Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 30-21 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: May 18, 2021 Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Re: Resolution 30-21 – Acceptance of a Preliminary Plat for Towns on The Parkway located within the Bridge Street District (Case #20-158PP) Summary This is a request for acceptance of a Preliminary Plat to establish four lots and to dedicate three public rights-of-way to facilitate development of Towns on The Parkway, a 154-unit attached, single-family neighborhood with .71-acre open space. The site is located north of John Shields Parkway, west of Village Parkway, and south of Tuller Road, and is zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) – Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. The site is surrounded by existing development including AMC Theatre is to the east, Greystone Mews to the south, Tuller Flats to the west, and Spectrum office building to the north. 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 the application for a Preliminary Plat and made a recommendation of approval to City Council on December 10, 2020, finding the proposal meets the review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with the Preliminary Development Plan, which was approved by the Commission. Description The proposal includes the subdivision of 11.0-acres to establish four lots (Lots 1-4) and three public rights-of-way (McCune Avenue, Holcomb Street, and Seville Street). Lot 1 is a 2.84-acre parcel, Lot 2 a 1.99-acre parcel, Lot 3 is a 2.19-acres parcel, and Lot 4 is a 1.73-acres parcel. Located in the northwest portion of the site, Lot 1 has frontage along Tuller Road, Seville Street, McCune Avenue, and Holcomb Street. Located in the northeast portion of the site, Lot 2 has frontage along the Tuller Road/Village Parkway curve, McCune Avenue, and Seville Street. Located in the southwest portion of the site, Lot 3 has frontage along, McCune Avenue, Seville Street, John Shields Parkway, and Holcomb Street. Located in the southeast Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo Memo – Resolution 30-21 - Preliminary Plat – Towns on The Parkway May 18, 2021 Page 2 of 2 portion of the site, Lot 4 has frontage along McCune Avenue, Village Parkway, John Shields Parkway, and Seville Street. The McCune Avenue extension bisects the site east to west, Seville Street bisects the site north to south, and Holcomb Street bounds the site to the west. All streets have a right-of-way width of 50 feet. Pedestrian facilities are provided along all public streets. On-street parking is provided along the north side of McCune Avenue and the west side of Holcomb Street. Publically accessible open space is required to be provided with development in the Bridge Street District, which will be memorialized with the Final Development Plan. The development includes .71-acre of publically accessible open space, which meets the Code requirement. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At the December 10, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff recommended approval with the following condition: 1) The applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot; and, 2) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended to City Council the plat acceptance with the conditions, which have been addressed prior to City Council review. City Council Recommendation Recommendation of acceptance Resolution of 30-21 for the Preliminary Plat. NO SCALE LOCATION MAP CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: SUBMITTALS: CIVIL ENGINEER INDEX OF DRAWINGS 1.VICINITY MAP 2.LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING PARCELS 3.SITE PLAN 4. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 5.PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 NO SCALE LOCATION MAP TULLER ROAD TOWNS ON THE PARKWAYI-270 JOHN SHIELDS PKWY BRIDGE PARK AVENUE V I L LAG E PKWYPLANNING COMMISSION: NOVEMBER 20, 2020 (PROJECT FORMERLY KNOWN AS TULLER TOWNHOMES) CITY COUNCIL: MAY 10, 2021 TULLER ROAD BSC JOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY DEARDORFF STREETWATSON STREETMcCUNE AVE JOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY TULLER RIDGE DRIVE HO B B S LAND ING D R I V E TROUTBROOK DRIVE COPPERSTONE DRIVEHOBBS LANDING DRIVEV I L LAG E P A R KW A Y DUBLIN CENTER DRIVEBRIDGE PARK AVENUEDALE DRIVEDALE DRIVEINTERSTATE 270 EMER AL D P A RK W AY GRANDEE CLIFFS DRIVETULLER ROADR-1 R-1 R-1 BSC-R BSC-SCN BSC-R BSC-R SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY DESCRIPTIONDATE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 20210247 1/5 NOVEMBER 20, 2020 1"=200' Scale Date Sheet Job No. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 200 feet 400100200 J:\20210247\Dwg\04Sheets\Preliminary Plat\1 Vicinity Map.dwg Last Saved By: sharris, 5/12/2021 2:47 PMVICINITY MAP LOCATED IN: QUARTER TOWNSHIP 2, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO SCALE: 1"=200' VICINITY MAP PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 5/10/2021 City Council Submittal, Revised project name and street names JOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY (76', PUBLIC)VILLAGE PARKWAY(FORMERLY FEDERATED BOULEVARD)P.B. 65, P. 27JOHN S H I E L D S P A R K W A Y (76' P U B L I C ) MCCUNE AVENUE (50', PUBLIC) CL TULLER ROAD (WIDTH VARIES) CL CLCL CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 60 feet 1203060 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TULLER TOWNHOMES DESCRIPTIONDATE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 20210247 3/5 NOVEMBER 20, 2020 1"=60' Scale Date Sheet Job No.J:\20210247\Dwg\04Sheets\Preliminary Plat\2 Legal Description and Plat.dwg Last Saved By: sharris, 5/12/2021 2:41 PMLEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING PARCELS LOCATED IN: QUARTER TOWNSHIP 2, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 5/10/2021 City Council Submittal, Revised project name and street names 20' BUILDING Z O N E 5' BUILDING Z O N E 5' BUILDING Z O N E 20' BUILDING Z O N E 5' BUILDING ZONE 20' BUILDING ZONE 5' BUILDING ZONE 20' BUILDING ZONE 5' B U I L D I N G Z O N E 20 ' B U I L D I N G Z O N E 20' BUILDING ZONE 5' BUILDING ZONE 20' BUILDING ZONE5' BUILDING ZONE20' BUILDING ZONE5' BUILDING ZONE20' BUILDING ZONE 5' BUILDING ZONE 20' BUI L DI N G Z O N E 5' BUIL DI N G Z O N E 20' BUILDING ZONE5' BUILDING ZONER=800'R=800'R=250' R=306'R=5000'50'31'50' 22'50'31'50' 22'38'86'39'50' 31' TULLER ROAD VILLAGEPARKWAYJOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY McCUNE AVENUE TULLE R R O A D 22' 50' 31' 22'20'11'11'11'11'11' McCUNE AVE N U E McCUNE AVENUESEVILLE STREETHOLCOMB STREET67'63'35'248' 112' 148'24'25'25'39'25'25'178'35' 400' 46'167'395' 55'35'25'25'62'25'25'67'40'25'25'294'90' 32'21'7' 3 4 2 ' 32'25'25' 73'25'25'294' 44'16'36'181'187'299'457'181'25'25'39'25'25'16'50'25'25'400'25'25'26' 10' ELECTRIC EASEMENT O.R. 21732E01 10' EMBANKMENTEASEMENTO.R.7868D01ELECTRIC EASEMENTIN. 201710270150694SANITARY SEWER ESMTO.R. 12874F19LOT 1 2.84 ACRES LOT 2 1.99 ACRES LOT 4 1.73 ACRES LOT 3 2.19 ACRES CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 60 feet 1203060 BSC-SCN ±0.36 LOT\ACRE 4 ±11.0 ACRES ZONING CLASSIFICATION: GROSS DENSITY: NUMBER OF LOTS: TOTAL ACREAGE: SITE STATISTICS: OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: BENCH MARKS:(NAVD 1988) ELEVATION = 884.07 ELEVATION = 890.10 BM#1 BM#2 ELEVATION = 801.71 SOURCE BM STATION IS A STAINLESS STEEL ROD DRIVEN TO A DEPTH OF 16 FEET, IN A TRIANGULAR SHAPED GRASS MEDIAN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE, 59.9 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE NORTH CORNER OF THE MEDIAN, 28.4 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE MEDIAN, 20.2 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE MEDIAN, 2 FEET NORTH OF A WITNESS POST, ACCESS THROUGH ALUMINUM ACCESS COVER, LEVEL WITH THE SIDEWALK. ELEVATION = 858.87 BM#3 CHISELED SQUARE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A STORM CURB AND GUTTER INLET LOCATED EAST SIDE OF THE TULLER RIDGE DRIVE, 1100 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF TULLER RIDGE DRIVE AND TULLER ROAD. CHISELED "X" ON THE WEST FLANGE BOLT OF A FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VILLAGE PARKWAY, 270 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF VILLAGE PARKWAY AND COOPERSTONE DRIVE. CHISELED "X" ON THE NORTH FLANGE BOLT OF A FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TULLER ROAD, 1700 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TULLER ROAD AND TULLER RIDGE DRIVE. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY DESCRIPTIONDATE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 20210247 3/5 NOVEMBER 20, 2020 1"=60' Scale Date Sheet Job No.J:\20210247\Dwg\04Sheets\Preliminary Plat\3 Site Plan.dwg Last Saved By: sharris, 5/12/2021 2:46 PMSITE PLAN LOCATED IN: QUARTER TOWNSHIP 2, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 5/10/2021 City Council Submittal, Revised project name and street names 154 UNITS X 200 SF/UNITS = 30,800 SF (0.71 ACRES) 10' ELECTRIC EASEMENT O.R. 21732E01 10' EMBANKMENTEASEMENTO.R.7868D01ELECTRIC EASEMENTIN. 201710270150694SANITARY SEWER ESMTO.R. 12874F19TULLER ROAD VILLAGEPARKWAYJOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY McCUNE AVENUE TULLE R R O A D LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4SEVILLE STREETSEVILLE STREETHOLCOMB STREETHOLCOMB STREETMcCUNE AVE N U E McCUNE AVENUE TRINITY LANE CREST LANELIFFEY LANEPHOENIX LANE G U I L D L A N EDELVIN LANELANSDOWNE LANE FINGLAS LANEANNA L A Y L A N E ANNALAY LAN E CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 50 feet 1002550 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY DESCRIPTIONDATE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 20210247 4/5 NOVEMBER 20, 2020 1"=50' Scale Date Sheet Job No.J:\20210247\Dwg\04Sheets\Preliminary Plat\4 Preliminary Utility Plan.dwg Last Saved By: sharris, 5/12/2021 2:46 PMPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN LOCATED IN: QUARTER TOWNSHIP 2, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 LEGEND 5/10/2021 City Council Submittal, Revised project name and street names TULLER ROAD VILLAGEPARKWAYJOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY McCUNE AVENUE TULLE R R O A D FF = 889.1FF = 887.2FF = 885.6 FF = 883.9 FF = 887.4FF = 885.9 FF = 884.1 FF = 780.7 FF = 879.4 FF = 877.7 FF = 876.2 FF = 873.0FF = 880.6 FF = 878.4 FF = 875.7 FF = 877.6 FF = 881.0 FF = 8 8 5.9 FF = 889 .0FF = 885.6FF = 884.5FF = 877.6 FF = 881.2FF = 880.3FF = 873.9FF = 874.4FF = 886.7 FF = 884.1 F F = 8 8 7. 4 FF = 874.6 McCUNE AVENUE SEVILLE STREETSEVILLE STREETTRINITY LANE CREST LANELIFFEY LANEPHOENIX LANE G U I L D L A N E DELVIN LANELANSDOWNE LANE ANNALAY LAN E FINGLAS LANEStormTech 01 StormTech 02 StormTech 03Storm T e c h 0 4 StormTech 05StormTech 06HOLCOMB STREETMcCUNE AVE N U E ANNA L A Y L A N E CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 50 feet 1002550 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY DESCRIPTIONDATE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 20210247 5/5 NOVEMBER 20, 2020 1"=50' Scale Date Sheet Job No.J:\20210247\Dwg\04Sheets\Preliminary Plat\5 Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg Last Saved By: sharris, 5/12/2021 2:46 PMPRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN LOCATED IN: QUARTER TOWNSHIP 2, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO PULTE HOMES 475 METRO PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 PH: (614) 376-1000 LEGEND 5/10/2021 City Council Submittal, Revised project name and street names PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, December 10, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991 20-158PP Preliminary Plat Proposal: Preliminary Plat of ±11.61 acres to create four lots and three public rights-of-way to accommodate a residential development of 155 attached, single-family units with buildings to include three to seven units per building. Location: Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte and Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-158 MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat with two conditions: 1) That the applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot; and 2) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat , prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. VOTE: 7 – 0. RESULT: The Preliminary Plat was conditionally recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 8 of 16   4. Tuller Road Townhomes at PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991, Preliminary Development Plan, 20-159PDP Construction of a 155-unit, attached, single-family residential development with buildings to include three to seven units per building on an 11.61-acre site located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood. 5. Tuller Road Townhomes at PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991, Preliminary Plat, 20-158PP A Preliminary Plat of ±11.61 acres to create four lots and three public rights-of-way to accommodate a residential development of 155 attached, single-family units with buildings to include three to seven units per building on a site located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood. Case Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat. The development will be comprised of 155 attached single-family townhomes homes on 0.7 acres of open space and 3 public streets on a ±11 acre site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). This differs from a Planned Unit Development (PUD), as no rezoning is required. The zoning standards within the Bridge Street District are already established, and the uses are permitted. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway. The site is comprised of two parcels and a tree line bisects the site. It is necessary to consider projects within the context of the Bridge Street District (BSD) Special Area Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2010 and is included in the Community Plan. The BSD Special Area Plan provides recommendations for land use and character. This 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 environment through unique shopping, service and entertainment uses with supporting residential and office uses. Townhomes and multifamily buildings are recommended. A gateway is identified at the intersection of Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway. Neighborhood districts allow for special attention to be given to location and character of streets, buildings and open spaces with an emphasis on a coordinated mix of uses. The BSD Code is built upon a Street Network Framework map, which calls for a ‘T’ intersection at Village Parkway and Tuller Road. That intersection is located beyond this particular site, and the associated right-of-way is within the City’s jurisdiction. As proposed in March 2020, the applicant had planned to incorporate that intersection improvement in this project in partnership with the City. In subsequent conversations, the City has decided that the intersection improvements in that area will be deferred; therefore, the applicant has re-designed the plan within the boundaries of the site. This is a Preliminary Development Plan, and similar to a Planned District, a subsequent Final Development Plan will permit a final review of all details associated with the project. In the Preliminary Development stage, the uses are evaluated. A townhome dwelling is a permitted use on this site. Both the Sawmill Neighborhood standards and the Street Network Map are applicable. The lots and blocks are established with the Preliminary Development, establishing the framework for the development. Building layout, form and height are confirmed in this stage, as well as the amount and location of open space. Parking is the final element of the Preliminary Development Plan. The Final Development Plan provides building type requirements, including materials, architectural details and finishes; the design of the open space; and landscaping and lighting of the public realm. Proposal The proposal is for 154 attached single-family units distributed across 30 buildings varying in size from 4 units to 7 units and 0.7 acres of open space. The proposal also includes the extension of McCune Avenue and two new public streets (Grafton Street and Hobbs Landing Drive West), which will provide access to interior private drives accessing private two-car garages for each unit. Compliance with the Street Network Map results in the creation of a proposal that establishes four blocks. The Code includes standards for maximum block dimensions. In the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length, and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. All the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 9 of 16   block lengths are compliant with the exception of the southern length of Block 1, which has a length of 505 feet along John Shields Parkway. The block length is a direct result of the curvature of John Shields Parkway. Staff is supportive of an Administrative Departure to deviate from the numeric standard by 5 feet. In reviewing the building layout, it is important to consider the Code constraints on the building placements. The build zone for a single-family, attached building type requires a minimum 5-foot setback, but the building must be located within 20 feet of the property line. The proposal meets this requirement in all locations. Front property coverage is also required, which is the percentage of the required build zone occupied by a structure. In several locations, the proposal is deficient in front property line coverage, therefore, a waiver is requested. The deficiency is due to street connections along McCune Avenue, as well as the open space provided at the intersection of John Shields and Village Parkway. In addition, buildings are required to be sited at the corner or occupy the corner. In several instances, buildings are not sufficiently occupying the corner. In all cases, it is due to a desire to provide open spaces at corners and key gateway locations or to permit preservation of mature trees. The final lot coverage will be provided with the Final Development Plan. The maximum impervious lot coverage permitted in this district is 70 percent. Open Space and Parking The proposal provides 10 open space areas, including pocket plazas, a square, and several mid-block pedestrian ways. The total open space requirement in the Bridge Street District is calculated differently than that in a Planned Unit Development. The Bridge Street District requires 200 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Although .71 acres of open space is required, the proposal provides only .64 acres of open space. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to identify ways in which to provide the additional open space and to pursue opportunities to enhance the mid-block pedestrian ways, which could include water features, art and lighting. The applicant is seeking a waiver for the proportion of open spaces. The proportion is required to be at a ratio of 3:1. The intent is to provide square, not linear open spaces. Linear open spaces provide connectivity, while activated open spaces are typically square. Staff is supportive of that waiver. A parking plan is requested with this application. The Bridge Street District parking requirement for townhomes is 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is providing 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 2 additional driveway spaces. This results in 308 parking spaces across the site, which exceeds the 161 required. In some cases, the parking spaces occupy the required build zone. In these cases, the parking should be screened at 100% opacity, to be detailed with the Final Development Plan. Architecture The Code provides Building Type requirements, which are highly prescriptive, providing parameters to ensure high quality development. The Single-Family Attached Building Type permits buildings that are 1.5 to 4 stories in height. This application is proposed at 3 stories in height. The proposed Building Materials are brick, stone and glass. The applicant is seeking a waiver to be permitted to use thin brick. In previous cases, the Commission has been supportive of the substitution of thin brick for full-depth brick. The Code also provides minimum story height requirements. Although the requirement is 10-12 feet in height, the applicant is proposing a story height of 9.5 feet. Because the request is within 10% of the requirement, it is an Administrative Departure, not a Waiver. The form of the building is an important consideration of the Preliminary Development Plan. The form is largely attributed to the roof. At the Concept Plan for this project, the Commission requested that a more traditional roofline be provided, and the plan has been revised to a pitched roof and traditional materials. Details are provided along the roofline to mimic a flat roof, providing a transition between Greystone Mews and Tuller Flats. The flat details also require a Waiver, of which staff is supportive. However, staff is not supportive of a Waiver to permit an uninterrupted ridge line. As proposed, the ridge line is consistent with no architectural features. More variation is necessary in the height and form of the roofline, distinguishing each unit as a “for sale” townhome versus an apartment building. The elevations provided with this proposal differ from those provided with the earlier Concept Plan. Significantly warmer tones for the Primary Building Materials are proposed, such as brick. The side elevations will wrap the corners with brick. The applicant is requesting Commission feedback tonight on the architecture and the proposed color scheme, in advance of submitting the architecture and color palettes with the Final Development Plan. With the intent of providing a diversity of Building Types, proposed Building Types have been provided. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 10 of 16   Conceptual landscape character and features within the public realm and at the gateway of Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway also are provided for consideration. Finally, the applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat. Applicant Presentation Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, Ohio stated that much work has been invested in this proposed development to date. This is a challenging site; there is much occurring around it, and a very detailed Code is associated with it. The Concept Plan for this development was reviewed and approved by the Commission in March 2020. At that time, due to the proposed T-intersection as required by the Bridge Street District plan, a development agreement approved by City Council was necessary, which would have involved a land swap and TIF funding. Since then, it has been determined that it would be advisable to work with only this site, and the project has been redesigned without the T intersection. The Commission’s comments with the Concept Plan review were considered carefully, and the proposal has been revised accordingly. Due to the three existing public street rights-of-way, the development to the west, and the Code, the “box” for this development was restrictive. Previously, the Commission stated that the architecture for this development should be differentiated from the Tuller Flats development to be less monolithic. This is a “for sale” product with individual, self-parked units. The architecture has been revised to a more traditional design, including pitched roofs and roof terraces on the fronts of the buildings. They believe they have been able to address the Commission’s concerns, and if the Commission approves the requested Waivers, the project can proceed to the next step. They welcome the Commission’s feedback tonight, as they move to the final design stage. The rest of their team members also present will be happy to respond to questions. Commission Questions Mr. Supelak stated that there are four dead-end streets in this development. Is there a reason they are not being connected to the major thoroughfares? Ms. Martin responded that staff had encouraged the applicant to disconnect those streets. The Bridge Street District must maintain a fine balance. In addition to connectivity, one of the other principles of this District is to have uninterrupted street frontages that allow for pedestrian circulation in a safe manner. Instead of prioritizing vehicular circulation, which is more than adequate on this site due to the other connections, the attempt here was to prioritize pedestrian circulation and safety. Ms. Kennedy requested staff to re-state the items that staff does not support. Ms. Martin responded that staff is not supportive of the Waiver to permit the consistent roofline. Staff believes it is important to differentiate the single-family units and provide more diversity across the development. In addition, a condition is recommended that the required open space be provided. Through creative site design, that should be possible. Staff has also conditioned that the final architectural details and materials on street- facing facades meet the intent of the Bridge Street District. That is very important at the gateway intersection with Village Parkway. Other minor conditions are recommended to ensure clear direction is given to the applicant for the Final Development Plan. Ms. Fox stated that she was unable to be present for the earlier Concept Plan review. Although she has reviewed those records