The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 38-22To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: July 19, 2022 Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner I Re: Resolution 38-22 – Acceptance of a Preliminary Plat for 4000 W. Dublin- Granville Road to subdivide ±1.98 acres to dedicate right-of-way for the future extension of Village Parkway (Case #22-060PP) Summary This is a request for acceptance of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide ±1.98 acres to dedicate right- of-way for the future extension of Village Parkway. The undeveloped site is located north of West Dublin-Granville Road, and zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) – Sawmill Center Neighborhood Zoning District. Process As provided by the Law Director’s Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final plats, the platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines, establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site layout, architectural character, and open space designs for the development are part of a separate application process, approved by the required reviewing bodies. Background The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application for a Preliminary Plat and made a recommendation of approval to City Council on June 9, 2022 finding the proposal meets the review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with a Preliminary Development Plan/Conditional Use, which the Commission approved. Description The site consists of one parcel, ±1.98 acres in size, with approximately 320 feet of frontage along West Dublin-Granville Road. As determined by the City Engineer, a 70-foot wide right-of- way is being dedicated to the City adjacent to the west property line of the site to accommodate the future extension of Village Parkway. An existing 50-foot AEP electrical easement will remain in place over the dedicated right-of-way, but will not conflict with the future implementation of Village Parkway. The developer will maintain the right-of-way until such time the road is extended. The dedication of right-of-way leaves a 1.595-acre parcel for development. The proposed plat includes a sidewalk easement along the east and north property lines, and removes an existing 56-foot building line located along W. Dublin-Granville Road, a 20-foot utility easement along Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo Memo – Resolution 38-22 - Preliminary Plat – 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road July 19, 2022 Page 2 of 2 W. Dublin-Granville Road, and a 100-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. These requirements were platted with the development of the Lowe’s parcel to the north, but are now in conflict with the development requirements of the BSD and are proposed to be removed. Open space is provided with the Preliminary Development Plan in accordance with the zoning requirements within the Bridge Street District. The open space requirements within the Subdivision Regulations do not apply within the Bridge Street District, as open space is regulated by the Zoning Code. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At the June 9, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1)The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. 2)The applicant provide a plat note on the Final Plat specifying the developer shall maintain the right-of-way until such time Village Parkway is extended by the City. 3)The applicant provide public access easement on the Final Plat for all publically accessible open spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended to City Council the plat acceptance. City Council Recommendation Recommendation of acceptance of the Preliminary Plat by City Council. W.Dublin-Granville Road Dublin Center Drive0 250125FeetF SITE BSD-P BSD-SCNBSD-O BSD-O BSD-O BSD-SCN SHEET INDEXPRELIMINARY PLAT4000 WESTDUBLIN-GRANVILLEROADSTATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF DUBLINLOCATED IN QUARTER TOWNSHIP 3, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDSLOCATION MAPPREPARED FOR:CRAWFORD HOYING6640 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 300DUBLIN, OHIO 43017PH: (614) 335-2079 VICINITY MAPCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYINGBSD-SCNBSD-SCNBSD-CBSD-OBSD-OBSD-OBSD-RBSD-CBSD-SCRNBSD-RBSD-RSITE DUBLIN CITY CENTERP.B. 69, Pg. 18-20RESERVE "C"RESERVE "C"RESERVE "C"LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PLATCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYINGZONING DESCRIPTION OF1.595 ACRESSituated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, located in Quarter Township 3,Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands and being 1.595 acres out of that 1.986 acre tractof land conveyed to Banker Road Development LLC of record in Instrument Number202108190148518, and being part of Reserve "C" of that plat titled "Dublin City Center" of record inPlat Book 69, Pages 18-20, all references being to records of the Franklin County, Ohio Recorder'sOffice, and being described as follows:COMMENCING at a 34" iron pipe found in the northerly Right-Of-Way line of West Dublin-GranvilleRoad (S.R. 161), being the northwesterly corner of that 0.034 acre tract conveyed to the City of Dublinof record in Instrument Number 200105140105628, said iron pipe being the southeasterly corner ofthat 0.547 acre tract of land conveyed to GFT LLC of record in Instrument Number 202103160047547;Thence along said northerly Right-Of-Way line, along a curve to the right which has a radius of 2007.00feet, a delta angle 1°59'58", an arc length of 70.04 feet, and a chord bearing and distance South85°39'47" East, 70.04 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;Thence through said 1.986 acre tract North 02°31'08" East, 226.60 feet, to a point on the northerly lineof said 1.986 acre tract, being a point on the southerly line of that 15.933 acre tract of land conveyedto Lowes Home Centers Inc. of record in Instrument Number 199904230101802;Thence the following three courses along the northerly line of said 1.986 acre tract, being the southerlyline of said 15.933 acre tract;Along a curve to the left which has a radius of 253.50 feet, a delta angle 23°17'52", an arc lengthof 103.08 feet, and a chord bearing and distance South 75°49'56" East, 102.37 feet, to a 58"found iron pin, being a point of tangency on said northerly line;South 87°28'52" East, 182.96 feet, to a point of curvature;Along a curve to the right which has a radius of 231.50 feet, a delta angle 5°11'23", an arc lengthof 20.97 feet, and a chord bearing and distance South 84°53'11" East, 20.96 feet, to a 58" foundiron pin, being a point of curvature on said northerly line;Thence along a curve to the right which has a radius of 46.50 feet, a delta angle 110°24'45", an arclength of 89.61 feet, and a chord bearing and distance South 27°05'07" East, 76.37 feet, to a 58" foundiron pin, being a point of tangency on the easterly line of said 1.986 acre tract, being a point on awesterly line of said 15.933 acre tract;Thence the following three courses along said easterly and westerly line;South 28°07'16" West, 161.40 feet, to an angle point on said line;North 61°56'24" West, 6.00 feet, to an angle point on said line;South 28°10'14" West, 27.27 feet, to a 58" found iron pin, being a point on the northerlyRight-Of-Way line of West Dublin Granville Road (S.R. 161), being the southeasterly corner ofsaid 1.986 acre tract;Thence along said Northerly Right-Of-Way line, being the southerly line of said 1.986 acre tract, along acurve to the left which has a radius of 2007.00 feet, a delta angle 7°19'46", an arc length of 256.74 feet,and a chord bearing and distance North 80°59'55" West, 256.57 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING,containing an area of 1.595 acres, more or less.This description was prepared from record information and field observations for zoning purposesonly, and is NOT to be used for the transfer of real property. ΔΔΔΔΔEXISTING CONDITIONS PLANCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYING≥≥≥≥ SITE LAYOUT PLANCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYING GRADING AND UTILITY PLANCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYING≥ TREE PRESERVATION PLANCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYING TREE PRESERVATION PLANCITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO4000 WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROADCRAWFORD HOYING Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 11 of 25 project, the Commission has asked staff to make Police aware of the volume of concerns expressed by the Corbins Mill residents regarding the use, requesting them to ensure Police surveillance of the area and the consideration of any traffic calming measures. The residents also expressed concern about the negative impact of the drive-through on their property values. The impact will be less by properly screening the use. Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Chinnock seconded approval of the Conditional Use with one (1) alteration: 1) A stacking alteration from 16 to 10 spaces for two drive-through lanes and with one (1) condition: 1) That the applicant work with staff to finalize the landscape plan at Building Standards Permitting to ensure 12-month visual opacity and physical buffering between the site and adjacent residential properties. Vote: Mr. Way, no; Ms. Harter, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion approved 4-2] Ms. Call stated that Cases 1, 2 and 3 would be heard together, as they are related to the same project on the same property. 1. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-051CU, Conditional Use A request for a Conditional Use to permit a drive-thru for a multi-tenant building on a 1.98-acre site zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-028PDP, Preliminary Development Plan A request for construction of a ±6,700-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant building on a 1.98-acre site. 3. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-060PP, Preliminary Plat A request for a Preliminary Plat for 1.98 acres to establish a 1.56-acre parcel and one public right- of-way for a future public street. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that the Commission is asked to consider three applications for the development of 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, including a Conditional Use, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. The Concept Plan for this development was approved on December 21, 2021, followed a tabling of the application in October 2021. The Concept Plan outlined the framework for the d evelopment. The Preliminary Plat would require a recommendation for Council approval. The 1.98-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. [Reviewed the existing site conditions.] The site is located at the intersection of West Dublin-Granville Road in the future development of Village Parkway. This proposal includes the dedication of Village Parkway as right-of-way to the City; however, that future roadway extension will not be constructed with this development of this site. It will be developed at a future time. Both of the streets are principal frontage streets, although Dublin-Granville is the higher Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 12 of 25 designated street. The addition of Village Parkway does change the bounds of the block in which this site is located, although it will still exceed the requirements for blocks within the Bridge Street District. A waiver is required to bring it closer to compliance. The site is located within the Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, which is a special district that pays attention to location and character of buildings, streets and open spaces to establish a mix of uses that fulfills the objection identified in the BSD Special Area Plan, which is to encourage active, mixed-use developments that are pedestrian-oriented and connect to existing future streetscapes while providing well-defined pedestrian access. Updates: There have been some updates to the site plan since its approval. The 6,760-sq. ft. building sited toward West Dublin Granville Road and the the 66-space parking lot at the rear of the building remain. The parking lost has lost two spaces, however, due to reconfiguring the access around the site. Parking is located forward of the building along Village Parkway, as it is now dedicated right- of-way; however, it is screened by a required street wall. That configuration is consistent with what was shown with the Concept Plan. One of the updates provided with this Plan is a wider landscape buffer along the east property line to help screen the drive-through for the drive-through restaurant. The three open space nodes are more defined, although the details will be finalized with the Final Development Plan. Another update is the addition of a street wall along the west property line, which also extends along the north and east property lines. The dumpster location in the northwest corner will be relocated to a less visible location on the site. The street wall will be extended further south to occupy the corner of the intersection, as a street wall, building or public open space is required to occupy the corner. The Conditional Use is for the drive-through restaurant. The drive-through circulation on the site has been revised per the Commission’s previous recommendations. The unique site geography is able to accommodate this circulation on the east side of the site, providing a significant landscape buffer screening it from West Dublin Granville Road and the adjacent property owner, while also minimizing vehicle and pedestrian interactions. Only 6 parking spaces are directly impacted by the circulation and are able to be separated from any critical pedestrian corridors. Staff recommends approval of the drive-through for the restaurant. This is a Loft Building Type, similar to what was provided with the Concept Plan. There are a number of Building Type requirements for which the applicant is requesting waivers. [7 waiver requests reviewed.] Staff has reviewed the application against the applicable criteria and recommends approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions, the 7 Waiver requests, the Preliminary Development Plan with 6 conditions, and a recommendation to Council for approval of the Preliminary Plat. Commission Questions Mr. Schneier stated that staff is recommending that the wall be extended south. Would doing so eliminate any public space? Mr. Hounshell responded that the requirement it is alleviating is occupation of the corner. The corner can be occupied by either a street wall, public open space or building. The space to the left of the restaurant is not open space; it is patio space. Mr. Schneier requested clarification of the space with landscaping. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Hounshell pointed out the areas that are designated as public open spaces in the plan. Everything else would be private for the restaurant users. Mr. Way that the revised parking layout is quite different from the previous site plan. Mr. Hounshell reviewed the changes that had been made, the most significant of which is the parking configuration. Originally, there were several avenues for vehicles to get through the site. The revised plan provides one consistent access around the exterior of the parking spaces. Another is pushing the buildings back slightly from W. Dublin Granville Road, improving the public open spaces forward of the building, providing more buffer and landscaping. Additionally, the drive-through lane has been located slightly to the west, keeping the existing evergreens and adding new landscaping. The public open space nodes have also been improved. Mr. Chinnock inquired if there are any concerns on the location of the menu boards and drive-through equipment, and the space becomes narrowed in that area. Mr. Hounshell responded that the menu boards would meet the required setbacks. They are not permitted to be located forward of the building, but technically, they are located to the side of the building. Staff has no concerns. Ms. Harter inquired if the City required electrical charging stations for vehicles. Mr. Hounshell responded that City Code does include EV charging stations requirements in some areas. In the Bridge Street District, the Code encourages that an electric car charging station be provided for every 200 parking spaces. Therefore, that would apply to larger tenants within that District. Mr. Way stated that we are planning for a future that does not yet exist. Currently, there is a southwest pedestrian connection up to Banker Drive stops. There is no crosswalk nor sidewalk on the Lowe’s side. There is opportunity for a connection at the corner over to the Lowe’s sidewalk. What direction was provided the applicant regarding future connections? Mr. Hounshell responded that staff has not provided that direction, because it is private property. The street map drive identifies Banker Drive as existing, but it is currently under private ownership. It is not currently a public street. Applicant Presentation Don Brogran, Crawford Hoying Development, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, 43017, stated that this is the fourth time this project has been in front of the Commission, which began with an Informal Review. He reviewed the changes that had been made in the plan to address the Commission’s previous input within the limitations of the deed restrictions on the buildings. Commission Questions for the Applicant Mr. Chinnock requested clarification of the building height. