BLUE ASH CITY COUNCIL. October 26, 2012 Workshop Session

Transcription

1 Page 1 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A Workshop Session of the Council of the City of Blue Ash, Ohio, was held on October 26, Mayor Mark F. Weber called the meeting to order in the Blue Ash Conference Room at 12:00 PM. 2. OPENING CEREMONIES Mayor Weber led those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. APPOINTMENT OF KARLA PLANK TO SERVE AS ACTING CLERK OF COUNCIL IN THE ABSENCE OF JAMIE K. EIFERT, CLERK OF COUNCIL 4. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Tom Adamec, Councilman Rick Bryan, Councilman Robert Buckman, Vice Mayor Lee Czerwonka, Councilwoman Stephanie Stoller, and Mayor Mark Weber Councilman James Sumner Councilman Bryan moved, Vice Mayor Czerwonka seconded to excuse Councilman Sumner from the meeting. A voice vote was taken. All members present voted yes. ALSO PRESENT: City Manager David Waltz, Assistant City Manager James Pfeffer, Assistant City Manager Kelly Harrington, Treasurer Sherry Poppe, Parks & Recreation Director Chuck Funk, Public Works Director Gordon Perry, Fire Chief Rick Brown, Community Development Director Dan Johnson, Economic Development Director Neil Hensley, and Administrative Assistant Karla Plank. 5. COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Discuss the vision for the 98-acre former airport property Mayor Weber indicated that the Council Workshop Session is to discuss the vision that the City may have on the property that remains at the site of the former airport. City Manager David Waltz provided an explanation that the City of Cincinnati owns the 98- acres of what was formerly the airport. Cincinnati has expressed an interest in development of the property and has asked the Administration what Blue Ash may or may not permit as consideration of various prospects for future development. To establish a framework for the discussion, the City retained MKSK who teamed up with KZF Design. Both companies are doing the design work on the Park project. KZF specializes in engineering and roadway, and MKSK does a variety of not only park projects but urban planning projects as well. They bring expertise, thought and ideas to this vision. Mr. Waltz introduced Brian Kinzelman of MKSK to begin the presentation.

2 Page 2 Mr. Kinzelman introduced his colleagues Tim Sharpe and John Wiley of KZF and his partner, Clete Benken. They have been involved in the development plank of Summit Park and now the adjacent airport property. There are a series of options that are obvious to many, but it is imperative to start with the existing condition. The property ownership, the vegetative cover, and the topography of the site have been reviewed. There are a series of diagrams that show the surrounding conditions. Obviously, there is a relatively flat runway but the adjacent ground has some topography to it. There are some water courses that are key, and the green belts that those water courses represent gives an opportunity to bring the new park into this development. One attraction to the park that is being created is what is called beachfront property that makes a pleasant environment for Blue Ash and the region. Mr. Wiley explained that currently the site s access is Plainfield Road, as well as Glendale- Milford and Reed Hartman Highway. The existing intersection of Glendale-Milford and Reed Hartman Highway is not a great place to bring development out and there are limitations with Plainfield Road as well. Site access is dependent on what is built and the density of development to determine the need for more or less infrastructure to support it. Mr. Kinzelman indicated that the diagram is overlayed on top of the concept to the park so that the red trails are what had been envisioned with park design and the water courses as part of the park. It is not the intent to route complete mixed use traffic through the park, but he feels it is a great opportunity to take advantage of the park. Mr. Benken commented that the development of the park should not be concealed by whatever may occur at the corner of Reed Hartman Highway and Glendale-Milford in the future. There is a major investment in the park. It is a major amenity for the entire City and should be cognizant of the fact visibility is an important consideration. The ultimate objective is to get an understanding of what is important in the vision to shape development in the future through a zoning or other means.