online, it would be helpful for staff to summarize the primary recommendations that were offered by the Commission. Ms. Martin responded that for the Concept Plan, the applicant provided two architectural concepts as Option A and Option B. One option was more modern and provided some of the forms reflected elsewhere in the District, such as in Tuller Flats. The other was significantly more traditional. A pitched roof was the Commission’s preferred solution, and the applicant has blended Option A and Option B into a cohesive design. The Commission also encouraged that the street-facing façades be activated. Initially, the rooftop terraces were provided at the rear of the units facing the auto-oriented area; now the rooftop terraces are provided facing the principal frontage streets, with select units having the option to have them rear facing instead. The Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 11 of 16   applicant was also encouraged to refine the design to ensure the auto-oriented areas were minimized from view. Ms. Fox inquired about the previous discussion regarding the open space. Ms. Martin responded that the discussion focused on the development of the gateway location at the intersection with John Shields Parkway. Ms. Fox inquired if the previous design met the open space requirement. Ms. Martin responded that it did meet the requirement, but the site area was .6 acres larger, which allowed a second pocket park. Now, due to the curvature of the street, that is no longer possible. Ms. Call stated that there is a 3:1 open space requirement. What are the open spaces included in the requested waiver? One of the main features in the previous Option 1 was the very nice mailbox enclosure. There also was discussion about the addition of amenities and activation of that space. Ms. Martin responded that the open spaces that meet the required proportion include the large open space square, the gateway location and the open space at the intersection of Hobbs Landing and John Shields Parkway. The open spaces that do not meet this provision are the linear open spaces – the mid-block pedestrian ways. A condition has been recommended that the applicant provide additional enhancements in those areas to counteract the linear form. To provide additional amenities, staff is supportive of a waiver to modify the shape. Ms. Kennedy inquired if thin brick has been used in the surrounding areas. Ms. Martin responded that most of the buildings within Bridge Park area use thin brick. Due to the height of the buildings, full depth brick would become very heavy. In some instances, Tuller Flats also uses thin brick. Commission Discussion Mr. Supelak stated that he believes it is problematic to have dead-end streets here, although he understands the desire for a more pedestrian environment. However, the entire Bridge Street area is a more quasi-urban area, and this is a townhome development. He does not believe there would be an issue with having a couple more connected streets; otherwise, a vehicular circulation issue is created on this site. In the Concept Plan, there were some corner issues; those have been improved, but there is need for further improvement. The architectural renderings provided with the Concept Plan were more compelling than those provided with this proposal. The corners of the buildings present opportunities for improvement. He recognizes that a finite number of variations to the units are practical, but the two end units near the pocket park at John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway should not have the standard “end” architecture. Something additional is needed, such as a two-story extension that might address the corner condition differently. There are a few obvious places for such variations to be added. He agrees with staff regarding the need for variation in the roof ridge line. That is the only variation that could also be experienced on the back façade. A ridge line variation will be important. Mr. Fishman stated that it is important that the buildings look like individual single-family homes, not apartments. The intent is that this not be another Tuller Flats development. He also would like to see more greenspace. Currently, the area is very dense. The original intent with the Bridge Park development was that pocket parks and open space would minimize the density. Therefore, in addition to making these buildings appear more residential, it is essential to achieve as much greenspace as possible. Ms. Kennedy stated that the information submitted by the applicant states, “The Pulte Group submits this plan in furtherance of the goal of providing a unique product type.... The buildings will create vibrancy along the public streets and be additive to the visual character of the area.” Unfortunately, those comments are in conflict with some of the waivers being requested tonight. She is not supportive of the Roofline Waiver or the Open Space Waiver, as those waivers do not create vibrancy nor add to the visual character of the area. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 12 of 16   Ms. Fox stated that this is her first review of the proposed development. As always, she is interested in the streetscape provided. In her view, the first concept was more traditional than this concept. The previous concept had a greater mixture of façade materials and more negative versus positive spaces. The Commission is requesting a different look than what already exists in Bridge Park. On principal frontage streets, any terminal vistas and gateways should have an interesting look. Simply providing a greenspace is not sufficient in a gateway area. She believes the architecture should be unique, unlike anything seen elsewhere in the District. She understands the desire to keep the units at the mid-$300s price point, and there is a need for such a product. It is important, however, that the development still have a look of high quality. The proposed facades do not have a timeless look of a development that would last 30-40 years. Although the Commission previously suggested a more traditional architecture, she believes it needs to be much more traditional. To help the applicant understand what she is looking for, she has forwarded to Ms. Martin some streetscape photos to share. [Slide images shown.] Ms. Fox pointed out that all of the photos show ways in which to achieve a more traditional front door look. There is an invitation to come to those front doors. The front facades have detail and movement; they are not flat. The buildings are large with linear units. In some of the building examples, there is a variation between levels in the units. In other building examples, there is significant difference in the detailing; some have columns and stoops, where one could sit and have a cup of coffee. In all the examples, the individual units look uniquely individual and extremely inviting, and provide a traditional look that currently does not exist in Bridge Park. She believes these type of units would not be overly expensive to achieve and would be extremely marketable. In regard to open spaces – she preferred those proposed in the previous plan, where the buildings faced the open spaces. In this revised plan, the open space seems to have been added wherever there was room. Ms. Kennedy inquired if these front-door design ideas would have been more achievable at the Concept Plan review stage. At this point, the plans may be too solidified to revise significantly. Mr. Schneier stated that this is an attempt to put a development in what probably is not the best location in the City or Bridge Park. John Shields Parkway may eventually lead to an abandoned AMC Theater. Perhaps we are unfairly expecting the applicant to improve what exists here. Regardless, it is essential the site be developed per the character of the Bridge Park neighborhood. While he agrees with Ms. Fox’s perspective, is this development too advanced to permit such modifications? If not, would the applicant be agreeable to such modifications, which could change the character somewhat? This development will be a great asset and improvement to the area. He is unsure how much more should be expected of the proposed development in view of the fact that it is probably not in the best area of Bridge Park. Mr. Underhill stated that he believes adding the variation in the roof ridge line could present some design difficulties, but they could be overcome. Some of the project photos provided by Ms. Fox were quite beautiful, and some of the elements could be incorporated into the design, which would activate the streetscape. In this stage of the development, it is very appropriate to offer suggestions for the final design that will be presented. He invited Mr. Filipkowski, the architect for the project, to respond to the suggestions. Keith Filipkowski, Director of Construction Operations, PulteGroup, 475 S. Metro Place, Dublin, 43017, stated that he is the architect for this project. He is very open-minded to the suggestions shared. The design is not too far advanced for some of the suggestions. They also are amenable to adjusting the roofline. The best way in which to achieve that is yet to be determined. However, they understand the concept, and the reason it is requested. They agree that it would help to break up the scale of the building, With the Final Development Plan, they will be adding the finer details, including more focus on the front entryways and additional architectural details. Similar to the Juliette balconies that have been added to side elevations, perhaps there are other accents or projections that could be added to the fro nt elevations. The comments and photos shared tonight have provided some good ideas. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 13 of 16   Ms. Martin responded that the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to impose any conditions or provide final direction to the applicant to incorporate elements into the design. If the Commission is looking for specific traditional elements or materials, now is the appropriate time to add that condition. Similarly, if there are architectural details the Commission does not consider appropriate, it is appropriate to provide direction that those be refined, as well. Mr. Grimes stated that he likes the revised plan, including the pedestrian pass-through areas. He is in agreement with staff’s recommendations regarding the waivers, including the one for disapproval. He agrees that the roof ridge line should be broken up. The view of this development from the AMC Theater should be that of variation. If the AMC Theater site were to be redeveloped at some point in the future, the view of this site will be important. In considering Mr. Supelak’s concern about the dead-end streets, he wonders if there will be sufficient room to back up or turn around within the neighborhood. However, the pedestrian circulation is consistent with what is desired. The corner parks on John Shields Parkway should be inviting signature sites. In particular, the gateway open space on Village Parkway should be made interesting. Mr. Fishman stated that he agrees with Ms. Fox’s suggestions. It is essential to improve these front elevations. That can be accomplished with brick walks, columns and deviations in the façade. The current residential development in this area appears so dense; it resembles office or commercial space. There is an opportunity with this Pulte development to achieve a residential community that is unique and rich looking. Adding the suggested architectural elements would be a significant improvement. The photos shown by Ms. Fox are exactly what it is needed. Adding such amenities would make the individual units look like attached single- family homes. Mr. Supelak suggested adding vertical landscaping to create distinct separation between the units. Mr. Underhill thanked him for the suggestion. Those elements would not pose a significant cost addition. Ms. Fox stated that as they work on adding some of these suggestions to the design, her hope is that these buildings will not look like those on every other block in Bridge Park -- rectangular facades exist throughout the district. A variation in design, style and shape is needed. Adding trim detail to the windows is important. The buyers of these units do not want their units to look exactly like the others. Separate them out and add detail that makes each appear to be a separate unit. Add traditional elements to the front doorway that are warm and inviting. That will break up the monotony of the contemporary, urban look that exists throughout Bridge Park. If they could reduce the depth by four feet, perhaps there would be more opportunity to create an entranceway with a front stoop. The balconies are a nice feature, but she would