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 14 of 25 Mr. Hounshell stated the deed restrictions on the site limit sq uare footage, height and uses. Although those are not typically considered by the Commission as they are private items, they are part of the discussion. A Loft Building is required to have two stories, but due to the deed restrictions, they are able to provide only one, hence one Waiver. The effort, to make the building taller, however, resulted in deviating the Ground Story height. Mr. Chinnock inquired if the reason for the 21 feet to 28 feet differential was to add more articulation to the feedback, per the Commission’s input. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Ms. Call noted that it was also to make it look like a two-stor y building, which was required. Ms. Harter stated that she likes the pass-through feature. There was discussion about putting art there; would that be of a permanent nature, or would it be changeable options. Mr. Brogran responded that both options would work. He believes rotating art would be intriguing, which could be accomplished by working with Dublin Arts Council and Dublin City Schools. Mr. Way requested clarification of the reason the parking has been rotated east-west. Mr. Brogran responded that one of the Commission’s previous comments was that the passageway emptied out too close to the drive-through lane. Rotating the parking provided more space for landscape buffer at the exit from the passageway. There is now more landscaping and sidewalk now. Mr. Way stated that a concern is that people walking from the northernmost parking spaces to the building have to walk around the island or through the cars to access the walkway. There is not a good pedestrian flow now. With the previous layout, an individual would walk from their car and down an aisle, as is common with most retail establishments. The previous alternative was more efficient. He noted some other difficulties reaching the north- south walkway. One option would be to extend the east-west walkway to the driveway. He noted that the walkway that runs around the Lowe’ aths access drive originally paralleled the road; now it has been moved inward toward the parking lot. It is consuming space that could have been used differently. It also minimizes the amount of screening for the drive- through lane. There are existing trees along the Lowe’s access drive and existing evergreens which were intended to screen the drive-through. Now, half of them – those that run perpendicular -- are being removed. He would prefer to see the walkway pulled closer to the Lowe’s access drive and achieve more space on the other side in which to provide screening of the drive-through lane. There is now insuf ficient screening. Per earlier discussions, the intent was that the drive-through be well screened. As the plan as evolved, that screening has been minimized. Mr. Brogran responded that some of the tree removal was requested by the City of Dublin, some of which will be replaced. Their intent is to provide screening of the drive-through view. Mr. Way responded that presently, that zone is not yet well resolved. The landscaping between the walkway and road looks haphazard, and there is a li ne of low evergreen shrubs to screen the lane of cars. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 15 of 25 Mr. Brogran responded that the zone has been revised multiple times based on the Commission’s comments. Dave Guappone, Principal, G2 Planning & Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43205 stated that the reason the sidewalk was pulled back is that they were planning to save the trees and having the sidewalk extend through the middle of trees would necessitate removal of the existing evergreens. They believed the existing screen was of more value and important to protect than providing new landscaping. Mr. Way inquired if the sidewalk is being curved to protect the existing trees. Mr. Guappone responded affirmatively. Their intent is to create an aestically pleasing consistent curve that will connect at the corner. Commission Discussion Mr. Schneier stated that this has been quite an iterative process. He respects the attention the applicant has given to that effort, resulting in a great outcome. He is supportive of the application and staff’s recommendations. Mr. Fishman stated he assumes the drive-through is for a coffee shoppe. If so, will the architecture remain the same as what is depicted? Mr. Brogran responded that the architecture will remain the same. Mr. Way stated there have been a number of meetings and the applicant has done a great job. The orientation of the parking lot was a surprise to him, as that had not been discussed in previous meetings. He believes the edge of the Lowe’s access drive is an unresolved landscape issue. He is concerned about the screening of the drop-off lane, and the connection to the east-west walkway, which currently, people parked on the east side would find it difficult to reach. Ms. Harter stated that she is supportive of the application. The plant materials will be important. She appreciates that the drive-through is provided to the rear of the building. Mr. Chinnock stated that he has no additional comments to make. He agrees with fellow Commissioners. He thanked the applicant for addressing all the Commissioners’ comments. Ms. Call stated that in regard to the Preliminary Development plan and Preliminary Plat, she believes the applicant has done a good job adapting the plan per the Commission’s guidance. However, she remains unsupportive of the drive-through, which is not permitted in the Bridge Street District. Section 153.059 of the Code states that, “…drive-throughs when permitted are permitted only as accessories to banks in the BSD vertical mixed-use and the BSD Historic Transition neighborhoods. When they are permitted, stacking areas and associated areas will be screened….drive-through vehicle stacking shall be at least 20 feet long; stacking spaces may not impede onsite or offsite vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian circulation. Where 5 or more stacking spaces are provided, the individual stacking lane shall be clearly delineated…and buffered from adjacent properties. The structures related to drive-throughs shall not have frontage on or be readily visible from any shopping corridor.” She believes the application does not comply with those requirements. To be considered, the drive-through must not impede vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. There are parking spaces close to the restaurant use, and to avoid the dr ive-through traffic, pedestrians must Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 16 of 25 walk from their vehicles at a 45-degree angle to reach that destination. In addition, this drive- through will be visible from the shopping corridor. Therefore, she is not supportive of the Conditional Use, but if the drive-through were removed, she would be supportive of the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Mr. Fishman stated that was the reason for his earlier question, as he also is opposed to a drive- through in the BSD corridor. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Schneier moved approval of the Conditional Use. Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion approved 5-1.] Mr. Schneier moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the following seven (7) waivers: 1) Section 153.060(C)(2)(a) – Maximum Block Dimensions 2) Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(1) – Front Property Line Coverage 3) Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(3) – Parking Location 4) Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Minimum Height 5) Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Ground Story Maximum Height 6) Section 153.062(O)(4)(c) – Occupied Space 7) Section 153.062(O)(4)(d)(1) – Street Façade Transparency (Full Façade) Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes. [Motion approved 4-2.] Ms. Rauch recommended that a condition for approval be added that addresses Mr. Way’s concern about the screening. [Commission members were supportive of adding the additional condition.] Ms. Rauch requested Mr. Way to clarify his request. Mr. Way responded that it was to work with staff to develop a more opaque screening plan for the drive-through drop-off lane. Mr. Chinnock noted that screening of the equipment therein should also be included. Discussion continued regarding the need for additional conditions regarding pedestrian ability to access the east-west walkway from the east and the need to realign the path to provide the space for the provision of more opaque screening to be provided. It cannot be accomplished in the area currently provided. Mr. Boggs noted this plan will be before the Commission again at the Final Development Plan review. With the landscaping condition, there would be ability to refine the realignment of the plan. Ms. Call stated that there is Commission consensus regarding the addition of conditions for the realignment of the path to permit the inclusion of more opaque screening for the drive-through and to address the connection to the east-west pedestrian way. Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objection to the conditions. The applicant indicated he had no objection. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 17 of 25 Mr. Way moved to approve the Preliminary Development Plan with eight (8) conditions: 1) The applicant work with staff to relocate the dumpster location to a less visible location on the site in an area not along a PSF. 2) The applicant provide an open space plan with the submittal of the Final Development Plan for final review of the proposed open spaces on the site. 3) The applicant continue to work with staff to update the entrance design for Tenants A and B to create more architecturally intriguing entrances into the building. 4) The applicant reduce the height of the parapet to meet the maximum height requirement. 5) The applicant provide a street wall to occupy the corner of the site in compliance with the requirements of the Code, subject to staff approval. 6) The applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 7) The applicant work with staff to develop opaque screening for the drive-through facility and equipment. 8) The applicant work with staff to extend pedestrian accessibility to the east-most parking spaces, consistent with Planning and Zoning Commission comments. Vote: Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Call, no; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion carried 4-2] Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Way seconded a recommendation for Council approval of the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. 2) The applicant provide a plat note on the Final Plat specifying the developer shall maintain the right-of-way until such time Village Parkway is extended by the City. 3) The applicant provide public access easement on the Final Plat for all publically accessible open spaces. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] [Brief recess.] 5. Nutex Dublin Emergency Hospital at 3800 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-057CP Concept Plan A request for development of ±22,000-square-foot neighborhood hospital on a 1.58-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is northeast of the intersection of Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Staff Presentation PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING REPORT Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, June 9, 2022 MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-028 www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-051 www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-060 Case Summary Case 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP, Preliminary Development Plan, Conditional Use, and Preliminary Plat at 4000 West Dublin-Granville Road Proposal Development plan for construction of a 6,760-square-foot, one-story, multi- tenant commercial building, Conditional Use to permit a drive-thru for a multi- tenant building, and a Preliminary Plat to establish a 1.56-acre parcel and one public right-of-way for a future public street on a 1.98-acre site. Request Review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and Conditional Use under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.066 and §153.236, and Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code §152.020. Zoning BSD-SCN, Bridge Street District – Sawmill Center Neighborhood Planning Recommendation Approval of Preliminary Development Plan, Conditional Use, and Preliminary Plat Next Steps Upon approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant may proceed to City Council for acceptance of the Preliminary Plat. Applicant Don Brogran, Crawford Hoying Brian McNally, Meyers Architects James Peltier, EP Ferris Case Manager Zach Hounshell, Planner I (614) 410-4652 zhounshell@dublin.oh.us City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 2 of 15 Site Location Map City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 3 of 15 1. Overview This is a proposal for construction of a 6,760-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant commercial building including a drive-thru restaurant with 66 space parking lot and associated site improvements. Background The site, presently undeveloped, is identified as one of the Lowe’s development outparcels. Lowe’s outparcels are subject to strict deed restrictions that restrict development of the site. The City does not apply, or enforce deed restrictions as they are covenants between private property owners. This parcel is subject to a maximum of one, 7,000 square foot building at a height not to exceed 28 feet with a minimum of 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for all uses and 10 per 1,000 square feet for restaurant. Case History On December 8, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed and approved a Concept Plan. The applicant requested to combine the Preliminary and Final Development Plan stages, but the request was disapproved. The Commission generally expressed:  Support for the drive-thru restaurant.  Support for the pedestrian-oriented facilities connected throughout the site and along W. Dublin-Granville Road.  Recommendations for variation in heights and massing. Process The BSD requires all new development and comprehensive redevelopment to comply with the form-based provisions and to meet the principles identified in the BSD Special Area Plan. Approval of new commercial buildings is a three-step process: 1. Concept Plan (CP) 2. Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) with Preliminary Plat (PP)/Conditional Use (CU) 3. Final Development Plan (FDP) with Final Plat (FP) The purpose of the PDP confirms compliance with the Concept Plan, adopted plans, and policies. The PDP establishes the site layout including open space, parking, and buildings locations. Preliminary architecture, massing, and materials, and serves as the basis for the submittal of the FDP. Site Information Natural Features The site is relatively flat and contains a number of large mature trees on the western portion of the site. A low-lying entry feature is located in the southeast corner of the site, but does not serve any function to the current or surrounding sites. A decorative stone wall and a monument Lowe’s sign are located in the southeast corner of the site; the latter of which is proposed to remain with the development. Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has frontage on W. Dublin-Granville Road (±320 feet) to the south, a private Lowe’s access drive (±250 feet) to the east, and a private section of Banker Drive (±200 feet) to the north. The site has three existing vehicular access points to the north along Banker Drive. There City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 4 of 15 is a shared-use path to the south that extends along W. Dublin-Granville Road. There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities internal to the Lowe’s development. The Street Network Map requires the future extension of Village Parkway along the west portion of the site, which is being dedicated as right-of-way with the Preliminary Plat. 2. Preliminary Development Plan Layout The proposed 6,760-square-foot building sited along W. Dublin-Granville Road. The building is proposed to contain an office tenant space and two eating and drinking tenant spaces. A quick- serve drive-thru restaurant is proposed along the private access drive for the easternmost tenant space. Patios are provided at the southwest (986 square feet) and southeast (808 square feet) corners of the building, with a publicly-accessible open space located south of the building, and two additional pedestrian facilities located at the center of the site, and the northeast corner of the site. The additional pedestrian facilities are provided on the site to increase pedestrian-oriented engagement throughout the site. The dumpster is located northwest of the building. The applicant should work with Staff to relocate the dumpster location to a less visible location on the site in an area not along a PSF. One full-access point is proposed along Banker Drive, eliminating the three existing access points. 