decisions are made, some provisions can be implemented. Staff would not make a policy decision about the location of Riverside Drive. Ms. Grigsby stated that this Plan does not preclude modifying the alignment of Riverside Drive. As staff began looking at that a couple of years ago, they identified many issues relating to acquisition and the actual movement and construction of the road. As development is initiated, those types of things will be reviewed and evaluated. The pedestrian crossing is still included in the Plan, and staff is looking at ways to incorporate that along with use of the river. Mrs. Boring stated that she understood this was to be a visionary plan — not just text. There was a beautiful plan for the Historic District years ago that included widening SR 161 and added parking, but then buildings were added and there was no longer room to accommodate that plan. Trying to control the development of each building as it comes along puts the City in somewhat of an argumentative position. Having a Community Plan to defend puts the City in a better position. She is concerned the opportunity will be lost. Ms. Grigsby responded some of the things originally identified for Bridge Street in the 1997 Community Plan are no longer what is preferred. As development occurs over time, preferences change, such as depth of setbacks. Any plan would be subject to modifications. It is a guide to be used, recognizing the intent is to look at opportunities to develop the parkland, specifically along the river. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 4 of 15 Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff is not asking Council to adopt this plan in any fashion. This is merely the mechanism used to incorporate Council's ideas from the workshops. Therefore, the statements regarding Riverside Drive Parkway and the new Riverside park are interpreted as wished for now until later decisions are made. Their goal is to codify open space requirements in this area, but not the location of those open spaces. Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Code may not provide specifications for a park along the river, as a result of Council's input, it does introduce green spaces and greenways that previously were not in the Community Plan, particularly as it relates to connectivity to and within Dublin Village Center. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she appreciates the explanation for realigned Riverside Drive not being shown in the plan at this time. However, she understood that to be a critical feature of this current exercise — because of the interest in making the river the centerpiece of this part of Dublin. To make the river the centerpiece would require it to be a larger area than currently exists. That opportunity is made possible by moving the road to the east. It was understood that would mean a significant financial investment, but Council was willing to consider that and plan accordingly because of the significant impact it would have on this part of the community. More importantly, it would set Dublin significantly apart from any other community in central Ohio — not only having a river, but then incorporating it as a dynamic element of the community. Therefore, she is surprised this Code does not take into consideration that the road would be moved. How can the Code be merely a guide, when a Code by nature is specific? Mr. Langworthy responded that this is not in the Code. It is the overview Council requested to show how the different types of greenspace were specified, also examples for how that could be implemented. This is not proposed for adoption. There is also an overview of the street network plan on page 17, and conceptual road realignment is depicted in that plan. Mr. McDaniel stated if it is Council's desire that more elements be depicted in the plan, it is possible to do so. Mrs. Boring stated that this is something that has already been discussed. Why is additional input necessary to include it in this plan? It was known that movement of the road would be expensive, but if it is to be a dynamic component of the plan, it must be included. Mayor Lecklider stated that he views this document as Code, which has minimum requirements, including widths. Perhaps another document could provide a description of what is desired in regard to the treatment of the river in this particular area. It would not be appropriately included here in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she understood this was to be both a Code and a vision. Mayor Lecklider stated that this part is just the Code. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it should be a Code that reflects the vision. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she thought the intent was to codify the vision. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Mayor Lecklider stated that the Code cannot codify each and every parcel of the overall plan. This is to provide the minimum requirements. Mr. Langworthy clarified that staff was asked to provide the results of the open space workshop, and that is what has been presented. They pulled this part of the presentation out from the Code presentation to make it clear these were the elements discussed at the open space workshop. Mayor Lecklider stated that discussion is similar to the streets discussion, in which there was discussion of the different types of streets, widths, etc. Examples of those provided in the presentation wouldn't be what is being adopted — these are merely examples of how the Code might be implemented. Mr. Gerber stated that is true. However, people will be looking for visualization of the form - based Code. Also, during the most recent CIP workshop, there was discussion concerning scheduling of funding the study for the Riverside Road realignment. He prefers not to have a lengthy Code discussion, but prefers the focus be on achieving a better understanding of how this plan would look when implemented. Ms. Grigsby stated that these Code provisions will guide development as it occurs. Funding was programmed in last year's CIP for design of the Riverside Drive /Bridge Street intersection, but that was put on hold until the Bridge Street Corridor study is completed. Originally, a potential roundabout was identified as the best method to improve traffic movement through that intersection. This process has caused that objective to be reconsidered. It may be desirable to slow traffic movement at that intersection. The costs of land acquisition have changed since the original concept and there are other elements that have been re- evaluated. Although different and attractive features along the river are desired to make Dublin unique, the area may not need to be as large as the original concept envisioned. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that there is a fundamental difference between what the Mayor has described and what she believes. She believes Code follows vision instead of Code forcing vision. What she sees is that a Code has been developed, and when a developer comes in with their vision, as long as they meet the Code, their vision will be permitted to be developed. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Code would be followed in conjunction with the Vision that was established as a guide for potential development. Also, some of the planning work has been completed to identify what the land uses will be to enable prediction of transportation needs and projected costs to service those uses. Mayor Lecklider asked if conceptual description of the riverfront greenspace exists anywhere in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that the illustrative Vision Plan was not incorporated into the Code. However, on page 17 of the illustrative Vision Plan, which was adopted on October 25, the road is shown as realigned. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Mayor Lecklider asked if exact details concerning the Central Green are provided anywhere. As he understands, this is conceptual. Ms. Kramb asked if there is a zoning map depicting the proposed locations of the 11 zones that have been identified. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Ms. Kramb stated that there will be a Public District. Will public areas be zoned? If so, would the area along the river be zoned as a public area? Mr. Langworthy responded that the City can zone only what it owns. He is referring specifically to parkland. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City zones that area as commercial and builds the streets accordingly, what happens if, in 20 years, the City decides it wants to move Riverside Drive? Buildings will exist there in a commercial zone, and they will never be moved. Mrs. Boring added that the land will be more expensive to acquire at that time. Ms. Kramb stated that if the City has an intention of realigning the road -- just as the City now has plans to zone Office along S.R. 161 although those areas are existing retail -- if the City can have the foresight for that future zoning, why can't the City identify future park zoning for this area? Ms. Grigsby responded that this concept plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, not the more significant realignment originally discussed. The concept plan also shows a roundabout at Bridge Street and Riverside Drive, and that will likely not be what is adopted. The concept plan does recognize some important features -- the river and a pedestrian bridge over the river, but the park area is not as large as originally envisioned. Mrs. Boring stated that consultants can draft these concepts, but, in the end, who owns the plan? If Council wants to revert to an earlier plan, how could that occur? Mr. McDaniel responded that is influenced by how likely the City is to be able to acquire what is needed. From an area plan perspective, there is no problem with showing the intended greenspace on the plan, as well as a shifted Riverside Drive, if that is what Council desires. Currently, there are businesses and owners making investments in that area, which makes it difficult to purchase land at this time. However, it can be reflected in the plan as a long -term goal. Vice Mayor Salay stated that item 3 on the agenda is "transportation analysis update," which will likely focus on Riverside Drive, Bridge Street and the entire transportation network. It is important for everyone to understand what the ramifications of the decision to move Riverside Drive to the east would be. After analysis is presented and understood, then it will be possible to discuss what to do with Riverside Drive. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she does not disagree, but this is a dramatic change from the expectation. This exercise had contemplated the movement of Riverside Drive -- not an incremental move, but a significant movement. That may have been changed for very legitimate reasons, which may be revealed in future presentations. However, she would like to have known that the vision was dramatically different than what Council had anticipated. That would have permitted Council time to adjust its thinking and consider how the Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 7 of 15 remainder of the area would make up the difference. For instance, at one time, there was discussion concerning a very large greenway that might traverse the area. That central park concept might have been dramatic enough that it could have replaced a plan around the river. At this point, there appear to be pockets of greenspace, but not the "drama" of significant greenspace, as she had envisioned. Ms. Grigsby responded that the plan shows a slight adjustment to Riverside Drive, but not to the degree it was three to four years ago. Information on the current proposed alignment will be forwarded to Council. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff and the consultants have discussed the alignment. Traveling south on Riverside Drive, does Council want Riverside Drive to continue as the thoroughfare it currently is — a higher speed roadway -- or would Council prefer to begin changing the character as the road nears the intersection with SR 161? Beginning the grid pattern closer to the north would create other greenspace opportunities. It may be desirable to change the character of the road as it enters the new Bridge Street corridor. As development opportunities occur between 1 -270 and SR 161, there may be opportunity to change the character of the roadway and acquire greenspace. Mrs. Boring stated that the references to how it "could" or "likely" would develop are of concern to her. It then does not appear a decision has been made regarding how Council wants it to appear. Mayor Lecklider asked if the City has the discretion to move a State route. Mr. McDaniel responded that would have to be coordinated with ODOT. If they are also a funding partner, they will have more input. Mr. Taylor stated that two issues are being confused. Mrs. Boring used the 1997 Community Plan concerning the intersection of High Street and S.R. 161 as an example. There seems to be concern that the vision or drama has been lost. If those elements are established first, then Council can evaluate proposals in terms of those elements. Although there may be huge obstacles to moving the road, if Council doesn't identify now that is the vision, someone will build up to the road and then it will be impossible. The Code is separate from the vision. It is also important to maintain the strong, dramatic vision for the City and not allow the day -to -day realities to get in the way of it. Mr. Langworthy pointed out the hardscape transitions from the greenways to the urban settings on the east side and open spaces within the shopping corridors. There will also be larger plazas along SR 161. There are seven different types of open spaces built into the Code as requirements for development and building construction. There is a wide variety of open spaces and a variety of ways to achieve those open spaces. This is not to be adopted as part of the Code; it is an illustration for discussion tonight. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there would be a large central park in the area, Mr. Langworthy responded that there could be, but it is an area not designated, as the area currently is owned by private property owners. The City can have the property owner dedicate the space, and then add to the space via partnerships. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Mr. McDaniel asked if Council wants a central green area adjacent to Historic Dublin. Mr. Langworthy reviewed the changes from the previous draft of the proposed Code. It now contains a provision of open space that covers all non -civic land uses as commercial and residential, regardless of its size. The requirements of open space are based either on square footage or commercial use, or, if a mixed -use, then the number of dwelling units. Also added is a requirement for payment in lieu of open space, when the requirements cannot be met by the applicant or if the ART determines that the fee in lieu of would be more advantageous to the City than the actual open space. The fee must be used for open space purposes within the Corridor. The maximum amount of open water permitted has been reduced. Mrs. Boring noted that it is possible to plan the building so that the land dedication cannot be met. Mr. Langworthy stated that it is not anticipated there will be many circumstances where the open space dedication cannot be met, other than roadway constraints. Mr. Souders noted that on page 17 is the Corridor street network with disclaimers, providing a concept of where the roads could go. Perhaps that same technique could be used for the greenway spaces – providing the concept, with disclaimers, with the Code a visionary/guide for the greenway linkage? Mr. Langworthy responded that he would discuss the possibility with Legal staff. Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nvgaard stated that he would be presenting for Rick Chellman. He reviewed the transportation concepts. Most of the modeling has been completed, and they are in the process of documentation. The goal was to achieve a very walkable and interconnected place, which means a significant change in the traffic. Council had asked that they specifically address the river crossings. There will be two new bridges across the Scioto River. Much modeling has been done, including complex intersection analysis. To summarize, the reduction in traffic with two new bridges will not be substantial — only 13 %. That is due to the fact that adding the new connections across the river will result in more people using the connections. The reality is that all that is really needed is the existing bridge. However, bridges mean something for a community. It is all about "place making." Bridges link neighborhoods, and therefore, their recommendation is to add two more bridges. However, the traffic volume is completely supportable by one bridge. The streets in the City's network are the predominant open spaces in many cities. All of the streets need multi -modal connectivity. He displayed excerpts of pages that would be placed in the Code. The primary east -west streets would be the core east -west spine of the District, from OCLC to the Dublin Village Center. These primary streets would ideally also have cycle tracks. The review continued regarding the types of characteristics that would exist with the differing streets. Conservative evaluations by the models indicates a 40% internal capture -- which means the percent of people living, working, recreating, shopping and dining within the Bridge Street Corridor on foot or bike. For that reason Dublin will not need many bridges – it will have an environment that changes the characteristics of how people move around. Some of the maps included are: a recommended loop bicycle pathway network, primary and secondary routes, and potential COTA interface. The existing bridge would need some areas of improvement: pedestrian enhancements on the bridge dovetailing with changes in the Riverside Drive intersection. A roundabout is not the best way to encourage Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 9 of 15 pedestrian connections. The intersection with Post and Frantz Road will be a definite problem and require improvements as the traffic volume grows from the developing community. Review continued regarding other potential road improvements, as outlined in the presentation materials. Mr. Karrer commented on the traffic volume in the Historic District. A viable alternative to the existing roads is needed. He encourages more study of opportunities for the Historic District to have another bypass for S.R. 161 traffic. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there has been any discussion on the Frantz -Post realignment. Is the vision that it would ultimately connect to Emerald Parkway and thereby move traffic to the east side of the river? That would provide a traffic bypass around the Historic District. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff looked at some realignments. Funds are currently programmed for a Dublin Road west bypass through the Cardinal Health property. It would not connect to Emerald Parkway. Mrs. Boring asked if a potential connection through the Verizon property was also studied. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that a study was conducted, and it was determined that there was not adequate room for that connection based on height and slope. Mr. Schrieber stated that the advantages of adding a new connection for existing conditions is great. Hopefully, in the future there will be multiple connections to Dublin Road added, ideally every 200 -foot block. The goal is not to create an arterial, or classic bypass. This would be the backbone of a different kind of network. The more traffic is dispersed, the less big roads are needed. Mr. Currie asked in reference to the traffic reduction on S.R. 161, where did the modeling begin. Mr. Schrieber responded that the model is of the entire City. It assumes there are multiple intersections. The traffic volume on the existing bridge is not at its capacity, although it is expected to near that. More of a concern in relationship to the bridge is how the intersections perform at either end. Mr. Currie asked if the model included eastbound traffic on S.R. 161 from Plain City to Worthington. Mr. Schrieber responded that it did. The model assumes that in 20 years of growth, there is also background traffic growth associated with other developments and communities. Mr. Currie asked if the 110 -foot width of the streets is an overlay on existing streets. Mr. Schrieber responded that it reflects new streets to be built. The cross section was illustrative of a primary address street at its widest, such as the OCLC entry or Dublin Village Center. It could also be applied to Bridge Street. To the east of the river, it is wider than 110 feet, and to the west it is narrower. Mr. Page inquired if there are other small cities, similar to Dublin, that are about 10 -15 years further along in the process that could share information on how all this can be achieved. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the river was to be treated as an amenity or as a barrier to be crossed. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if the bridges were pedestrian or vehicular. If they are pedestrian, they would be incorporating the river as an amenity. Mr. Schrieber stated that a bridge that will connect communities should have sidewalks twice the width of the existing sidewalk, cycle tracks, and some form of a barrier protection from the traffic. It also should not be four lanes wide, but two lanes only. Vehicle traffic can be part of the bridge function, but the elements need to be very multi - modal. Bridges done well can also incorporate visual access to the river. Vice Mayor Salay stated that there was earlier discussion about changing the character of Riverside Drive from a fast - moving road. There was also discussion regarding the roundabout, which was assumed would be located at SR 161. She requested that he discuss the thought process behind not having a roundabout, the future character of Riverside Drive, and the reason it cannot be moved more to the east so that the park space envisioned can be added. Mr. Schrieber expressed support for Riverside Drive's character changing. It is difficult to address with Code, however, unless a developer is rebuilding it. He advocates narrower lanes, adding walkways and a multi -use path. The key is to humanize a street that will be a gateway or front door for many development parcels, not treat it as a bypass road, but a principal address street, a front door to places. That intent should continue down to its principal intersection with Bridge Street. Although a roundabout does help traffic move more safely, it is difficult for pedestrian traffic. Therefore, it may make more sense to have a compact surface intersection, which would make pedestrian crossings as short as possible. It would require more engineering of details, but it would make pedestrian connectivity an important component. Vice Mayor Salay stated that a big part of the previous discussion focused on not moving the road as far east as initially discussed. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a place- making decision. It is not really a traffic and circulation decision. That type of movement does not really impact intersection operations. It is the intersection design and the cross section of the street that is relevant. Therefore, he can't speak to changes in size of open space or where the roadway is aligned. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she was hoping to obtain clarity on why the roadway is not being moved. Mr. McDaniel responded that, previously, the intent was to have the road swing widely and for Tuller Road to be realigned. A suburban feel was the intent at that time; now staff is looking at a grid design. They had a $100 million dollar development project proposed at that time, but the shopping center is picking up vibrancy again. It is possible to change direction. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 11 of 15 Vice Mayor Salay stated that it would be helpful to see the dimensions now being considered, and the difference from previous plans. Ms. Newell stated that there was a plan for a 110 -foot wide boulevard street further west. How does that relate to the bridge connection? She assumes the width downsizes as it reaches the river. Mr. Schrieber referred to the street family diagram. Some of the streets are key connections that will reach up to OCLC and change street families. Even within one family, the Code is designed to indicate that there are primary families, but the details involve going to the user guide, which provides detailed cross sections. Any of those cross sections might be used, depending on the adjacent land use and the character of the cross section further down the road. For instance, traveling along North Street, a principal address street, the cross section might vary 20 times across its length. The Code permits for each development that is involved in the creation of that street to be reviewed for what the appropriate cross section would be at that time. In some places, a bicycle path might be needed; in other places, it may not. In other places, the sidewalk could be narrower in areas of lower pedestrian activity; in other areas wider due to more pedestrian activity. He envisions a multitude of cross sections used throughout the Bridge Street Corridor. Ms. Newell stated that the plan indicates Bridge Street and SR 161 at 110 feet; nothing indicates other options. Mr. Schrieber responded that the Code language on page 18, J(2) provides 110 feet as "one example of the street configuration appropriate. Please refer to typical plan and ultimately the table. Refer to the Bridge Street Corridor's District applicable guide for the other cross sections." The language should be bolder for clarification purposes. There is no intention that the example on page 18 is what Bridge Street should look like. Showing numerous possible cross sections would be voluminous. A decision was made for clarity to show a few brief examples, with all of the language referring back to a technical appendix that does show all those cross sections. Ultimately, clarity is paramount, and it could be done differently. Mrs. Boring stated that J(1) does refer to the "intent," so there is not clarity. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the other examples do not give the name of an existing street. Using Bridge Street as the name makes it confusing; that should be changed. Mayor Lecklider asked about the remaining meeting timeframe. Mr. McDaniel responded that Carson Bise, TischlerBise, will review Code sections, unless Council would prefer to defer that. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has never had the opportunity to discuss these issues, and Council's input should be provided. She believes another workshop is needed. Ms. Grigsby responded that can be done. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she agrees another meeting is needed to discuss the development code, as that is the subject about which Council is receiving letters and phone calls. She would prefer to hear the fiscal review tonight. [Discussion re. Transportation continues.] Mr. Souders stated that traffic in the Historic District is an issue, backing up to 1 -270. If the number of lanes through the Historic District were reduced, does the model still work? Would another bridge, such as a North Street bridge, be needed if the number of lanes were reduced? Mr. Schrieber responded that if the number of lanes were reduced, the model will not work. That would cause a severe reduction in capacity. If the intersection is designed correctly, however, it can handle the volumes projected in any future scenario. Mr. Souders stated that it has been suggested that the Bridge Street bridge would better operate if the number of lanes were reduced, and the amount of pedestrian width increased. Because the bridge is a fixed width, the number of lanes would need to be reduced — but the model will no longer work. Mr. Schrieber clarified that his suggestion was that on Riverside Drive, the lane width be reduced. He would not suggest removing lanes on Bridge Street, but he would suggest doing whatever can be done to change the character of Bridge Street and its bridge. That is the key point. The model will handle the traffic, but it always breaks down when people "begin behaving more like people and less like cars." If the characteristics of the street change, regardless of the level of development, substantial changes in driving patterns will result. Mr. Souders asked if the consultant perceives an issue with pedestrians attempting to cross from the north side of Bridge Street to the south side. Mr. Schrieber responded that he observes there is an issue. Mr. Souders asked if the only solution is to reduce the width of the drive lanes. Mr. Schrieber responded that it is a good way to solve it, but not the only way. For instance, the intersection of Bridge and Dublin Road might warrant some changes in how the signal operates; that could reduce the queues. Mr. Souders asked if it would make sense for current Bridge Street, with reductions, to become one -way, eastbound, and North Street to become one -way, westbound. Mr. Schrieber responded that he would expect that to be a disaster. It would cause significant high -speed traffic that would make pedestrian crossings difficult. It would also cause levels of diversions that cannot be conceived of at that point in time. It would be creating an exploded, one -way couplet that would be detrimental to the character of either side. Mr. Souders stated that the only solution, then, is to keep the lanes and change the width. Mr. Schrieber stated that making the travel lanes on Bridge Street as narrow as possible and introducing active uses, crosswalks and, where possible, on street parking to help create the friction and slow down the traffic volumes will make a difference. It is possible to handle just as much volume but at a slower speed -- 25 mph for the peak period would be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 13 of 15 good. The problem is that crossing the street in the Historic District any time of the day is difficult. The goal is to design a district that has life all day long. Mrs. Boring stated that, previously, there has been discussion about the stacking problems at the intersection of Riverside Drive /Emerald Parkway, the reason for realigning Tuller Road. In attempts to divert traffic on Emerald Parkway, she is hopeful that kind of situation is recalled. How do drivers make a reasonable north -south connection with Riverside Drive? Mr. Schrieber responded that one of the principles of this network is that the streets are not being designed as bypass alternate straight shots. Not only is the cross section changing, but other than where there are existing roads, there is not an opportunity to actually drive through the entire site without turning the wheels significantly, or making turns at intersections to continue. Doing so helps to preserve the character of those streets as slower -speed streets. They will still relieve traffic, but drivers will be forced to make turns, thereby going slower. It is possible to make an east -west connection in a dozen different options with this network. Mrs. Boring asked if drivers would be forced to use another north -south connector, rather than Riverside Drive. Mr. Schrieber responded that he does not believe any diversion for drivers would occur. The intent of multiple routes is that any additional traffic created by new development would have other options, rather than funneling everyone onto Riverside Drive, Sawmill Road or Bridge Street. In fact, there will be the opportunity for people who work within the corridor to never touch those streets all day, other than to cross them. He would not expect people who drive today on those through routes would necessarily shift their pattern significantly, although they may be intrigued to go elsewhere. The redundancy will reduce the opportunities for folks to find one convenient route, but increase the opportunities for everyone who lives and works in the District to move around. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned about the ramifications for people who live to the north of the Corridor and who use Riverside Drive to travel downtown. It seems that part of the focus should also be on giving folks an easier way to travel from Point A to Point B. Mr. Schrieber responded that sometimes they are also asked to conduct a travel -time run. The time to travel on Riverside Drive from Emerald Parkway to Bridge Street today versus the future when, hopefully, the travel speeds are reduced and will be 30 -45 seconds. That time difference will humanize the trip for this District. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher referred to the model for SR 161 traveling east. There has been discussion regarding the addition of left turns at Riverside Drive, as existed years ago. With a roundabout, that would have been possible. A roundabout is not being recommended, but are they recommending a left -turn lane in this location? Mr. Schrieber stated that there should be as much connectivity as possible, and therefore, he believes it would be a good idea. However, they have not studied that intersection in finite detail. That is the reason it is on the list of items for immediate consideration. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Fiscal Carson Bise, TischlerBise stated that they do not have any hard numbers to share tonight. They have worked several times with Dublin over the past 15 years. Their work focuses solely on cost of growth studies, primarily impact fee studies and fiscal impact analyses. With this project, they are responsible for the fiscal impact analysis and accompanying fiscal sustainability implementation recommendations. Some of the characteristics of the Bridge Street Corridor will be historically different for Dublin, such as the variety of housing densities, different development pattern, and different residential and non - residential products. Their analysis will cover the trip rates from this type of development and amount of local road frontage associated with these land use types that will be added. They will look at the incentives that must be utilized to achieve this vision. Tax increment financing will be used for some of the infrastructure improvement. They will look at the cost of the incentives, intervention strategies, and other actions the City must take to implement this. How will the structured parking be built — with TIF dollars? And how will it be operated? They will be creating a fiscal model that looks at costs on the margin, recognizing the City's existing capacity, and showing the ebbs and flows of surpluses and deficits. They will also be assessing capital facilities - the infrastructure provisions within the study area. [In -depth review of the fiscal analysis plan continued.] The fiscal impact model is 70% complete and he anticipates providing a draft report to the City by the end of July. They are finalizing assumptions for the development program, and the key aspect is phasing. The transportation analysis is needed to complete their work for the final report. Mr. Langworthy asked how similar this analysis is to that done for the Community Plan process. Mr. Bise responded that the difference is they are looking at a small area versus a City -wide analysis, and this development project has very different characteristics than the City's traditional developments. The focus of this analysis is developing the model and determine how it will behave differently in term of trip generation rates, socioeconomic characteristics, assessed values, etc. Mr. Souders asked how the fiscal analysis impacts the existing historic district. The mixed use will compete for the same people in the marketplace until the development takes off. Mr. Bise responded that is not their charge here; that is more of a market analysis. That type of analysis can be incorporated later, if desired. The spinoff of their work would lead to the "what if' questions, such as what happens short and long -term to the Historic District, which can be hypothesized and modeled. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if, in recommending incentives, they research what other communities are offering as incentives, or what the central Ohio market is doing. Mr. Bise responded that their role is not to tell the City what incentives it should use. They do not have preconceived ideas, although they can offer suggestions if requested. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested clarification of what he would be providing. She thought he would be addressing the future, not what has occurred in the past. Mr. Bise stated that they would offer modeling for different types of incentives. Perhaps the City may have to upfront some of the infrastructure. They will be offering implementation recommendations to make the Plan happen. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board June 20, 2011 Page 15 of 15 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if in his experience he is aware of certain types of incentive models, wouldn't he suggest they be modeled in this Corridor? Mr. Bise responded that he would, but that would come later. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for the timeframe for completion. Mr. Bise indicated the end of July. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she is looking for ideas, not an analysis of what the City is already doing. Is he modeling against the new plan incorporating the types of incentives the City is already doing? Mr. Bise responded that is correct. They would not take the liberty of assuming what the City should do, but will provide a "toolbox" of options. Ms. Bailey asked if it is a bit premature to model with so many items undecided in this plan. How does the City avoid "creeping the plan" to fit the budget? Mr. Bise responded that at some point, someone will have to make a decision as to what type of transportation improvements, for instance, they should model. They can do subsets of scenarios — with Riverside Drive moving or staying in place, for example. Mayor Lecklider asked staff about the timing for an additional workshop, based on tonight's discussion. The PZC review may need to be rescheduled for a later date. Mr. McDaniel responded he would like to check on the availability of consultants and forward those dates to Council for consideration. He would prefer they be involved in the meetings. Mayor Lecklider acknowledged that P &Z would need to delay their review until the workshops are completed. Ms. Kramb asked the percentage of completion of the Code presented tonight would be. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is difficult to provide a percentage. They now need to assess the amount of change needed in the Code language to address the recommendations that have been made, and need to circle back with the stakeholders. Mr. McDaniel responded that a rough estimate would be 90% complete. Ms. Kramb suggested that there are many items in the Code that do not require comment, but where references to figures need to be addressed, where references are not correct. These should be handled by the consultants. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Clerk of Council BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Tuesday, May 24, 2011 MEETING RECORD The following were present: Council members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, and Mr. Reiner. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Hardt, Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Budde. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Gunnoe, Mr. Todoran, and Mr. Page. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, Mr. Souders, and Ms. Bailey. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ray, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Ms. Coen, Ms. Burness, Ms. Clarke. Consultants Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliott, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, and Dr. Taymour EI- Hosseiny, EMH &T, and Josh Reinicke, CDM. Deputy City Manager Dana McDaniel thanked the Board and Commission members in attendance and recognized the Bridge Street Corridor stakeholders also present. He introduced the consultants who would be presenting this evening. Mr. McDaniel stated the purpose of this meeting was to provide updates regarding the progress made with the Bridge Street Corridor implementation studies. He stated the second draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code has been distributed to Council and Board and Commission members. Mr. McDaniel introduced the first speaker, Shane Spencer with EMH &T. He said Council and Board and Commission members would have the opportunity to ask questions of the consultant teams following the presentations. Water Distribution System Model Report Shane Spencer, EMH &T, said he studied the city's existing water distribution system with the objective of determining the ability of the existing infrastructure to serve the Bridge Street Corridor at build -out. He explained the City of Dublin receives water from the City of Columbus. There are two separate pressure districts, which are areas where the hydraulic grade line is maintained at a level to maintain constant pressure. The pressure is often influenced by the topography of the land. He stated there are six water tanks surrounding the Corridor that are filled by the Cleveland Avenue and Henderson Road booster stations. He added in the Bridge Street Corridor, there are 24 -inch main water lines from Sawmill Road west to Dublin Road, in addition to a 16 -inch water main along Bridge Street to the west. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Spencer stated the water distribution computer model is based on the current model, last updated in 2006, which listed a citywide demand for 6.2 million gallons of water. The new model represents changes in water lines, including working with the City of Columbus' Operation Center to obtain the duration levels and monitoring data of their tanks' booster stations. He said he was able to check that data by running flow tests in fire hydrants to reconcile the model with real variations. Mr. Spencer explained demands on the water system change throughout the year, and these changes help determine when to run the model in terms of identifying peak demand. Historically, late August to early September are the months which require the highest water demand. He said in order to determine how to serve the Bridge Street Corridor development capacity, they reviewed the two significant measurables, including system pressure and fire flow. Mr. Spencer explained the system pressure refers to daily uses and demands on the system. An operating range of 60 -80 psi with a minimum of 35 psi is what we want in our system during typical peak demands. Mr. Spencer said fire flow is the second aspect of the water distribution system studied. He coordinated with the Washington Township Fire Department to identify a goal of 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) for fire flow, which is above the typical fire flow demands due to the mixed use environment. He said the minimum operating pressure is 20 psi for standard fire flows. Mr. Spencer said it is important to begin the model by reviewing the existing system and existing demands. He said in 2010, the citywide demand was 1.6 billion gallons, and the existing demand in the Bridge Street Corridor is about .6 billion gallons. Mr. Spencer stated overall, the model meets the minimum desired standard of 3,000 GPM at build -out of the Bridge Street Corridor, with one exception around Kilgore Place near OCLC, which will only have 2,300 GPM, but still an acceptable level of service. Mr. Spencer stated in an effort to project future conditions for the model, they reviewed the 2007 Community Plan, which identifies a 1.7 MGD demand in the Bridge Street Corridor, which is about three times the current demand. He said the model estimated a build -out demand in the Bridge Street Corridor of approximately 2.1 MGD, which is 400,000 million gallons greater than the Community Plan projections. These demands were based on residential, commercial and office densities approximated for the build -out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Spencer concluded potential improvements may be needed to accommodate the build - out capacity of the Bridge Street Corridor. He said reinforcing the network of twelve inch pipes, much of which is already in place, with several key loops to reduce dead ends is really the only improvements that will be needed. He said additionally, any waterline improvements will need to be aligned with the street network and roadway improvements. He concluded the City of Dublin should continue to work with Columbus, but the major conclusion is that no up -front improvements are necessary to support development in the Corridor. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Sanitary Sewer Service Model Report Dr. Taymour El- Hosseiny. EMH &T, stated the sanitary service model studied the existing conditions, the 2007 Community Plan projections, and the build -out capacities projected for the Bridge Street Corridor. He explained topographically, the Bridge Street Corridor sits at the lowest point of the city, and there are trunk sewers discharging from the north and south, eventually reaching the two main trunk sewer lines which run parallel to the Scioto River. Dr. El- Hosseiny explained the peak times for sewer use are during the morning and evening hours, when people wake up and return home from work. During the "dry" times, the average demand on the system is 1 million gallons per day (GPD), and during "wet" times, the demand is up to 5 million GPD. He said the city has meters placed throughout the system to collect accurate measurements on system demand, which was used to determine water flows. Dr. El- Hosseiny reported the Bridge Street Corridor currently produces 4 million GPD demand, while the rest of the city produces 38 million GPD for a total of about 42 million GPD. At build -out conditions, the model projected the Bridge Street Corridor will produce a flow of up to 10 million GPD while the rest of the city will produce approximately 50 million GPD. The total demand for approximately 60 million GPD can be accommodated by the existing system, which can accommodate approximately 62 million GPD. He concluded this demand will not impact the main trunk sewer lines branching out from the Bridge Street Corridor. He stated the current main trunk sewer lines will not need to be increased in size to serve this demand, since the City has consistently installed sewer lines to meet and exceed demand levels. He noted a few specific areas would likely be improved during redevelopment. Storm Water Management Model Report Josh Reinicke, CDM, explained the Bridge Street Corridor offers an opportunity in which storm water can be reviewed in a manner unlike the way storm water is typically viewed, and can be integrated into every aspect of development. He said CDM looked at storm water management in the Bridge Street Corridor with a broad scope, looking at the east and west sides of the Scioto River as a whole to allow storm water to be viewed at a watershed scale. He said currently, every developer has to manage their own storm water on their individual site, whereas the results of the model presented today are based on a watershed - style, district -wide approach. Mr. Reinicke explained on the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, there are two streams which provide different opportunities and challenges for storm water management because they are high quality streams that need to be maintained. On the east side, storm water is directly discharged into the Scioto River. Mr. Reinicke explained that CDM worked from the Vision Plan and build -out capacities to calculate the approximate percentages of impervious surfaces that could be expected based on different land uses. He noted the development on the east and west sides of the Scioto River differed in impervious coverage. Mr. Reinicke stated typical development in Dublin typically results in less than 50% impervious surfaces. Knowing this percentage allowed the model to look at Dublin's current Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 4 of 8 storm water management needs and calculate preliminary detention volumes. He said most storm water management criteria requires retention ponds to be a maximum of four feet deep to meet quantity and quality requirements. Based on this depth assumption, on the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, approximately 6.4 acres of water retention would be needed, and on the east side, 9 acres would be needed. Mr. Reinicke noted the draft zoning regulations can include block -by -block storm water management requirements since the approximate storm water retention needs are known. Knowing block size and depth of storage, the square foot requirement for each block can be determined. Mr. Reinicke stated due to the proximity of the North and South Forks of the Indian Run and the Scioto River, there is potential to modify the current quantity control requirements to let the water flow faster, which can be very beneficial. On the west side of the Bridge Street Corridor, if there is no detention in place, there would be a slight increase of 14 cubic feet per second to the North Fork, which is not a big increase in flow. The City of Dublin's storm water management regulations currently provide an exemption for storm water quantity control within an area bounded by Riverside Drive and Dublin Road. Mr. Reinicke described modern, sustainable design techniques for storm water management could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. He said green roofs reduce the volume of runoff from a site, and permeable pavement also helps soak up the water and is starting to be used more frequently. Permeable pavement can be used not only for parking lots but for streets as well. He said rather than having a raised curb around a parking lot island, there could be a concrete edge that allows the water to flow into planters and soak into the ground. Using curbside planters could allow up to 20% of the storm water management needs to be met per block. Planters can also be placed in parking lots. He added on a smaller scale rain barrels and cisterns can be used to store and reuse storm water. He concluded the use of detention ponds in the Bridge Street Corridor is not a preferred method of storm water management because it is not typical in urban environments; however, some ponds could be integrated into public parks to supplement storm water management on a district basis. Overall, the city has more opportunities to think of storm water as an amenity as opposed to an afterthought in development of the Bridge Street Corridor. Transportation Model Report Rick Chellman, Nelson \Ny4aard, said that becoming more walkable and bikeable contributes to better transportation options in the future. He said tonight he would present a refined street network derived from his team's work with staff, stakeholders, and Goody Clancy. Mr. Chellman said there is power in an interconnected street network. For example, an eight -block by eight -block grid provides 10,000 ways to get from one end of the area to the other. In Nelson Nygaard's analysis of the street network on the west and east sides of the Scioto River, streets should not be too straight and continuous, but the objective is to provide interconnected streets with no dead ends. He said in addition to refining the street Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 5 of 8 network, Nelson Nygaard is evaluating how it performs and trying to model travel behavior on a 'macro' level, meaning the number of trips on each street during morning or evening peak hours and on a daily basis. This analysis allows us to project vehicle trips, but is not intended to be a number to focus too much attention on, since it will just be a raw model number. Following this analysis, Nelson Nygaard will look at what happens with or without the addition bridges and additional model variations. Mr. Chellman stated currently, the Corridor has land uses that are not well- connected. They will be using a trip generation manual to project how many car trips new development will put on the roadway. He said the model will also study "trip capture" in the Corridor, which is a trip that is made by walking, biking or a trip made by car that does not leave the Corridor. He reported the preliminary results are promising, showing a capture rate of up to 40 %. Mr. Chellman reported speeding is an issue, especially when trying to promote pedestrian safety. A cycle track is a space dedicated to bikes on the same level as the sidewalk, unlike a bike lane, and is a space where all bicycle riders can feel comfortable because it feels safer than a bike lane. He explained bike lanes can be problematic because they visually increase the space available for vehicles, create conflicts between bikes and cars for turning movements, and because the space is open most of the time, which has the effect of increasing the optical width of the street for drivers, which in turn increases speeds. For these reasons, bike lanes may not be appropriate for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Chellman said backward diagonal parking should be considered as an option for Bridge Street, since it is the easiest way to get in and out of an on- street parking space. When a child opens a car door, the door creates a buffer between the child and the street, directing the child toward the sidewalk instead. The trunk is also located at the sidewalk so loading and unloading is safer. Mr. Chellman presented several example street sections that could be used in the Bridge Street Corridor. One is a "queuing" street, which is a 21 -foot curb -to -curb two -way street with parking on one side. With a street this narrow, if there are two cars coming from opposing directions, one car will have to pull over to let the other one pass. He said there will not be many, if any, one -way streets in the Bridge Street. In general, the street should be as narrow as possible. Mr. Chellman stated when considering bridges, the numbers must be carefully calculated. Nelson Nygaard's model has assumed some vehicular bridges. While the model has provided preliminary calculations, we still need to apply different variables to adjust the numbers according to travel behavior in a mixed use environment. The "micro" analysis for the Corridor will look at intersections on Bridge Street and turning movements, but at this level, the macroanalysis projecting the trips throughout the corridor shows that the network will work and can serve the development capacity. Conclusion /Discussion Dana McDaniel stated several potential options for an adoption schedule for the Bridge Street Code and area reasoning had been provided for City Council. The options have all been reviewed by Legal, who indicated that the Code and the area rezoning could both be adopted at the next Joint Work Session on June 20. Another option, "Option 2," involves Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 6 of 8 adopting the code at the third work session with adoption of the area rezoning proceeding through the "traditional process," including Planning and Zoning Commission review and recommendation to City Council. He said a third option, "Option 3," uses the traditional process by going through Planning and Zoning Commission then City Council, which results in a November estimated time frame for adoption. Mr. McDaniel suggested "Option 3a," which would involve the traditional process, but would result in more frequent meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission to expedite the review and recommendation to City Council. "Option 4," shows the adoption following a traditional process with an additional joint work session, and "Option 5" includes a potential field trip. Mr. McDaniel suggested because the public noticing for the potential adoption on June 20 would need to occur quickly, the notice could advertise the adoption of both the Code and the area rezoning, but City Council may decide at their regular meeting on June 13� to modify the adoption schedule. Richard Taylor, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission asked if there are other similarly -sized cities that have applied a form -based code. He said before we adopt this type of code, it would be helpful to learn from their experiences, for better or for worse, since we are taking a big chance on a code that we do not have much experience with. Steve Langworthy. Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning stated comparisons to communities who have applied a form based code have been provided in the packet. The City of Miami, Florida adopted a form -based code that applies to the entire city; however, most codes don't apply to an entire city, but to a particular area, like we are recommending for the Bridge Street Corridor. He said staff has provided examples from different communities who have adopted form -based code, such as the Columbia Pike District in Arlington County, Virginia, in the packet provided for tonight's meeting. Don Elliott, FAICP, Clarion Associates said there are a growing number of places that have adopted form -based codes for a discrete area where they have the same types of goals that Dublin is seeking. Denver adopted a form -based code along major corridors, and they have had a few buildings go through the process. Due to the economy, it is hard to find an entire neighborhood that has been built with a form -based code, since most area -wide form -based codes are relatively new. Mr. Taylor stated he would be interested in learning about what the city leaders in these places that have adopted form -based codes say about the codes and their experiences, for example, if there are things they would like to change now that it is in place. Mr. Elliott stated he is writing a book on form -based zoning on this very topic. He said he would provide Planning with some examples to share. Mr. Elliott explained codes are "living" documents that are going to need to be changed - even those cities who have adopted form -based codes will change them at some point. Updating the code does not indicate failure, but shows the City is looking at ways to make the codes better and to evolve with the changing times. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher asked how developers and those who will use this code learn what each sections means and how it is intended to be used. She asked how this code is different from the current Zoning Code. Mr. McDaniel stated there has been a lot of input and involvement through property owners, consultants, and individual land owners. He said the goal is to treat existing uses so that we are not stifling a business owner's ability to access money to make improvements on their existing businesses through creating a lot of nonconforming uses and structures. He said a lot of what we are doing helps set positive expectations. Developers will have a better understanding of what they need to provide to achieve the City's objectives for development in the Bridge Street Corridor. As a result, the timeline for development approvals can be reduced. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if all comments the City has received on the draft code are being kept so they can be reviewed, regardless of whether they are being incorporated into the code. Mr. Langworthy stated many comments had been submitted in writing, and staff has discussed with those individuals why some changes cannot be made, and how there may be compromise on other changes. John Reiner asked if the tax base had been studied to understand what kind of revenues will be generated from this type of development. Mr. McDaniel stated Tischler Bise will complete the fiscal impact analysis and will review the revenue projections as well as the cost projections. Mayor Lecklider asked what staff needed from Council at this time. Mr. McDaniel stated staff would appreciate continuous feedback from Council members as well as stakeholders and property owners to keep everyone highly engaged. Staff has invited all land owners to engage in the code writing process. Mr. Langworthy added if any Council or Board and Commission members would like to submit a marked -up version of the draft code, staff will make a copy and return their copy in case they would like to keep it. Bill Souders, Chair, Architectural Review Board, asked for clarification regarding the build - out conditions, and whether the existing road system is capable of handling so much additional development. Mr. Chellman clarified the model looks at build -out conditions, with the full mix of land uses. If only a single land use, such as office, was built at one time, it would create a traffic problem because it is a big traffic generator with no opportunities to combine or reduce trips as there would be in a mixed use environment. Managing phasing is an issue, but at full build -out, traffic in the Bridge Street Corridor will function. The micro simulation analysis will help us understand how specific intersections perform. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board May 24, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Souders pointed out right now, there are times where peak traffic in the evenings is really bad, and new development will likely compound this problem by making access to the interstate more difficult. Mr. Chellman said new intersections cannot be added between Post Road, Bridge Street and the interchange because it is limited access right -of -way. He said Nelson Nygaard is recommending Post Road be relocated farther north on the OCLC campus away from Bridge Street to provide more of a separation from that problematic intersection. John Hardt, Planning and Zoning Commission stated he would like to have a better understanding of how the code will be used by the development community and the city. He asked what the process would be to evaluate and approve or disapprove redevelopment plans, and how that would compare to what other cities are doing that have similar codes. He asked how the City can gain assurances the process will get us the same results and the same quality that we have with the current process. Rick Gerber asked if Council were to adopt the code on June 20, what are the options for the area rezoning. Mr. Langworthy stated the code would be in place, but the land will not be zoned yet. For the area rezoning, we could go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the public hearing, like the process used to adopt the Technology Flex District. Mr. McDaniel asked Ben Carlson to make a few concluding remarks. Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy stated the investment Dublin has made in the sophisticated infrastructure analysis and code development is impressive. When Goody Clancy put together the vision for the Bridge Street Corridor a year ago, they used the best practices for mixed use development, and it has been interesting to see the way the numbers have come out and to confirm the initial assumptions. Mixed uses help the City make efficient use of infrastructure. Mr. Carlson stated Goody Clancy developed the Vision Plan based on the market opportunities it offered, which includes equal benefit for making the most of streets, utilities, and green spaces, and those impacts can be understood at a district scale rather than at a site -by -site level. He said the new code has the right flexibility to accommodate different levels of development at different times to respond to the market and different property owners. Mr. Carlson thanked Council members for a great team of consultants to continue working with on implementing the Bridge Street Corridor plan. Mr. McDaniel concluded the meeting by thanking Council members and the Board and Commission members and stakeholders for their comments and feedback. Clerk of Council Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 1 of 5 Bridge Street Code Review Ms. Amorose Groomes said May 6th is the date the Commission has been asked to have their comments to staff for the Bridge street Corridor Code. She said that the Commission would like to take a few minutes to review their comments so that they may stick to the schedule and provide their comments to staff as a group prior to the next joint meeting. Richard Taylor said he agrees with the General Purpose 153.057, and asked that additional language be included regarding the Corridor as the center of community, and as a place that serves all residents, existing and future. Mr. Taylor asked how the Historic Core boundaries align with the existing Historic District. Mr. Langworthy said the Historic Core is within the Historic District but there are other areas, such as Historic Residential and parts of the Historic Transition that are also included. Mr. Taylor said the Code mentions that there is Architectural Review Board (ARB) oversight on building and site development, and provides architectural guidelines. He asked how this related to the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines. Mr. Langworthy said the ARB has asked staff to review the Guidelines as one of their annual items of interest and ensure there are no conflicts between the Guidelines and the proposed Bridge Street regulations. Mr. Taylor asked if it will be completed before the Code is adopted. Mr. Langworthy said yes. Mr. Taylor said he was concerned about two different groups providing oversight in the same area. He asked if the ARB is going to take the Bridge Street Code into account when making decisions. Mr. Langworthy said yes, the Board must. He said the Architectural Review Team (ART) will make recommendations to the ARB, but the ARB will have the final decision. Mr. Taylor asked if the ARB had the option of not applying the Bridge Street Code to a proposal. Mr. Langworthy said the only deviations from the Bridge Street Code were through the administrative departure process. He said if an applicant asked for a departure, the Board could approve it, but otherwise ARB would have to follow the Bridge street Code. Mr. Taylor said he is concerned because the existing Historic District design intent is very simple and lightly detailed, but that does not seem to be addressed by the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Langworthy said the proposed Code outlines the permitted building types and a description of the design details for building types. Mr. Taylor said he would prefer that the ARB have the final decision on what is appropriate in the Historic District, because the Code introduces new building types into the District and the City is will need to evolve to accommodate them. Mr. Taylor asked on page 4, 153.059(A) (9), whether use determination should be a Planning and Zoning Commission decision, instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Jennifer Readler said the use determination would be made by the Director, with a procedure for appeals to the BZA for standard administrative decisions. Mr. Taylor confirmed that an appeal to the Director's decision would go to the BZA. Mr. Taylor asked if the language at the end of page 7, 153.059(3) (C) (1) Eating and Drinking was the same language the Commission required regarding the patio furniture storage approved for the Dublin Village Tavern. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 2 of 5 Rachel Ray said the intent is the same, to ensure it is not visible from the right -of -way, but the language is different. She said she would look at the language to see if the requirements could be made consistent. Mr. Hardt said he wondered what would prevent someone from subdividing land and submitting multiple applications under 153.059 (C) (1) (a) (1), which limits the number of single - family detached homes within a certain area. He said he also did not understand the purpose of 153.059(C) (1) (a) (2), which places distance requirements between single - family detached developments in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Taylor asked how the last sentence in 153.059(C) (1) (c), which limits the amount of customer visits to live /work units per day, would be enforced. Ms. Ray said the difference between home occupations and live /work is an area where additional clarifications are needed, and the next draft of the Code will include modifications to those regulations. Mr. Hardt asked if 153.059(C) (2) (e), Hospital, was referring to hospitals or medical facilities. Mr. Langworthy said it referred to a large clinic or specialty hospital, as opposed to a general hospital. He said that, for example, the Nationwide Children's Orthopedic Hospital would be a specialty hospital; the size limitation on hospitals in the Bridge Street Corridor would limit hospitals to those categories. Mr. Fishman asked where the number 35 came from units for 153.059(C) (1) (a) (1), as we would allow an attached condo development with more units. He asked about the consideration of patio homes with zero lot line development, as this detached unit type might be desire in the future. Mr. Langworthy said he would look at clarifying the language. Mr. Hardt asked if the intent was to build traditional single family homes in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Langworthy said it is not preferred in this area, which depends on denser, walkable, mixed -use development. Mr. Taylor said he was not sure what an accessory dwelling unit is, as listed under Section 153.059(C) (4) (k). Mr. Langworthy said it could be a mother -in -law suite. Mr. Taylor asked how one dwelling unit with an accessory dwelling unit differed from a two - family unit. Ms. Ray said some of the reasons for the distinction include the building type requirements and the requirements for the building placement on the lot. Mr. Hardt noted page 8 has a paragraph that touches on wind power structures, which the Commission had just discussed for the EAZ Districts. Ms. Ray stated Planning would look at taking a similar approach by making ground- mounted wind power equipment conditional uses as well. Mr. Hardt said the provision requiring only two stacking spaces for drive- thru's seemed like it wouldn't be enough, as outlined in 153.059(C) (3) (c) on page 8. Ms. Ray said that drive- thru's require conditional use approval from the Commission, which would allow the Commission the opportunity to review the proposed circulation plan. Mr. Hardt asked how the Commission could require more stacking spaces, if the Code stated a drive -thru only needed two stacking spaces. Ms. Ray said the conditional use standards state that the Commission has the ability to modify code requirements based on the use and the location, which means they could require more stacking spaces if they felt that the site plan and the use warranted more. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not picture a location within the Corridor where a drive through would be appropriate, since the Corridor is intended to be more pedestrian- oriented. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 5 Ms. Kramb said she had trouble understanding how the lots, blocks and street sections would be regulated. She confirmed the Code would define a street pattern and that the Corridor would fill in the pattern as it develops over time. Mr. Langworthy said the lots and blocks are one large piece of the Code, while the street network is another. He said the street network is still being finalized by Nelson /Nygaard, and once it is complete the results will be integrated into the Code. He said the intent is to be prescriptive in the Corridor. He said the network, lots and blocks are currently being reviewed against the plans for the OCLC and Dublin Village Center areas for compatibility. Ms. Kramb said she has a general concern with requiring all the turning radii to be designed to a typical design vehicle rather than design speed. Mr. Langworthy said the street network is meant to be developed as an urban city block. He said that staff had been working with the Washington Township Fire Marshal on this point, and they have a minimum radius that is very small. Ms. Kramb said that loading zones are not addressed in the lots, blocks, and street types. Mr. Langworthy said loading areas would typically be located in parking lots or rear lanes. Mr. Taylor said he would like to see an example of a community with a form -based code with on- the - ground examples of what had been built to the code. Mr. Langworthy said potential site visits are being investigated. Mr. Taylor said that the draft Zoning Map shows a large green area on either side of Bridge Street in the Historic District area, which includes the existing cemetery, school and library. He said the street network in the Code shows the same area with a grid and the green space showing a number of street connections. Mr. Langworthy said the street network map is meant to demonstrate how primary streets are intended to generally be located in the corridor for the purposes of the street network. Mr. Taylor stated that the City should identify the critical open spaces envisioned in the Bridge Street Corridor, particularly a large civic space in the Historic District, before development begins and the opportunity is lost. Mr. Taylor said on page 28, 153.062(G), shutters should be required to be operational to ensure a high quality appearance. Mr. Taylor said on page 29, 153.062(J), he would like to allow other options for artificial building separation. He preferred that some buildings should be allowed to look like one larger building, rather than a lot of smaller buildings put together. He said he was not sure what the Code meant by the statement, "building design should vary between vertical facade divisions." Mr. Zimmerman said on page 28, 153.062(G), other window types, in addition to double -hung windows, are appropriate and should be used in the Corridor. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the Code does not account for urban street tree care standards, which is critical to the survival of landscaping in the Corridor. She referred to the list of approved street trees currently in the Zoning Code and said that the variety of options should be much smaller for this area; it should not be open to all of the street tree plantings used throughout the city. She said trees that will grow into large trees with grand statures should be planted in this portion of the city. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 4 of 5 Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that the proposed Code includes interior parking lot islands similar to the existing Zoning Code requirements. She said that islands located every 75 feet are not necessary or even appropriate in this area. She said that she would like to see larger landscape areas that would support multiple trees and plantings. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Code needs modifications to the perimeter buffer requirements, because if parking areas are heavily buffered, then wayfinding signs will be needed. She said the landscaping requirements generally needed to be more thought out for appropriateness to an urban environment. Mr. Hart said that parking areas should include landscape buffering from public streets and not necessarily between adjacent lots to the point that connectivity needs to occur from the public street and not between adjacent sites. Ms. Amorose Groomes commented that overall, the landscape portion of the Code should be revised to be more specific to an urban environment, and that it include requirements that will result in successful and sustainable landscaping. She said she would like to see a more comprehensive approach to landscaping. Mr. Hardt suggested that the modifications should necessarily reduce the amount of landscaping, but instead should make better use of the areas used for landscaping. Mr. Hardt stated that he is not sure that the review process described in the proposed Code will achieve the desired results. He referred to page 101, 153.065(C) (5) Appeals Process and stated that he is dismayed with seeing the provision allowing appeals to be made to City Council which has not been approved elsewhere in the Zoning Code. Mr. Langworthy stated that depending on the outcome of the proposed Code amendment for the Appeals process the same would be applied to the proposed Bridge Street Code. He noted that if the Code amendment is not approved, it would likely be eliminated from the next draft of the Bridge Street Code. Mr. Hardt referred to page 102, 153.065(E), Requirements of Development Plan as opposed to the requirements for Site Plan Review. He said that it seemed that the site plan review process has lower review standards than there are for the development plan review. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that all of the Commissioners are generally concerned about the proposed administrative review process. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the Summary Procedure Table on page 100. She asked why projects involving two or more buildings would be required to receive Development Plan approval in addition to Site Plan approval, whereas single buildings would only require Site Plan approval. She questioned why the approach was different based on the number of buildings . Ms. Kramb said she understood the purpose of this type of approval process . She asked if Dublin would not be competitive if we used the current review process with the Bridge Street Code. Mr. McDaniel said that an expedited review process would help make Dublin more competitive for development, which is one of the reasons the Code requirements are somewhat more prescriptive. He said there are businesses approaching the City about locating their projects in the Bridge Street Corridor. some with significant master plans covering larger areas that would be developed on a larger scale. He said smaller, individually -owned lots could be developed one building, one lot at a time. He reported that there is a general sense of urgency felt in the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 5, 2011 -Minutes Page 5 of 5 community about completing the Bridge Corridor plan and vision, and people are excited about locating in this area. Mr. Taylor asked if the larger master planning projects have also been showing street connections consistent with the Bridge Street Corridor plan. Mr. McDaniel said yes. Mr. Hardt referred to page 103, 153.065(F). He reiterated his concern that the criteria for the development plan approval is not stringent enough to achieve the type of quality development they would all like to see. Mr. Langworthy clarified that the draft Code outlines two levels of review. He said all developments are required to go through the site plan review process, which focuses on the details of the plan. Mr. Hardt said that he was concerned that the review criteria for site plan approval are even lower than the criteria for development plan approval. Mr. Langworthy explained that the Code requirements have been drafted to prescribe the desired quality and design elements for elements including architecture, landscaping, signs, and lighting. He said that the process is not intended to be the point at which the desired level of quality is achieved. He said that that was the intended purpose of the Code requirements. Mr. Hardt said he believed that the site plan and development plan requirements need to be switched in the Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners had no other comments regarding the Bridge Street Code at this time. She said that since there are no other issues, the meeting is adjourned at 9:28 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DUBLIN, RECORD OF DISCUSSION Land Use and Long Range Planning APRIL 27, 2011 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Architectural Review Board took the following action at this meeting; Bridge Street Corridor Sign Code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts Discussion; Review and discussion of preliminary Bridge Street Corridor sign code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts regarding sign types, sizes, locations, and quantities. Planning Contact; Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II Eugenia M. Martin, ASLA, Landscape Architect Contact Information; (614) 410 -4600, jrauch @dublin,oh,us / emartin @dublin,oh.us RESULT: The Board reviewed the Sign Code with the draft Bridge Street Code and provided feedback about how the signs should be treated in the Historic Core and Historic Transition, The Board discussed sign provisions for single users and multi user buildings, including appropriate types, height, locations and design details, The Board also discussed provisions for window signs, sandwich board signs, and window display, STAFF CERTIFICATION 4 J ifer Rauch, AICP P ner 11 Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 1. Bridge Street Corridor Sign Code for the Historic Core and Historic Transition Districts Jennifer Rauch introduced the discussion regarding signs in the proposed Bridge Street Code (BSC). She stated the presentation was meant to be informal and asked for feedback throughout. She reminded the Board members that the draft Code was provided at the first joint work session for all the Board and Commission members to review and provide comment. Ms. Rauch said the Board discussed preliminary ideas regarding the sign section of the BSC at the March meeting and staff did not have time to incorporate the comments and ideas into the draft before them tonight. She said the intent of the discussion was for the Board to review the draft at a high level. She said the comments provided by the Board will be considered as we move forward with future drafts of the Code. Ms. Rauch stated sign review was on the Board's approved annual items of interest and Planning wanted to ensure signs were reviewed specifically. Ms. Rauch summarized the common themes identified by the Board at the March meeting. She stated the Board wanted to ensure uniformity in terms of the number and types of signs and design details between planned districts and standard districts. She said the Board also expressed an interest in making sure the sign design and details were appropriate to the size and scale of the building, as well as in the instance of a ground sign ensuring it is proportionate to the site. She said the Board discussed the use and intent of sandwich board signs, whether they should be temporary or not, where they should be located, and how many sandwich board signs businesses should have. She said the Board also discussed how to address window signs and how to distinguish them from window display. She said maintenance and enforcement were also discussed as an on -going issue. Ms. Rauch stated the Bridge Street Code regulates the types of signs permitted, the number, size, location, materials and height. She also highlighted the topic of sign color, not focusing on the number of colors, but the type of colors used. She asked whether sign colors should come from a historic color palette, or complementary to the building or structure. She said fonts were another discussion topic, as the existing guidelines specify approved fonts. Ms. Rauch asked the Board members to envision the various sign types and numbers from a single tenant building or multiple tenant building, and from a vehicular or pedestrian oriented standpoint and provide feedback on what they find appropriate in a given situation. William Souders suggested a total maximum be permitted for a multiple tenant building with a square footage limitation for individual tenants. He stated that the proposed 25 square foot maximum was too large. Tom Currie cited other examples from other communities that based the area of the sign on the scale and proportionality of the building. Ms. Rauch asked for the Board members to discuss whether the goal of the sign is for pedestrians or vehicles and whether the area of the sign is dependent on the type of sign. Mr. Souders expressed his concern of how to define proportionality to the building and determine an area that is appropriate for the District. He stated the area of projecting signs should be consistent with the Guidelines with 6 square feet. Mr. Souders stated that the draft Code does not distinguish between if the 25 square foot area is for four tenants in a building to share or one tenant with one large sign. Ms. Rauch stated the draft Code could incorporate sign regulations that regulate signs for single tenant versus multiple tenant buildings. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 Mr. Souders said the Code needs be fair to multiple tenants in a big building and a larger single user occupying the whole building. He said Town Center I has a sign plan that specifies locations, size and types, which were approved as a whole package. He said if a tenant wanted to deviate from the approved plan the Board would have to approve it. Ms. Rauch stated the current Guidelines recommend approval of a sign plan for buildings with two or more tenants. She said we could investigate the parameters for approval of a sign plan for multi tenant buildings and how that should be incorporated in the draft Code. Carl Karrer asked how the Code accounts for signs for mixed use buildings and live -work units. Ms. Rauch said she would look into the topic as the Code moves forward. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to discuss the permission and appropriateness of a combination of sign types within the Historic District. She stated the existing planned districts with the Historic District permit this, but standard district regulations do not. She also asked for feedback about the appropriateness of a ground sign for every business. Mr. Currie stated the Code should permit all sign types and a combination of sign types for a particular lot. He said the setbacks and the right -of -way limit the location of ground signs along some portions of High Street and Bridge Street. Mr. Souders stated the buildings on North High Street are setback farther and the ground signs look nice. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to use the BriHi development as an example of a multiple tenant building, where a single tenant is permitted a wall sign and a projecting sign. She asked the Board to discuss whether an additional sign would be appropriate to the rear of the building adjacent to a parking lot. Robert Schisler pointed out that Town Center I provides for a combination of signs provided they are located in the approved locations. He stated the building along South High Street that contains the Nationwide Insurance tenant has a ground signs, which lists the individual tenants and allows each tenant a small placard on the door to identify the individual business and overall was well done. He said we should allow wall signs or placards when you have multiple tenants. Mr. Schisler said the Code should allow signs on the back of buildings. Mr. Souders stated he would like to ensure uniformity within the District regarding the sign types, numbers and combination regardless of zoning districts. He said if the requirements approved for the planned districts within the Historic District are appropriate then they should be permitted for all businesses within the District. Mr. Souders asked how awning signs and window signs should be treated throughout the District. Ms. Rauch stated there was a difference between window signs and window displays. She said the current Code permits either a permanent wall sign, ground sign, or window sign, in addition temporary window display signs would be permitted. Mr. Souders stated the draft Code allows a ground mounted sign and a wall or projection sign, but window signs not addressed. He said the draft Code permits three permanent signs at one time, plus a temporary sale sign, and a sandwich board sign. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 Mr. Souders suggested permitting two permanent signs. He asked for discussion on awning signs, as he saw them as the same type as a projecting sign. Mr. Schisler said awnings should permit only name of the business, the street number, and perhaps a logo. Ms. Rauch confirmed the discussion stating the Board determined ground signs are appropriate in certain locations and window signs need to be addressed within the revised draft. Mr. Schisler agreed with two permanent signs, but suggested any combination of sign types be permitted and the list be expanded to include awning, projecting, wall, ground or window. Mr. Souders stated the need to permit a sign to the rear of the building separate from the two permanent signs allowed along the front. He said this sign should have very limited square footage and act as a directory sign. Mr. Souders said the draft Code permits up to four signs for a corner lot. He suggested permitting a maximum of two sign types in this instance. Mr. Currie cited other community examples for window signs permitting six square feet of window sign and one - fourth of the total glass area and ensuring it is readable from the sidewalk. Ms. Rauch suggested a requirement that focuses on transparency to achieve Mr. Currie's goal. Ms. Rauch asked the Board to discuss the appropriate sign heights and asked whether the heights outlined in the Guidelines should be utilized. The Board agreed to utilize the heights specified in the Guidelines as a baseline. Mr. Currie suggested the signs could be regulated by the street type to determine the appropriate scale. Ms. Rauch agreed to look into the idea. Mr. Souders asked if there was a method for measuring the area of a sign without penalizing businesses for the white space left. Steve Langworthy reviewed several examples, but stated it was very difficult to administer the method Mr. Souders suggested. Mr. Karrer presented a series of historic photos of the District over several decades, which demonstrated the variety of signs provided and the character they provided to the District. Ms. Rauch asked for feedback about sandwich board signs. She said at the March meeting the Board discussed the location, use and design. Mr. Currie said the sandwich board signs should be used to advertise sales and not be used as another permanent sign. Mr. Schisler stated the sandwich board sign should be displayed only during business hours and not be visible from the street when they are stored. Mr. Currie said the size should be decreased to a standard size around 6 square feet in area. Tasha Bailey asked to incorporate language regarding the location of sandwich board signs to not impede pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Mr. Currie asked if a permit should be required. Ms. Rauch said Planning and Code Enforcement were already looking into this topic. Dublin Architectural Review Board April 27, 2011 - Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 Ms. Rauch confirmed there were no additional comments regarding sandwich board signs Mr. Souders suggested a maximum square footage be allotted to address incidental signs, such as menu boards, credit cards, hours, etc and that this information is contained in one area of the window. He expressed concern for the bits and pieces located in various windows and said he would like to see a consolidated area where this information is permitted. He said this should be treated differently from permanent window signs and display signs. Mr. Souders said the biggest concern with the current requirements is there is no consistency among the businesses and he wanted to ensure the sign provisions are more uniform. Ms. Rauch thanked the Board for their comments and agreed to go back and review them in conjunction with the draft Code. Mr. Souders asked to discuss the requirements and use of logos on signs. He stated the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines provide specific fonts for the text. He asked what options the Board had to limit the logo colors. Mr. Langworthy stated the law says the City can regulate color of a logo, but not the trademarked design features of the logo. Mr. Souders clarified that even if Nationwide had a specific color of blue, the Board could require them to change the color to meet an approved color palette. Mr. Langworthy confirmed the Board could. He said the only thing the Board would be tied to is the blank box which is their trademark logo and the Board could not make them fill in the box or make it a rectangle instead of a square. Mr. Langworthy said as part of Bridge Street Code, Planning is proposing to not count the logo in the color palette. Mr. Souders agreed that would be business friendly. He suggested if the logo was considered one color, then the colors for the text should be limited to one of the colors used within the logo. Mr. Karrer stated that historically businesses have used any variety of colors. Mr. Langworthy cited multi- tenant buildings that restrict the number of background colors and a number of text colors. He said there is any number of ways to address sign colors and emphasized the Board may not want to limit it too much to provide variety. BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Thursday, April 14, 2011 MEETING RECORD The following were present: Council members Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, and Mr. Reiner. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, Mr. Hardt, and Mr. Budde. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Gunnoe, Mr. Todoran. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, and Ms. Bailey. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Ray, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Husak, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Martin, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis, Ms. Coen, Ms. Burness, Ms. Clarke. Consultants David Dixon, Goody Clancy; Don Elliot, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman and Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, EMH &T, and Josh Reinicke, CDM. Mayor Lecklider thanked Council and Board and Commission members for attending and continuing the Joint Work Session meetings for the Bridge Street Corridor. He swore in new ARB Member Tasha Bailey and new BZA Member Brian Gunnoe. Deputy City Manager Dana McDaniel thanked the Board and Commission members in attendance and recognized the Bridge Street Corridor stakeholders also present. He introduced the consultants who would be presenting this evening. Mr. McDaniel stated the purpose of this meeting was to provide Council members and Board and Commission members updates regarding the progress made with the Bridge Street Corridor implementation studies. He stated the first draft of the Bridge Street Corridor Development Code would be distributed later in the evening, and the consultants who worked with staff to draft the code would provide a brief overview of form -based codes before providing an overview of the structure of the draft code for Bridge Street. Mr. McDaniel said following the presentation on form -based codes, Rick Chellman of Nelson \Nygaard would provide an introduction to transportation planning issues specific to walkable urban environments like the Bridge Street Corridor. He said Mr. Chellman would discuss the transportation planning concepts that would be going into the analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor, which will be finalized in July. Mr. McDaniel announced the schedule for the upcoming Joint Work Sessions on May 24 and June 20, and the two public open houses that would be held in the DCRC Tallas on Monday, May 2nd and Wednesday, June 8th. He stated Council members and Commission members are not asked to take any action on the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code or the area rezoning this evening, and that Council will have the option of adopting these at later Joint Work Sessions. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Mr. McDaniel announced Don Elliott is a Senior Consultant in Clarion's Denver office and is managing the Bridge Street Corridor Code development. Don is a land use lawyer and city planner with over 25 years of related experience. Don has served as project director for major zoning and development code revisions in Detroit, Philadelphia, Winnipeg, Duluth, Kalamazoo, Cedar Rapids, and numerous smaller cities and counties throughout the country. Don has also completed land use reform consultancies in India, Russia, and Indonesia. Don has drafted award- winning land use regulations for Denver and Pima County, Arizona, and has spoken and written extensively on a wide variety of land use and legal topics. Don holds a master's degree in city and regional planning from Harvard University, a law degree from Harvard Law School, and a degree in urban and regional planning from Yale University. Mr. McDaniel stated Leslie Oberholtzer is a Principal and Director of Planning at Farr Associates, an architecture, planning, and preservation firm in Chicago. Leslie has an extensive background as a landscape architect and planner, and concentrates professionally on promoting sustainable urbanism through such practices as well designed, walkable neighborhoods; supporting local businesses; and preservation of community history and tradition. Leslie authored the first form -based code adopted in the State of Illinois and continues to focus on coding as a key implementation tool for sustainable communities. Mr. McDaniel said Rick Chellman is a principal consultant with Nelson Nygaard and is managing the transportation analysis for the Bridge Street Corridor. Rick has more than thirty years experience in civil engineering, traffic engineering, surveying, and development planning throughout the United States and to lesser extents in Canada, the United Kingdom, Romania, Central America, the Middle East, and India. In recent years, Rick has worked extensively on the traffic engineering aspects of Traditional Neighborhood Development , particularly in connection with the matters of street design and external transportation connections. Rick has authored numerous works on topics related to the transportation implications of traditional neighborhood design. Mr. McDaniel introduced the first speaker, Don Elliott. He said Council, Board and Commission members, and members of the public would have the opportunity to ask questions of the consultant teams following the presentations. Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, stated he wanted to first talk about form -based codes in general before talking about the code drafted for the Bridge Street Corridor. He said he works on both form -based and non - form -based codes in his practice, and in his opinion, the trick is to find the right combination form -based and non - form -based elements to achieve the vision for a community and get a plan done based on its particular context. He said when he and Leslie Oberholtzer and Greg Dale of McBride /Dale /Clarion came to Dublin, they did not come with a foregone conclusion that this code should be form - based. However, the more they studied the Vision Plan and talked with staff and Goody Clancy, they concluded form -based elements should certainly be incorporated, but some conventional zoning elements, such as uses and districts, should also be used. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are based on the premise that you can analyze land use patterns depending on how rural or urban the location, and there are a set of parameters Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 3 of 8 that should be addressed to create a great urban location. He explained form -based codes require more detail than standard, Euclidean zoning, but they do not require negotiation every time as is typical of many planned unit development district processes. Instead, form - based codes attempt to codify the basic detail elements that are necessary for creating great places. Mr. Elliott explained form -based control focuses on the fabric of an area, such as block sizes, street types and furnishings, walkability, street enclosure, building height, and overall character, rather than specific uses. He said the concept that streets are important along with the relationship of buildings to streets is also a critical point of form -based codes. In general, the form of the place is relatively more important than the regulation of the use of a building. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are designed to create urban places. To create urbanism, development is coded for building and frontage types, articulating the types of elements the building needs to have to relate to the street and other buildings. Additionally, there needs to be broader and more general use controls because a lot of uses will come and go from a building. Mr. Elliott stated form -based codes are very effective in signaling to developers the types of buildings and their relationships to the street that we want to see when creating the types of places that are envisioned for the Bridge Street Corridor. Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates, explained form -based codes specify building types depending on their context, and for that reason, are very different from conventional zoning codes. Form -based codes also look different than other codes. For example, everything you need to know about the requirements for a building type is located on a single page spread to provide information in a user - friendly manner. Ms. Oberholtzer explained instead of a setback line, form -based codes often require a 'build -to zone,' which requires buildings to be built up to a certain line rather than anywhere behind a setback line, bringing buildings up to the street. Parking is subsequently located behind the building, which results in a walkable sidewalk and street. She said form -based codes also look at the transition from the street to the interior of the building, and as an example, buildings may need to be more transparent so people can see in or out of buildings, which creates a livelier pedestrian experience. Ms. Oberholtzer stated form -based codes are built from the ground up for each community because they are tailored to the specific context. In terms of walkability, we look at the number of intersections per square mile and the scale of block sizes, and make sure that we incorporate those factors into the code. Open space types are always included to make sure there is a variety public space within the area. Mr. Elliott concluded Dublin is known for high quality, and the bar has to be set high, and the code for the Bridge Street Corridor is no exception. He stated we need to work towards densification and permitting more uses for walkability. He said we also want to achieve greater predictability through the review process, and this is something that cities all over the country are increasingly looking to incorporate into their codes. The less predictability, the longer it takes for development to occur, and developers are increasingly looking for Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 4 of 8 places that are conducive to development. Everyone strives to optimize quality and minimize time and ambiguity. Mr. Elliott stated in addition to building form, transportation and storm water need to be treated differently in an urban environment as well. Mr. Elliott summarized his team's tasks in drafting the code for the Bridge Street Corridor was to stay true to the Vision, optimize the strengths of form -based codes, and coordinate with the other consultant teams to ensure that the Bridge Street Corridor plan can be implemented, and he is confident they have achieved these objectives. Rick Chellman, Nelson \Ny4aard, stated many of the best places in the world were developed before the car. Through the 1940s and 1950s, subdivisions were historically planned to be spread out and allow for quick escapes to accommodate a fear of air attacks. Many subdivision regulations still have these ideas embedded in their subdivision standards. He noted the minimum radii for streets were created in the 1940s. Mr. Chellman stated although vehicles have drastically changed, the street standards have not, which makes it easier for cars to speed down streets, resulting in unsafe pedestrian environments. Reducing speeds is critical, particularly in areas with high pedestrian activity. Mr. Chellman noted if a car or truck strikes a pedestrian at 20 mph or less, the person is typically not fatally injured, but if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle going 30 mph or faster, fatality rates increase greatly. Mr. Chellman stated once interconnected streets are built, there are multiple ways of getting from one point to another, which is important when trying to provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Streets should not be built wider than they need to be; often, 20 feet is adequate. "Queuing streets" allow two -way traffic on local neighborhood streets, with on- street parking on one side. Since opposing traffic is infrequent, vehicles yield to one another where there are parked cars without adding unnecessary pavement. Mr. Chellman explained "park once" districts allow people to park their cars one time and have access to multiple locations. When a development is not friendly to pedestrians, such as large parking lots, people tend to drive from one location to another rather than walk, even over short distances. Mr. Chellman stated many cities are looking for ways to revitalize their downtowns, and street design is receiving an increasing amount of interest, particularly with providing "complete streets" for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Great streets are great places, and that is what we hope to see in the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Chellman said in many countries, key design principals involve pedestrian, transit, bicycle, and motor vehicle facilities in that order; in the US, the design is typically focused on vehicles first. "Sharrows" are markings on the pavement to inform cars that bikes may be present and give bicyclists a safe area in which to ride. "Cycle tracks" are bike spaces located at the level of the sidewalk away from the parked cars and moving cars. These lanes allow for bicycle safety for riders at every age and skill level. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Chellman concluded by summarizing the preliminary analysis the Nelson Nygaard team has begun to look at in the Bridge Street Corridor and noted further results would be presented at the next Joint Work Session. Mr. Elliott stated he would like to provide a brief overview of the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code. He stated before his team started drafting the Code, they first conducted a series of interviews with stakeholders, property owners, and City Council and Board and Commission members to understand how the Code should be drafted. He summarized there is excitement about the Bridge Street Corridor plan, and a desire to see it implemented, although there is some caution regarding the potential magnitude of change. Despite the concerns, there is a general recognition the Bridge Street Corridor plan is a long -term, complex project that will be implemented through thousands of individual decisions over many years, and even decades. Mr. Elliott added there is also a recognition that Dublin needs a development review process that is more predictable and efficient, like many other communities, but there is some reluctance to move away from the discretionary review process because the community feels higher quality development has historically been a product of this process. Mr. Elliott said some of the common themes they heard was there is a clear desire to see more, higher quality green space throughout the Corridor than what appears to be shown in the Vision Plan, and Historic Dublin should be preserved and enhanced, along with the Scioto River and the Indian Run. Mr. Elliott presented a graphic showing the proposed zoning districts for the Bridge Street Corridor and explained the districts were derived from the general use categories shown in the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Plan. Mr. Elliott stated the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code encompasses Sections 153.057 through 153.066 of the Dublin Zoning Code after the Planned District provisions, so it would not be a separate stand -alone document — it would be directly integrated into the existing Zoning Code. He noted there would be 11 different zoning districts that were designed to be unique to the Corridor and not to be used elsewhere in the city. He said the first four zoning districts (BSC Residential, BSC Office Residential, BSC Office, and BSC Commercial) were intended to be the most general and the most like regular zoning districts, with heavier reliance on the use table and site development standards. He continued the next three zoning districts (BSC Historic Core, BSC Historic Residential, and BSC Historic Transition) were intended to protect the existing scale and character of the Historic District, with the exception that the BSC Historic Transition District would be intended to start transitioning toward higher impact development around the edges of the Historic District. The BSC Historic Transition District, along with the BSC Indian Run and BSC Sawmill Center Districts are really intended to be the districts focusing the most on form -based elements, with a high level of placemaking standards. He said these areas are prime for form -based coding since they are largely consolidated areas controlled by limited property owners, which can also make larger scale, coordinated development easier to achieve. Mr. Elliott noted the BSC Vertical Mixed Use and BSC Public Districts are special districts. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Elliott explained the first section, 153.059, Uses, includes a table showing all of the uses permitted in each district, followed by specific standards and limitations for certain uses. Section 153.060, Lots and Blocks, includes requirements for interconnected streets, maximum block sizes, access configuration, typical lot dimensions, street frontage requirements, and pedestrian access. Section 153.061, Street Types, is still largely in draft form since much of the information will be contained in this section is still being coordinated with Nelson \Nygaard. This section will include requirements for typical street elements, bicycle facilities, fire access, on- street parking, curb radii, and crosswalks. Mr. Elliott continued Section 153.062, Building Types, is divided into two parts. The first part includes general architectural requirements, including controls for roof types, building materials, building entrances, windows, balconies, and other design details. The rest of the section includes requirements for specific building types, from Single Family Detached to Mixed Use Buildings and Parking Structures. Mr. Elliott explained Section 153.063, Neighborhood Standards, includes specific placemaking standards for properties in large, contiguous ownerships. Each "neighborhood" includes a conceptual map and text laying out key features to create the most urban, most mixed -use, and most walkable "anchors" for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Elliott stated 153.064, Open Space Types, included requirements for a variety of open spaces appropriate for an urban environment, including pocket parks, greens, squares, plazas, parks, and greenways. Mr. Elliott said Section 153.065, Site Development Standards, includes requirements that are most typical of conventional zoning codes, including parking and loading, landscaping, fencing, walls, and screening requirements, exterior lighting, signs, and stormwater regulations (cross- referenced with Chapter 53 of the City's Code of Ordinances). Mr. Elliott concluded Section 153.065, Development Review and Approval Procedures, outlines the review and approval process. Development Plan approval is the first step, required for larger, more complex projects, with specific approval criteria. Site Plan approval includes criteria for administrative approval and is required for all projects. He said standards for administrative departures and minor modifications are also included in this section. Section 153.066, Definitions, is the last section of the Bridge Street Code. Steve Langworthy asked if there were any questions regarding any of the presentations given that evening, or regarding the draft Bridge Street Code. Council, Board, and Commission members in attendance had the following questions: • What is the legal basis and history of form -based codes? Don Elliott explained form -based codes have the same legal foundation in land use law as any other land development code or zoning code. Although form -based codes are generally a newer type of regulatory instrument, as long as they continue to uphold property owners' rights through due process and specific review standards, they are a valid regulatory tool. Form -based codes are used most often to either preserve an existing form and character of Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 7 of 8 district or a defined area, such as the Historic District, or to require future development occur in a way that creates inviting streets and places for pedestrians. • How can State Route 161 become walkable, and how is traffic calming addressed through the transportation analysis? Rick Chellman explained a variety of techniques can be used to make State Route 161, or Bridge Street, feel more walkable. Providing alternative vehicular routes or connections across the Scioto River will allow vehicular traffic to be more dispersed and less reliant on Bridge Street. Where appropriate, on- street parking can help create a buffer zone between cars and pedestrians, so it does not feel like cars are rushing by so close to the sidewalk. Where on- street parking cannot occur, street trees, benches, planters, and other design elements can also help create those visual barriers between cars and pedestrians. Mr. Chellman continued that building form also helps reduce traffic speeds, because as drivers' viewsheds are narrowed by buildings enclosing the street, they naturally tend to drive slower and are more likely to take note of things and activities occurring along the periphery. • How does the form -based code process actually work? Are there other communities in which this type of code has been used successfully? Mr. Elliott explained there are other communities that have adopted form -based codes in recent years. At one level, cities like Miami and Denver have adopted city -wide form -based codes, while others such as Duluth, Minnesota and West Evanston, Illinois have adopted form -based codes for specific areas. In many cases, however, there has not been much development that has actually gone through the process since many communities adopted form -based codes right around the time that the economic downturn occurred. However, Mr. Elliott indicated he would work with staff in identifying communities who have gone through the process, adopted form -based codes, and actually applied them to development projects. • What other infrastructural improvements will be necessary in the Bridge Street Corridor? Steve Langworthy answered that staff has also retained consultants to study the water distribution system, the sanitary sewer system, and stormwater management for the Bridge Street Corridor, in addition to the transportation network. He stated that Mr. Chellman and the other consultant teams would be prepared to present their preliminary findings on potential infrastructure improvements at the next Joint Work Session on May 24, 2011. Mr. Langworthy encouraged Council, Board and Commission members, and stakeholders to contact staff with any questions about the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code once they start reviewing the draft, and that written comments can be submitted to Planning. He noted staff would continue to work on the draft Code as progress is made on Nelson \Nygaard's work on the transportation study, since much of the form -based code is based on the development's relationship to the street network. Mr. Langworthy introduced David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Associates, who made a few concluding statements. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board April 14, 2011 Page 8 of 8 David Dixon, Goody Clancy and Associates commended Council, Board and Commission members, and stakeholders on their dedication to continuing the Joint Work Session meeting format, which allows everyone to stay well informed on the planning work being completed for the Bridge Street Corridor. He noted Dublin continues to receive a lot of interest and attention at the national level, including at the recent national conference of the American Planning Association in Boston this year, because of how smart and progressive this plan is. Mr. Dixon said Dublin continues to position itself well to capture market opportunity and implement the Bridge Street Corridor Vision with the studies that have been commissioned and the caliber of consultants that have been retained. He commented form -based codes like the draft Bridge Street Corridor Development Code are key elements in establishing exciting, walkable, urban development, and this type of code is being used increasingly by many other communities to produce these types of places for people. Flexibility in particular will create opportunities and set the stage for exciting, walkable, urban development. He added the street network and street designs Nelson \Nygaard will be working to produce are also critical to establishing a highly connected street network geared toward bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Dixon recommended as Council, Board, and Commission members and stakeholders should read through the Bridge Street Code and consider how all of the pieces fit together with the Vision Plan, and how all of this correlates to the market findings that Sarah Woodworth and Laurie Volk presented early on for the Bridge Street Corridor. Mayor Lecklider thanked the Council Board and Commission members and stakeholders in attendance and concluded the meeting. Clerk of Council BRIDGE STREET CORRIDOR PLAN JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, January 31, 2011 MINUTES OF MEETING Vice Mayor Salay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers The following were present Council members Vice Mayor Salay, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Boring, and Mr. Reiner. Mayor Lecklider arrived at 6:05 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission members Ms. Groomes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Walter, Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Fishman, Ms. Kramb, and Mr. Hardt. Board of Zoning Appeals members Ms. Newell, Mr. Paige, Mr. Todoran, Ms. Ferguson, and Mr. Shankar. Architectural Review Board members Mr. Souders, Ms. Franz King, Mr. Karrer, Mr. Currie, and Mr. Schisler. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Ray, Mr. Papp, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Ott, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Cox, Ms. Willis. Consultants David Dixon and Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy; Don Elliot, Clarion Associates: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates; Greg Dale, McBride /Dale /Clarion; Rick Chellman and Jason Schrieber, Nelson \Nygaard; Shane Spencer, EMH &T, and Josh Reneki, CDM. Vice Mayor Salay stated that one of Council's goals for 2010 -2011 is to complete the Bridge Street Corridor Plan, which will reinforce the City's continuing competitiveness, create a vibrant and walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types, and enhance the City's long -term sustainability. As part of its near -term action strategies for achieving that goal, Council adopted Resolution 50 -10, the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, which contains the illustrative vision plan, major principles, implementation strategy and vision statement. The other two near -term action strategies were to hold a work session with the consultants and a joint session with the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC), Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Architectural Review Board (ARB), which is the purpose of tonight's meeting. This meeting is intended to discuss the shared interests and ensure common understanding of Council's policy intent and key planning and implementation principles for the long -term redevelopment of the Bridge Street Corridor. This is the first joint session, but others are anticipated as the implementation plan progresses. Ms. Grigsby stated that Council passed Resolution 50 -10 in October 2010, which adopted the vision report and the implementation strategy for the Bridge Street Corridor. Since that time, staff has completed a process to select various consultants for the implementation studies, and establish their scope of work for the initiation of the project. This is the initial meeting with the consultants, City Council and their boards and commission for the purpose of discussing the consultants' work and for them to receive feedback and further direction from City Council. It is anticipated that additional meetings will be scheduled as the consultants move through the various implementation studies they are each working on. Tonight, each consultant will discuss their work and how it will connect with the Vision Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 2 of 16 Report, and the observations they have made to date. The intent is to provide the consultants with sufficient information to obtain a good understanding of what the City desires to achieve for this planning area so that they do not get too far along without confirming with Council that they are heading in the right direction. City Council will have the opportunity to provide direct feedback, ask questions, and obtain information from the consultants. This is an exciting and important project for the City. It is anticipated that it will develop or be implemented over many years. Last week, the Urban Land Institute held a meeting in Columbus entitled, "The City and 2050, Creating Blueprints for Change." Many of the issues and comments made were in line with the Vision Report that has been prepared for the Bridge Street Corridor. The changing demographics are creating the need for everyone to re -think how development will need to occur in our communities in order to remain a desired place to work and to live. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff has assembled a team of consultants with expertise and national and global experience in planning and implementing the kind of development the Bridge Street Corridor vision implies. This is a complicated project with many moving parts. Several disciplines are involved, and they are fully integrated and collaborating. They are also working proactively with the OCLC team, who has engaged a master developer. The City's consultants met for the first time today with OCLC's consulting team. The Stavroff team, which is working on the potential redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center, is involved in a complex effort to pull together properties. They are focusing their planning efforts with MSI consultants. Although this project is deadline- focused, it must be flexible and adaptable based on both Council direction and the dynamics that result as the teams interact. Although this is the first joint meeting with the consultants, it is not intended to be the last. Council will likely want to hold additional joint sessions as the project moves toward implementation and adoption. Mr. McDaniel stated that the first speaker is David Dixon of Goody Clancy. They are working on a pattern book or illustrative guide. They were also engaged with the City the past year in working on the Vision and a Concept Plan. The Clarion, Farr, and McBride /Dale teams have been working on the regulatory framework the past 30 days. Other consultants have recently come on board and are rapidly becoming familiar with the project. Each of the consultant groups will provide a brief background and summarize their purpose and principles. David Dixon, Goody Clancy stated that he has had an opportunity to speak with Council, PZC, ARB and BZA, which has been very helpful to him. He will be attending three conferences during the next couple of months. Each of them has requested a presentation on their firm's work in Dublin. They are less interested in the plan than the way in which this community has participated in shaping the plan. Dublin's tradition of staying ahead of markets, being innovative, and anticipating the next wave of interest regarding how to live and work, has struck a national chord. They have become aware that people love Dublin and do not want to replace it or change it, just add or improve it. The community is proud of the quality of design that it has required and encouraged, and wants to continue to see the same commitment to quality even though a District, not the traditional Dublin development, is being built. To draw the best to the community, the intent is for a high density, walkable, mixed use, lively downtown, with something for everyone — great public spaces, cafes and entertainment. Embraced in this plan would be Dublin's natural setting. People want Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Dublin's natural features to be celebrated, such as the Indian Run. [Mr. Dixon continued a review of the features desired in the plan, as outlined in the materials.] Don Elliot, Clarion Associates, Denver, Colorado stated that he is the project manager for the assembled zoning team. Their firm works with cities and counties to draft development codes. Two of their subcontractors are also present: Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates, Chicago; Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion. They are charged to prepare draft zoning regulations based on the Vision that has been developed. They are tasked with how to turn the vision into reality in a realistic way that could actually be implemented and achieved over time. They are to create confidence that the framework, fabric and sustainability of that plan will be realized by allowing property owners the flexibility to pursue market opportunities in an innovative development. When they look at the plan, they see a good illustration of how it might turn out, but life never turns out according to a picture. This will be a long build out, and flexibility is essential; all the details are not intended to be taken literally. They have a very quick timeframe for their work. They have conducted research during January, and by the end of February, they are to present a draft of their proposed regulations for review. They always do a staff draft first to identify potential mistakes or misunderstandings. That staff draft will be revised, and a draft for discussion and full review will be prepared by March 31. [Mr. Elliot covered the principles they would follow in developing the zoning code.] Rick Chellman, Nelson \Nygaard, Boston stated that they do national and international work. Their firm is tasked with developing the Transportation Plan for this project. In many cases, the best transportation plan is a good land use plan. Dublin already has a good foundation on that. In creating an intermodal, walkable neighborhood, Dublin will be enhancing not only that neighborhood, but the Dublin community. The most complicated part of their task will be the streets. Streets in a suburban development are very different than streets in an urban development. In a suburban area, every piece of land is stand- alone and must be able to provide all its functions — parking, lighting, drainage, etc. In an urban setting, there is more sharing, such as with parking. In designing an urban street, how the buildings front the street, width of the sidewalks, on- street parking, bicycle transportation, volume of pedestrians, type of vehicles using the street, etc. must all be considered. Their process will involve modeling. Dublin has sophisticated traffic modeling systems in place. They work very well for the existing suburban environment. In more urban settings with particular areas with interconnected street networks, it is much more complicated. The need is to move more people around while more people are walking around. They will begin with the models Dublin already has, and then evolve into a more urban model. Shane Spencer, EMH &T , stated that they are included with the team for the purpose of utility modeling, specifically City -owned water and sanitary sewer systems. They have worked with the City of Dublin and the City of Columbus in the past. This is important because Dublin is a contract community, receiving water and sewer discharge services from the City of Columbus. Their charge in connection with the Bridge Street Corridor project is to identify existing infrastructure of the water and sewer and identify what upgrades would be required to ensure the implementation of the plan. To accomplish this, they will be utilizing very specific technical modeling software, which the City already has in place for its system. Specifically, they will be looking at changes in density, land use and their impact Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 4 of 16 on the need for water and sewer, and, ultimately, changes in physical networking that directly impact utility networking and the ability for those to serve the users. They have identified four key challenges: 1. They cannot look at this area in a vacuum. With the sewer, there are four trunk sewers that pass through the Corridor, which receive sewage from upstream areas. 2. They must look at the utilities in the context of the Community Plan, and projection and growth. 3. The manner in which the City of Columbus operates their water and sanitary sewer systems. Those have to be considered in the context of whatever is considered. 4. The topographical challenges and features. Josh Reneki, CDM, stated that Dublin has recognized for some time that there is a coexistence of Economic Development and natural resource protection that is critical to an attractive and livable community. In 1995, CDM and the City worked together to begin development of a Stormwater Master Plan, and in 1998, City Council accepted that plan and adopted a stormwater ordinance, which included water quality requirements. Interestingly, 2003 was the first time the Ohio EPA passed stormwater requirements for all developments. Dublin is ahead of the Ohio EPA and has been for some time. In 2008, the City updated its Stormwater Master Plan. This project is an opportunity for forward thinking with stormwater management, because the Bridge Street Corridor is very much an urban core. CDM will be exploring which sustainable stormwater best management practices can be integrated into the Corridor Plan. Mr. McDaniel stated that staff wanted Council to be aware of all the team members and disciplines involved. They are prepared to respond questions and concerns and receive input. Mayor Lecklider stated that he had noticed that most of the projects Mr. Chellman has been involved with are in the Northeast or in California. Mr. Chellman responded that they have offices on both coasts, but did a project in St. Louis last year. He has worked in Ohio before. Nelson Nygaard began as a transit focused firm, so its earlier projects were in areas with more significant transit facilities. There isn't much transit in this area of the Midwest, but that is changing. The changed land use patterns that are occurring nationally and internationally reflect the ideas that the Goody Clancy plan has embodied for having more mixed -use, higher density, walkable transit support for neighborhoods. Real estate values appear to be holding or growing more in those areas. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Central Ohio Transit system isn't able to provide more service to Dublin due to financial reasons, and there is a continuing preference for cars in this portion of the county. Given those challenges, how could a form of transit be implemented as part of the Corridor Plan? Mr. Chellman responded that will not be included in the early stages, but it will be part of the phasing /modeling discussion. At such time as transit becomes viable, then it will create a mode shift and traffic patterns will vary because of that, as well. The build -out plan shows very little surface parking area, and that is good. At build -out, Dublin will probably have significant structured parking and on- street parking. In early phases, there will likely be Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 5 of 16 surface parking lots that will transition over time into structured parking. Transit is similar. Density will come first, which transit will then support. Mayor Lecklider stated that he would expect in the early stages that Dublin would be dependent upon the existing Central Ohio Transit system. He would be concerned how a community this size could take on this type of service. Mr. Chellman responded that the whole Bridge Street Corridor is not transit dependent, but transit supportive. If a mixed -use, walkable place can be achieved without transit, that still would be an improvement. These communities have significantly less traffic than suburban land use areas, not because of transit use, but due to an increase in walking and biking. Mr. Gerber stated that this area will be developed with 14,000- 15,000 people living there and more people coming into this area for dining, etc. People living in this area will leave in the morning to go to work outside the area, then re -enter in the evening. Will the existing roadways experience more pressure that will create a need for additional roadways? Mr. Chellman responded that they are still defining the exact limits of the scope of their portion of the model. However, they will certainly be looking at trips to /from the outside areas in the model. The City's model will then address how those are distributed throughout the City. In the early stages, this will be an attraction and people will drive there However, the idea is that it will eventually be a "park once" environment. Mr. Keenan stated that a parking survey was completed. Is the consultant involved with that study present this evening? Mr. McDaniel responded that the consultant is not present; however, that study was limited to the Historic District. Mr. Keenan inquired when the results of the parking survey would be available. Mr. McDaniel responded that the intent is to present it at the next Council meeting. Mr. Keenan inquired if those results would be coordinated with the other consultants. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would, a number of other things would be incorporated as well, including an economic cluster analysis by Battelle and a square footage occupancy analysis. The various pieces will be integrated. Mr. Keenan stated that there is an immediate need to address the parking issue. Today, there are significant parking difficulties in Historic Dublin. It has been his opinion for some time that a structure, 1 -1/2 stories underground, perhaps two stories above, could be provided behind the new BriHi area without being onerous. There are numerous examples of those garages within the Ohio community. It is important not to lose sight of the near - term needs when talking about this Vision. Mr. Reiner referred to the comment that the City has unique stormwater and sewer requirements along the Corridor. In what way are Dublin's requirements unique — is it the overall density of the space? There are four sewer trunk lines involved. Will this be a construction impediment? Mr. Reneki responded that the sanitary studies will be conducted by EMH &T. There is a chance that there will be a construction impediment. From a stormwater management Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 6 of 16 perspective, what is unique for this area is that the density of the Bridge Street Corridor will be no denser than downtown Columbus. Development is occurring in downtown Columbus now, but they are managing the stormwater issue on a site by site basis. Dublin has the opportunity to put an imprint on the entire district. This is not a single -acre site, but a site of hundreds of acres. So it is unique in the scale of the area. Mr. Reiner inquired if that will be addressed by the regulations that will be designed. Mr. Reneki replied that would be the overarching goal -- that text will be built into the zoning and into the potential stormwater regulations specific for this area that will allow for the innovation required from the design engineers for this area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council accepted the concept Goody Clancy presented to Council without addressing the details. How will the development code ordinance be written /address /achieve the real development desired? Mr. Elliot responded that there are certain things that must be addressed for the development to proceed as desired —the fabric, the scale, the street network, open space distribution and types. The general approach is to address it in the general regulations for these districts. With a development with a 20 -30 year buildout, multiple property owners and hundreds of acres, the whole picture will not come into focus until it is ready to be built. For instance, in regard to open space -- as it occurs, each development will contribute to the open space distribution. It is not possible to predict when it will occur. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if a different tactic could be taken. Could the City direct that it wants the greenspace to take up a certain amount of area, and immediately put on the map where that greenspace will be located? Then, everything else would occur as a result of Council making that decision. Mr. Elliot responded that he has seen that occur more often in raw land contacts — a big acreage where nothing is built. While there is some raw land in this corridor. there is much redevelopment land, as well. This suggestioi than with multiple owners. The problem with the City is taking all of one property owner's I is ready to buy it, as the property owner woul located on his property. With redevelopment multiple agendas, it is more common to have vision. i is much easier to do with one property owner designating the greenspace is that may mean roperty. It can be presumed then that the City J have been made aware that a park will be involving multiple property owners and each property owner contribute to the overall Mr. Dixon stated that when the consultants have finished their work, his firm has been tasked with creating a pattern book that will illustrate in a literal way the translation of the Vision into much more specific planning concepts that will be embedded in the Code. If something will not work, it can be corrected at that point. The central park component can be evaluated more closely at that time to determine if what is desired can be achieved. Vice Mayor Salay stated that approach makes sense to her. Mr. Dixon suggested that a workshop be scheduled at some point in this process to discuss the open space area and how best to define it. The different kinds of suburban and urban open spaces can be discussed. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Gerber noted that preserving greenspace is one of Dublin's core values. Mr. Dixon responded that in the next stage, Dublin could be looked at in its totality, and determined what would complement it. Mr. Gerber stated that a similar value is placed on the Historic District; there is a desire to preserve it. It is important that the Code be written to prevent the District becoming diluted or too blended with what is around it. Mr. Elliot responded that it is possible to create a zoned district or more than one that will preserve the character of the Historic District, not change it or expand it beyond its historic boundaries. It should be possible to write something clearer and simpler than the multiple districts that the City has in place now to control development. The kind of building type, form -based zoning that is desired works best in that fine fabric historic area. It was made for that purpose. It should be possible, not only to preserve it, but with something easier to understand and build. Mr. Walter stated that one of the questions he has is relative to this area and its context to the rest of the area. There are boundaries — 1 -270, SR 161 and Sawmill Road -- that cause constriction. Is there consideration regarding bringing ODOT and MORPC into the conversation at some point? What about Dublin City Schools, since they are such a large land holder in the District? Those are two things he believes should be considered. Mr. McDaniel responded that there is ongoing dialogue with the schools. He and Ms. Grigsby interact with Dr. Axner and his team on a continuing basis. MORPC is aware of and watching the process. ODOT will become involved later, when the transportation piece is addressed. As a result of the analysis, there will be more clarity on the transportation impacts at that time. More vision about the impact is necessary before bringing ODOT in. Mr. Keenan inquired how the 1 -270 interchange interaction is being addressed. At one time, Council was given many potential configurations. Ms. Grigsby responded that there is a lot of interaction with ODOT on that project, as well as the Federal Highway Administration. They are familiar with much of what the City is doing in the area and will be doing in the future. It will be necessary to coordinate the project with them because these are State highways. Mr. Keenan stated that there has been discussion about the "bow tie" area across the street. There may be some uses there. How soon will it be known what land acquisition will be needed? Is that horizon ten years out or longer? Ms. Grigsby stated that they have already begun looking at some of the impacts on the bow tie piece. Based upon the preliminary design and environmental work, it appears that very little additional right -of -way will be needed from that area. Ms. Willis stated that Engineering has been working extensively with ODOT on the interchanges. The interchange footprint that has the most promise does have some impact on the bow tie piece, but it is more minimal than that of the others. ODOT is well aware of the need to minimize the impacts to Dublin's developing land in this area. The footprint of the current interchange is fortunate, as it is a cloverleaf, which is rather large and will be an advantage to Dublin in the future. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Keenan inquired the timeframe. Mr. Willis responded that it would probably 10 -15 years before construction would be completed. Mr. Taylor stated that he recognizes that what Goody Clancy has put together is a concept, but there is a lot of room for change. Using Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher's example, if the City were to decide that instead of a small park with a library next to it, a very large park is preferred in that area, how would the plan be updated to make that happen? Mr. Dixon responded that one thing that sets Dublin apart from many suburban communities is the fact that it has many review boards and a capable Planning staff. He would assume if that scenario came about, it would be because the City completed a planning study that looked in more detail at the amount of public space needed. That decision would then be made within the context of the realities of property ownership, how it would link into OCLC plans and the plans with the Historic District. When the planning study is completed and its recommendations adopted, the Plan would be amended to reflect those changes. As the project moves forward, the City make may a number of such changes, in a thoughtful and intentional manner. This should be considered a base upon which Dublin, as a thoughtful community, will continue to build upon. Ms. Grigsby responded that this relates to the previous process with the Community Plan. Prior to the 1997 Community Plan, there was no concept of an expanded Coffman Park. It was not identified in any master plan. It was conceived between the Community Plan processes. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan will set a baseline, which will change as the process moves forward and as Council's goals and objectives are modified at some future time. Between the City's planning process and Council's goal setting, this will continue to be a fluid document for a fluid development. Mr. Gerber stated that, previously, Dublin has created plans which everyone then followed. Revisions to those plans have not occurred easily or quickly, typically taking a minimum of five years. How can flexibility be built into a plan? Mr. Dixon responded that there are certain types of flexibility that need to be woven throughout the plan from the outset. For example, with land use and development, clearly the intent is a mixed use, lively and varied place. On the other hand, it is desirable to have people develop housing when a housing market is strong, so they can build the best quality housing; the same with hotels and with offices. Therefore, it is important to have the flexibility to encourage people to be developing toward strong markets, so that investment will be attracted to Dublin. Regarding the question about a decision to create a large park along the river -- it is not about creating urban or suburban; it is about creating a great community. When it comes to a dense or more walkable, lively and more urban space, then certain kinds of decisions, such as open space, should be very flexible — they need to be more carefully considered. From his perspective, Council has adopted a vision that goes as far as it should at this point, knowing that there will be more decisions of a refinement nature to make. When it comes to creating a great central park, it would not have been wise to have designated a certain area and amount of that area at this time. It could not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 9 of 16 possibly have been thoughtful enough, nor had enough people involved. However, this vision allows for that to be a next -stage decision. Mr. McDaniel stated that Mr. Earman and Mr. Hahn are involved in this process to cover the dimension of facilities. An increase in population will create a need for increased facilities, which would need to be included in the costs stage. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that when discussing greenspace, it would be desirable to have a work session, as suggested by Mr. Dixon. Dublin is known for its greenspace, but they are pockets of parks used primarily by the neighborhoods. Visitors from outside the community typically use Coffman Park or Glacier Ridge Park, which is not owned by Dublin. For the Bridge Street Corridor area, there appears to be a more interactive relationship between that whole community — that being those who live, work and play there. Goodale Park, Columbus, or Schiller Park are large parks with which people have a different relationship than is typical with Dublin's current parks. A workshop would help broaden the thinking about the possibilities. Mr. Dixon stated that just as Dublin takes pride in periodically planning and writing a next chapter on how to stay ahead of markets, Dublin could also think the same regarding its public realm. Values change, types of recreation desired change, so it makes sense every 20 -30 years to think about how to build on the legacy created and adapt it to the world today. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in these economic times, it may seem more realistic to think that would not be for another 30 -40 years. However, Dublin has a solid reputation, and if this Plan is completed in the way anticipated, people will want to come here to build and live. This will happen more quickly than it might in some other communities. Dublin also has resources that other communities do not have, which will encourage that. Mr. Dixon noted that one of those resources is significant capacity of its government to take a leadership position that many other communities cannot undertake. Mrs. Boring stated that she concurs with that statement from a cautionary perspective. With a previous economic development study, the consultants said it would take 30 years. However, Dublin had them return in 10 years for a review. Mr. Fishman inquired how much interaction is occurring with the cities that surround Dublin, primarily the City of Columbus. He serves on the Bicycle Advisory Task Force, also, and it has been pointed out that Dublin ends rather quickly at Martin Road. If the bikepaths end at Martin Road, vehicles will be bottlenecked. So, is conversation occurring with Columbus, Plain City and Marysville? Mr. McDaniel stated that he and Mr. Hammersmith have been meeting regularly with Mark Kelsey, Service Director with the City of Columbus, on a number of issues. He has spoken to Mr. Kelsey about the need for an evaluation of all the shared boundary "touch points," in regard to current issues and anticipated future issues. Mr. Kelsey has indicated an interest in having that discussion. A similar conversation also needs to occur with the other contiguous communities. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Ms. Grigsby stated that an issue that is being discussed more frequently today is that of shared services, recognizing that all are interconnected, and working together enables more to be accomplished. Reaching out and working with other entities will be more important going forward. Mr. Zimmerman stated that as the plan is developed, how the residential and commercial aspects will come together to use the greenspaces will be looked at. He lives in the Brighton Park, Rings Road area. The residential and offices are interconnected with the parks, and employees from the businesses as well as the residents use those parks. The parks are active throughout the day and never appear "stale." He is hopeful that type of park interaction, but on a greater scale, will be included in this concept. Ms. King stated that the vision is exciting. The density concerns her, but it is better to be pulled forward than left behind in terms of where the market is going. She applauds the emphasis on the preservation of the Scioto River corridor. Item #3 — "Embrace Dublin's natural setting," enters into specifics and raises some good questions. She would like to emphasis the importance of stormwater management, realizing that the consultants are considering that. It should be made clear upfront that there should be no stormwater waivers, no direct access into the north fork, the south fork, or the Scioto River because of the impact that would have on water quality, quantity, turbidity, erosion, etc. She also encourages identification of a large park boundary as long as it is made very clear that this is permissive; that when landowners are ready, the City might be willing to talk with them. In some markets, at least, some landowners may find it comforting to know that they are in a potential park purchase area. Mr. Schisler stated that some of the speakers spoke about LEED new development or sustainability design, yet he does not see that as a principle in the document. If portions of the development will be expected to meet LEED regulations, such as in regard to stormwater management, it would be desirable to incorporate some of that into the zoning. Mr. Souders stated that he recently put some information together, which was provided for this meeting. There are three pages of questions regarding issues he believes it is important to understand from both the ARB perspective and from an urban design perspective. Perhaps those can be addressed outside of this meeting. His greatest concern is how this will develop overtime. Mixed use is a great goal, but he is concerned how that would be accomplished — there is the Sawmill Road area that needs to be reinvented, a downtown Historic area that is trying to expand across SR 161/ Bridge Street. His concern is if the multi -use district is created, it will dilute the current development. He is not sure how much retail can be absorbed. The information he provided graphically indicates something that extends beyond the District's borders. There is Coffman High School, the parks, July 4 th festivities, parades, festivals — how can a pleasant connection be achieved between those and the Historic District? Perhaps the anchors should be considered Sawmill Road, Dublin Methodist Hospital /Muirfield Drive and the Mall with the Historic District being the centerpiece. The Historic District already has a high volume of vehicle traffic, and SR 161 presents a natural barrier to people desiring to cross from one side of the Historic District to the other. However, in 20 years, if this area develops with the proposed density, the volume of cars will double or triple. SR 161 cannot be widened, so Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 11 of 16 how can cars be moved through the Bridge & High corridor? Would it be possible to make SR 161 /Bridge Street one -way through this part of town? Across from the library's location, a second bridge at Dale Drive would provide an opposite direction for one -way traffic. A parking garage partially underground has been proposed. The grade of land drops near the school and the library, creating a large hill. If a parking garage were to be constructed there, an entire level could be underground. In time, when the school is no longer there, the second road could connect with SR 161. A high volume of traffic moves north through the Historic District. He personally loves travelling down Riverside Drive, not having to stop at the light but go under the bridge. If the timing of the light at that intersection is changed or a roundabout is constructed, he does not see how traffic could be moved as effectively. He has enjoyed some places in the east with a bypass road similar to Dublin's. He understands that the Master Plan provides for that road to become part of the bikepath, but that is one of the joys in traveling Riverside Drive — the beauty of coming into a single lane. Dublin already has so many wide streets and intersections. He does not want to lose that one -way bypass lane on Riverside Drive, if at all possible. Perhaps 50 years from now the current bridge will be replaced with a high bridge, and Dale Drive could be used as a loop back within a one -way system. Perhaps a trolley system could connect Dublin Methodist Hospital and the medical retail there with the Sawmill Road retail. Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Souder for his comments. His document has been received by Council and other board /commission members. He has posed many interesting questions, and he is certain the traffic consultant will note those and is aware of the challenges. He inquired if Mr. Dixon was able at this time to make a brief response to the question Mr. Souder raised about Sawmill Road and a conflict between increasing retail and mixed use. Mr. Dixon stated that in regard to the question as to whether the retail will complement or compete -- the danger of too much supply and not enough demand -- this will be managed over a period of time. The reason they are reasonably optimistic that the retail development in this quarter will tend to be complementary rather than out - compete itself is because of the very different settings. Sawmill Road is a particular kind of market. The visibility and access along Sawmill provide the ability to create much larger floorplate retail, which suggests one type of retail, including opportunities for entertainment. Much smaller floorplate businesses, fine dining, etc. characterize and thrive in Historic Dublin. The center of the corridor will be the development that OCLC will undertake. So far, their emphasis involves more residential than retail, which would be complementary and of yet a different character. It will be important to watch what is going forward. There may need to be some adjustments if, over the next 10 -15 years, one area begins to drain another. The area they are the most optimistic about in terms of impact of this Plan on local businesses is the Historic District, because near the District but not in the District, should be much more housing. Housing, more than anything else, supports local restaurants and local small businesses; so, in the future, there will be a larger captive audience in the District. Ms. Newell, BZA thanked Council for taking this task on. It will present an exciting opportunity for Dublin. She works and lives in Dublin and frequents Historic Dublin. She hopes that serious consideration is given to the logistics of walkability. That issue is best shown by an example. To get from her office on Frantz Road to Historic Dublin, a short drive, takes 30 minutes to walk at lunch time. The logistics of walkability relate to how far a Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 12 of 16 person can actually walk within a period of time. The City has used step -down zoning to protect the residential neighborhood from the business district, and they are very polarized from each other right now. There is a large portion of Dublin's residential neighborhoods that will never be within walkable distance to Historic Dublin. With this project, there is an opportunity for Dublin to really consider how they are developing that area in terms of the entire community and residential neighborhoods. Mr. Paige, BZA stated that he lives on the east side of Dublin. The proposed density of the Bridge Street Corridor concerns him. It may have a major impact on how the City analyzes its land use principles in the future, such as maintaining the rural character and a balance between that and connectivity. The concept of planning and park space is vital. People moving into a neighborhood want to rely on what is around them. The City already has a vibrant community, and how best to maintain that and move forward is important. It is important to maintain a balance with growing while sustaining, having schools that are not over - crowded, and having communities that are connected and involved. He is concerned about what the multi - family homes could turn into. Although the intent is for it to be multi - generational housing, how will that evolve? On the east side, that is currently an issue, which is impacting that side of Dublin. Therefore, he is concerned about multi- housing in the heart of Dublin. Already, there are disagreements about the zoning. Although overall, the plan appears exciting, underneath are hidden issues that need to be seriously considered. He hopes that very defined discussions occur regarding the multi -use zoning. Otherwise, due to economic circumstances, there may be a tendency toward leniency for less - enhancing aspects of development for an area. There should be tight restrictions on the land use principles, what the core is, and the things that may be developed — not to interject rigidity, but definition. What everyone is concerned about is the integrity. That is the important standpoint from which to view the Plan as it moves forward. The City has strong land -use principles right now. He has been informed that this is a major discussion point. Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates his thoughts, and how seriously he has taken his role on the Board of Zoning Appeals. She is the Council representative for that area, and would be interested in meeting with him to discuss these issues in more detail. Vice Mayor Salay stated that some calculations were made regarding what percentage the Bridge Street Corridor area would be of the total City. Mr. Dixon responded that he would locate that information and provide it to her. This Plan is not about changing the development pattern of Dublin. The suggestion is not for a pattern that should be spread across the City for new investment opportunities. It is about creating a place in Dublin that is circumscribed; that has real edges to it and does not spread. In fact, it will not work if it spreads. It is about creating an intensity that brings vitality and life within it and not expand into nearby neighborhoods. However, there is a desire to be able to walk to it, just not have it arrive at their front door. It is very much about a place that people travel to -- they know where it is and where it isn't. He agrees with the use of the term "integrity," and he believes this Vision has been addressed with a great deal of integrity. The goal is not for the plan that will make the City the most money, but for a plan of real quality that builds on Dublin's principles and, for this specific place, adds a new dimension. It is a place that will create appropriate value. So far, the integrity has been there. In regard to the multi - family housing, they very much believe in being market - driven in their work. A hard look has been taken at Dublin's housing. The whole thing is not Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 13 of 16 changing, but there is a larger demand than in the past for multi - family housing that is high quality and market rate. Some of it would be rental, because many people moving to Dublin are not yet interested in home ownership. In this region, and many other regions throughout the nation, one -half to two - thirds of the residents are singles and couples. Those people want to come to Dublin and make a long -term investment that is relevant to them. These concerns are valid. The plan will not happen tomorrow. It will be monitored, and thoughtful people will keep track from different perspectives. Mr. Paige stated that he knew that the integrity of the vision was present. The people involved now are "invested" in the vision for the community. It is important that this Plan maintain a level of people who are invested but also want to make it sustainable and as livable as it is now. Vice Mayor Salay stated that in 2006, City Council and Planning Commission took a trip to Franklin, Tennessee and toured some developments. They saw many interesting communities. Everyone was able to "get on the same page" as they toured the same communities. A couple of years ago, a trip was also made to Greenville, South Carolina, and that, again, was very helpful because everyone was able to get on the same page. She would like to suggest something similar for this Vision. Would there be a community that would be helpful for this group to visit as this Vision is being considered? A tour of another community might help this group to come to a better understanding of and have a firmer grasp on the Vision. Mr. Dixon responded that they just completed a downtown plan for Wichita, Kansas. A large group of the City representatives there pay their own way for annual trips to other cities to observe what is being done. It really helps them to all get on the same page. Considering the type of questions that have been raised tonight, he would suggest Arlington, Virginia. That community has had a great deal of concern about preserving the character and quality of single - family neighborhoods immediately next to a more lively, walkable and high- density space. Evanston, Illinois is a suburban community next to a larger city, which was very successful in many regards. However, they believed what they needed was a vital, suburban downtown. They wanted a great center that did not change the nature of any of their residential neighborhoods. While considering the choices and concerns, it would be helpful to look at the communities that have succeeded in bridging those same concerns. Mr. Keenan stated that during the South Carolina trip mentioned, the group observed a large river, although not quite as large the Scioto River in Dublin, which had a pedestrian walkway. Although he did not participate in that trip, he viewed photos from the tour. He was impressed with the idea of using a pedestrian bridge to connect Historic Dublin with the area across the river. Not only would it provide a connection, but also a wonderful walking facility to view the river corridor. There are ideas gained from these tours that he is hopeful can be captured as this project proceeds. Mr. Dixon responded that they learned of that idea after they arrived and realized it would be a good idea to carry forward. He believes it is vital that everyone who can participate in one of these trips goes at the same time. The discussion among the group is invaluable. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Ms. Groomes stated that the charge was to discuss the implementation of the planning principles. She suggested that the areas that Council wants to claim as public space be designated on the diagram. Much work is being done upfront for the development community within this area. Those areas that Council believes critical to having the right public space should be identified. The community developed in those areas would be charged with funding that. Mr. Walter stated that he has a question about Council intent. Already, with some cases that have come before PZC, this document has been referenced as a guide. The Commission has had discussion regarding whether this is an appropriate guide to use at this time. What is Council's intent as to how PZC should interpret the process today as new development comes before the Commission? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes the Bridge Street Corridor Vision is a valid guide. Although there are many details that will be fine - tuned, Council has embraced the ideas and principles of this Plan. This project will evolve over 10 — 30 years. Mr. Walter responded that PZC understands the place the Community Plan holds and that is established as part of PZC's decision criteria. Is it Council's intent that the Bridge Street Corridor plan should supersede, complement, or serve as an adjunct document to the Community Plan? Vice Mayor Salay responded that she believes it would be a complement or addendum to the Community Plan. Mr. Gerber inquired what particular location he was referencing. Mr. Walter responded that he was referring to the case at Shamrock Court and S.R. 161, near Wendy's, and also Piadda 2 on Sawmill Road. Both parcels are on the fringe of the designated area. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would agree that this Vision has not moved to the stage of the formally adopted Community Plan. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan is in the process of formation. Council's affirmative vote on this Vision was an agreement to the concepts and principles of what is planned in this designated area of the community. Although it is a designated area of the community, that does not mean a street next to it would be considered not part of the Corridor. The two areas must relate to one another, so there is a blending that must occur. At this point, it would be important for PZC to understand the principles and vision of the Plan, rather than a level of detail. Mr. Reiner stated that with any large tract developments that come before the Commission now, this Plan should be recognized. If the Commission doesn't implement this Plan now, they will waste the developers' time and money. Mrs. Boring stated that she believes that in addition to the concepts and principles, it is also important to understand the reasoning behind them — the final product that Council is attempting to create in this corridor; the liveliness it will create for the community. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Gerber stated that it should be integrated. It is no more a bible than any other document, but it articulates the spirit and intent. Mr. Dixon stated that it was certainly their understanding that the Bridge Street Corridor Vision was meant as a complement, a refinement to build on the Community Plan. The Community Plan broke much of the ground; this will "till" and "plant" it. Hopefully, there won't be conflicts, certainly not in spirit. Mayor Lecklider invited public comment. All the stakeholders can expect to be involved as this plan moves through the process. Vice Mayor Salay noted that Mr. Dixon had provided the answer to her question about the percentage of Dublin involved — 6 percent of the land in Dublin is contained in the Bridge Street Corridor area. It is a small, defined section of the community. Mayor Lecklider stated in regard to Mr. McDaniel's question regarding Council's expectations regarding staff and the consultants checking back in with Council, what is Council's direction? Does Council want to be apprised on a regular basis or at certain decision points? Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be possible for the consultants to determine when they need to touch base with Council, rather than Council specifying times at this point. Mr. McDaniel stated that he believes Council has indicated a desire for more information on the open space issues. The timeframe for this project also anticipates a staff draft to be prepared by February 28. Therefore, there would be at least two additional sessions — one on the open space discussion and another to review the staff draft of the Code. This could be either a joint session or a charrette. Mr. Reiner stated that unless staff perceives a need to seek out Council's guidance earlier, he believes it would be best to let the consultants proceed according to their schedules. Mr. McDaniel noted that staff would be providing ongoing reports in Council packets, and those reports can also be provided to the boards and commissions, as well. If there are questions, staff will check with Council without necessarily needing to bring everyone together for a meeting. Mr. Gerber inquired the anticipated timeframe for the discussion draft of the Code. Mr. McDaniel responded that he believes it will be ready by early April. Mr. Gerber noted that he would prefer to have that discussion sooner rather than later. Mr. McDaniel responded that staff is trying to set a realistic timeframe, but if it is possible to tighten the timeframe, staff will do so. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that the next joint session be held at the Rec Center or a space large enough to facilitate dialogue between Council and the boards and commission. Joint Meeting of Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Architectural Review Board January 31, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Mr. McDaniel responded that staff had deliberated that issue for this meeting. Suggestions for the meeting space will be forwarded to Council before the next session. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it was not Council's desire to be at the dais, but tonight it was important to have everyone in the same room and attempt to have everyone "on the same page" to the greatest extent possible. Mr. McDaniel inquired if the joint session approach is Council's preference. Council consensus was that a joint session approach would continue. Mr. McDaniel stated that in anticipation of the adoption phase, he has asked the Law Director if, in the interest of efficiency, the adoption could occur in a joint session as well. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she believes the joint process is not only a streamlined but a better process. Mr. Gerber stated that this process is on a fast track, and everyone is motivated, whether it is collectively or in separate groups, to move it along. Mayor Lecklider stated that the Council direction needed at this point has been provided. He thanked the board and commission members in attendance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Clerk of Council RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Millutc oaf Dubn City Council Nice into is October 25, 2010 Page l 1 ld _ . s _ f ._Ztt Committee review is necessary is year. He recalls t at last year, Mrs. Bori had question bout Recreation C nter senior member ip fees. He asked if rs. Boring 1 nsiders these fees o be consistent with a previous direction Mrs. oring stated that no ncreases have bee proposed for those fe s this year. Ms ennedy has outlin d the changes clear , and she has no furt r questions. s. Chinnici -Zuerc r asked if the City d previously charged. ees for a wireless facility administra a review. . Ms. Kennedy r ponded that no fee ad previously been established for that review. Ms. Chinnia- Zuercher stated th the proposed fee is substantial, in view of e fact that here was none prev i usly. She recognizes tAat the fee is recom ended based the actual cost of i•ocessing the application. Are there a lar number of re gists for new tower . Ms rigsby responded at the activity is not�onsistent year to ye r. This year, t re were several, w ich related to the Avery Road water tower roject. The ireless facilities w e displaced while the tower was being re inted. This situation did high ht the amount of adiWnistrative work inv ed in this review. Ms. Chinnici -Z rcher asked if char i g a fee for the appl' anon review of wire ss towers is co istent with the practi a in other cities. Mr. Langw by responded that cities typically charge or the review, as it i included ' their zoning process. Dublin utilizes an dministrative revie process, as the generally do not involve building a new wer. Dublin does t receive ma requests for new to ,ers; they are typical for co- location wit water towers n for atta chments t ther struct r i o structure Ho ever, the rev iew do s ainvolve staff e. Meetings are he d w'th the applican or each case. , Ms. Chinnici- Zuerc�er stated that the s merino indicates if ffie wireless facilit is located on City pfoperty, no fee is in v ed. Ms. Kennedy r sp ©nded that is bas d on the fact that th City wo payments fo fsuch a wireless fac' y. Mayor f cklider summarize at i# is the consen s of Council t Comn$ttee review of the I i nance is unnecess The ordinan be sheduled for secon ading /public heari on November 1. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -- RESOLUTIONS Resolution 50 -10 Adopting the Bridge Street Corridor Study Vision Statement, Vision Principles, Vision Report, and Implementation Strategy. 3m r Gerber introduced the resolution. Mr. Langworthy stated this resolut on adopts the Interim Vision Report and Strategy prepared by Goody Clancy & Associates. The presentation of the document occurred at a Council Study Session on October 4. This is the first step in a rapid, but complex and involved process going forward:. The purpose of the Vision Report is to identify the "30,000 foot view" of what is desired for the Bridge Street Corridor. The next steps will begin to define the terns, terminology and illustrative nature of what is shown in the Interim Vision Report by assembling a pattern book. The pattern book will be the description of what is meant by elements of the Vision. From the pattern book, almost simultaneously, a set of development regulations will be created. Staff's intent is that Goody Clancy will work on the pattern book as part of the last phase of their project. The intent is to engage a consultant who will work on development regulations, hand -in -hand with Goody Clancy as they are developing the pattern book. The goal is to ensure those documents coordinate well with one another. At the same time, the land use parameters will be further defined and transportation utility modeling will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS vl i nutes of' Dublin City Council ect ink Held October 25. 2010 Page 8 initiated as well as the fiscal modeling that will be necessary for the City to understand fully what all of this will mean for the future. This is a 20 to 40 -year plan, so the expectation is there will be some transitional elements. In the interim, there will probably be some development that will not always meet the exact requirements of the Plan, but it is acceptable, as redevelopment will occur over time_ He emphasized that this is a long -term process. Council is to be congratulated for laying the foundation for this vision to occur. He offered to respond to questions. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Council has received a letter from Matt Stavroff, and perhaps Council could engage Mr. Stavroff in a discussion about this letter. She did have an opportunity today to discuss with Mr. Stavroff his concerns, and she indicated she would ask Legal staff how the adoption of this vision would impact the City and future decision makers. Mr. Smith responded that as the Vision Plan indicates, it is meant to be a guide_ He read Mr. Stavroff's letter as well. He noted that when the City created the Community Plan, they specifically included a paragraph that states that the Community Plan is not a Code or a law, but rather a guide. In the Vision Plan, it is stated that "development should take the Vision framework as a guide." He does not believe a Court ruling would be based upon the opinion that the document constituted a law. However, if Council has concerns about the Vision Plan's '`authority." the document could be appropriately clarified. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Vision Plan is similar to the Community Plans, which Council has adopted over the years. It is a guide and establishes a framework or foundation for what will be developed in an area. it identifies the principles that will be followed in reviewing deveopment applications. This study also identifies various districts and the unique features of those districts that the City wants to preserve and protect. An example is the greenspace to be preserved in the Scioto River corridor and the Indian Run corridor. David Dixon of Goody Clancy & Associates stated that this Vision Plan is for an area that constitutes four percent of the land mass of the City. It does not change how development is processed in Dublin, but how the City views development in this particular Vision Plan area. It focuses on the next decades and century of development that will occur in Dublin and the anticipated demands on the City related to the development. Mr. Gerber stated that he has similar concerns as those of Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher. He has no objections to the concept, although he is concerned that the Vision Plan would be interpreted to mean this is exactly the way development is expected to appear. For example, development is not shown along Riverside Drive in this Vision. Further, the Vision may call for condominium development in a particular area, but a developer may want to build something entirely different. He wants to ensure that Council will have the flexibility to address those concerns in the future Mr. Langworthy stated that the City has deliberately included language in the Vision Plan that the City recognizes that it is unlikely that development will occur as depicted. As Mr. Stavroff has indicated, the market will be key in what happens in this area. The Vision attempts to illustrate some of the principles for the development, not the actual development that will occur. Mr. Gerber stated that the Traffic Study will suggest some ways in which the area should be developed as well. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting there may be some adjustments to be made as a result of the Traffic Study, in terms of densities and intensities of land use and the ability to accommodate the traffic and utilities. The pattern book and the development regulations will serve as a guide for the City to follow. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council meelint, 16 October 25, 2010 pct Page 9 1, leld Mr. Keenan stated that this is fine, assuming the market forces are permitted to operate in terms of how this area will be developed. The importance of the market conditions has been observed with respect to the COIC. Mr. Langworthy agreed. The City will not be developing this area; it will be the marketplace that drives development. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher recalled that a city visited on a field trip by City Council and Planning Commission had such a pattern book. The developers indicated that having the pattern book helped them to sell their projects and obtain funding One of the challenges that is frequently brought to Council is the inconsistency and confusion regarding the City's expectations. A pattern book would provide better understanding of the expectations. For her, the purpose of this initiative was to seek out a new opportunity for the City in a unique area of the City, and to incorporate the river into the heart of the community in a way that would draw a new population into the future community. The vision is very exciting. It is also very interesting that the vision area is anchored by OCLC and the Stavroff property. Stavroff is prepared to move forward with development as soon as the market permits. when there is activity on these large parcels, it will draw the attention of others who might not otherwise notice the area. It could result in reducing the 40 years anticipated for future development of the area. Mr. Langworthy noted that he believes the same is also true for the OCLC development area. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that if this Vision Plan is approved, she would hope that it is with the intent of doing business differently in this area of the City than has occurred traditionally. Mrs. Boring stated that she has significant concerns. She does not believe any of this will negatively impact OCLC, because that activity center already exists. She does not like some of the concepts reflected in the Vision Plan. As with the Community Plan, the vision becomes the "bible" for the City, and there are many things she does not care for in this Vision. There has been previous discussion about the possibility of curving Riverside Drive and creating more greenspace in that location. Housing is proposed where shopping centers now exist. There is not adequate greenspace in one of the areas. When the pattern book is being developed by staff and the consultant, she wants to be sure that feedback is obtained regarding each of the activity centers. The plan also moves from four activity areas to eight in another portion. Some of this is not clear to her. She cannot support this with the draft Vision Plan included, because the draft Vision Plan is binding. Mr. Langworthy offered a suggestion, similar to what was done with the Community Plan. Similar concerns existed regarding the area plans at that time. In a corner of an area plan, a text box was inserted with the caveat that the area was not expected to develop exactly as shown, but that the plan was intended to serve as an illustrative guide. Similar language could be attached to the Vision Plan, so users would understand it is not to be used as a "bible." Mrs. Boring responded that each of the area plans in the Community Plan were handled separately and very well. The area plans were considered separately, and an attempt was made to ensure each area plan was consistent with the principles. This Vision Plan does not seem to do that. Mr. Langworthy responded the Vision Plan is intended to be only illustrative of the principles. Initially, he also had concerns when he looked at the area activity centers, because what exists there currently is different. However, in 40 -50 years, the existing development may no longer be in place. Regardless, the statement should be included to ensure the Vision Plan is viewed only as an illustrative guide. More important is the pattern book and development regulations, which will define RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetin October 25, 2010 Held Page 10 '(I what is meant. Over time, this illustrative plan will probably fade into the background, because it will no longer be needed. Mrs. Boring asked why it is then necessary to include a Vision Plan along with the principles and regulations. Mr. Langworthy responded that he is not certain that an illustrative plan is necessary. The individual districts identified probably do an adequate job in describing what needs to be looked at uniquely within the individual areas. However, without Goody Clancy's input, he would not want to eliminate it from the Plan. The clarifying caveat could be inserted, however, as suggested. Mayor Lecklider stated that he just received Mr. Stavroff's letter this evening, and has not had an opportunity to review it. However, he believes the language included in both the Vision Report and in the adopting resolution now before Council clarifies the intent and addresses possible concerns regarding specificity. For example, Section 1 of the resolution states: "The findings and concepts of the Vision Report, which is intended to describe the market opportunities, districts, and design elements of the Bridge Street Corridor and illustrate a potential development scenario, are hereby endorsed to guide planning efforts in the Bridge Street Corridor." In the Vision Report, on page 16 is the language "illustrative vision scenario." For him, that describes its purpose clearly. If Council is not establishing the vision and illustrative examples, then who will do so? It is Council's role as leaders to provide this. This is not Council's first experience with community plans, community plan updates, etc., and no Council Members would expect a plan to develop detail by detail, pursuant to the rlustrations provided with the plan. Mr. Reiner expressed concurrence. Further, the illustrative Vision Plan provides ideas about where biking trails, light rail, and different kinds of housing might occur in the future. He does not view the Vision Plan as something rigid or fixed. It has been designed by its architects solely to provide a potential "vision." Mr. Gerber asked if Council will review the pattern book. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Gerber stated that he anticipates there will also be an opportunity for public comment at that time. Mr. Langworthy responded that there would likely be work sessions with Council scheduled for this review. Tonight is only the first step in the process. Vice Mayor Salay concurred with Mayor Lecklider's comments_ She is very comfortable with this Vision Report and the implementation strategy as outlined. What excites her most about the Plan is that something completely different will be done with this part of Dublin Council wants the development community to participate in something other than business as usual." Perhaps a conventional shopping center will have to be re -made into something quite different. A new era is beginning for this corridor. There are high expectations, but also very different expectations than the other 90 -95% of the City Mr. Langworthy noted that he hopes Council has had an opportunity to view some of the recent positive media coverage regarding this Vision Report and Plan. Mr. Reiner stated that the projections are aligned with the City s demographic survey. The next vision for this community should be "a step up." The Easton development includes housing separated from commercial. For the Bridge Street Corridor, it would be desirable for commercial or retail activity to occur on a lower floor and housing to be provided on the upper stories. That may or may not work, depending on the developer's interest in being progressive. There is a need for a portion of the community that will appeal to and attract the younger generation RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Nt inutes pit" Dublin City Council Meeting October 25, 2010 Page 11 those now living in the Short North area of Columbus. As leaders, it is Council's role to establish a Vision to accomplish that. Mrs, Boring stated that there is no disagreement about that aspect. Her objection is that in the past. people have become tied to the illustrations provided. If the Plan contains the principles that Council wants and agrees upon, and if Council supports how the Vision is written, then she does not see the necessity for the accompanying illustrations. Mr. Gerber pointed out that in the process, there will be an opportunity to review the pattern book and discuss the various illustrations. Mrs. Boring stated that she is not certain that Council is providing the needed direction about their concerns, including her concern that the illustrations do not seem to match the principles in certain areas. Mr. Gerber stated that the work sessions should provide the opportunity to do just that. Mr. Langworthy stated that the work sessions could occur early in the process. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that this would be an opportunity to attract developers who are interested in doing something creative and bold and who have new ideas -- something to help the City move forward from great to something even better. She asked if Council would provide Mr. Stavroff the opportunity to speak, if he would like to do so. Mr. Gerber concurred. He is also pleased that the City will be involved in traffic studies upfront, versus later, as has often occurred. Mayor Lecklider noted that he is hopeful that this initiative will attract a national interest/inquiry as well as local.. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has already had some attention from various entities who are awaiting the results of tonight's Council review. Mayor Lecklider invited Mr. Stavroff to address Council, if he would like to do so. Matt Stavroff, Stavroff Interes# 565 Metro Place South. Dublin indicated that he clearly articulated his concerns in the letter sent to Council, and he has heard some good responses tonight about what the expectations are in adopting this Vision. He is somewhat concerned with terms such as walkable" and "density." No one objects to walkable, but the issue is in defining what this means to everyone. "Density" relative to what? There are comments in the Vision about transit, and he wonders if Council is serious about that. Do they believe transit will be in place in Dublin in the next 3040 years? Has Council considered the alternative perspective? The federal government currently subsidizes transit at $20 million plus per year, and given the current budget, is it likely that more will be subsidized in the future? He wants to ensure that this Vision Plan being adopted is not viewed as the "bible but as something with many good qualities, as a target to aim for, and perhaps what tomorrow's market wants. There will be a different Council and staff in place years from now, and how will they interpret what is in this document? Dublin is a very special community. He is excited about the redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center and it is not that far off. However, he is concerned that when he brings back something with users who are excited and which captures much of this vision, but not everything, what response will it have from the City? He wants Council to think about this. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dubl Road stated that it occurs to him that this Vision Plan is a massive stimulus package. It is something that will keep Dublin out of recession. Dublin is now one of the Smart Cities" of the world, an `=Intelligent RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Millutes of Dublin City Council Mc cling October 25, 2010 � 12 Held Community" of the world, and has the ear of some of the greatest thinkers in the world. This is a "sky is the limit" stimulus package. Dublin is a magnet market with this plan. A monthly meeting is needed to bring in people who have thought hard about what this City should be. It is important to take risks and have an ear open to everyone. Few cities on the planet are so situated to 'Hove and "exfoliate." He added that he will not move out of Dublin for a while. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Resolutio 51 -10 Authori ' g the City Mana r to Eater into an greement with th hio Depa ent of Transport ion (ODOT) for In allation of Median able Barrier on U . 33 from S.R. 16 Post Road in Uni County to 1 -270 i Franklin {Co nty. r. Gerber if the resolution. Mr. Harnmersmit stated that, as indi ted in the staff rep rt, ODOT has requ ted Dublin's conse to allow them to orograrn a median be barrier installa 'on for this area. T re is existing med' n cable barrier ins Iled in 2002 on 1 -2 0 within Dublin's jur diction. The pu a of the barrier h been and remains o prevent crossover crashes. Crossov accidents typicall result in head -on Ilisions and fatalitie ODOT is proposi g this barrier be fu ed 100 percent by em; if Dublin reque s additions to th project, Dublin w Id be asked to fu them. Dublin doe not anticipate re uesting any addit' ns. Staff recom nds approval by C ncil so that this in allation can be pro rammed by ODOT. Mr. Reiner asked ho maintains the grass around these p sts. Mr. Hammers h responded that, as Dublin currently oes along 1 -270, t City will 'now the edian A herbicid is used around the osts to keep the v etation down. The 1ity will not maintai the cable barrier its f, but only the veg ation. /20. recalled discussion when the medi cable barrier was installed back ere any modifications requested fro ODOT at that tim rsmith responded that there werernot. ici - Zuercher stated that OD T is very consis nt in repairing a gmedian cable barrier along 270. These barrier do improve safety as staff has indicated. Her concern, a she expressed to s. Grigsby, relates the S.R 161 ramp over 1 -270, which ' not Dublin's responsibility to maintai . This area accumulates much litter on regular basis, andrshe has contacted r. Burns about thi.�. Now there will be another area here ODOT indidates their responsibility is only for rep it of the cable. D lin will continue to lake care of mowing of the grass_ Mr. ammersmith confir ed that Dublin wou take care of mowing, litter removal, a d snow removal of t s area, as is done t ay. Mayor Lecklider as ed for clarification out what distinguis es this median barrier area from the S 61 bridge over 27 in terms of litter, et Ms. Chinnici -Z ercher responded t t the debris and r d trash on the bridge are routinely Cie ed up by the City, ODOT does not s m to have the resirces to maintain t to Dublin's standa s. Mr. Ham ersmith stated tha staff will raise this sue with ODOT in : conjunction with thi consent le islation 9 , Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, October 4, 2010 Minutes of Meeting Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Council Members: Mayor Lecklider, Vice Mayor Salay, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnick Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Staff: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Readler, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Combs, Ms. Adkins, Ms. Ray, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Cox, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Tyler, and Ms. Gilger. Guests: David Dixon and Ben Carlson, Goody Clancy representatives. Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review the Bridge Street Corridor Study. Ms. Grigsby stated the Bridge Street Corridor Study has been in process for over a year. It is an exciting project for the City. At the last Council meeting, Council adopted its 2010 -2011 Goals. One of those goals was to "Complete the Bridge Street Corridor plan to provide a vision for the corridor, which will reinforce the City's long -term competitiveness, create a vibrant and walkable environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and houses types, and that enhances the City's long -term sustainability." Along with the goal, some near -term action strategies were identified. The first was to focus on the vision plan and have that plan "completed by the end of 2010." The second was to have "a work session with the consultants... "to follow up on "on the major principles, which form the important foundations..." for the development of the Corridor." That is the purpose of this work session -- to allow Goody Clancy to provide the overview of the information that was included in the vision report distributed in Council's packet. Specifically, for review of the vision statement and the five principles that were identified and have been reviewed at the public meeting held at the Wendy's facility in June. The vision concept plan included in the packet is a draft of the current concept, and there may be changes as it goes through the process. In addition, the seven Corridor Districts will be reviewed, including a Scioto River overlay, also included in the vision report. A key component to moving forward is to determine the next action steps for implementation, based upon Council's goal to have it completed in 12 months. The intent tonight is to present the report to Council. At Council's direction, staff will then bring back legislation to have the Vision Report accepted by City Council. Mr. McDaniel will also review the proposed next steps, the implementation, and the next processes or consultants that staff believes are needed to review and identify items as the infrastructure impacts, both transportation and utilities. Discussion is also planned regarding the time frame for completion of the reviews and some funding requirements, based on staffs current estimates. Dublin City council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 2 of 11 David Dixon, Goody Clancy stated that providing the report formally to council is very important. He will remind council of the foundations, market, community and other foundations for the vision and the principles. Then he will address the principles in specific, operative terms, which will be used in shaping the important next chapter of Dublin. Vision The charge for this study area is to enhance economic competitiveness, quality of life and create public spaces — all on seven percent of the land in the City of Dublin; the other 93% will remain untouched. The principles directing this effort are that Dublin has a real commitment to market leadership -- thinking ahead of the market and being positioned to take advantage of changes. This is a period of changing market dynamics and therefore an important time to be thinking ahead. Above all, Dublin has a commitment to the quality of the community, and Dublin is not a community willing to make trade -offs for fiscal, economic development or other benefits, if the City believes that may diminish the quality of life for its residents. They have been conscious of that principle, and they are hopeful that Council believes that was addressed. The tradition of market leadership has clearly been important to Dublin -- an important part of the foundation for the very high quality of life that has been established in Dublin. The continued effort to balance housing and jobs is what drives people in their choices of both, and has influenced employers in their choice of location. That formula is changing in some gays, and is therefore an opportunity for Dublin to adapt. The City invited a series of speakers, who spoke about these changes. He considers certain statements they made as very important. 1. Chris Leinberger talked about the fact that as opposed to a decade ago, mixed use, walkable environments are increasingly commanding a premium in the marketplace, whether it is housing - office, retail or other uses. 2. Carol Coletta pointed out that this country has a chronic and growing labor shortage of skilled and educated workers that employers follow as opposed to those people following employers, at this point in time. They are making choices between the ages of 25 and 34 about where they want to spend their lives and make their economic contribution. Increasingly, that is driven by the ability to live and possibly work in a walkable, attractive environment with a strong sense of community. Focus groups indicated that 50% to two thirds of those participating really value downtowns and great neighborhoods near them as decisive indicators in where they want to live, but they do not want to live in big cities. Dublin would be a desirable place for many of them. 3. Laurie Volk and Sarah `!`Woodworth both conducted in -depth market studies for over 5 -7 years for housing and 10 years for market for the City. The results indicated a need for probably 1,500 units of housing and more than a million square feet of office and mixed use development as a basis for beginning to construct this great new district that can become the new downtown "heart" of Dublin. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 3 of 11 4. Ms. Volk's message was that this housing market exists because of the significant changes in households. In 2010, in most regions, 50% of households are singles and couples, and the percentage is likely increasing. This means that there are more people potentially interested in walkable, lively environments with a sense of community. Then she broke down the market by unit types, so that the City has potential "building blocks" as it starts this initiative. 5. Sarah Woodworth looked at Office, Hotel and Retail, and had a couple of significant messages. First, the nature of market demand is changing, so, in addition to the large building employers, there is a grooving demand for smaller businesses. Dublin has a significant entrepreneurial spirit — a great many companies are born in Dublin, and Dublin wants to be able to hold on to them as they grow. Secondly, there is a leakage in retail. This reflects the desire for a different shopping experience — for walkable, mixed -use developments that more recently typify the market. Dublin has tremendous opportunities to build something that leaps ahead of that and is even more competitive. People love Dublin for what it is, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like the option for a walkable, mixed use environment. High quality in terms of design and every aspect of planning has been very important to people. Preserving natural features and access to those features is important. Many people have talked about introducing a next generation of public transportation options, not to replace the car, but to provide other choices. Historic Dublin is beloved and the community has made very clear that it should be preserved and not replaced by development. This type of initiative is occurring in other places, but ghat Dublin is doing is much more "cutting edge." It is a model that is already attracting interest. When they attended the APA Conference in New Orleans and presented a program on Dublin, it was probably the best - attended session in the entire conference. This is an indication that many suburban communities are interested in learning how to add the same type of dimension that Dublin is planning. This, then, is the foundation for the Vision Statement. Mr. Dixon discussed the vision's five principles in depth. Principles 1. Enhance Economic Vitality. Create vibrant and walkable mixed -use districts that build on the community's quality and character to make Dublin a highly completive place to live, work and invest. 2. Integrate the New Center into Community Life Connect the new center into community life. Connect the Bridge Street Corridor to the surrounding community through enhanced bike, pedestrian, auto and transit connections, lively public spaces and a mix of retail and other uses that invite the larger community, and with civic, educational, and other uses to engage the full spectrum of community life. 3. Embrace Dublin's Natural Setting and Celebrate a Commitment to Environmental Sustainability Celebrate the Scioto River, North /South Indian Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 11 Run, and other natural features as symbols of Dublin's commitment to environmental preservation and sustainability. 4. Expand the Range of Choices Available to Dublin and the Region Offer housing, jobs, shopping, recreation, transportation and other choices increasingly supported by changing demographics and lifestyles to complement and support Dublin's existing community fabric. 5. Create Places that Embody Dublin's Commitment to Communi Design a 21 S century center for community, inspired by Historic Dublin and marked by walkability, variety and vitality. Ben Carlson, Goody - Clancy shared a draft illustrative concept of the Vision Plan. It is a scenario of what the study area could look like if it were developed in accordance with the principles. People tend to walk within a quarter mile radius, so they envisioned four primary walkable neighborhoods -- Historic Dublin, the OCLC area, the riverfront area near the intersection of Riverside Drive and W. Dublin - Granville Road, and the Sawmill Road area near Dublin Village Center. There are many other opportunities to introduce walkable networks, streets, and development, as well, but these four areas will be emphasized. The many greenways that meander throughout - -with the Scioto River and Indian Run, recreational greenways, and a series of public parks — all will serve as the organizing framework. The overall area is broken into a series of seven (7) districts. There are many physical distinctions, which delineate the boundaries between the districts — the river corridor, the creek and major roads. Market studies show that people appreciate unique places in which to live and to do business. He reviewed the anticipated characteristics and potentials of the seven districts: 1. Bridge Street gateway into Historic Dublin 2. OCLC and Cardinal Health land to the north 3. Existing Historic Dublin neighborhood 4. The entire corridor that follows the east edge of the Scioto River 5. The stretch of west Dublin - Granville Road moving to the east, past the life ndy's headquarters 5. The Tuller- Greenway neighborhood, the least visible and accessible district 7. The Sawmill District, largely occupied by Dublin Village Center Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher inquired the location of Riverside Drive in relation to the current road. Mr. Carlson responded that they are suggesting that it be moved modestly a couple hundred feet to the east, less than what some of the earlier concepts suggested. This is a better balance — it would create a substantial amount of park space and access there, but also retain the opportunity for a mixed -use neighborhood to develop next to it. Mr. Gerber inquired how many people they believe would live /work in this area. Mr. Carlson responded that this is a 20 -year plan. Ms. Volk has estimated 1,500 units in the next 5 -7 years. As the market becomes established, the pace should increase. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 5 of 11 Conservatively, the estimate is for 4,000 units on one side and 8,000 -7,500 on the other. That would be 5 -10 million square feet of housing and 2 million square feet of office/retail. Mr. Gerber inquired the anticipated number of occupants per housing unit. Mr. Carlson responded that they would be smaller households —1 to 1.25 occupants per unit — approximately 5,000 -8,000 people, and 5,000 -7,000 employees. Mrs. Boring inquired if this concept builds around what currently exists in this area. Mr. Dixon responded that the plan has been built upon a couple of principles. In most cases, they have had conversations with the property owners regarding the vision for this area. Also, they have proposed ideas that would increase -- not hold neutral or decrease -- the value of their land. The vision is illustrative and conceptual, not a plan that dictates what must happen. The spirit of the plan is that it will be in the interest of the property owners involved. Mr. Carlson noted that there are many large property ownerships involved — areas of at least 10 acres, and in some cases, 40 -80 acres. It is possible to do something significant in those areas via the private sector that does not require land takings. A redevelopment initiative can fit within a bigger picture. There are benefits to starting this in distinct areas, providing a network of different uses. Mr. Dixon stated that there are two very substantial holdings in Dublin. This development will not replace current development in Dublin, but it will be concentrated, which means it will take less infrastructure investment to accommodate it. The infrastructure built will also support many smaller projects in the future. Mayor Lecklider inquired how the new projection for residents in this area would compare with the numbers estimated by the 2007 Community Plan. what impact would this project have on those estimates? Mr. Langworthy responded that it would not be significantly different, probably less than 10 percent. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher noted that the primary difference would be in the mix of uses within the project area. Mr. Gerber inquired what the forecast for central Ohio is over the next 25 years in regard to the number of people who will come here to either live or to work. Mr. Dixon stated that the aging nature of the housing market across the nation is increasing. It is the demographic changes within that population that are creating new housing markets. The number of households headed by people over 35 and under 55 without children are the two fastest growing segments of the housing market, and they Dublin City council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 6 of 11 are the under -built markets. Many in that target group are interested in urban environments. Mr. Langworthy noted that MORPC has estimated a regional growth of 500,000 over 20 -30 years. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher noted that study was generated 18 -24 months ago, so it did not necessarily take into account the current development environment. Mr. Dixon noted that lower housing cost regions, such as Central Ohio have been benefitting from the economic slowdown. when it comes to attracting the young workforce, that group is now less interested in specific destinations, such as San Francisco. They are more interested in finding vitality in less expensive regions. On the other hand, although the population may increase, the number of homebuyers may not be in sync with the number of home sellers. The trend is moving into more of a net seller model than previously. Mr. Gerber stated that regardless of the concept's walkability, vehicle transportation in the area will increase. People from other areas, such as Muirfield, will be attracted to these areas. Are in -depth traffic studies contemplated? Mr. Dixon responded that doing so would make sense. It will be easier to study and to address the transportation needs of a district such as this, as they will be concentrated. They have had some discussions with Kittelson & Associates about what it takes to create a low threshold transit. They indicated that the types of densities and build out contemplated here for the first ten years tend to make an area ready for transit to support new services. They have considered a Bridge Street Corridor transit from downtown Dublin to the COIL, because he would suspect many of the young people who work there would love to live here. A transit service would be a plus. However, this district is planned around the assumption that the automobile is here for a long time. That is one of the reasons for the grid of streets through the corridor — so people are not forced to concentrate on the same roadway, bringing congestion. Mr. Gerber stated that SR 151 is a very busy roadway. Council has looked at adding on- street parking as a way to change its character. Mr. Dixon responded that he would expect that Dublin will do a transportation study that will focus on adding curbside parking to a pedestrian street and provide alternatives over time. By doing so, Dublin will achieve a great, real "Main Street," with offices, hotels, housing, etc. Clearly, that would be done in conjunction with a larger transportation strategy. Next Steps Mr. McDaniel stated that this is a consolidated plan for future studies -- essential tools. The first step is to prepare a resolution for the October 25 council meeting to adopt the concepts and final vision report. The second step is to adopt a District pattern book with the design guidelines for each district. This will provide a bridge from the vision to Dublin City council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 7 of 11 implementation. It would set forth expectations, yet provide flexibility. Next, a regulatory framework code would be proposed. There will be an over - arching transportation modeling or plan for the district. This is critical due to the densities. The plan will be inclusive, involving all the property and business owners. Utility remodeling will be necessary. Some base modeling has already been done for transportation and utilities through the Community Plan process, and that work would be tweaked. Mr. Keenan stated that there are issues related to the need for electric redundancy. Also, there are other communities that have required fiber optic wiring to be part of the infrastructure as it is developed, even in the residential area. Mr. McDaniel responded those other utilities would definitely be included in this process. He noted that the redundancy issue is high on the list of every project. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that the Community Plan transportation modeling for this area was based upon an entirely different vision. Therefore, will this modeling require a significant redesign of the area that encompasses 1 -270, OCLC, Cardinal Health and Emerald Parkway? Mr. McDaniel stated that they would be building off the physical platform model compiled for the Community Plan, but a more urban model will be needed. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that because this modeling is to be completed by July 1, 2011, she wanted to ensure the modeling of that area was included. Mr. McDaniel responded that it would be included. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the Community Plan existing travel demand model would be used, and trip generation coming off the new land uses would be input into the model. This would provide a predictor of the needs for the future network. A second component will be added to this process — a micro simulation, to look closely at intersection levels and street capacities. With that input, design will be determined for this urban model. Mr. McDaniel noted that once the urban model is built, it will not be necessary to re- study it each time someone comes forward with a project. The intent is to develop computer modeling that will enable this to occur without conducting additional traffic studies. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher inquired if they are indicating the modeling would drive the design needed. Mr. Hammersmith clarified that it indicates the demand and predicted users. Accommodating that demand against the preferred level of service and tolerable congestion is then evaluated and determined. Mr. McDaniel responded it does not lay out the network, but it enables modeling against an understanding of the future needs and impacts. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher inquired approximately when it will be possible, with everyone's input, to state what the road design will be. The building and configuration of the area, particularly the south area, is very dependent upon the road design. Mr. Hammersmith stated that the intent is for this to be an iterative process during the transportation analysis. As output is received, it will be possible to determine the road network that is needed and to make alterations in land use to change trip generations. The acceptable level of service at the intersections must be determined. Vice Mayor Salay stated that the SR 161 corridor is the sole focus. In the Historic District, it is just four lanes wide. There was discussion concerning the potential addition of on- street parking, but the decision was made that would not be tolerable, as it would decrease the level of service. What works best between balancing moving traffic and the expectations that all the intersection should function at higher level? Is it better to accept a lower level of service? Mr. Dixon responded that the expectations of level of service differ based on where you are and where you are going. On an arterial highway connecting point A to point B, a D or F level is frustrating. A short trip from a couple of destinations in the midst of a pedestrian level would find a level D or F acceptable, as there is a counter balancing benefit — the surrounding environment. With the Bridge Street Corridor, it mould be best to experiment. If Bridge Street is to be a route to travel from east to west, on- street parking would not make sense. However, if a portion of Bridge Street will become very important to the "life" of Dublin and adds to the quality of the community, it would be good to experiment with curbside parking for off -peak traffic times. Mr. Gerber stated that there are two traffic patterns involved — the internal roadways and the external roadways — 1 -276 and SR 161, which are used by people from the surrounding areas. Mr. Dixon stated that he certainly would not experiment with curbside parking during peak hours. As Historic Dublin becomes more important t0 the life of the entire community, as people seek to invest there and extend its walkability, then the value of a pedestrian - oriented Bridge Street may become more important, a 0ounter- balancing value, to the value of moving traffic through. To date, there has been no counter balance. However, that gaunter balance is on the table now. He suspects the reason it will be a counter balance is that there are more property owners in Dublin who believe that the more amenities that can be found in that district, the more their property is worth. He respects Council's desire t0 carefully evaluate this to find the right balance. The advantage of curbside parking is not that it adds parking. It is that it makes it much more comfortable to walk up, down and across the street -- it sends a different message. Mr. Keenan stated that the issue is balancing that benefit against 20-30 minute traffic backups in the District, east and west. Dublin City council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 9 of 11 Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher inquired if there will be a plan integrated and ready for discussion with OCLC and the other anchors in the area. Mr. McDaniel clarified that, in addition to the modeling, impact, counts and trips, scenario grids will also be laid out to be modeled against. There is the planning aspect that parallels the transportation/traffic modeling aspect. Mr. Langworthy stated that the connections between points on the grid would be tested, such as a connection between OCLC and Dublin Road. Mr. Keenan stated that what he has seen work best around the country is when the public streets in a downtown square are closed off with a pedestrian walkway. Then development occurs around that square, such as in Aspen. Previously, Council has discussed the potential for a different configuration for the roadway in the Historic District. It would parallel 1 -270. Vice Mayor Salay stated that it might be more of an alternative road than a bypass. Mr. Keenan responded that an alternative would remove some of the pressure. Mr. Langworthy stated that alternative could be instituted into the model to see what might occur. Mayor Lecklider stated that the vision concept appears to provide for two alternate routes north of Bridge Street with access to Dublin Road, leading to Tuller Parkway. Mr. Carlson stated that it makes it easier to access the Emerald Parkway Bridge, which has more capacity than currently is being utilized. Having more choices, more redundancy in the network is beneficial. Choices are better than investing in one roadway. Mice Mayor Salay inquired whether it is better to enhance Bridge Street, even at peak times, by slowing traffic. It is helpful to drivers looking for a place to stop to eat or shop. Mr. Carlson responded that slower traffic does really benefit the businesses. Pedestrian areas do really work in some areas, such as college towns. A mix is quite viable. Mr. Gerber inquired if the computer modeling will assess the level of service various roadway configurations would provide. Ms. Grigsby responded that the computer modeling will identify the number of cars traveling through an intersection, and identify which level of service is desired and how many lanes of roadway are needed to accommodate that level of service. Or, it could indicate if there is an alternative to SR 181, such as a potential roadway from OCLC to Cardinal Health. A couple of projects in the 5-year CI P are: the extension of Emerald Parkway Phase 8, which will help alleviate some traffic in the downtown district, and the Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 10 of 11 flyover at 1 -270 and US 33 interchange. The process involves analysis, then recommendations, and then perhaps modifications to the recommendations. There are also ongoing discussions to determine what is financially feasible, both from the City's and the developer's standpoints. She is not certain that all the information on all the needed improvements will be available on July 1. One thing that will be helpful is that OCLC has hired Kittelson, who has a report that identifies potential options, which they'd like the City to consider. The next step is to meet with OCLC and Kittelson to understand those options, the estimated costs, and how that would tie in with the City's plan. Mr. McDaniel noted that property owners will be included in this modeling process. Mr. Gerber stated that, ideally, the City would provide the identified road network and development code to a developer from which to work. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher responded that it was her understanding that was the intent with the pattern book and the regulatory framework -- to provide a developer a timefrarne and substantially reduced steps to secure project approval. Mayor Lecklider noted that the 1- 270 /US 33 flyover and Emerald Parkway Phase 8 extension provide him optimism. Has Engineering ever attempted to track the traffic that travels along SR 181 from east to west or vice versa, and hove much of that is local traffic? While it is desirable to capture business from commuters, who are we focusing on? People traveling though our District to destinations? Mr. McDaniel responded that they have never accurately identified the through volume versus local volume. Often, that includes an origin and destination study. However, how important is it to have really definitive numbers? Regardless, the volume remains the issue to address. Sometimes the solution to traffic problems is distribution and alternate paths. Mr. Keenan stated that there is concern from the corporate residents. Much of the traffic flour is in the morning and evening — people coming in to work in Dublin and leaving Dublin. Would that be considered local traffic? Vice Mayor Salay responded that it would, as their destination is within the City. Mr. Hammersmith responded that is his point — is it really that critical to know where the traffic is coming from? The only information needed is land use and traffic counts. we know what the volume is today and how it will grow in the future. Mr. Keenan stated that it is important to consider the corporate community as well. Mayor Lecklider stated that he was referring to traffic east of Sawmill Road traveling through Dublin, which does not originate or end in Dublin. They would have other options for reaching their destinations with a flyover and Emerald Phase 8. Dublin City Council Study Session October 14, 2010 Page 11 of 11 Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher moved to direct staff to provide a resolution accepting the interim vision report for Council consideration and adoption at the October 25 Council meeting. In addition, staff should also provide a proposed timeline and cost estimates. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher noted that another joint work session with PZC, ARB and BZA needs to be scheduled after the October 25 {h Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Clerk of Council