recommend adding an overhead cover, if possible. Could the positions of the balconies on the elevations be staggered, so that the height variation would offer a level of privacy? This would be preferable to having all the balconies on the same flat plane. Awnings are traditional elements that could soften the view along the street. The gateway location and the terminal vista are very important. She preferred the pocket park, walk-through spaces in the first plan, which provided more space. The spaces proposed in this plan are tiny and uninviting; she would encourage creation of spaces in which people can comfortably stop awhile. In her view, this plan is not yet where it needs to be. Ms. Call stated that she appreciates the changes made – the addition of brick, improvements to the side elevations, and the additional parking spaces. The Commission is concerned about density and intensity, and while what is proposed is a good use of density, it is a little too intense. She is supportive of pulling back the front façade somewhat to add a more warm and inviting front door. She is supportive of staggering the roofline. She is not supportive of adding plantings on either side of a required walkway and calling it usable open space, nor of a waiver of the 3:1 required ratio of open space. She believes the verandas are a positive addition to the units, but adding an overhead cover would make them usable more months of the year. She is supportive of the requirement for 80% primary materials. Similar to the vertical landscape element that Mr. Supelak suggested, she would suggest similar elements be added to the streets that terminate but do not connect to other roads. If those are being used as a pedestrian thoroughfare, adding vertical greenery at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 14 of 16   terminus would be inviting. Although not a complete screen, they would eliminate the straight views into the driveways, and create a sense of privacy and seclusion for the neighborhood. Mr. Underhill stated that if some of the waivers are not approved, they would be required to meet those particular Code requirements. However, they will do their best to do so. They have no objection to the conditions recommended in staff’s report, nor would they object to the addition of a condition to clarify the Commission’s direction regarding the front doorways. Ms. Call stated that the vote would be taken first on the Administrative Departures and Parking Plan, followed by clarification of the revisions and then the vote on the Waivers, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded approval of the following 2 Administrative Departures: 1) Administrative Departure to permit a 505-foot block length for Block 1 along John Shields Parkway where 500 feet is required. 2) Administrative Departure to permit a minimum story height 9.5 feet where 10-12 feet is required. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the proposed Parking Plan: 1) To permit four parking spaces per unit where 125% of the minimum of two spaces per unit is the maximum; 2) To permit parking and vehicular use areas within Required Build Zones where buildings are required to be located. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] Per Mr. Grimes’ inquiry regarding the open space waiver request, Ms. Martin clarified that open spaces should be square or rectangular. The mid-block pedestrian ways are narrow and linear. Due to their shape, some members have stated that they are not supportive of counting them as open space. Disapproval of that Waiver would mean those areas are not eligible to be counted as open space. Following clarification, Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the following Waivers: 1) Waiver to permit reduced front property line coverage along Block 2: McCune Avenue (58%), Block 3: Village Parkway (27%), and Block 4: McCune Avenue (52%) where a minimum 75% is required. 2) Waiver to permit deviation from buildings occupying the corner where occupying the corner is required. 3) Waiver to permit a reduced roof pitch of 24:12 for decorative eaves where a roof pitch of 6:12 to 12:12 is required. 5) Waiver to permit thin brick as a permitted primary building material where full depth brick is required. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] Mr. Boggs recommended that the remaining two waivers receive separate motions and votes. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following Waiver: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 15 of 16   4) Waiver to permit an uninterrupted ridge line parallel to the street that does not include architectural details where architectural details are required. Vote: Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Schneier, no; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Supelak, no; Mr. Grimes, no; Ms. Kennedy, no. [Motion failed 0-7] Matt Callahan, VP of Land Acquisition, PulteGroup, 475 Metro Place S., Dublin, 43017, stated that in regard to the following Waiver concerning open space, staff had recommended approval with certain conditions. They would be willing to work on the conditions with staff and present a solution with the Final Development Plan to address the concerns raised tonight. Ms. Martin responded that if that is acceptable with the Commission, the applicant could rescind the Waiver request tonight. This item would be before the Commission again with the Final Development Plan. Ms. Call stated that her concern is that at the Final Development Plan stage, the footprints of the buildings have been finalized. If there were any requirement at that time to incorporate additional open space, it could not occur on the site; it would need to be added off-site. That solution would involve a Fee in Lieu of. Although the Commission has no issue with the density, it does have an issue with the intensity. Commission consensus was that the open space issue not be deferred to the Final Development Plan stage and to proceed with a vote on the Waiver. Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Fox seconded approval of the following Waiver: 6) Waiver to permit open space proportions to exceed the maximum 3:1 (length:width) proportions Vote: Ms. Call, no; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Fox, no; Ms. Kennedy, no; Mr. Schneier, no; Mr. Supelak, no; Mr. Grimes, no. [Motion failed 0-7] Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the following 14 conditions: 1) The applicant update the plans to reflect 154 units; 2) The applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including on-street parking and tree lawn widths, prior to the Final Development Plan submittal; 3) The applicant provide Washington Township Fire Department an auto-turn analysis with the Final Development Plan, and locate/designate a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR); 4) The applicant meet the provisions of 153.062(D)(2)(c) — Parallel Ridge Line, to provide architectural details to break up the mass of the roofline with the Final Development Plan submittal; 5) The applicant provide a minimum 3-foot variability to the roof height between each unit, unless an alternative design solution reaching the same result is approved by the PZC with the FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, as determined at its sole discretion; 6) In the application of thin brick, the applicant use corner pieces designed to emulate full-depth brick; 7) The applicant meet the required 80 percent coverage of primary building materials along street-facing facades for all buildings with submittal of the Final Development Plan; 8) The applicant should work with staff on appropriate location and screening of A/C units and refuse containers prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan; 9) All parking and vehicular use areas located within a Required Build Zone are screened with a treatment that provides 100 percent opacity; 10) The applicant work with staff to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total required bicycle parking space within open space areas; 11) The applicant work with staff to provide the total required amount of open space with the Final Development Plan; Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020 Page 16 of 16   12) The plans be revised to provide the required mid-block pedestrian way in Block 4 prior to Final Development Plan submittal; 13) The architectural style be revised to ensure that each unit appears as an individual attached single- family home; 14) The applicant work with staff to ensure the front elevations provide traditional elements such as stoops, porches, columns, awnings and brick walks. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following 2 conditions: 1) The applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot; 2) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] OTHER ACTIONS  Proposed 2021 PZC Meeting Dates Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the 2021 proposed meeting dates. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] COMMUNICATIONS  A joint meeting of Council/PZC/ARB/BZA is scheduled for December 14 to provide an update re. policies, challenges and issues. In advance of that meeting, Commissioners should forward desired discussion topics to the Chair.  The next regularly scheduled PZC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Rebecca Call Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Judith K. Beal Deputy Clerk of Council PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Planning and Zoning Commisison December 10, 2020 20-159PDP/20-158PP – TULLER ROAD TOWNHOMES Summary Zoning Map This is a request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat for the development of 155 attached single-family townhomes homes .7-acre of open space, and three public streets on an ±11 acres site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). Site Location Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. Zoning BSD-SCN, Bridge Street District – Sawmill Center Neighborhood District Property Owner Tuller Land Holdings LLC Applicant/Representative Matt Callahan, Pulte and Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.066 Case Manager Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II (614) 410-4635 nmartin@dublin.oh.us Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final reviewing body for the Preliminary Development Plan. Upon approval, the applicant would be eligible to proceed with the Final Development Plan. City Council is the final reviewing body for the Preliminary Plat. Upon acceptance of the plat, the application would be eligible to proceed with the Final Plat. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 2 of 17 1. Context Map City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 3 of 17 2. Overview Background The site is located north of John Shields Parkway and west of Village Parkway. John Shields Parkway, Village Parkway, and Tuller Road are District Connector Streets. The surrounding streets are identified in the Bridge Street District (BSD) – Street Network Map as Principal Frontage Streets (PFSs). Prior to the construction of John Shields Parkway, the property was an automotive dealership. Recent development in the area includes the Tuller Flats apartments to the west and Penzone Salon to the south. The existing AMC Theatre is located to the east, and Greystone Mews neighborhood is located to the south. Previous development proposals for the site include a retirement living facility Case History In March 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed a Concept Plan for the development of 168 attached single-family townhomes, .9-acre open space, three public streets on ±11.6 acres site. At the time, the proposal depicted a ‘T’ intersection at Village Parkway and Tuller Road, which required approval of a development agreement by City Council as a portion of the realigned intersection was located on City-owned property. The applicant has elected not to pursue incorporating City-owned land into the site after preliminary discussion regarding a potential development agreement. Process The Code pertaining to the Bridge Street District was revised in Spring of 2019 and became effective on May 8, 2019. The revisions centered on the review and approval process (Chapter 153.066) and eliminated the requirement of a review and recommendation from the Administrative Review Team (ART). The Commission is the final reviewing body for the Preliminary Development Plan, and the recommending body for the Preliminary Plat. The three- step development process is as follows:  Step 1 – Concept Plan  Step 2 – Preliminary Development Plan  Step 3 – Final Development Plan Preliminary Development Plan  Uses, Neighborhood Standards, and Street Network Map;  Lots and Blocks including site layout and circulation;  Building layout, and general architectural character (mass, form, height);  Open space location/amount; and,  Parking location/amount Final Development Plan  Zoning requirements, including Building Types, with all Waivers;  Architectural details and finishes; and,  Open space design, landscaping, and lighting Waivers to numeric development standards may be granted at both the Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan stages. In cases where a numeric deviation is less than a 10 percent an Administrative Departure may be approved in lieu of a Waiver. Consideration of a Parking Plan is required to deviate from the Code requirements. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 4 of 17 The Preliminary Plat establishes public streets and blocks in accordance with the Preliminary Development Plan and applicable Code requirements. Utility easement are also delineated. Site Characteristics Natural Features There is grade change across the site, sloping east to west from Village Parkway toward the river. A row of trees bisects the site from east to west. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: BSD-OR, Office Residential (Office Park) East: BSD-SCN, Sawmill Center Neighborhood (AMC Dublin Village 18) South: BSD-R, Residential (Greystone Mews) West: BSD-R, Residential (Tuller Flats) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has approximately 950 feet of frontage on John Shields Parkway, approximately 400 feet of frontage along Village Parkway, and 900 feet of frontage along Tuller Road. There are pedestrian facilities on both John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. With this application, pedestrian facilities are required to be extended along Tuller Road. Pedestrian and cyclist facilities provide access to Tuller Square and (future) Riverside Crossing Park. Utilities The site utilities will be connected to existing services as proposed. Water will tie into the water main located along Village Parkway; stormwater will be connected to the John Shields Parkway system; sanitary will be connected to the Tuller Road system; electric/communication will be added along Village Parkway in a relocated duct bank. Proposal The Preliminary Development Plan proposal is for 155 attached single-family units distributed across 30 buildings, which vary in size from 4 units to 7 units, 0.7-acre of open space on a ±11 acres site. The plans include discrepancies as to whether 155 or 154 units are proposed. The applicant should clarify at Final Development Plan. The following analysis is based on 154 units. The proposal also includes the extension of McCune Avenue and two new public streets (Grafton Street and Hobbs Landing Drive West, which provide access to interior private drives accessing private two-car garages for each unit. A Preliminary Plat is proposed to establish four lots/blocks, rights-of-way for public streets, and required utility easements. Permitted Uses – Sawmill Center Neighborhood 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 environment through unique shopping, service and entertainment uses with supporting residential and office uses. The applicant is proposing attached single-family homes. The development is proposed to be a for-sale product. Residential uses are permitted within the zoning district including “Dwelling, Townhouse”, which is the use classification associated with the proposed development. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 5 of 17 Neighborhood Standards The BSD Code establishes Neighborhood Districts where special attention to location and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces is important to establish a coordinated mix of uses that fulfills the objectives identified in the BSD Special Area Plan within the Community Plan. Each neighborhood anticipates the conceptual layout of critical elements including street connections, open spaces, and gateways. The proposal applies the principles defined in the Code for the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. Street Network Map and Street Types The Code provides a hierarchy of requirements for establishing a gridded street network. The Street Network Map, part of the Thoroughfare Plan, identifies three families of streets: Corridor Connectors, District Connectors, and Neighborhood Streets. Corridor and District Connectors are often designated as Principal Frontage Streets (PFSs). PFSs are designated to ensure a continuous, pedestrian-oriented block. The proposal complies with the Street Network Map requirements in the BSD Code by providing all required Neighborhoods Streets to establish four blocks for development by establishing three new public rights-of-way (McCune Avenue extension, Grafton Street, and Hobbs Landing Drive West). The primary access is proposed to be centrally located along John Shields Parkway. There is one secondary access point along John Shields Parkway, and there are two secondary access points along Tuller Road. The site is also accessible from Village Parkway and Hobbs Landing Drive West. Ten internal private drives are proposed. The applicant is not required to provide roadway improvements beyond the bounds of the site. This proposal does not include the realignment of the Village Parkway and Tuller Road northeast of the site as it is not required at this time. Proposed street sections are included as part of the Preliminary Development Plan review. Appropriate street design is determined and reviewed by the City Engineer. The Engineering staff has requested modifications to the typical street section as a result of lesson learned and feedback from Washington Township Fire Department with the Tuller Flats development. The applicant has incorporated the Engineering Staff comments. The Preliminary Plat provides 50- foot rights-of-way for all Neighborhood Streets with dedicated on-street parking proposed along the west side of Hobbs Landing Drive West and the north side of McCune Avenue. The applicant should work with the Engineering and Landscaping to finalize the provision of on-street parking and tree lawn widths prior to the Final Development Plan. This proposal provides a number of alleys that the attached single-family homes use to access rear-loaded garages. The configuration results in the majority of vehicular use areas screened from the right-of-way by buildings. In areas where open spaces are proposed particular attention will need to be paid at the Final Development Plan to adequately screen all views. Lots and Blocks Compliance with the Street Network Map results in the creation of proposal establishes four blocks. Code includes standards for maximum block dimensions. In the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length, and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. All the block lengths are compliant with the exception of the southern length of Block 1, which has a length of 505 feet along John Shields Parkway. The block length is a direct result of the curvature of City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 6 of 17 John Shields Parkway. Staff is supportive of an Administrative Departure to deviate from the numeric standard by 5 feet. The Washington Township Fire Department has reviewed the proposal. An auto-turn analysis will be required with the Final Development Plan. The site layout will adequately accommodate fire service. The northern most private drive will need to be a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR). Building Type The BSD emphasizes building form while encouraging a mix of uses across a single zoning district. Code permits specific Building Types for each zoning district. The proposed Building Type based on the use and development character is Single Family Attached. Generally, buildings are required to meet an elevated character and quality standard for facades that face PFSs. The Single Family Attached Building Type requires the building be located between 5 and 20 feet from the front property line and between 5 and 15 feet from a corner property line. Additionally, a minimum of 75 percent of the building must be located within the RBZ, referred to as the front property line coverage requirement. Where a building does not occupy the build zone alternative treatment, including street walls and landscaping are required in accordance with the Code. In detail, the applicant is proposing the following front property line coverage:  Block 1: John Shields Parkway= 88% and McCune Avenue=84%  Block 2: Tuller Road=76% and McCune Avenue=58%  Block 3: John Shields Parkway=79%, Village Parkway=27%, and McCune Avenue=78%  Block 4: Tuller Road/Village Parkway78% and McCune Avenue=52% Consideration of Waivers for Block 2 along McCune Avenue, Block 3 along Village Parkway, and Block 4 along McCune Avenue are required as the front property line coverage is deficient in these areas. These deficiencies are due to the provision of open space and private drive connections along these block frontages. Two of the three instances are interior to the site and not along a PFS. Based on the proposed layout and unique curvature of Village Parkway Staff recommends approval of the front property line coverage Waivers. Additionally, buildings are required to occupy all corners of each block. The intent is to ensure continuous building facades are along the street frontage. In all blocks corner occupation is not met in a number of locations due to the provisions of open spaces and respites at the intersection of streets. Staff is supportive of Waivers to permit the layout as depicted due to the unique conditions of the site layout designed to fulfil of the BSD Street Network Map and Sawmill Center Neighborhood requirements. The maximum permitted lot coverage for the Single-Family Attached Building Type is 70 percent impervious with an additional 20 percent semi-pervious. Insufficient information has been to determine final lot coverage at this stage. The applicant is required to provide this information at Final Development Plan. The applicant should consider making all auto-oriented drives pervious brick pavers, or a mix of impervious and pervious brick pavers. The Building Type requirements include a number of specific regulations related to building form that are not able to be evaluated, nor are required to be evaluated, at the Preliminary Development Plan stage. The requirements not evaluated at this stage include final City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 7 of 17 architectural details and material specifications. However, it is appropriate to consider requests to Waiver for items that are known and if not approved would result in substantial changes to the form: mass, scale, and height of the buildings. These items are detailed below in the Architecture section. Architecture The proposal is for 30, 3.5-story buildings, which meets the Building Type requirement of 1.5 to 4-stories in height. Story heights that meet the Code requirement of 10 to 12 feet are provide with the exception of the first story, which is 9.5 feet in height. The first story of the structure acts as the basement with the primary living area located on the second floor. The deviation is story height will likely be imperceptible. Approval of an Administrative Departure is required for this minor deviation. The applicant has revised the building architecture based on the Commission’s feedback at the Concept Plan. At the Concept Plan, a flat roof design was proposed with modern lines. Based on the feedback a pitched roof is proposed with a decorative eaves detail and traditional architectural elements taking cues from Tuller Flats and Greystone Mews. The design is based on a single base building diversified with varying groupings of units and a number of color schemes. Roof top patios are optional on all the units. The Commission is asked to approve the mass, scale, form, and height of the building at this stage. One of the goals of the BSD is to create new neighborhoods with interesting and varied architecture that establishes a sense of place, particularly to be distinguished from what might be considered typical suburban development. To achieve this the zoning regulations include specific building variety requirements that require building designs that vary from adjacent buildings by the type of dominant material (or color, scale or orientation of that material). A detailed building-to-building analysis is required to be provided as part of the Final Development Plan. To meet the Building Variety requirements of 153.062(K) are to provide a minimum amount of variability to the roof height of each unit by increasing the finished floor elevations of a portion of the townhome units within each building. The following Waivers are requested to roof requirements:  The applicant is requesting a Waiver to the roof pitch requirement to accommodate the decorative eaves, which have .24:12 pitch. Staff is supportive of the Wavier as it contributes to the visual interest of the building facades.  