66 vehicular parking spaces are located to the rear of the building with additional bicycle parking to the front and rear. A shared-use-path is existing along W. Dublin-Granville Road and a sidewalk is proposed through the public open space between the street and the building. Sidewalks were added along the perimeter of the development, addressing a previous concern of Staff and the Commission, with a pedestrian path through the center of the site, connecting from the south property line to the north property line. Lots and Blocks The Code establishes standards for minimum and maximum block sizes, which in turn establish lot size. The intent is to limit large blocks of development that are not pedestrian-oriented. With the dedication of Village Parkway adjacent to the site, the updated block dimensions are defined by Village Parkway (west), Banker Drive (west), Shamrock Boulevard (west), Bridge Park Avenue (north), Dublin Center Drive (east), and W. Dublin-Granville Road (south). The Lowe’s access drive and the segment of Banker Drive adjacent to this property are on Lowe’s property and function as service streets. Per Code, service streets and alleys shall not be used to measure block dimensions. The modified block exceeds both length (1,314.58 feet) and perimeter (4,931.52 feet) requirements due to the existing street network. Although a Waiver is required for the length and perimeter block requirements, the addition of the Village Parkway right-of-way brings the block more into compliance than the existing block. Parking The Code establishes minimum and maximum parking requirements. Offices, including medical offices, must provide 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building square footage and restaurant uses provide 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The maximum permitted parking amount is 125 percent of the minimum required. The development requires a minimum of 59 parking spaces, with a maximum of 74 parking spaces. The applicant is currently proposing 66 parking spaces, which exceeds the maximum permitted parking. This number has decreased since the previous submittal (68 spaces) due to the widening of the landscape buffer, addition of open space nodes, and modifications to the drive-thru lane. The parking is located City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 5 of 15 to the rear of the building, but the western parking spaces are located forward of the building along Village Parkway. Parking is required to be located to the rear yard of the site for a Loft building type. The parking location is proposed to be screened by a street wall. A Waiver is required for the location of parking forward of the building. The applicant is also providing 8 bicycle parking spaces on the site, satisfying the bicycle parking requirement of 7 spaces. Building Type The Code permits specific building types for each zoning district. The applicant proposes a Loft building type, a permitted Building Type in the BSD-Sawmill Center Neighborhood zoning district. The applicant is proposing a one-story Loft building type sited primarily along W. Dublin-Granville Road, the highest designated street adjacent to the site. The building type establishes all development standards for the site including buildable area, building and parking location, building height, transparency, and architecture. Based on Staff’s review of the proposed building, Staff has identified Waivers required for deviations to the placement, massing, and architecture of the building, listed in the criteria analysis section. Due to the limited square footage permitted for the site (maximum 7,000 square feet), the Village Parkway frontage is addressed by a street wall instead of a principal structure. Street walls are permitted to count towards 10 percent of the front property line coverage. A Waiver is required for the building coverage along Village Parkway. The development currently does not occupy the corner of Village Parkway and W. Dublin-Granville Road with the building, open space type, or street wall as required by Code. The applicant should extend a street wall to occupy the corner of the site. The building includes three public entrances to the parking lot and three to W. Dublin-Granville Road. Staff acknowledges the challenges presented due to the deed restrictions. These deed restrictions are unique to this site and are not applicable to other sites within the Bridge Street District. The applicant has made changes to the extent feasible to demonstrate compliance with the Building Types standards, including building entrances, RBZ treatment, pedestrian connectivity, and orientation of the building to the street. The proposed building is consistent with the approved Concept Plan, with updates to the building materials and massing of each tenant space. Given the existing conditions of the site, and the updates to the building and site to provide significant pedestrian facilities and pedestrian-scale development, Staff is supportive of the proposed Waivers. Architecture The proposed development features a tall single-story building with three distinct tenant spaces, each utilizing variation in parapet roof heights, and material/color changes. Tenants A and B are separated from Tenant C via a pedestrian walkway, which features a wood slat trellis covering the pedestrian walkway. The building utilizes full depth brick (Glen Gery – Aberdeen; City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 6 of 15 Belden – Saxony Blend; Belden – Carbon Black Smooth) and black aluminum storefront glass as the permitted primary material. Secondary materials include black aluminum panels and wood siding (Nova Exoclad – Batu Hardwood). The building meets the minimum 80 percent primary material calculations on all elevations. Tenants A and B feature entrances framed by storefront windows and aluminum panels, which are expected to be the locations for future tenant signs. Staff is concerned that the entrance features are designed specifically for sign locations. Staff is recommending that the applicant continue to work with Staff to update the entrance design for Tenants A and B to create more architecturally intriguing entrances into the building. Additionally, the parapet height of the tenant B space is 7 feet in height, exceeding the maximum 6 feet for parapets. Staff recommends the applicant reduce the height of the parapet to meet the maximum height requirement. Open Space The intent of the Open Space Type requirements is to ensure a variety of functional, well- designed open spaces carefully distributed throughout the Bridge Street District, located and planned to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors. The Code states that one-square-foot of publicly accessible open space is required for every 50 square feet of gross floor area of the proposed commercial building. Based on the building size, a minimum of 136 square feet of open space is required for the proposed building. The applicant is proposing three open spaces on their plans, including a 408-square-foot pocket plaza proposed to the south of the building, a 382-square-foot pocket plaza at the center of the site, and a 1,926- square-foot pocket plaza located at the northeast corner of the site. However, based on the requirements for open space locations listed in the BSD Code, only the pocket plaza located south of the building is permitted to count towards the required public open space calculation for the site due to its proximity to public right-of-way. The southern pocket plaza meets the minimum required open space for the site. The applicant should provide an open space plan with the submittal of the Final Development Plan for final review of the proposed open spaces on the site. Landscaping The applicant has provided a preliminary tree preservation and landscaping plan with the submittal. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 85 inches of protected trees from the site which will be required to be replaced throughout the site. The applicant is providing significant landscaping in the northeast corner of the site within the proposed open space, as well as providing existing mature evergreen trees along the east property line. The proposed landscaping along the east property will screen the drive-thru facilities from W. Dublin-Granville Road and the Lowe’s access drive. Additional landscaping is provided strategically throughout the site. Final landscaping details will be provided with the Final Development Plan. Utilities Sanitary The site is served by a 10-inch public sanitary sewer along the north side of W. Dublin-Granville Road. An existing private sanitary sewer mainline is located within the limits of the 70-foot right-of-way dedication. The applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to determine the appropriate ownership and maintenance responsibilities of this private sanitary sewer mainline. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 7 of 15 Water The site is served by the 24-inch public water main line along the south side of W. Dublin- Granville Road. Stormwater Management Stormwater management for the site consists of a network of storm sewer and drainage structures that drain into an underground storage system centrally located on the site. The underground storage system outlets to the public storm sewer along W. Dublin-Granville Road. The applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 3. Conditional Use The applicant is requesting approval of a drive-thru facility as accessory use in connection with the easternmost eating and drinking tenant space. Drive-thrus require approval of a Conditional Use application through the Planning and Zoning Commission. The BSD discourages all auto- oriented development. In cases where such facilities are proposed additional scrutiny is required. Drive-thru uses are required to abide by use-specific standards listed in Zoning Code Section 153.059(C)(4)(c), which outlines required locations of menu boards and service windows, stacking and circulation requirements, and drive-thru design. The proposed drive-thru is located to the side and rear of the easternmost tenant space currently along a private access drive that intersects with West Dublin-Granville Road. The drive-thru location is not visible from any public street. The drive-thru will be oriented toward the east property line, where 12 stacking spaces are provided. The applicant has provided a wide landscape buffer, including existing and new trees and shrubs that accommodate required screening between the drive-thru lane and the private access drive. Additional screening measures include a new street wall that is consistent around the perimeter of the property. The future tenant would be required to receive approval of menu board signs and service equipment from the required reviewing body, in accordance with the requirements listed in the use-specific standards. The BSD was created to encourage and develop well-defined, pedestrian-oriented development that is distinct from the typical auto-oriented development (drive-thru uses) in other areas of the City. Auto-oriented development affects the intent for the layout of sites and negatively impacts the access to and safety of pedestrian facilities. Drive-thru uses are generally not encouraged based on the items listed above and have previously only been granted for banks. This site is highly unique and distinct from other sites along W. Dublin-Granville Road and Sawmill Road. The parcel’s unique geometry accommodates the drive-thru to be sited in manner that cannot be replicated on similar sites. The site accommodates a substantial landscape buffer far exceeding the minimum code requirement, which works to mitigate negative impacts related to the use. Further the drive-thru is not requested in conjunction with other auto-oriented uses and is not a stand-alone use on the site. In addition to the unique site characteristics, the applicant has incorporated changes to the landscape buffer, location of the drive-thru, and site plan to minimize the visual and functional impacts of the site. The vehicular circulation required for the drive thru impacts 6 parking spaces at the center of the site, and does not cross critical pedestrian activity areas on the site. The majority of the site can be accessed without interacting with the drive-thru lane or City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 8 of 15 queueing, as parking and pedestrian nodes are located to the west of the drive-thru area. The site has been designed to minimize the impacts of the drive-thru, and has been designed to meet all use-specific standards outlined in the Code. Based on the information detailed above Staff is supportive of a Conditional Use for a drive-thru restaurant only for this site. 4. Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat for the existing 1.98-acre site for the creation of the Village Parkway right-of-way, and to vacate existing platted restrictions limiting the development of the property in accordance with current zoning requirements. As determined by the City Engineer, a 70-foot wide right-of-way is being dedicated adjacent to the west property line of the site to accommodate the future extension of Village Parkway. An existing 50-foot AEP electrical easement will remain in place over the dedicated right-of-way, but will not conflict with the future implementation of Village Parkway. The applicant should provide a plat note on the Final Plat specifying the developer shall maintain the right-of-way until such time Village Parkway is extended by the City. The dedication of right-of-way leaves a 1.595-acre parcel for development. The proposed plat includes a sidewalk easement along the east and north property lines, and removes an existing 56-foot building line located along W. Dublin-Granville Road, a 20-foot utility easement along W. Dublin-Granville Road, and a 100-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. These requirements were platted with the development of the Lowe’s parcel to the north, but are now in conflict with the requirements of the BSD and are proposed to be removed. Open space is provided on the site in accordance with the requirements listed in the BSD Code. Public assess easements will likely be required to be provided with the Final Plat for the publically accessible open spaces on the site. 5. Plan Review Waiver Review Requirement Request Review 1. Section 153.060(C)(2)(a) - Maximum Block Dimensions To exceed the maximum length (1,314.58 feet) and perimeter (4,931.52 feet) for the modified block. Criteria met: This proposal includes the dedication of Village Parkway, requiring the modification of the existing bounds of the block. Although the existing block exceeds the requirements, the addition of Village Parkway brings the block closer to compliance with the Street Network Map. 2. Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(1) - Front Property Line Coverage W. Dublin-Granville Road: 27 percent where 60 percent is required. Criteria met: Front property line coverage is the coverage of a building or street wall within the RBZ. The building is set back from both street frontages, but is connected to the streetscape via a public open space City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 9 of 15 Requirement Request Review Village Parkway: 10 percent where 60 percent is required. plaza located between W. Dublin- Granville Road and the building. The property is uniquely shaped as it bends with the front property line, and the addition of the open space creates a better connection and use of space along the W. Dublin-Granville Road frontage. Due to the square footage limitations, a manicured street wall is provided along the Village Parkway frontage, as well as a private dining patio at the intersection of the two streets. Given the limitations of the site, the proposed improvements provide a quality product and do not negatively impact the two streetscapes. 3. Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(3) - Parking Location To permit parking forward of the building along Village Parkway. Criteria met: The building is oriented towards W. Dublin-Granville Road, as it is the highest priority street designation adjacent to the site. Village Parkway is the second highest, creating a corner lot configuration for the site. The parking extends approximately 24 feet past the west elevation of the building towards Village Parkway. The applicant has provided a street wall to screen the parking from the right-of-way. The parking location has minimal impacts on the quality of design for the site, and is proposed to be screened completely. 4. Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Minimum Height To permit a single story Loft building where two stories is required. Criteria met: The applicant is proposing a tall single-story building located along W. Dublin-Granville Road. Due to the deed restrictions towards gross square footage (7,000) placed on the site, adding a second story would significantly impact the footprint of the development. The applicant has proposed to mitigate the single-story building with a variation of massing and parapet heights for each tenant space, giving the City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 10 of 15 Requirement Request Review appearance of two stories in specific locations. The request will enhance the function of this building and not result in a lower quality design. 5. Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Ground Story Maximum Height To permit 21-foot tall rooflines where a maximum of 16 feet is required. Criteria met: Due to restraints on the site, the applicant is proposing a tall single story Loft building to appear as a two-story Loft building. The increase in the ground story height allows for variation in massing and architecture for the building, and does not diminish the quality of the development. 6. Section 153.062(O)(4)(c) – Occupied Space To permit an occupied depth of 27 feet – 6 inches where 30 feet is required for Tenants B and C. Criteria met: The occupied space for the majority of both tenants B and C exceed the minimum requirement of 30 feet. The deviation is minor in nature and does not detract from the quality of the development. 7. Section 153.062(O)(4)(d)(1) – Street Façade Transparency (Full Façade) South: 30.1 percent transparency where 60 percent is required. West: 36.9 percent transparency where 60 percent is required. Criteria met: The building meets the storefront transparency calculations both the south and west elevations, but the variation in massing above the storefront diminishes the amount of transparency on the building. The provided transparency is consistent with most single-story buildings, and the building utilizes different massing, heights, and materials to bring more visual interest to the development. The request will not negatively impact the development and will allow greater flexibility in building and façade design. Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Review 1. Consistent with the approved Concept Plan. Criteria met: The proposal is largely consistent with the approved Concept Plan and surrounding development pattern. The architecture and site layout are consistent with the Concept Plan. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 11 of 15 Criteria Review 2. Consistent with adopted plans and policies. Criteria met with Waivers and Conditions: The proposal is largely consistent with all adopted plans and policies. However, the applicant is requesting approval of Waivers, which will allow for additional flexibility in site layout and building design. Additionally, Staff is recommending conditions to address parapet heights and entrance design for tenants A and B. 3. Land Use aligns with all applicable requirements and use specific standards. Criteria met with Conditional Use: All proposed uses are permitted in accordance with the Zoning Code. The drive-thru requires approval of a Conditional Use. 4. Buildings are sited and scaled to create a cohesive development character. Criteria met with Waivers and Condition: The proposal is appropriately scaled and complements the surrounding environment. The requested Waivers allow for additional design elements that complement the surrounding environment. The applicant should work with Staff to relocate the dumpster location to a less visible location on the site in an area not along a PSF. 5. Lots and blocks conform to the Code. Criteria met with Waiver: The block dimensions are being improvements while still requiring a Waiver. The addition of Village Parkway brings the existing block closer to conformance with the Street Network Map. 6. Street types conform to the BSD Street Network Map. Criteria met: The proposed Village Parkway right-of-way dedication conforms to the placement and size of right-of-way identified by the City Engineer and the Street Network Map. 7. Internal circulation system, driveways, and public realm provide safe and efficient access for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Criteria met: The proposal incorporates a vehicle-oriented use (drive-thru) which has been modified to minimally impact the vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. Pedestrian facilities are delineated on the site plans and do not conflict with the designated pedestrian walkways and crosswalks within the site. 8. Design of the building conforms to BSD Code and integrates with nearby development. Criteria met with Waivers and Conditions: The proposal largely conforms to applicable policies and plans. Staff recommends approval of Waivers to items that do not meet the numeric requirements of the Bridge Street District, including to the RBZ requirements, which impacts building siting. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a street wall to occupy the corner of the site in compliance with the requirements of the Code, subject to Staff approval. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 12 of 15 Criteria Review 9. Open Space is appropriated sited and designed to enhance natural features and the community, and conforms to the Code. Criteria met with Condition: The applicant is proposing a variety of open spaces, which enhance the public realm. Only the open space south of the building can currently be counted towards the required open space for the site, which meets the minimum size requirement. The applicant should provide an open space plan with the submittal of the Final Development Plan for final review of the proposed open spaces on the site. 10. Scale and design of the development provides adequate provision of services. Criteria met: The proposal allows for the adequate provision of services including EMS. 11. Conforms to the Neighborhood Standards, as applicable. Criteria met: The proposal incorporates elements consistent with the Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, specifically creating a vibrant mixed use development through significant meaningful open space and pedestrian facilities, as well as quality architecture. 12. Provides adequate stormwater management systems and facilities. Criteria met with Condition: The proposal includes underground stormwater management within the site, as required by Code. The FDP will provide additional analysis regarding size and placement of the facility. The applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 13. Services by existing or planned public or private infrastructure. Criteria met: The proposal can be adequately serviced by existing infrastructure. The construction of Village Parkway is not required with the proposal, as the site can be serviced from W. Dublin- Granville Road and adjacent service roads. 14. Each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development. Not applicable. 15. Consistent with the recommendations, principles, and intent of design standards and guidelines. Criteria met: The development will provide an interesting, walkable setting for that adds pedestrian value to this section of the City. The layout of public spaces and integration with sidewalks and bikeway networks is consistent with these principals. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 13 of 15 Conditional Use Criteria Review 1. Harmonious with the Zoning Code and/or Community Plan. Criteria met with Preliminary Development Plan: Auto- oriented commercial facilities, including drive-thrus, are discouraged in the BSD as they conflict with the intent of the BSD Special Area Plan. In limited, unique instances it may be appropriate to give special consideration to drive-thrus, which is why the Code accommodates the opportunity for a Conditional Use. In cases where a CU is requested, it is important to determine that the parcel uniquely accommodates the facility, the facility is mitigated through site design, and that the facility will not have any negative impacts that would compromise the strong intent of the Community Plan. The proposed drive-thru meets the aforementioned conditions and complies with all development and use-specific standards listed in the Bridge Street District. 2. Complies with applicable standards. Criteria met: The proposed drive-thru complies with all development and use-specific standards listed in the Bridge Street District Code, and does not require any waivers or result in any of the proposed Waivers and conditions for the development of the site. 3. Harmonious with existing or intended character in vicinity. Criteria met: The future character along W. Dublin-Granville and the intent of the Bridge Street District are able to be maintained. Although a drive-thru accessory to an eating and drinking facility is auto-oriented, the development is designed to separate vehicular operations with the pedestrian-oriented realm required by the Bridge Street District. Additionally, the facility is not visible from any public streets and is not sited along a PFS. Robust landscaping screens all aspects of the use. 4. Will not have a hazardous or negative impact on surrounding uses. Criteria met: Given the unique site conditions and thoughtful site design the use will not detract from surrounding existing and future uses. The proposal consolidates the drive-thru to a section of the site, and does not conflict with designated pedestrian corridors or gathering spaces. 5. Will provide adequate services and facilities. Criteria met: The site and use will be served by existing utilities. 6. Will not harm the economic welfare. Criteria met: The use does not negatively affect the economic welfare of the community. The drive-thru is part of a large development and is not a stand-alone use. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 14 of 15 Criteria Review 7. Create no use or character that is detrimental to the surrounding uses. Criteria met: The drive-thru has been designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian traffic and the drive-thru lane, with open spaces and pedestrian areas being separated from the flow of traffic to and from the drive-thru. The use as designed will not be detrimental to the site, or overflow to surrounding properties. 8. Vehicular circulation will not interfere with existing circulation. Criteria met: The proposal uses the existing street network to access the site and is consolidated to minimally impact the remainder of vehicular circulation on the site. No parking is located adjacent to the queueing for the drive thru. 9. Not detrimental to property values in the vicinity. Criteria met: This proposal will not be detrimental to surrounding property values. The use will be heavily screened by new and existing vegetation and shrubs. 10. Will not impede the development or improvement of surrounding properties. Criteria met: The proposed use is physically and visually contained on site and will not impede development or improvement to the surrounding properties. Preliminary Plat Criteria Review 1. Plat information and construction requirements. Criteria met: The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. Lots, streets, sidewalk, and bike path standards. Criteria met: The proposal is consistent with the requirements and recommendations for the dedication of Village Parkway to the City of Dublin. The Village Parkway right-of-way will contain all street and sidewalk improvements. 3. Utilities Criteria met: Proposed and existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat. 4. Open space requirements Criteria met: The proposal includes the required amount of open space, as required by the Bridge Street District Code City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 22-028PDP/22-051CU/22-060PP | Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Thursday, June 9, 2022 Page 15 of 15 6. Recommendations Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions. Planning Recommendation: Approval of 7 Waivers highlighted above. Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with conditions: 1) The applicant work with Staff to relocate the dumpster location to a less visible location on the site in an area not along a PSF. 2) The applicant provide an open space plan with the submittal of the Final Development Plan for final review of the proposed open spaces on the site. 3) The applicant continue to work with Staff to update the entrance design for Tenants A and B to create more architecturally intriguing entrances into the building. 4) The applicant reduce the height of the parapet to meet the maximum height requirement. 5) The applicant provide a street wall to occupy the corner of the site in compliance with the requirements of the Code, subject to Staff approval. 6) The applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. 2) The applicant provide a plat note on the Final Plat specifying the developer shall maintain the right-of-way until such time Village Parkway is extended by the City. 3) The applicant provide public access easement on the Final Plat for all publically accessible open spaces. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 11 of 25 project, the Commission has asked staff to make Police aware of the volume of concerns expressed by the Corbins Mill residents regarding the use, requesting them to ensure Police surveillance of the area and the consideration of any traffic calming measures. The residents also expressed concern about the negative impact of the drive-through on their property values. The impact will be less by properly screening the use. Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Chinnock seconded approval of the Conditional Use with one (1) alteration: 1) A stacking alteration from 16 to 10 spaces for two drive-through lanes and with one (1) condition: 1) That the applicant work with staff to finalize the landscape plan at Building Standards Permitting to ensure 12-month visual opacity and physical buffering between the site and adjacent residential properties. Vote: Mr. Way, no; Ms. Harter, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion approved 4-2] Ms. Call stated that Cases 1, 2 and 3 would be heard together, as they are related to the same project on the same property. 1. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-051CU, Conditional Use A request for a Conditional Use to permit a drive-thru for a multi-tenant building on a 1.98-acre site zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-028PDP, Preliminary Development Plan A request for construction of a ±6,700-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant building on a 1.98-acre site. 3. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-060PP, Preliminary Plat A request for a Preliminary Plat for 1.98 acres to establish a 1.56-acre parcel and one public right- of-way for a future public street. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that the Commission is asked to consider three applications for the development of 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, including a Conditional Use, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. The Concept Plan for this development was approved on December 21, 2021, followed a tabling of the application in October 2021. The Concept Plan outlined the framework for the d evelopment. The Preliminary Plat would require a recommendation for Council approval. The 1.98-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. [Reviewed the existing site conditions.] The site is located at the intersection of West Dublin-Granville Road in the future development of Village Parkway. This proposal includes the dedication of Village Parkway as right-of-way to the City; however, that future roadway extension will not be constructed with this development of this site. It will be developed at a future time. Both of the streets are principal frontage streets, although Dublin-Granville is the higher Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 12 of 25 designated street. The addition of Village Parkway does change the bounds of the block in which this site is located, although it will still exceed the requirements for blocks within the Bridge Street District. A waiver is required to bring it closer to compliance. The site is located within the Sawmill Center Neighborhood District, which is a special district that pays attention to location and character of buildings, streets and open spaces to establish a mix of uses that fulfills the objection identified in the BSD Special Area Plan, which is to encourage active, mixed-use developments that are pedestrian-oriented and connect to existing future streetscapes while providing well-defined pedestrian access. Updates: There have been some updates to the site plan since its approval. The 6,760-sq. ft. building sited toward West Dublin Granville Road and the the 66-space parking lot at the rear of the building remain. The parking lost has lost two spaces, however, due to reconfiguring the access around the site. Parking is located forward of the building along Village Parkway, as it is now dedicated right- of-way; however, it is screened by a required street wall. That configuration is consistent with what was shown with the Concept Plan. One of the updates provided with this Plan is a wider landscape buffer along the east property line to help screen the drive-through for the drive-through restaurant. The three open space nodes are more defined, although the details will be finalized with the Final Development Plan. Another update is the addition of a street wall along the west property line, which also extends along the north and east property lines. The dumpster location in the northwest corner will be relocated to a less visible location on the site. The street wall will be extended further south to occupy the corner of the intersection, as a street wall, building or public open space is required to occupy the corner. The Conditional Use is for the drive-through restaurant. The drive-through circulation on the site has been revised per the Commission’s previous recommendations. The unique site geography is able to accommodate this circulation on the east side of the site, providing a significant landscape buffer screening it from West Dublin Granville Road and the adjacent property owner, while also minimizing vehicle and pedestrian interactions. Only 6 parking spaces are directly impacted by the circulation and are able to be separated from any critical pedestrian corridors. Staff recommends approval of the drive-through for the restaurant. This is a Loft Building Type, similar to what was provided with the Concept Plan. There are a number of Building Type requirements for which the applicant is requesting waivers. [7 waiver requests reviewed.] Staff has reviewed the application against the applicable criteria and recommends approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions, the 7 Waiver requests, the Preliminary Development Plan with 6 conditions, and a recommendation to Council for approval of the Preliminary Plat. Commission Questions Mr. Schneier stated that staff is recommending that the wall be extended south. Would doing so eliminate any public space? Mr. Hounshell responded that the requirement it is alleviating is occupation of the corner. The corner can be occupied by either a street wall, public open space or building. The space to the left of the restaurant is not open space; it is patio space. Mr. Schneier requested clarification of the space with landscaping. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Hounshell pointed out the areas that are designated as public open spaces in the plan. Everything else would be private for the restaurant users. Mr. Way that the revised parking layout is quite different from the previous site plan. Mr. Hounshell reviewed the changes that had been made, the most significant of which is the parking configuration. Originally, there were several avenues for vehicles to get through the site. The revised plan provides one consistent access around the exterior of the parking spaces. Another is pushing the buildings back slightly from W. Dublin Granville Road, improving the public open spaces forward of the building, providing more buffer and landscaping. Additionally, the drive-through lane has been located slightly to the west, keeping the existing evergreens and adding new landscaping. The public open space nodes have also been improved. Mr. Chinnock inquired if there are any concerns on the location of the menu boards and drive-through equipment, and the space becomes narrowed in that area. Mr. Hounshell responded that the menu boards would meet the required setbacks. They are not permitted to be located forward of the building, but technically, they are located to the side of the building. Staff has no concerns. Ms. Harter inquired if the City required electrical charging stations for vehicles. Mr. Hounshell responded that City Code does include EV charging stations requirements in some areas. In the Bridge Street District, the Code encourages that an electric car charging station be provided for every 200 parking spaces. Therefore, that would apply to larger tenants within that District. Mr. Way stated that we are planning for a future that does not yet exist. Currently, there is a southwest pedestrian connection up to Banker Drive stops. There is no crosswalk nor sidewalk on the Lowe’s side. There is opportunity for a connection at the corner over to the Lowe’s sidewalk. What direction was provided the applicant regarding future connections? Mr. Hounshell responded that staff has not provided that direction, because it is private property. The street map drive identifies Banker Drive as existing, but it is currently under private ownership. It is not currently a public street. Applicant Presentation Don Brogran, Crawford Hoying Development, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, 43017, stated that this is the fourth time this project has been in front of the Commission, which began with an Informal Review. He reviewed the changes that had been made in the plan to address the Commission’s previous input within the limitations of the deed restrictions on the buildings. Commission Questions for the Applicant Mr. Chinnock requested clarification of the building height. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 14 of 25 Mr. Hounshell stated the deed restrictions on the site limit sq uare footage, height and uses. Although those are not typically considered by the Commission as they are private items, they are part of the discussion. A Loft Building is required to have two stories, but due to the deed restrictions, they are able to provide only one, hence one Waiver. The effort, to make the building taller, however, resulted in deviating the Ground Story height. Mr. Chinnock inquired if the reason for the 21 feet to 28 feet differential was to add more articulation to the feedback, per the Commission’s input. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Ms. Call noted that it was also to make it look like a two-stor y building, which was required. Ms. Harter stated that she likes the pass-through feature. There was discussion about putting art there; would that be of a permanent nature, or would it be changeable options. Mr. Brogran responded that both options would work. He believes rotating art would be intriguing, which could be accomplished by working with Dublin Arts Council and Dublin City Schools. Mr. Way requested clarification of the reason the parking has been rotated east-west. Mr. Brogran responded that one of the Commission’s previous comments was that the passageway emptied out too close to the drive-through lane. Rotating the parking provided more space for landscape buffer at the exit from the passageway. There is now more landscaping and sidewalk now. Mr. Way stated that a concern is that people walking from the northernmost parking spaces to the building have to walk around the island or through the cars to access the walkway. There is not a good pedestrian flow now. With the previous layout, an individual would walk from their car and down an aisle, as is common with most retail establishments. The previous alternative was more efficient. He noted some other difficulties reaching the north- south walkway. One option would be to extend the east-west walkway to the driveway. He noted that the walkway that runs around the Lowe’ aths access drive originally paralleled the road; now it has been moved inward toward the parking lot. It is consuming space that could have been used differently. It also minimizes the amount of screening for the drive- through lane. There are existing trees along the Lowe’s access drive and existing evergreens which were intended to screen the drive-through. Now, half of them – those that run perpendicular -- are being removed. He would prefer to see the walkway pulled closer to the Lowe’s access drive and achieve more space on the other side in which to provide screening of the drive-through lane. There is now insuf ficient screening. Per earlier discussions, the intent was that the drive-through be well screened. As the plan as evolved, that screening has been minimized. Mr. Brogran responded that some of the tree removal was requested by the City of Dublin, some of which will be replaced. Their intent is to provide screening of the drive-through view. Mr. Way responded that presently, that zone is not yet well resolved. The landscaping between the walkway and road looks haphazard, and there is a li ne of low evergreen shrubs to screen the lane of cars. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 15 of 25 Mr. Brogran responded that the zone has been revised multiple times based on the Commission’s comments. Dave Guappone, Principal, G2 Planning & Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43205 stated that the reason the sidewalk was pulled back is that they were planning to save the trees and having the sidewalk extend through the middle of trees would necessitate removal of the existing evergreens. They believed the existing screen was of more value and important to protect than providing new landscaping. Mr. Way inquired if the sidewalk is being curved to protect the existing trees. Mr. Guappone responded affirmatively. Their intent is to create an aestically pleasing consistent curve that will connect at the corner. Commission Discussion Mr. Schneier stated that this has been quite an iterative process. He respects the attention the applicant has given to that effort, resulting in a great outcome. He is supportive of the application and staff’s recommendations. Mr. Fishman stated he assumes the drive-through is for a coffee shoppe. If so, will the architecture remain the same as what is depicted? Mr. Brogran responded that the architecture will remain the same. Mr. Way stated there have been a number of meetings and the applicant has done a great job. The orientation of the parking lot was a surprise to him, as that had not been discussed in previous meetings. He believes the edge of the Lowe’s access drive is an unresolved landscape issue. He is concerned about the screening of the drop-off lane, and the connection to the east-west walkway, which currently, people parked on the east side would find it difficult to reach. Ms. Harter stated that she is supportive of the application. The plant materials will be important. She appreciates that the drive-through is provided to the rear of the building. Mr. Chinnock stated that he has no additional comments to make. He agrees with fellow Commissioners. He thanked the applicant for addressing all the Commissioners’ comments. Ms. Call stated that in regard to the Preliminary Development plan and Preliminary Plat, she believes the applicant has done a good job adapting the plan per the Commission’s guidance. However, she remains unsupportive of the drive-through, which is not permitted in the Bridge Street District. Section 153.059 of the Code states that, “…drive-throughs when permitted are permitted only as accessories to banks in the BSD vertical mixed-use and the BSD Historic Transition neighborhoods. When they are permitted, stacking areas and associated areas will be screened….drive-through vehicle stacking shall be at least 20 feet long; stacking spaces may not impede onsite or offsite vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian circulation. Where 5 or more stacking spaces are provided, the individual stacking lane shall be clearly delineated…and buffered from adjacent properties. The structures related to drive-throughs shall not have frontage on or be readily visible from any shopping corridor.” She believes the application does not comply with those requirements. To be considered, the drive-through must not impede vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. There are parking spaces close to the restaurant use, and to avoid the dr ive-through traffic, pedestrians must Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 16 of 25 walk from their vehicles at a 45-degree angle to reach that destination. In addition, this drive- through will be visible from the shopping corridor. Therefore, she is not supportive of the Conditional Use, but if the drive-through were removed, she would be supportive of the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Mr. Fishman stated that was the reason for his earlier question, as he also is opposed to a drive- through in the BSD corridor. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Schneier moved approval of the Conditional Use. Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion approved 5-1.] Mr. Schneier moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the following seven (7) waivers: 1) Section 153.060(C)(2)(a) – Maximum Block Dimensions 2) Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(1) – Front Property Line Coverage 3) Section 153.062(O)(4)(a)(3) – Parking Location 4) Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Minimum Height 5) Section 153.062(O)(4)(b) – Ground Story Maximum Height 6) Section 153.062(O)(4)(c) – Occupied Space 7) Section 153.062(O)(4)(d)(1) – Street Façade Transparency (Full Façade) Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes. [Motion approved 4-2.] Ms. Rauch recommended that a condition for approval be added that addresses Mr. Way’s concern about the screening. [Commission members were supportive of adding the additional condition.] Ms. Rauch requested Mr. Way to clarify his request. Mr. Way responded that it was to work with staff to develop a more opaque screening plan for the drive-through drop-off lane. Mr. Chinnock noted that screening of the equipment therein should also be included. Discussion continued regarding the need for additional conditions regarding pedestrian ability to access the east-west walkway from the east and the need to realign the path to provide the space for the provision of more opaque screening to be provided. It cannot be accomplished in the area currently provided. Mr. Boggs noted this plan will be before the Commission again at the Final Development Plan review. With the landscaping condition, there would be ability to refine the realignment of the plan. Ms. Call stated that there is Commission consensus regarding the addition of conditions for the realignment of the path to permit the inclusion of more opaque screening for the drive-through and to address the connection to the east-west pedestrian way. Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objection to the conditions. The applicant indicated he had no objection. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 9, 2022 Page 17 of 25 Mr. Way moved to approve the Preliminary Development Plan with eight (8) conditions: 1) The applicant work with staff to relocate the dumpster location to a less visible location on the site in an area not along a PSF. 2) The applicant provide an open space plan with the submittal of the Final Development Plan for final review of the proposed open spaces on the site. 3) The applicant continue to work with staff to update the entrance design for Tenants A and B to create more architecturally intriguing entrances into the building. 4) The applicant reduce the height of the parapet to meet the maximum height requirement. 5) The applicant provide a street wall to occupy the corner of the site in compliance with the requirements of the Code, subject to staff approval. 6) The applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. 7) The applicant work with staff to develop opaque screening for the drive-through facility and equipment. 8) The applicant work with staff to extend pedestrian accessibility to the east-most parking spaces, consistent with Planning and Zoning Commission comments. Vote: Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Call, no; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion carried 4-2] Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Way seconded a recommendation for Council approval of the Final Plat with the following conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. 2) The applicant provide a plat note on the Final Plat specifying the developer shall maintain the right-of-way until such time Village Parkway is extended by the City. 3) The applicant provide public access easement on the Final Plat for all publically accessible open spaces. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] [Brief recess.] 5. Nutex Dublin Emergency Hospital at 3800 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 22-057CP Concept Plan A request for development of ±22,000-square-foot neighborhood hospital on a 1.58-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is northeast of the intersection of Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Staff Presentation PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Tuesday, December 8, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road 21-128CP Concept Plan Proposal: Review of a Concept Plan for the construction of a ±6,900-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant commercial building. The 1.98-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. Location: ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Request: Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.066(E). Applicant: Don Brogan, Crawford Hoying Development Partners; and Brian McNally, Meyers Architects Planning Contact: Zachary Hounshell, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhoundshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-128 MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve the Concept Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission noted that the Preliminary Development Plan design should address the Commission’s discussion. VOTE: 5 – 1. RESULT: The Concept Plan was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Absent Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes No Lance Schneier Yes Kim Way Yes MOTION 2: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to approve the request to combine the Preliminary Development Plan with the Final Development Plan. VOTE: 0 – 6. RESULT: The combination request was disapproved. Page 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 28557315-2D51-4307-B40A-205F62202232 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road 21-128CP Concept Plan RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox No Warren Fishman Absent Mark Supelak No Rebecca Call No Leo Grimes No Lance Schneier No Kim Way No STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Zachary Hounshell, Planner I Page 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 28557315-2D51-4307-B40A-205F62202232 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 7 of 23 Ms. Call stated that the Commission appreciates the applicant’s provision of more detail in the revised plan than may typically be provided with a Concept Plan. The Commission has encouraged the applicant to continue in the direction of interesting architectural ideas, such as the light tendrils. There are transportation issue concerns, but the Concept Plan is not intended to address those in detail. The Commission has indicated that the plan proposes the right direction, and with our combined efforts, we can achieve a development of which all will be proud. We look forward to welcoming Mt. Carmel to the community. Mr. Koma thanked the Commission for their helpful feedback and staff for their collaboration on the project. Mr. Way stated that because this development will be located on a gateway site in Dublin, and the architecture will be seen by many, it must be outstanding. He is confident the applicant can deliver accordingly. He is excited to see the plan evolve. 