3 Page 3 Mr. Waltz explained that the meeting s focus is on the big picture view and understanding the need to assess this property like a mini concept plan, and to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable. This will be more clarified when a developer comes in with an actual proposal and we can allow the Planning Commission and planned unit process to play out. Mr. Kinzelman indicated that ultimately a concept has to evolve to provide a placeholder vision that can be proposed to Cincinnati and or any potential buyers that Cincinnati may be working with now or in the future. The 98-acre property is not specifically zoned for development so a decision has to be made as to the best way to zone it that makes sense and thereby have some recommendation which allows a developer to come in. Unfortunately, there probably is not a 100 acre purchaser out there in this market and economy, and this parcel will more likely be developed into pieces. Slide 11 shows different pads which is consistent with the placeholder vision. The City will zone it one way and allow for a developer to come in and rezone it consistent with the vision. Vice Mayor Czerwonka questioned if this is to be dovetailed into the comprehensive plan update when that process is started. Mr. Waltz feels the vision should be considered an addendum or an amendment to the current comprehensive plan. Mr. Kinzelman stated that as Mr. Waltz suggests that these pods of development showing very conceptually that fit in and around and have been formed around Mr. Wiley s roadway corridors, the vegetation along the edge of the airport property which is on the backside of the office development. There is fairly dense vegetation that segregates the park from the 98-acre parcel. It is important to take advantage of the park without allowing the future development to detract from the park. Mr. Waltz s notion is to consider broad zoning to allow for creativity in site planning architectural design. Slide 10 suggests that there is more commercial high visibility property addressing the intersection and the more active portions of the park moving into a mix of use which may have retail or commercial spaces on the ground floor, offices above or residential above, mixing of uses horizontally and vertically to take advantage of the ground floor. The southwest portion reflects the various residential products. The water courses along with the green belts that they represent do a very nice job of breaking this down into bite size pieces, and take more of the suburban qualities and allow these to be more understandable urban pods and pads that have a legitimate pedestrian environment, have a place for automobiles to circulate, crossings at intersections

4 Page 4 so it becomes more civilized to the pedestrians. Mr. Benken added that the vision should compliment some of the suburban development that has occurred in Blue Ash to incorporate Carpenter s Run across the way (along with other fine neighborhoods) to maintain a scale and a character that is compatible with the vision. It would be nice to have a greenway that separated a taller development that might occur along the park. It would be nice if the development areas didn t have massive parking fields and suggested making the parking more compartmentalized, and have the character and the qualities of the streets very pedestrian friendly. Mr. Kinzelman indicated that notions of density shouldn t be the focus now, but rather upon a horizontal layout or heights. The large pad or piece of property could accommodate a five story building sitting on the corner; however, a five story building sitting in the middle of the 98-acre parcel is something different. It doesn t take a land planner to envision how nice that park side collector street can be with the full compliments of pedestrian accommodations of benches and street trees and not have those views facing office buildings or commercial buildings and thus take advantage of this fine investment. Mr. Benken indicated that the diagram begins to suggest some logic of building heights. The Landings is an example of a five story building. It fits very well into the context of its surroundings and is a very high quality development. There could be a five story building that fits but there are parking requirements to be considered and what impact the market will have. Four or five story buildings could work if they are broken up by a street network, and have walkable spaces, and if it is well planned. Vice Mayor Czerwonka questioned that if considerations are being made in putting a tower on the park property, would the view be obstructed by buildings? Mr. Benken stated that slide 12 presents another principle that shows how buildings don t crowd up in the corner through a buffer or storm water basin. There is visibility from the corner to the park and has to be determined how wide of a view should be maintained. Mr. Kinzelman added that the architecture of what is on the nose of the development begins to announce the park and the park investment as people move east to west and as such has to be carefully considered. Mr. Benken indicated in the proposed residential area, there could be three story loft condominiums or apartments with perhaps a little fronting commercial such as a corner

5 Page 5 restaurant or a dry cleaner on the corner which can be very compatible with what happens throughout the plan and in the park. Mr. Kinzelman added that often designs such a residential mixed use developments are stack flats with a layer on the front side of townhouses so the scale is brought down to human scale. The brownstone, the look of a two and half story residential unit may very well have two levels or three levels with structured parking behind or on a surface lot and could include on street parking in front for the visitors of the residential units. Mr. Benken indicated that this would be similar to Park Manor which has parking underneath. To finish the diagram, the look could be something seen around the golf course. The Glen on Carpenter s Run Drive is a great scale but it is mid-density. Chimney Hill homes are single family detached, but they are on small lots. This could be something denser and can still be quite nice. Mr. Kinzelman indicated that the design and intent of the roadway system is a suggestion of connectivity so automobiles and pedestrians can come in and get out to visit the park and access development on the 98-acres. The diagram shows some parking and some buildings just to give it a sense of scale. There is a whole series of internal streets and private streets in a development such as this. A developer may configure buildings and driveways and parking and walkways as it fits. Advantage needs to be taken of the green belt and frontage on the park and the interconnectedness of the roadway system. This permits high visibility and potentially commercial development. There will probably be storm water management on the one hand and ornamental features on the other to set the frontage piece our announcement of development to the outside world. Mr. Kinzelman requested a closer look at a mixed use. Slide 14 shows three big stories which are loft residential units and have a taller floor dimension along with a coffee shop and a restaurant, on street parking, pedestrian accommodation, street trees and all of the things needed to live and work.