The BSD also requires that rooflines be interrupted with architectural features including dormers or other element Section 153.062(D)(2)(c) requires that where principal ridge lines of a building are parallel to any street, that the mass of the roof be interrupted with architectural features including dormers or other roof elements perpendicular to the street. A Waiver is required to not incorporate these elements where applicable to individual buildings. Staff recommends disapproval of this Waiver request, as these elements are consistent with creating habitable space within the roofline of a building and complementary to the architectural character of the proposed buildings. The applicant should meet the Code requirement with the Final Development Plan submittal. The buildings are proposed to be clad in a combination of thin brick, fiber cement siding, and composite panels. Code includes permitted primary and secondary materials. The permitted primary materials are stone, manufactured stone, full depth brick, and glass. The permitted City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 8 of 17 secondary materials are glass fiber reinforced gypsum, wood siding, fiber cement siding, metal, and metal panels. Primary materials are required to cover a minimum of 80 percent of each façade. The Commission may approve a reduction in primary material coverage and/or alternative primary and secondary material, if it is demonstrated there are successful examples of the alternate material in a similar climate, and a determination that the alternate material is of similar or higher quality to the permitted materials. At this stage, the applicant is requesting a Waiver to permit thin brick as a permitted primary building material. Thin brick has been approved in a number of other instances with the condition that special thin brick corners are used. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant is likely deficient in providing the required 80 percent coverage of primary building materials. The applicant should meet this requirement along street facing facades at Final Development Plan. Final details for the stoops, porches, Juliet balconies, windows, and all exterior building materials are required to be provided with the Final Development Plan. The applicant has identified several Waivers that may be required with the Final Development Plan including window orientation, blank wall limitations, and primary/secondary materials. As these items are related to final architectural details, the Waivers are not including with the Preliminary Development Plan. The applicant should work with staff on an appropriate location and screening of A/C units and refuse containers. Roof top A/C units and exterior refuse screening are encouraged. Additionally, vents, air conditioners, and other utilities are not permitted to be part of any street facing façade. The interior building layout should allow for venting to occur on the rear façade of the building or non-street facing sides of the home, and be painted to match the base color of the building. Parking Code permits a maximum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is providing two garage spaces with each unit, and two driveway spaces. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 308 parking spaces, and permitted to provide a maximum of 388 parking spaces. The proposed plans indicate 616 parking spaces, which exceeds the Code permitted maximum, which is 125% of the minimum requirement. A Parking Plan is required to be approved when parking exceeds the maximum permitted. The Commission was supportive of a Parking Plan to permit additional parking at the Concept Plan review. In select areas parking is located within a Required Build Zone. Approval of this condition is required as part of the Parking Plan. Staff is supportive provided that all parking areas located within a Required Build Zone are screened with a treatment that provided 100 percent opacity. The applicant is required to provide bicycle parking on-site as enhancing multi-modal connectivity is a paramount goal of the BSD. One bicycle parking space is required per two residential unit. 77 bicycle parking spaces are required. An amendment to the Parking Plan will likely be required to this provision with the Final Development Plan. Staff is supportive of a decreased amount of bicycle parking given the private garages; however, the applicant should work with Staff to provide a minimum 25 percent of the total requirement or 20 spaces. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 9 of 17 Tree Preservation, Open Space, and Landscaping The exiting tree row is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed the development as it bisects the site. A tree survey has been provided. The applicant has worked with Staff to ensure tree preservation of mature trees along Tuller Road similar to Tuller Flats. Code requirements a minimum dedication of 200 square feet for each dwelling unit. The proposed development requires a minimum of 30,800 square feet (.71 ac.) of publicly accessible private open space. The proposed development includes ±27,970 acres (.64 ac.) of open space, as measure on enlarged open space plans. The applicant should work with Staff to provide the total required amount of open space with the Final Development Plan. The Code requires diversity of open space types when there are three or more individual open spaces proposed. To meet this requirement at least two different open space types must be used. The majority of the proposed open spaces are pocket plazas, and in some cases are proposed to meet dual requirements: pocket plaza and mid-block pedestrian way. The open spaces are detailed as follows. Final open space design including amenities are required to be provided with the Final Development Plan. Suitability of open spaces will need to be determined by the Commission at Final Development Plan. Block 1:  Pocket Plaza A: ±2,200 SF open space at the southwest corner of the block.  Pocket Plaza H: ±1,220 SF open space and mid-block pedestrian way near the middle third of the south side of the block.  Pocket Plaza ‘I’—a ±1,200 SF. open space and mid-block pedestrian way in the middle of the north side of the block. Block 2:  Pocket Plaza B: 1,400 SF open space and mid-block pedestrian way in the middle third of the north side of the block.  Square J: ±12,600 SF open space and mid-block pedestrian way in the middle third of the block framed by three buildings and open to the south along McCune Avenue. Block 3:  Pocket Plaza D: ±1,250 SF open space and mirrored entry feature to Pocket Plaza ‘C’ proposed in the northeast corner of the block.  Pocket Park E: ±4,670 SF open space and gateway location at the southeast corner of the block.  Pocket Plaza F: ±1,200 SF open space and mid-block pedestrian way in the middle third of the south side of the block.  Pocket Plaza G: ±1,200 SF open space and mid-block pedestrian way in the middle third of the north side of the block. Block 4:  Pocket Plaza C: ±1,030 SF open space and mirrored entry feature to Pocket Plaza ‘D’ proposed in the southeast corner of the block. Pocket Plazas B, F, G, H, and I exceed the maximum permitted proportion meaning they are too narrow and long. This is likely due to the duplicative nature of the plaza as mid-block pedestrian ways. Staff is supportive of a Waiver to this requirement with a condition that the applicant provide high-quality amenities for the mid-block pedestrian ways including benches, art, water City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 10 of 17 features and lighting. The applicant has not provided a required mid-block pedestrian way in Block 4. The applicant should revise the plan to provide this prior to Final Development Plan. All final landscape designs are required to be provided with the Final Development Plan including RBZ treatment, foundation plantings, open space and mid-block pedestrian way amenities, and lighting. Stormwater and Utilities The applicant has provided a preliminary stormwater report that demonstrates compliance with City of Dublin Code, Chapter 53: Stormwater Management and Stream Protection. The site will provide stormwater quality and quantity by construction of an underground detention system. Storm structures and storm sewer pipe are also proposed to provide adequate drainage of the site. This development proposes the installation of public water main, fire hydrants and private water mains and appurtenances to provide for adequate domestic and fire protect water supply. Engineer will review the locations of water mains and hydrants and may suggest minor changes to improve on street parking locations at the time of Final Development Plan. This site will have access to sanitary sewer via construction of new sanitary sewer mains and serves to the proposed buildings. Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site to establish three new public rights-of-way (Hobbs Landing Drive West, McCune Avenue, Grafton Street), create four new lots (Lots 1-4), and associated utility easements. The applicant has not provided specific acreage for Lots 1-4. The applicant should provide the exact acreage for each lot prior to submittal to City Council. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the acceptance of the Preliminary Plat. The plat conforms to the requirements of the BSD Code and Subdivision regulations as well as the Street Network Map adopted by City Council. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Phase 1 is coterminous with Block 1 located northeast of the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Hobbs Landing Drive West. Phase 2 is coterminous with Block 2 located southeast of the intersection of Tuller Road and Hobbs Landing Drive West. Phase 3 includes Blocks 3 and 4. Hobbs Landing Drive West and Grafton Street are proposed to be constructed with Phases 1 and 2. The western half of the McCune Avenue extension will be constructed with Phase 2, and the eastern half of the McCune Avenue extension will be constructed with Phase 3. Staff is recommending a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Criteria Administrative Departures 1) 153.060(C)(2)(a) — Maximum Block Size Requirement: One side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length. Request: 505 foot block length (Block 1) along John Shields Parkway. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 11 of 17 Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Administrative Departure is due to the existing curvature of John Shields Parkway. The deviation is within 1 percent of the requirement. 2) 153.062(O)(2)(b) — Story Height Requirement: 10 feet minimum – 12 feet maximum for each story. Request: Minimum 9.5 feet measured floor to floor Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Administrative Departure is due to interior layout of the townhome. The first story functions as the basement level with the primary living area on the second story. The second story meets the Code requirement while in some cases the first and third stories do not. The Administrative Departure is appropriate due to unique program of urban townhomes, which requires flexibility to numeric requirements. The deviation is within 5 percent of the requirement. Waiver Reviews 1) 153.062(O)(2)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage Requirement: Minimum 75% coverage. Request: Block 2: McCune Avenue=58%; Block 3: Village Parkway=27%; and, Block 4: McCune Avenue=52% Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Waiver is due to the provision of open space and private drive connections along the block frontages. Blocks 3 and 4 are interior to the site and not along a PFS. Block 3 is along a PFS; however, the unique curvature of Village Parkway warrants flexibility. 2) 153.062(O)(2)(a)(1) — Occupation of Corner Required Requirement: Buildings are required to occupy corners of each block. Request: Corner occupation is not required for Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Specifically, Block 1: open space at Hobbs Landing Drive West and John Shields Parkway; Block 2: Hobbs Landing Drive West and Tuller Road (tree preservation) and Hobbs Landing Drive West at McCune Avenue; Block 3: open spaces at Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway and McCune Avenue; and Block 4: open space at Village Parkway and McCune Avenue. Criteria Met/Approval. Similar to Front Property Line Coverage, the proposed Waiver is due to the provision of open space and private drive connections. Open spaces located at the intersection of streets are anticipated to act as gateways and respites. Staff is supportive of Waivers due to unique conditions of the site layout designed to fulfil of the BSD Street Network Map and Sawmill Center Neighborhood requirements. 