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 21-128CP, Concept Plan A request for a review of a Concept Plan for the construction of a ±6,900-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant commercial building. The 1.98-acre site is zoned B ridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood and is located ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a Concept Plan for 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road. This Concept Plan differs from the previous plan reviewed. Because this site is in the Bridge Street District, a determination of the Commission is requested. Should the Concept Plan be approved tonight, the applicant is also requesting the combination of the Preliminary and Final Development Plans, which is in the purview of the Commission. This is the second time this application has come before the Commission for review. The 1.98-acre site is located in the Sawmill Center Neighborhood zoning district. The site is currently vacant with a number of mature trees along the western property line. There is a low-lying entry feature, decorative wall and sign on the southeast corner. The sign would remain, as it applies to the Lowe’s property to the north. The proposed site is identified as one of the Lowe’s development outparcels. These outparcels have strict deed restrictions that influence development of the site. Deed restrictions are private agreements between property owners that are completely distinct from zoning regulations. The City is tasked with implementing the Community Plan and administering the Zoning Code incrementally over time. The City does not establish, apply, or enforce deed restrictions. The Lowe’s outparcel deed restrictions limits the size of development, number of structures, height of structures, and minimum parking requirements. The review of this application is based solely on the applicable requirements of the Bridge Street Zoning Code. A 50-foot AEP electric easement is located along the west property line. The proposal does include the future development of Village Parkway, which is considered a district connector and principal frontage street on the Bridge Street network map. It is not included with the construction on this site. Should the application move forward, the applicant would be required to continue to work with staff to finalize the implementation and construction of the street extension. [Existing site conditions shown.] This site is located on at the intersection of the future Village Parkway and the current West Dublin-Granville Road, which are both principal frontage streets. To the north and east are private drives – Banker Drive to the north and an access drive Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 8 of 23 to the east. The applicant is proposing a 6,830-square-foot multi-tenant commercial building; a quick serve drive-through accessory use for an eating-drinking use; and a loft building type. This case was reviewed previously ty the Commission on October 7, 2021 and was tabled at the request of the applicant. The previous and current Concept Plans were shown for comparison purposes. The applicant has provided updates in response to the October 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, when the proposed Concept Plan was tabled at the applicant’s request. Commission provided feedback primarily with respect to the drive-thru request and building type. At the time, the Commission raised the following concerns: o the drive-thru may impede the intent of a pedestrian-oriented development; o a commercial building type may not be appropriate on this site. Since the October 7, 2021 meeting, the following revisions have been made: o sidewalks have been added through and around the perimeter of the site; o the building sections for Tenants B and C have been separated and a pedestrian pathway has been added through the building to connect to the pedestria n paths through the center of the site and the rear parking lot to W. Dublin-Granville Road; o a wider landscape buffer of existing and new trees and shrubs has been added between the parking lot/drive-thru and the access drive for additional screening; and, o the drive-thru portion of the parking lot has been modified to reduce its impact and to enhance the eastern edge of the site. o Two additional open space nodes have been added on the center and the northeast corner, increasing the open space to 1,700 square feet. A larger landscape buffer has been provided along the east property line to screen the proposed drive-through. o The number of parking spaces has been decreased to 68 parking spaces. o Three building entrances have been added to the front to make the building more accessible to the streetscape and the height of the parapets has been reduced slightly. Although the lot coverage has been increased to 73.8% due to the addition of open space pocket plazas and the modified parking layout, it remains under the required 80% lot coverage for Loft Buildings. The changes proposed by the applicant are intended to address the concerns of the Commission, and decrease the visual impacts of the drive-through on the site. However, staff continues to have concerns about the drive-through being able to meet the Conditional Use criteria, should it proceed to the Preliminary Development Plan stage. The BSD was created to encourage and develop well-defined, pedestrian-oriented development that is distinct from the typical auto-oriented development (drive-through uses) in other areas of the City. Auto-oriented development affects the intent for the layout of sites and negatively impacts the access to and safety of pedestrian facilities. Drive-through uses are generally not encouraged based on the items listed above and have been previously granted only for banks. Staff is not supportive of the proposed accessory use. Should this plan move forward, staff would recommend the applicant pursue a Loft Building Type, instead of a Commercial Center Building Type to maintain the development intent for this corridor. The proposed architecture is contemporary with parapet roof lines on a single-story building. A selection of wood, brick and metal building materials are depicted on the conceptual drawings. Based on the review of the criteria, staff recommends disapproval of the Concept Plan due to the following: 1) The proposed development pattern, specifically drive-thru restaurant and rear-oriented, single-story commercial building, does not meet the intent of the Bridge Street District to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 9 of 23 establish a pedestrian-oriented, urban community as identified in the BSD Code section 153.059(A) and does not meet the BSD Vision Plan. 2) The single-story commercial buildings are in direct conflict with the BSD-Sawmill Center Neighborhood District standards and Building Type standards for mass, scale, and height of development along W. Dublin-Granville Road. 3) The development does not implement the Lots and Blocks, Street Network Map, and Principles of Walkable Urbanism concurrent with development, which delays incremental implementation of the BSD framework and sets a precedent for future auto-oriented development along W. Dublin-Granville Road. Staff also recommends disapproval of the request to combine the Preliminary and Final Development Plans. Applicant Presentation Nelson Yoder, Principal, Development Partners, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Suite 500, Dublin, Ohio, 43017, stated that this is the fourth or fifth iteration of a development for a very challenging site. The primary issues are the deed restrictions on the site, which predate the Bridge Street Code by at least 10 years. Lowe’s has refused to consider dropping the deed restrictions. This is an important site located on SR161, but they are not permitted to construct a building exceeding 7,000 square feet, practically, a one-story building. On the adjacent site, which does not have the same deed restrictions, they will be constructing a two-story medical office building with ground-floor retail, which meets the BSD Code. For this site, they are attempting to identify a project that is additive to the BSD Code and addresses the concerns previously identified. Primarily, they have attempted to buffer and isolate the impact of the drive-through from the pedestrian connectivity through the site. Chris Meyers, Myers & Associates Architects, 232 N. Third Street, Columbus, OH 43215, stated that the deed restrictions limit their ability to accomplish the objectives of the BSD and community. The criteria not met are primarily the Building Type and the drive-through. A number of variances would be necessary to accomplish a Loft Building Type. They have taken the October 7 feedback from the Commission and incorporated it to the extent possible in the revised design. Commission Discussion Mr. Way inquired if they had considered adding a ground level parking deck behind the building. It would double the number of parking spaces. Mr. Meyers responded that one of the deed restrictions is a parking limit. They cannot increase the number of parking spaces beyond that the parking and square footage restrictions. A parking deck would provide too much parking on the site. Mr. Yoder responded that the deed restrictions limit the site t o 7,000 square feet of total developed area. Mr. Schneier inquired if any consideration has been given to a walk-up window as well as the drive- though. Mr. Meyers responded that they have. The strategy for how the façade treatment can occur, rather than a protruding box addition is tricky. A walk-up area is more possible on the southeast side, facing the public open space. Ms. Fox inquired if there were ceiling height restrictions in addition to the 7,000 square feet development limitation. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 10 of 23 Mr. Meyers stated that per the deed restrictions, the height limitation is 28 feet. Their proposed height is 20 feet. They could probably bump that up slightly, but two stories is not possible. They studied the possibility of faking a second story within a height of 28 feet, but proportionately, the building would be off. Consequently, they have hovered around the massing concept of three distinct smaller buildings more proportionately scaled. Per the last meeting discussion, there may be the possibility for a centerpiece feature with a height of 28 feet. As the concept plan evolves, and they begin to strategize the interior components, it may be possible to cloak the mechanicals and exhaust with form to achieve more height in addition to minimizing the view of the mechanicals. Ms. Fox inquired if the building extends to the front property line. Although a 5-foot encroachment is permitted, there is never enough space in front. This site is located along a thoroughfare. When she sits in the patio space at Starbucks in Dublin, she can smell the diesel fumes of passing trucks. She would prefer to see the building pushed back more. Mr. Meyers responded that element was discussed at the previous meeting, and this building now has been set back. They also have manipulated the façade. When it was split to achieve a pedestrian pass-through, the coffee shop – the east portion of the building – was pushed back to create a better distinction of the transition space between the road, sidewalk and open public space and the building. They have made some adjustments Ms. Fox inquired how much the building had been set back. When sitting along a busy thoroughfare, it is not easy to have a conversation and the traffic smells detract from the experience. Mr. Meyers stated that the building is now set back 15 feet, in some places, a little more. The west side of the site has been activated with the patio, the buffer and the extension of the sidewalk. As defined by Code, there is a public greenspace in the middle of the site. To the right, more depth has been added to the transition space, providing a better view of the coffee shoppe. Mr. Yoder stated in regard to the height, if space were to be added to a second floor, the building would need to be made shorter, which would impact the lining along the street. Mr. Meyers stated his firm also designed the Penzone building, which is a Loft Building Type. It does have a second floor space which accommodates the mechanicals. However, the compact nature of that building is much different than is possible on this site. In regard to addressing diesel fumes, there are shoulder-height seat walls on two areas of the proposed patio, which help wrap the building and achieve the impression of being within a coffee shoppe, rather sitting next to the road. Public Comments No public comments were offered. Commission Discussion Mr. Grimes stated that he appreciates the effort that has been invested in the plan, attempting to make it work with so many restrictions. The changes made have been very nice. However, ultimately, the plan remains in too much conflict with the Bridge Street Code, more than is acceptable. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 11 of 23 Mr. Supelak stated that he has a different view. The applicant has done a very good job within a difficult situation. Much has been done to cultivate the pedestrian experience along SR161. Some of the revisions made, including the primary walkway from the north into the site, are very nice. He believes something should also be added to the west side of the site. The building does not make connection to the street at all, aside from the restaurant plaza. The increased buffer helps; the drive aisle becomes less of a problem. They have created pedestrian circulation all around the site. The passage through the building is nice. The building, however, is very horizontal, flat, a single height. They have suggested the height of the center portion could be increased. However, it might be possible to increase the height of the bookend sections and the center portion lower. The second story element could be faked, similar to what they did with the Penzone building. While he is generally supportive of the proposed plan, he is not comfortable with combing the preliminary and final development plans. He would want to stipulate conditions regarding height adjustments, in particular. Mr. Schneier stated that he is supportive of the Concept Plan. They have done a great job addressing all of the issues presented. We do not like drive-throughs, and while we might want to be a community without drive-throughs, the world is changing. With the preferred approach, we would be telling people if drive-throughs are what they want, go somewhere other than Dublin. He believes the City needs to acknowledge our changing world. The applicant has done a good job with screening the drive-through. Given the circumstances, he does not feel bound by the Code. He would like to learn if any changes could be made in the building height to achieve more variation. Other than that element, he supports the Concept Plan. Ms. Fox stated that she appreciates the thought the applicant has invested in addressing the deed restriction difficulties. The intent is to have a pedestrian—friendly streetscape, and the Code has been written to accomplish that. In some cases, that Code works for us; in some cases, it does not work. In this case, the Code is hurting us, because the result will be an empty site here. However, the applicant has attempted to tackle the issue. In return, the Commission needs to consider the possibility of a hybridized approach. Although the plan is not entirely where it needs to be, it is beginning to get there. The proposed building still reads as a commercial building type across the front. The height needs to be increased at some point. Within the urban streetscapes of Granville Avenue or High Street in Clintonville, the buildings organically are different. The proposed building still reads as a commercial strip center; that must be broken up. She appreciates the fact that pedestrians have been brought to the front of the site; however, the walkway is too close to the drive-through. More separation is needed. She appreciates that the building has been set back. More activity along the front will increase business; but if it continues to resemble a strip mall, people will drive by. They need to focus on enriching the feel of the streetscape. She agrees that the height needs to be increased somewhere to achieve the more organic, Granville Avenue look. She believes the drive-through works. We need to make room for alternative vehicles with wheels, such as golf carts, but we do not want to sacrifice the pedestrian opportunity. This plan offers pedestrian connectivity throughout the site. She is unsure of the proposed space in the middle of the parking lot. She would not want to sit there without a cover overhead. Because it seems unusable, she would be interested in seeing that space moved close to the building. She would support having a lower-height building here, acknowledging the restrictions. Having a Loft Building Type does not automatically increase the pedestrian experience. In comparison, look at the Oakland Nursery site, where there is a significant level of pedestrian activity. Therefore, she believes energy can be achieved with the proposed plan, elevating the height and improving the outdoor spaces. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 12 of 23 Mr. Way stated that since the last meeting, he has spent time assessing this site and the corridor. While we have a vision for that corridor, it is a long-term vision. It will take a while to get there. To have parcels like this at key locations sitting vacant does not make sense. The applicant has worked very hard to achieve the intent of the Code to bring activity to the streetscape. They are doing that, but he would like to see even more activity along that edge, if it could be integrated. The applicant has addressed many of the issues to make this a viable, inviting site. The proposed plan could be an asset on that corner. Development changes over time, so 20 years from now, there may be something else here. He is supportive of the Concept Plan. Ms. Call stated that she appreciates that this is a difficult parcel. The deed’s square footage and height restrictions along with the Bridge Street Code, discourage development. Ms. Fox has suggested that a hybridized approach might be a possibility. The difficult points for her are the proposed drive-through, which allows for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. There is too much activity occurring within a very small footprint. Currently, staff is recommending disapproval She is supportive of a hybridized approach, if could be made to make the City more supportive of the development. While she could be supportive of the Concept Plan, she would not be supportive of a Preliminary Development Plan, as currently proposed. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Concept Plan. Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, no. [Motion carried 6-1.] Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the combination of the Preliminary Development Plan with the Final Development Plan. Mr. Grimes, no; Mr. Supelak, no; Ms. Call, no; Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Way, no; Mr. Schneier, no. [Motion failed 0-7.] 3. 5274 Cosgray Road, 21-142CP, Concept Plan A request for an informal review and feedback for a Concept Plan to develop ±101.1 acres consisting of single-family, detached and single-family attached units. The development is divided into two subareas, one consisting of 160 units and the second consisting of 345 units with a gross density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Rural District and is located east of Cosgray Road, ±1,300 feet south of the intersection with Rings Road. Staff Presentation Ms. Holt stated that this is a request for Informal Review of a proposed Planned Unit Development on a site located 1,300 feet southeast of the intersection of Cosgray and Rings Roads. It is bounded by Cosgray Road on the west, the CSX Railroad on the east, and is located south of the Village of Amlin. The site is comprised of farmland and woods. The site is zoned R-Rural District and is adjacent to Washington Township and the City of Columbus. The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan shows this site as “Mixed Residential Medium Density”. Contemplated within that category are “areas where greater walkability and pedestrian orientation at a village scale are desired, at a maximum density of 5.0 du/ac. Areas are intended for integration around Village Center developments.” The specific Southwest Special Area Plan of the Community Plan anticipates a Village of Amlin gateway with a mixed-use village center and mixed residential, PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, October 7, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road 21-128CP Concept Plan Proposal: Construction of a ±6,900-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant commercial building with drive-thru restaurant. The 1.98-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. Location: ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Request: Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.066(E). Applicant: Don Brogan, Crawford Hoying Development Partners; and Brian McNally, Meyers Architects Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-128 MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to table the Concept Plan. VOTE: 6 – 0. RESULT: The Concept Plan was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Absent Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes Kim Way Yes MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to table the request for a combination of the review and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the Final Development Plan. VOTE: 6 – 0. RESULT: The request for the Preliminary Development Plan and the Final Development Plan to be combined and reviewed was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Mark Supelak Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Rebecca Call Absent Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes _____________________________________ Kim Way Yes Zach Hounshell, Planner I Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 10 of 26 7) The applicant provide the window film color and calculations, at permitting, to confirm transparency requirements are met along the east façade. 8) The applicant submit for sign permits, with a landlord approval letter, for review of the proposed signs relative to the adopted regulations. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, no; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion carried 5-1] NEW CASES 2. 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 21-128CP, Concept Plan A request for the construction of a ±6,900-square-foot, one-story, multi-tenant commercial building with drive-thru restaurant. The 1.98-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood and is located ±500 feet northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with Dublin Center Drive. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and determination of a Concept Plan for 4000 W. Dublin-Granville Road. The Concept Plan is the first of three review stages for new developments within the Bridge Street District. The next two steps are the Preliminary and Final Development Plans. There is an opportunity to combine those last two steps, if the Concept Plan is approved. The applicant is requesting that those reviews be combined, should the Concept Plan be approved. The 1.98-acre site is located in the Sawmill Center neighborhood within the Bridge Street District. This vacant site is located south of the Lowe’s development and has a number of mature trees along the west property line. In the southeast corner of the site is a low-lying entry feature, which currently does not serve a purpose or function for this or surrounding sites. There is also a decorative wall and monument sign for the Lowe’s development. With this development, that sign would remain in place for the Lowe’s development. When Lowe’s was developed, a number of outparcels was created. This site is one of those, similar to the former Mellow Mushroom site immediately to the east. Because these are Lowe’s outparcels, there are a number of deed restrictions, which include limitations on height, size and uses within proposed buildings. Deed restrictions are private agreements between the property owners and tenants, and the City is not involved in implementation of these agreements because they are negotiated between private entities. There is a 50-foot electric easement along the west property line. This pr oposal also includes the future development of Village Parkway, which is considered a District connector and principal frontage street within the Bridge Street District. The construction of this future extension is not included with the development; it is only accounted for in the site layout and design. The site is zoned BSD-SCN, Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. The intent of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, as outlined in the BSD Code, is to provide an active, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment through unique shopping, service and entertainment uses with supporting residential and office uses. The site is not subject to potential gateway requirements or shopping corridor requirements, and prohibits commercial center building types. Commercial center building types are not permitted on this site; they are permitted on select corridors, specifically along Bridge Park Avenue and Sawmill Road. This site is located at intersection of the potential Village Parkway extension and West Dublin-Granville Road. Both streets are designated as principal frontage streets. Banker Drives lies to the northeast and an access drive, both of which are potential neighborhood streets. Currently located on the Lowe’s parcel to the north, they are designed as private access drives and are not built to public street standards. This proposal for an approximately 6,900-square-foot, multi-tenant commercial building, which will include uses such as restaurants and office. For one of the restaurants, a quick-serve drive-thru accessory use on the east is proposed. The building will be a Loft Building Type. [Site plan was reviewed.] Staff has reviewed the application against the applicable criteria and because Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 11 of 26 the criteria are not met, recommends disapproval of the Concept Plan. Staff also recommends disapproval of the request to combine the Preliminary and Final Development Plan reviews. Commission Questions Mr. Grimes requested clarification of the access to the private drive. Will an agreement with the property owner be required to have access to that drive? How can that private drive be required as the only permitted entrance/exit, as it is not a public right-of-way. Mr. Hounshell responded that the site currently has access off the private section of Banker Drive. There are two access points, which will be consolidated into one. They are maintaining their current access. In the BSD, site access is not typically off principal frontage st reets, such as the extension of Village Parkway or West Dublin Granville Road. Because access is off a future neighborhood street, it would meet the requirements of the BSD street network. Mr. Grimes inquired if Lowe’s, the owner of that street could eliminate it, if they so desired. Mr. Hounshell deferred to the applicant to address the private access conditions. Mr. Way noted that he has a similar question. In terms of Thoroughfare Plan, is Banker Drive designated as a future public street. Mr. Hounshell responded that it is designated as a future neighborhood street. The section adjacent to this site is currently on the Lowe’s parcel and is built to private access drive standards. Should Lowe’s decide to develop that portion in the future and it became public right-of-way, the City would require reconstruction of that drive to public standards. Mr. Way inquired if the City would take it over and handle that reconstruction. Mr. Hounshell responded that it would be part of the negotiations at the time of the development of that site. Ms. Rauch responded that, typically, the developer is responsible for the street reconstruction. Up to the time that Lowes would re-develop their site, Banker Drive would remain a private drive. Mr. Way noted that to extend Village Parkway, much of the Lowe’s site would be impacted. Currently, that road alignment cannot occur. Ms. Rauch responded that there are pieces of future roadways that exist, but if Lowe’s were to redevelop, Village Parkway from Banker north to Bridge Park would also need to be constructed. Mr. Way stated it would have to be a right in/right out only, because it is not a full intersection; a median is currently there. Would it make sense to consider that as a future access point with this application and to plan the development with an access from that street? Ms. Rauch stated that she is not aware of anything precluding it, but Engineering may have some input. Mike Hendershot stated that Village Parkway is a principal frontage street, so the City would restrict access off that street. City Engineering has the ability to waive that requirement, but that typically does not occur. It is unlikely it would ever be the access point for this or the adjacent parcel. As clarification, the portion of Banker Drive from Shamrock Blvd to David Road is within public right-of-way. It is a public street within public right-of-way; it is an existing condition and would remain so. Nelson Yoder, Principal, Development Partners, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Dr, Ste 500, Dublin, Ohio, 43017, stated that the development process with this site was initiated in September 2020. What is proposed is a drive-thru on the end cap of the building. There are two access points off Banker Drive. The Mellow Mushroom building located to the east does not interact with Dublin-Granville Road. There is parking between the building and the street. That is the more traditional urban form. In comparison, they have attempted to incorporate walkable, urbanism concepts into this site plan. In November 2020, they provided requested revisions to staff. The building has been elongated to occupy more of the frontage. The drive-thru has also been relocated behind the building; it can no longer be seen from West Dublin- Granville Drive, only from the Lowes driveway and the service driveway to the rear. Engineering has Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 12 of 26 requested that the two curbcuts be consolidated into one and be pulled to the center of the site. This land was an outparcel created in 2000 before the Bridge Street District was envisioned. At that time, Lowes imposed deed restrictions on this site limiting any buildings to 6000 square feet. They have approached Lowes more than once requesting them to drop the deed restrictions, as they would like to develop more square footage on the site. They have consistently refused. Even though the Bridge Street Code looks for something different than the earlier zoning code permitted, the deed restrictions remain in place. As a result, they must try to create a project on the site that allows for walkable urbanism concepts. Perhaps 30 years from now, the Lowes site will cease to exist, and the deed restrictions might be lifted by the future owner. At this point, it is important to ensure we are allowing ourselves the ability to address both Village Parkway and West Dublin Granville Road, should that future opportunity occur. They have attempted to create the best project they can now within the current restrictions. A tenant already has been identified that is interested in the site, who would be a great addition to Bridge Street. However, without a drive-thru, the tenant is not interested and this project will not happen. [described the details of the site report.] He noted that there is a mature tree line where the drive-thru stacking area would be. There is 24 feet between the curb and the edge o f the proposed pavement. The proposed drive-thru will be obscured by the tree line. There is plenty of room to add any additional landscaping for buffering, as required. [reviewed the proposed one-story massing.] The project is facilitating a transfer of land to the City for the future roadway. It also provides patios and open space on SR161 and will create a buffer between SR 161 and Lowes. Additional pedestrian facilities will be necessary, particularly along the Lowe’s access drive. The report unintentionally presents the Lowe’s access drive as both a public street and as a private access drive; it is either one or the other. They have attempted to arrive at the best project for a very challenging site. This site will not set a precedent for other sites, because other sites along SR161 do not have the deed restrictions that this site has. If they did not exist, they would be happy to construct a taller building here. In comparison, the next case on the agenda is for a two-story, 12,000-square-foot building for the site immediately to the west of this site. They are able to construct that building because the site has no deed restrictions. They would not be appealing the Commission to permit a one-story building on this site, if it were not required. Brian McNally, Myers & Associates, 232 N. Third Street, Columbus, OH stated that typically, this level of detail is not shown with a Concept