6 Page 6 Mr. Benken stated that the images in slides 15 and 16 show the quality of the intended streetscape and the relationship of the scale and the sidewalk to the buildings adjacent to them which show architectural styles. There are a lot of different architectural styles available that show the same relative density of housing. Mr. Kinzelman added that there could be a single car garage parking on the back side along with a surface parking lot to also satisfy other parking needs to the residents. There are styles that are traditional, and styles that are highly contemporary. Mr. Waltz pointed out the density being shown would be similar to Chimney Hill because of open courtyards even though the buildings may have zero lot lines. He feels that if housing is going to be done, he recommends a certain amount of dense housing. Some of the blocks that could be dense townhouses and other blocks may be more Chimney Hill style. They are close but they are single family. Mr. Kinzelman added that the dense multi-story development may be 16 or 20 units to an acre. The more dense and taller the building, the more continuous green space can be preserved as opposed to spreading it out over limited real estate. The southwest pads may have lower masses, more green space, higher density and with higher masses in the northeast areas of the 98-acres. Mr. Waltz reminded everyone that the big L shape buildings shown in slide 12 does not mean that they have to be the big L shape building, but rather illustrates what could be done. More importantly, in the context of the park, you can see the front lawn headed into our pavilion and going all the way to the tower. Vice Mayor Czerwonka commented that the Performing Arts Center could be included in the development rather than upon the park property. Mr. Waltz indicated that there could be the idea of having the Performing Arts Center as being one of those L buildings as it drives business into it and provides more synergy. If it is placed on the outside of the park field, it is a quicker access with high visibility and it is a part of our park program. Either way, he feels it can be done successfully. Councilman Bryan questioned what types of ideas were put into traffic going from the development property through the park. Mr. Benken indicated that in the early park planning process, it was discussed that it would be nice to be able to come from the south and the multi-purpose trails could be taken to find your way across to the airport property and be able to bridge the two developments. Now

7 Page 7 that there is no longer an airport, a road could be placed through the runway parcel and it creates a great walking connection. The number of roads is yet to be determined as it depends on the scale and the intensity of the future development. Mr. Waltz felt it is fair to say that there is going to be a road that goes into the park and there has to be a road that goes out to Plainfield, whether it is up further north or whether the developer would want a road into the 98-acre property. The City would want to run some sort of park access off of the development and there needs to be access to that part of the park. Councilman Bryan indicated that Reed Hartman Highway was made to take a lot of cars but doesn t feel the same way about a road that goes through the middle of a park. Councilman Adamec likes the idea of having a lot of bike traffic through the park but car traffic through the park is something different. He felt you need more access off of Plainfield Road. Mayor Weber doesn t feel that the City would want a traffic jam in the park at 5:00 PM and feels that could be a problem when people realize that traffic is jammed up on Reed Hartman Highway so drivers can go through the back way through the park. Mr. Waltz attempted to keep things in perspective in that the development that is being called for in terms of commuter traffic is one-third of what is all along Carver Road. There will not be thousands of commuter vehicles coming in and out of the development. The development is introducing the residential component and is probably not going to be compressed from 5:15 to 6:00 PM and would be more spread out. There have been detailed discussions with the traffic engineers about the roadway designs realistically becoming a traffic calming device in the fact that there isn t much distance. Mayor Weber indicated that he has received feedback from residents in the Carpenter s Run development in that they are apoplectic of the idea of an entrance to the park being opposite the Plainfield Road entrance to Carpenter s Run Drive. Mr. Waltz explained that the design of the roadway system would focus on traffic calming. They have curves to them. They will feel more like the roads in Sharon Woods. The point being is that there can be a lot of traffic design that can be added to the park so that it accomplishes both the needs of the park and the 98-acre site development. He further stressed that the park should not be isolated and hermetically sealed so you cannot get through. He feels that it makes it more living and breathing with road access, but realizes they must co-exists in a manner that makes it safe. Councilman Bryan feels that Mr. Waltz framed the challenge and hopes that what is being heard is that there needs to be accessible, usability, the kind of traffic that will invite people to come in and use the park. What he feels is being said firmly is that there should not be a main road going through the park, another commuter highway or a way to reroute traffic off of Reed Hartman Highway up to Glendale-Milford Road. Mr. Benken indicated that when the master plan was being worked on a year ago, there were images from Central Park in New York where they have these great bridges that are great features of the park and pedestrians go underneath the roads and the cars go over the top and you have this safe separation. For example, it is intentional if there is this body of water underneath that road, there is a bridge and there is a way to get to the coffee shop in the commons area to this very remote area without ever having to cross a road and anyone can safely do it. Meetings are being held regularly to try and figure out what is the best, most practical, and efficient way to make those kinds of moves and whether the road through the center ultimately stays but is dependent on what happens on the airport property. Mr. Kinzelman clarified that Council s reaction is needed to the very general land use. Does Council want this to be all office? Do they want it to be a mixed-use development which has been proposed? It is understood that there are traffic issues that will be dealt with in the long term. Does Council feel comfortable that the vision is on the right track relative to how those uses lay out in the market place?