3) 153.062(D)(2)(b) – Roof Type Requirements – Roof Pitch Requirement: The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate. Request: Decorative eaves with a .24:12 (2 percent) pitch. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 12 of 17 Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Waiver is requested to accommodate an architectural detail along the street facing facades while retaining the pitch roof character. Approval of the Wavier is architecturally appropriate as it contributes to the visual interest of the building facades. 4) 153.062(D)(2)(c) – Roof Type Requirements – Parallel Ridge Line Requirement: When the principal ridge line is parallel to the street: Gable ends, perpendicular ridge lines, or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof. Request: No architectural element to interrupt the parallel ridge line. Criteria Not Met/Disapproval. The proposed Waiver is requested to allow for continuous roofline with uninterrupted mass. Incorporating gable ends, perpendicular ridge lines, or dormers are consistent with creating habitable space within the roofline of a building as proposed by providing light and ventilation this space, and is also complementary to the architectural character of the proposed buildings. Staff recommends disapproval. The requirement should be met with the Final Development Plan. 5) 153.062(E)(1)(c) – Permitted Primary Materials Requirement: Permitted primary materials are stone, manufactured stone, full depth brick, and glass. Request: Permit thin brick as a primary permitted material. Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Waiver is requested to accommodate the application of brick on numerous facades. Thin brick has been approved in a number of other instances with the condition that special thin brick corners are used. 6) 153.064(G)(b) – Open Space Proportions Requirement: All open Space Types (except the Greenway) shall be sized at a ratio of not more than 3:1, length to width. Request: To not meet the minimum proportions for Pocket Plazas B, F, G H, and I. Criteria Met/Approval. The proposed Waiver is requested to accommodate alternate open space proportions due to the duplicative nature of the plaza as mid-block pedestrian ways. Staff is supportive of the Waiver realizing the site constraints provided that open spaces/mid-block pedestrian ways provide high-quality amenities. Parking Plan 1) 153.065(B)(3)(f) — Parking Plan Requirement: Two vehicular parking spaces per unit, not to exceed 125% of the minimum. Request: Four vehicular parking spaces per unit. Criteria Met. The proposed deviation is due to a market demand for additional parking in the for-sale townhome market. The Commission was supportive of a Parking Plan to permit additional parking at the Concept Plan review. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 13 of 17 2) 153.065(B)(3)(f) — Parking Plan Requirement: Surface parking provided on-site may only be located on those areas of each development parcel that are not required by § 153.062 to be occupied by a principal structure. Buildings are required to occupy the Required Build Zone. Parking and vehicular use areas are proposed within the Required Build Zone. Request: Occupy a Required Build Zone with parking and vehicular use areas. Criteria Met. The proposed deviation is due to unique site layout as a result of implementation of Street Network Map and Sawmill Center Neighborhood Standards. The desire to maintain continuous uninterrupted streets results in some vehicular use areas adjacent to public streets. Staff is supportive provided that these areas are screened. Preliminary Development Plan 1) The proposal is consistent with the approved concept plan. Criteria Met. This application is consistent with the approved concept plan and is responsive to the surrounding development character. 2) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted city plans, and related policies. Criteria Met with Administrative Departures, Waivers, Parking Plan, 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 orderly site development in accordance with the BSD Code. Staff supports the following alterations to numeric standards including: maximum block length, story height, front property line coverage, occupation of corner, roof types (pitch), open space proportions, parking spaces, and parking/vehicular use location. The applicant should ensure all parking/vehicular use areas, A/C units, and refuse receptacles are fully screened to ensure a high quality aesthetic consistent with the BSD Special Area Plan. 3) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific standards. Criteria Met. The proposal is for attached single-family homes. Residential uses are permitted within the zoning district including “Dwelling, Townhouse”, which is the use classification associated with the proposed development. There are no applicable use specific standards that apply. 4) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive development character that complements the surrounding environment, and conforms to the requirements of § 53.062 Building Types and §153.065 Site Development Standards. Criteria Met with Waivers and Conditions. The proposal largely complements the surrounding character and existing development. The Waivers allow for additional flexibility to numeric standards that may impact the mass, scale and height of the proposed buildings. The applicant should meet the Building Variety requirements of the BSD Code by providing a minimum 3-foot variability to the roof height of each unit by increasing the finished floor elevations of a portion of the townhome units within each building. Additionally, the applicant should meet the ridge line requirements identified in 153.062(D)(2)(c) to break down the mass of the continuous roofline. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 14 of 17 5) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060 Lots and Blocks. Criteria Met with Waiver. The proposed Waiver for the dimensions of Block 1 along John Shields Parkway allow the block to conform to the zoning requirements. 6) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards of §153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of streets, blocks, and development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map and the conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure. Criteria Met with Condition. The proposal includes two new Neighborhood Streets (Hobbs Landing Drive West and Grafton Street) and the extension of one existing Neighborhood Street (McCune Avenue in accordance with the BSD Street Network Map. The applicant should work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including on-street parking and tree lawn widths, prior to the Final Development Plan submittal. 7) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services. Criteria Met with Conditions. The proposal generally allows for the safe circulation of vehicles and provides access points/ connections to the public realm. The applicant should work with Washington Township Fire Department locate/designate a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR), and submit an auto-turn analysis with the Final Development Plan. The applicant should also provide 25% of the required bicycle parking within open spaces to accommodate bicycle safety. 8) The proposed design of buildings conforms to the BSD Code and is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development. Criteria Met with Administrative Departures, Waivers, and Conditions. The applicant is requesting a Waiver to permit thin brick as an acceptable primary permitted building material. Staff is supportive of the request as it is consistent with surrounding development provided that corner pieces are used to emulate full depth brick. Additionally, the applicant should be required to meet the minimum 80 percent primary material building coverage on all building facades to maintain the high quality character established by surrounding developments. 9) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community both within and outside the proposed development, and conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces. Criteria Met with Condition. The applicant should continue working with Staff to designate the required amount of open space. Additionally, the character of proposed pocket plazas that function as mid-block pedestrian shall be elevated to ensure the open space intent is met. The applicant is required to provide a mid-block pedestrian way within Block 4 to enhance community connectivity inside and outside the development. 10) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the city or other public City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 15 of 17 agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services. Criteria met. The proposal allows for the adequate provision of services. 11) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of §153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable. Criteria met. The proposal is located in the Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The proposal fulfills the visions of the Neighborhood District. Special attention to the Gateway design will need to be paid with the Final Development Plan. 12) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the city or required by other government entities. Criteria Met. Additional analysis regarding stormwater management and utilities is required. The applicant should continue to work with the City Engineer. 13) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the city's most recently adopted capital improvements program. Criteria Met. The proposal can be adequately served by existing infrastructure. 14) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development without the need for further phased improvements. Criteria Met. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. The applicant will need to finalize phasing with the Final Development Plan. 15) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes. Criteria Met with Administrative Departures, Waivers, and Conditions. The proposal is largely consistent with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all design standards. Approval of the Administrative Departures, Waivers, and Conditions are required to ensure consistency with the recommendation, principles, and design intent of the BSD. Preliminary Plat 1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements Criteria Met with Condition. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should provide acreage for each lot. 2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike path Standards Criteria Met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bikepath standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should work with Staff to make any technical adjustments prior to City Council review. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 16 of 17 3) Utilities Criteria Met. Proposed and existing utility easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat. 4) Open Space Requirements Criteria Met. Within the BSD, publically accessible open spaces designations is required through the specific requirement defined in the Zoning Code and not those within the Subdivision regulations. 4. Recommendations Administrative Departures 1) Planning recommends approval of an Administrative Departure to permit a 505-foot block length for Block 1 along John Shields Parkway where 500 feet is required. 2) Planning recommends approval of an Administrative Departure to permit a minimum story height 9.5 feet where 10-12 feet is required. Waiver Reviews 1) Planning recommends approval of Waiver to permit reduced front property line coverage along Block2: McCune Avenue (58%), Block 3: Village Parkway (27%), and Block 4: McCune Avenue (52%) where a minimum 75% is required. 2) Planning recommends approval of Waiver to permit deviation from buildings occupying the corner where occupying the corner is required. 3) Planning recommends approval of Waiver to permit a reduce roof pitch of .24:12 for decorative eaves where a roof pitch of 6:12 to 12:12 is required. 4) Planning recommends disapproval of Waiver to permit an uninterrupted ridge lines parallel to the street that does not include architectural details where architectural details are required. 5) Planning recommends approval of Waiver to permit thin brick as a permitted primary building material where full depth brick is required. 