Plan. Usually, lots, blocks and massing are shown. There were several site constraints that were dealt with; much time and effort has been invested in the Concept Plan in the placement of this building. On the west side of this site is a large, electrical easement. On the east side of the lot is the Lowes pedestal sign. The 7,000 square feet de ed restriction incorporates the total building square footage. The longer, one-story design was created to take up more of the site along SR161 and create more interest. They have broken up the mass into 3-4 main heights, included a large amount of storefront, and attempted to create verticality into the design with the façade materials. Overhead canopies, horizontal elements and large patios activate the SR161 frontage. Commission Questions Ms. Fox stated that the applicant is caught between a deed restriction and the BSD Code. They have identified some creative uses in an attempt to navigate that situation. The applicant indicates they have discussed the situation with Lowes; is there a record of that discussion. Mr. Yoder responded that the recorded deed restrictions dictate 6,000-7,000 square feet; the height; and parking requirements. Lowes has indicated that unequivocably, they will not go back on such past decisions. Apparently, with the number of Lowes units throughout the world, once they make a decision, they are not altered. Ms. Fox inquired if Lowes realizes that this is an undevelopable lot within the City’s Zoning Code. Mr. Yoder responded that Lowes is not concerned as it is not their problem; it is a problem for the property owner and the City. The site can either remain vacant, or it can be activated with another Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 13 of 26 restaurant. As the owners, they would like to do that. If that cannot happen, the site will continue to sit vacant, as it has the past 20 years. Mr. Schneier inquired if there is an overlap between the Code and the deed restrictions, is there a place the two could work together? Mr. Yoder responded that there is not. A two-story building, as the Code requires, will not work. A 3,500- square-foot footprint would result in a very short building, which would not occupy a sufficient amount of the frontage. The best solution for meeting the Code requirements regarding the street frontage is what they have proposed. Mr. Schneier inquired if there is any ability to change this from a drive-thru with vehicle queue line to an app-based order process. Mr. Yoder responded that the most adjacent restaurant tenant has that type of setup. This tenant is a coffee-related business. He noted that Fifth Third put a deed restriction on this parcel when they sold it to Lowes in 2000 that no financial institution could be located on this site, nor any competing ATMs. Ms. Fox stated that Lowes permits a building height of up to 28 feet, but this proposal has a height of 22 feet. She understands the purpose for spreading out the massing, but it would be possible to add some additional height. Mr. Yoder responded that it would cost money to add height; therefore, it would be necessary to remove something elsewhere to make the project viable. They have invested the money at the level where there is the most benefit. There is a height restriction, not a stories restriction, and a 7,000-square foot restriction. The latter restricts the number of stories. If the building were made smaller, there would be a view of the parking lot and Lowes at the rear. Mr. Supelak stated that because more height would be permitted, the concept of mezzanines occurs. Mezzanine are interesting in how they are used and how they apply toward building square feet. A double- height coffee house or restaurant could be compelling with a little mezzanine feature added, if the Code permits. Mr. O’Malley responded that the Code permits mezzanines and are frequently used. They are not difficult, but the deed restrictions would count that mezzanine toward the usable building interior. The Building Code permits mezzanine to overlook 10 percent of the floor area. If they were to add mezzanine space, it would be necessary to eliminate some building length to meet the 7000 square foot restriction. Mr. Yoder stated that if a mezzanine is open to the floor below, it is not counted as a story. It counts toward square footage but is a one-story building, according to Code. Because the Code permits a two- story building, a mezzanine would not be a benefit. Mr. Way stated that in regard to the right-of-way for the future Village Parkway, perhaps it would be possible to change the drive-thru to that side and use that right-of-way as an easement. In the short term, it could provide access to the drive-thru and not involve the Lowes access drive. Mr. Yoder responded that initially, the drive-thru was on that side of the building, as it improves the circulation. However, there was concern about having a drive-thru close to a future public street versus next to the driveway. Mr. Way stated that there is no need for that road in the foreseeable future. All of that real estate will sit empty on the anticipation that some point in the future, there will be a road there – that seems short- sighted. Mr. Yoder stated that because it is shown on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan, it is required to be set aside to allow for that future roadway development. Mr. Way stated that he would assume a limited easement could permit it to happen. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 14 of 26 Mr. Yoder responded that City Engineering and Economic Development have indicated the City’s desire that, at some point, the road would be built as part of this project. However, as the applicant, they do not see that as an asset to this particular project at this time. Mr. Way responded that from a site-planning perspective, that would be a preferable location for the drive-thru, as it would remove it from the corridor and level of visibility. Mr. Hounshell clarified that the Code’s Specific Use requirements for drive-thrus dictate that, although Village Parkway is only potential, drive-thrus are not permitted to front principal frontage streets. They are required to plan the site accordingly. That is the reason the site is oriented toward the potential neighborhood streets rather than the principal frontage streets. Mr. Way inquired if there is any opportunity for the Commission to express a recommendation for something different. Ms. Rauch stated that there is an existing street network map and Code Specific Use requirements that limit where drive-thrus are permitted. Locating the street access on SR161 would be more concerning and visible than where it is currently proposed. Mr. Way responded that it would not be visible, but there would be a right in/right out driveway that would permit access to the site. The exit could be on Banker Drive, not SR161. Ms. Rauch responded that the greater issue is the drive-thru in general – the tone it sets for the corridor. The layout, design and use does not comply with what the Bridge Street District encourages. Mr. Way stated that if the drive-thru location were altered, it would remove the circulation from that corner. The building then could anchor that corner differently. Mr. Yoder stated that there is one advantage with the existing driveway alignment. It is effectively the front of the Lowe’s building. The other location has the potential to be a road that does not align with the shopping center. In addition, the existing mature trees at that corner would provide screening. Mature evergreen trees provide excellent screening. There may also be room to add pedestrian facilities to connect SR161 to the front of the Lowe’s site. Commission Discussion Ms. Fox stated that this Concept does not improve pedestrian friendliness of the street. It is auto-oriented. She would not object to a portion of the front of the building being one-story; however, there is a need to add some height. Rather than one long building, a pedestrian tunnel could allow people to walk through the building from the parking lot. The hope is that, one day, the pedestrian traffic along SR161 will be similar to that in Bridge Park. That will not happen here if the orientation is to the rear of the site. There is an opportunity to have one-story wings on the end, add height in the middle, and take advantage of the streetscape and patios. The Plan currently does not provide a sufficient number of pedestrian-friendly elements. She understands the deed restrictions but believes there is potential to create more pedestrian- friendliness. Using up all the space for buffering does not permit pedestrian facilities. Mr. Yoder responded that he likes the idea of the tunnel connection through the building from SR 161 to the parking area, similar to the restaurants in Clintonville. Two buildings would not be permitted here, but one building with a tunnel could be a possibility. Such a change could improve the pedestrian friendliness, creating places for people to walk to. Adding a sidewalk between SR161 and the front of Lowes could improve pedestrian friendliness. It would not be crossing the proposed drive-thru on the other side of the hedgerow. He appreciates the Commission’s comments and ideas. Mr. Schneier reiterated Ms. Fox’s comments regarding the need to create pedestrian-friendliness. A drive- thru and pedestrian friendliness seem to be mutually exclusive, but perhaps they need not be. He also likes the cut-through idea, which is common on Grandview Avenue and in Clintonville. He is not opposed to this being a one-story building on a unique site and unique circumstances. The goal is to create the best project possible along SR161, and he remains open-minded. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 15 of 26 Mr. Fishman stated that the goal of the Bridge Street Corridor is to create a walkable community, and every application in this area has been expected to encourage that. That is the challenge for this site. Mr. Grimes stated that he appreciates all the work invested on this site during the past year. It is a great plan, but in order to be true to the vision for that corridor, it does not yet “fit.” There are many other parcels in this corridor yet to be developed. It is important to be consistent with the successful projects than making exceptions. Mr. Way stated that there appears to be a vision that is ahead of itself. There are so many pieces along this corridor that are fighting against that vision that we cannot change. He does not believe having property sit vacant, making no contribution at all, is the right approach. The challenge is SR 161, a 45- mph roadway and no on-street parking. What the applicant is attempting to do to animate the existing walkway and add frontage to the street is very valid. Until Lowes goes away at some distant point in the future, the vision cannot be achieved. The applicant has come up with a good way to place an active use here at this point in time. Although he would like to see the drive-thru done differently, he supports the applicant’s direction within the existing conditions of the corridor. The walkable street that is desired is a long-term vision. This is a short-term solution for achieving some activity on the site. Mr. Supelak stated that Commission members recognize the difficult situation for the applicant. We keep referencing places like Grandview Avenue and Clintonville. Are pedestrian friendliness and vehicle drive- thrus mutually exclusive? Every example that we can recall confirm that they are, do that is the issue that needs to be resolved first. At present, it seems that this is not the right location for the proposed drive-thru. While he agrees that at this point, we are a long distance from the vision for this corridor, we do want this eventually to become like Grandview Avenue; that will take some time. It would be good to start with something to prime the energy, but he is skeptical that the energy should come from a drive- thru. The design and material palette are attractive. The idea about creating a pedestrian pass-though could be appropriate. The deed restrictions are an interesting problem, and the applicant has been trying to work out a solution with Lowes and the City. Lowes is a large corporation, but money can be convincing. It is the economics that matter, and he believes Lowes will budge, if the conversation is right. Mr. Yoder responded that the issue is that Lowes sold this outparcel 20 years ago. They have obtained their money from it and have no incentive to re-negotiate any past decisions to benefit little outparcel in Dublin. Working with those restriction, they now must find a way of making the most they can from this vacant site, which is an eyesore in the middle of an important corridor. He will challenge his group to go back and identify how to satisfy all the requirements expressed by the Commission tonight. Although Commissioners may not have an experience with a drive-thru that is part of a pedestrian-friendly project, he is confident that his talented team can do that. They built Bridge Park – certainly, they can figure out a way to incorporate a drive-thru in a project that has enough other pedestrian connectivity to make it a successful project. If the Commission agrees, he would like to go back to the drawing board and identify a concept that reinforces the priority of the pedestrian element within the project. Mr. Supelak responded that he has no objection to their making that attempt, but it would be a tall hurdle. The Commission has concerns, but would be happy to see a concept that accommodates those concerns. He clarified that he was not advocating for the applicant to invest more money or make additional purchases here; it is, of course, up to the applicant to do the cost-benefit analysis. In most cases, a check to waive some deed restrictions will be convincing. Mr. Yoder responded that most people will accept a check, if it is large enough. However, they also need to be financially able to construct a building. Purchasing more square footage for the project would also mean investing and constructing more parking. It can become more complicated. Public Comments Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021 Page 16 of 26 No public comments on the case were received. Mr. Boggs inquired if the applicant had indicated that he wished to table the case. Mr. Yoder responded affirmatively. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded to table the Concept Plan. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded to table the request for combination of the review and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the Final Development Plan. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] 3. 4012 W. Dublin-Granville Road, 21-129CP, Concept Plan A request for the construction of a 14,600-square-foot, two-story, mixed-use building. The 1.08-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Office and is located northeast of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with David Road. Staff Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Concept Plan for the construction of a two-story, mixed-use building in the Bridge Street District. The applicant is proposing an approximate 14,600-square-foot loft type building, sited in the southern one-third of the site. Approximately 400 square feet of open space is proposed on the west edge of the proposed building, where 290 square feet is required. 53 parking spaces will be located centrally on the site, where 54 spaces are required. Access to the site is provided on the north side of the site from Banker Drive. Two patios are proposed adjacent to the building, and sidewalks are proposed along the David Road and Banker Drive frontages. Some of the infrastructure improvements will be on a City-owned parcel; therefore, the applicant will need to work with staff to determine the most appropriate siting. There is a portion of an existing overhead utility easement on the east side of the site, which constricts the site of the building and the parking. The proposed Loft Building Type is a permitted building type in the Office District. The building is required to be sited within 0-15 feet of the right-of-way line and to occupy 75% of the front property line width. With the Preliminary Development Plan, a full building type analysis will be required. The applicant has provided rendering of the proposed building massing. It is a primarily a 2-story massing with a 1.5-story element and rooftop amenities. The primary entry from the parking lot is on the north elevation. Architectural inspiration images were also provided. The buildings will be contemporary in design with straight lines and flat roofs. The buildings utilize glazing, transparency, wood, metal and masonry elements. The proposed open space will be comprised of hardscape with vegetation and seating elements provided. The Concept Plan was reviewed against applicable criteria and staff recommends approval with two conditions, as well as approval of the request to combine t he Preliminary and Final Development Plan reviews. Commission Questions Ms. Fox that the building is required to be 0-15 feet from the right-of-way. In addition to the building footprint, that could also be either patio or an outdoor structure. With those spaces, the building itself could be located further back from the property line. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.