8 Page 8 Mr. Waltz asked Council that since the design is early in its stages, are they comfortable with office in certain areas and where residential is determined. He feels the design allows flexibility, but really the most fundamental question is whether Council would like to see 98- acres of corporate office or whether we should look at housing and whether they are comfortable with the concept as presented. Councilman Bryan feels this is being looked at as a microcosm of what Blue Ash is in ites seven square miles. When he thinks about what brought us where we are today, such as mixed use and a collection of class-a office space, he sees a parallel. The City has public use and a lot of green space. There is residential and commercial. Councilman Bryan feels there are worse ways to proceed than taking Blue Ash s successful model and downscale it to fit on this piece of property. He feels the proposed design or vision is right on track and makes a tremendous amount of sense. On one end of the park and across the street are the commercial buildings so a four to five story building will fit well in that area. At another end is the golf course with single family homes. He feels it makes good sense to have residential in this area of the park. The idea of putting transitional use in the center, whether it is coffee shops, etc., is great. Councilman Bryan would not be fond of having bulk mail centers, foundries, large box retail, or service-intense uses which generally add very little to a community like the City of Blue Ash. Vice Mayor Czerwonka commented that developers could come forth and have ideas contradictory to the vision. He questioned how the development would be controlled to prevent a developer from beginning in the middle of the parcel with their own vision. Mr. Waltz indicated that the City is committed to the vision, so any plan that doesn t align to the vision will not be approved. Further, it is possible that in today s economy, office space isn t growing very fast, so a lot may sit vacant longer while someone may take the middle lot with a user for it. This may not grow in a linear fashion, this may grow in spots. Time has to be spent with the first development purchase so that the overall plan is comfortable because once the first lot begins, the rest has to flow with it. The pads are large so there will still have the ability to have uniqueness from pad to pad and still have it compatible. Councilwoman Stoller indicated that she really likes the plan that has been presented. She further likes the idea of the buildings being five story and going down to three stories and then to residential while all being able to take advantage of the park. The residential should especially be a walkable distance to the park. She feels it is a fantastic idea and the roads will be worked out later but feels it is on the right track. Councilman Buckman questioned whether the City of Cincinnati is willing to sell this parcel off into lots, sections or acres? Mr. Waltz felt that when Cincinnati comes to the realization after speaking with several developers that say the same thing (that they are not going to buy all 98-acres) other than it being a joint venture and entering into a preferred development arrangement. Councilman Adamec commented that he liked the stairstep down in building heights and feels mixed use development is more preferred with limited residential which the presentation looks like over half is residential. In regard to the housing, he feels the housing that the City lacks, according to the housing studies, is in the $300,000 range. Whether it is two story townhouses or brownstones where it can meet those requirements and the residents can walk to work and there are some mixed use areas wherein they can sustain themselves without having to get out of the community too much, would be beneficial. The other issue he feels is density and doesn t feel the high density serves the City well in the community and believes it will cost more in services and could drive down the value of the unit that is being put in on the high-end, middle range housing. He feels low-end housing is not needed but doesn t feel million dollar housing will work in the area either. He further stated that there needs to be walkways that go through the area. Mayor Weber felt the most important component in the plan is the housing. It may not be the most lucrative for the developer but he feels the City has an aging housing stock at this time. He feels most housing stock is at a minimum of 20 years old pushing 30 and 40 years old. Comments that Mayor Weber hears from residents is the type of housing that is

9 Page 9 available and the fact that the value of framed housing is declining and are saying that the City s housing is not what they are looking for. People want to live in Blue Ash but are unable to find a house to live in. If the City is going to sustain itself and have some semblance of a balanced community, the City needs to be very sure how it addresses the housing component of this development. It could be one of the last opportunities, short of tearing down an entire neighborhood, to do something about that issue. Mayor Weber clarified that he is not saying there should be 98-acres of housing but instead in terms of importance to the long-term viability of the community, housing is extremely important. Councilwoman Stoller stated that this is the kind of development that was talked about for downtown Blue Ash with small business such as coffee shops and bakeries on the ground floor, small office businesses on the second floor and condo or apartments above. The City is getting a little bit of that but not as much as it should. Retirement homes that are good for people that don t want to cut grass and be able to walk around and get their bakery goods and coffee and supports condos as in Carpenter s Run and on Bentwood where they have nice single family homes. Vice Mayor Czerwonka indicated that he liked the plan overall. His only concern is that the design must be controlled and we must know what is being built, and nail down the overall vision especially when it becomes developed in pieces as the message could get lost as it goes through time for the rest of the property. Councilman Bryan questioned if the property was going to be zoned according to our zoning codes, and would like to know what the best case would be for zoning and what the worst case would be for zoning? He feels the zoning tends to go toward R-2 which is housing and the City could end up with a nursing home on the property. Councilman Bryan would like to understand what the downside to the code would be as well as what the outside would look like. Community Development Director Dan Johnson indicated that there are lots of different tools that will need to be looked at. The City can design a new zoning code but may have to amend or come up with something slightly different to make sure that there is no worse case scenario. Councilman Buckman indicated that he liked the concept and agreed with controlling the vision for fear that the middle of the property gets bought and diverts from the vision and he wants to make sure it gets regulated. Mr. Johnson stated that if Council decides on a vision then there will be rules and regulations put in place to ensure that the City meets that vision. There are development regulations or tools that aren t zoning because there are no roads and the City controls the road network as well. So if someone wants to construct a roadway, the City has the control over how that it is done and under what circumstance. It is not just a zoning issue. Mr. Waltz concluded that it appears that Council is okay with the vision with the understanding that the development lines may shift depending on the developer. With that, Mr. Waltz indicated that what would be done is to attach the vision as an addendum to the comprehensive plan along with a narrative that describes what happens and how the City is willing to work through this and a placeholder zoning will be put into place until the developer submits something that meets this vision. Purportedly, when a developer comes in, the City can say this is what it is zoned but when a developer can comprehensively show how it will work and the City can try to get it rezoned to the proper boundary. It may be an overall mix use zoning throughout thereby making it a little bit cleaner and flexible. Councilman Bryan indicated that there is always a reluctance to go from residential to commercial or office and clearly feels the City should move to R zoning to accommodate the housing. Councilman Adamec felt that if the City goes with broad M-1 zoning, it is presumed that it is a higher value for the land than an R-1 or an R-2 zoning and feels the real value in the land is going to be the R zoning.

10 Page 10 Mr. Waltz indicated that the real value is going to be when a developer makes an offer to Cincinnati and it doesn t matter what zoning is put on the land. The alternative is that a mix use zoning be used and the whole property is under office (M-1) zoning. Mr. Waltz indicated that the zoning issue doesn t have to be resolved immediately, but understand what everyone is comfortable with in terms of the vision and the zoning but more thought will have to be given. In the meantime, the vision will be attached to future legislation and have it be declared a placeholder vision in which the City will have future framework discussions with Cincinnati on the parcel s potential reuse. Secondly, a decision will have to be made as to what exact legal mechanism in terms of the zoning district for the property. Mr. Waltz advised that the park design committee meets every two weeks and will be meeting next Wednesday and plans are moving along nicely. He should be able to provide a presentation to Council in December or January. Mr. Waltz further mentioned that Cincinnati has indicated to him that if the City gets into this development process and there is some office space that Cincinnati would want to look at tax sharing of some sort was mentioned. Mr. Waltz is uncertain as to what it means but wanted Council to be aware of the issue. Mr. Waltz explained that typically tax sharing agreements happen when there is a service to be provided and doesn t feel that Cincinnati will or can help with any services for the City such as police, fire or snow removal for example. Mr. Waltz further advised of naming rights for the park which was discussed last spring. There has been some recent conversations with the firm Vehr Communications which has been retained to do an assessment and develop a report of who the targets are and how much potential money may be there. They felt they could provide a report in January or February. In the meantime, the consultants may be calling Council individually to get their thoughts and concerns. Mr. Waltz provided one last comment to Council in that there is thought about doing an ice skating rink in one of the hangars and hang holiday lights in there for this season. Administration is currently looking into the costs. Ultimately, there was talk about putting an ice skating rink under the pavilion and thereby getting one now to place in a hangar could allow some additional access to the park this winter and allow more use. Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Funk advised that research is currently being done and all the information on the details has not yet been provided.

11 Page ADJOURNMENT All items on the agenda having been acted upon, Councilman Bryan moved, Councilwoman Stoller seconded to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote was taken. All members voted yes. The Council Workshop Session was adjourned at approximately 2:40 PM. Karla Plank, Acting Clerk of Council MINUTES WRITTEN BY: Karla Plank, Administrative Assistant Mark F. Weber, Mayor