6) Planning recommends approval of Waiver to permit open space proportions to exceed the maximum 3:1 (length:width) proportions. Parking Plan 1) Planning recommends approval of Parking Plan to permit four parking spaces per unit where 125% of the minimum of two spaces per unity is the maximum. 2) Planning recommends approval of Parking Plan to permit parking and vehicular use areas within Required Build Zones where buildings are required to be located. Preliminary Development Plan Planning recommends approval to Planning and Zoning Commission based on the compatibility with surrounding context, layout, and site details with 13 conditions. 1) The applicant clarify and update the plans accordingly if 155 or 154 units are proposed; 2) The applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including on-street parking and tree lawn widths, prior to the Final Development Plan submittal; 3) The applicant provide Washington Township Fire Department an auto-turn analysis with the Final Development Plan, and locate/designate a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR); City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 20-159PDP/20-158PP | Tuller Road Townhomes Thursday, December 10, 2020 | Page 17 of 17 4) The applicant meet the provisions of 153.062(D)(2)(c) — Parallel Ridge Line, to provide architectural details to break up the mass of the roofline with the Final Development Plan submittal; 5) The applicant provide a minimum 3 foot variability to the roof height of each unit by increasing the finished floor elevations of a portion of the townhome units within each building; 6) In the application of thin brick, the applicant use corner pieces design to emulate full- depth brick; 7) The applicant meet the required 80 percent coverage of primary building materials along street facing facades for all buildings with submittal of the final development plan; 8) The applicant should work with staff on an appropriate location and screening of A/C units and refuse containers prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan; 9) All parking and vehicular use areas located within a Required Build Zone are screened with a treatment that provided 100 percent opacity; 10) The applicant work with Staff to provide a minimum 25 percent of the total required bicycle parking space within open space areas; 11) The applicant work with Staff to provide the total required amount of open space with the Final Development Plan; 12) The applicant provide high-quality amenities for the mid-block pedestrian ways including benches, art, water features and lighting allowing them to function as and count toward the open space provisions; and 13) The plans be revised to provide the required mid-block pedestrian way in Block 4 prior to Final Development Plan submittal. Preliminary Plat Planning recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation of approval to City Council with 2 conditions: 1) The applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot; and, 2) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council. Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 1 | 18 ANALYSIS & DETERMINATIONS – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Applicable Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Review Criteria Includes §153.059 – Uses, §153.060 – Lots and Blocks, §153.062 – Building Types, §153.063 – Neighborhood Standards, §153.064 – Open Space Types, and §153.065 – Site Development Standards 153.059 – Uses Code Section Proposed Uses Permitted ? Table 153.059- A Dwelling, Townhouse (154 Total Dwelling Units) Yes 153.060 – Lots and Blocks Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (B) Applicability Requirements of this section apply to developments in all BSD zoning districts that require Concept Plan Approval in accordance with §153.066, and for land within all BSD zoning districts proposed for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152.  Proposed development involves the construction of more than one principal structure on one or more parcels. Concept Plan Approved (C) General Block and Lot Layout (1) Interconnected Street Pattern (a) The arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of existing or planned streets from adjoining areas into new developments where practicable as determined by the City Engineer.  The proposed layout extends existing McCune Avenue through the site to intersect with Village Parkway at the east.  The existing service drives to the north and south of McCune within Tuller Flats are extended through the site as Trinity Lane and Seville Lane, respectively.  The proposed layout includes Hobbs Landing Drive West, at the western edge of the site and Grafton Street bisecting the site. These north/south streets extend between Tuller Road and John Shields Parkway and complete the grid street network through the site and creating four new blocks. Met (2) Maximum Block Size Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 2 | 18 153.060 – Lots and Blocks (a) Required Subdivision. All development requiring a Concept Plan shall be subdivided consistent with the maximum block dimensions permitted by the applicable BSD District. In the Scioto River Neighborhood District, the maximum block length permitted is 500 feet, and the maximum block perimeter permitted is 1,750 feet.  The proposed street network subdivides the site into four blocks.  All new blocks meet the dimensional requirements except Block 1, which has a length of approximately 505 feet along John Shields Parkway.  Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Administrative Departure. Admin. Departure (3) Block Configuration (a) Shape of block shall be generally rectangular, but may vary due to natural features or other site considerations.  The proposed block is generally rectangular. Irregularities in block shapes are the result of the existing alignments and curvature of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. Met (b) Blocks shall be arranged with front property lines along at least two sides.  Block 1 has front property lines along John Shields Parkway and McCune Avenue.  Block 2 has front property lines along Tuller Road and McCune Avenue.  Block 3 has front property lines along John Shields Parkway, Village Parkway, and McCune Avenue  Block 4 has front property lines along Tuller Road/Village Parkway and McCune Avenue. Met (4) Principal Frontage Streets (b) Access to blocks shall be located to comply with the principal frontage street requirements of §153.060(C)(5)  John Shields Parkway, Tuller Road and Village Parkway are all designated principal frontage streets and no access to the blocks is proposed directly from any of these streets. Met (5) Block Access Configurations (a) Access for alleys, service streets and driveways shall not be permitted from a principal frontage street.  No access is proposed from a principal frontage street Met (c) Where practicable, as determined by the City Engineer, vehicular access to blocks shall be aligned with other access points on opposite sides of the same block as well as aligned across the street from vehicular access points to other blocks.  All access points are aligned with existing or new access points on adjacent blocks. Met (6) Mid-block pedestrianways  Refer to Site Development Standards section 153.065(I)(2)(a) for requirements for mid-block pedestrianways. (9) Street Frontage (a) Front Property Line 2. A lot line bordering a principal frontage street shall be the front property line unless otherwise specified.  John Shields Parkway, Tuller Road and Village Parkway are principal frontage streets and are front property lines for associated bordering blocks. See (3)(b) above. Met Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 3 | 18 153.060 – Lots and Blocks (b) Corner Side Property Line 1. For corner lots occupied by multiple buildings, lot lines shall be designated as front or corner side property lines as necessary to meet the building type street frontage requirements along both frontages.  Blocks 1 and 2 have corner side property lines along Hobbs Landing Drive West and Grafton Street.  Blocks 3 and 4 have corner side property lines along McCune Avenue and Grafton Street. Met 153.061 – Street Types Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (B) Typical Street Elements (2) Vehicular on-street parking. The appropriate configuration and dimensions of on-street parking for specific street types shall be determined by the City Engineer.  On-street parking is proposed along the north side of McCune Avenue through the proposed development, while existing McCune Avenue incorporates on-street parking on the south side of the street within Tuller Flats. City Eng. Determ. Required 153.062 – Building Types Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (B) General Building Type Requirements (3) General Requirements (a) Zoning Districts: Each building type shall be constructed only within its designated BSD zoning district.  Single-Family Attached Building Types (Townhouses) are proposed and are permitted within the BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Met (b) Uses: Each building type may house the uses allowed in the district in which it is located  The proposed uses are permitted within the proposed Single-Family Attached Building Types. Met (c) No Other Building Types: All Principal buildings shall meet the requirements of Table 153.062-A, Permitted Building Types in Each BSD Zoning District.  The proposed Single-Family Attached buildings are permitted within the Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Met (d) Permanent Structures: All buildings constructed shall be permanent structures without a chassis, hitch, wheels or other features that would make the structure mobile.  The proposed buildings are permanent structures Met Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 4 | 18 153.062 – Building Types (e) Accessory Structures:  No accessory structures are proposed N/A (C) General Building Type Layout and Relationships (1) Incompatible Building Types. Are not permitted directly across the street from one another or on the same block face, unless otherwise permitted by the required reviewing body.  There are no existing incompatible building types with Single-Family Attached buildings across the streets around the perimeter of the development or on the same block face. Met (D) Roof Type Requirements (2) Pitched Roof Types (a) Roof Structure: Hipped and gabled roofs are permitted, in addition to roofs with combinations of hips and gables with or without dormers.  Gabled roofs are proposed on all buildings. Met (b) Pitch Measure: 1. The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, unless otherwise determined to be architecturally appropriate by the required reviewing body.  Proposed principal roof is proposed with a combination of pitches, 7:12 and .24:12 (2%) at eaves.  A determination of architectural appropriateness is required to permit roof pitches shallower than the minimum required. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Waiver Required (c) Parallel Ridge Line: When the principal ridge line is parallel to the street, gable ends, perpendicular ridge lines, or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof.  The principal ridge lines of 29 out of the 30 buildings proposed run parallel to the street, and no additional roof elements are proposed perpendicular to the principal ridge.  A determination of architectural appropriateness forego these roof elements is required. Staff Recommendation: Disapproval of the Waiver. These architectural elements are consistent with creating habitable space within the roofline of a building as proposed by providing light and ventilation this space, and is also complementary to the architectural character of the proposed buildings. Waiver Required (Recomm ended Disapprov al) (e) Gable ends: An architecturally appropriate element such as a vent, window or other decorative element is required on street-facing gable ends.  The “Typical Side High Impact Elevation” examples proposed to be used where side (gable end) elevations face a public street include no architectural features in the gable ends. Staff Recommendation: Disapproval of the Waiver for ‘high impact’ elevations. Elevations not designated ‘high impact’ do not require a Waiver as they are no- street facing or open space facing. Waiver Required (Recomm ended Disapprov al) (g) A half story of occupied space may be incorporated within a pitched roof type.  Occupied space within the roof structure opening to roof terraces is proposed as a floor plan option Met (E) Materials Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 5 | 18 153.062 – Building Types (1) Façade Materials (c) Permitted Primary Materials: Shall be high quality, durable materials including, stone, manufactured stone, full depth brick and glass.  For Single-Family Attached building types, the permitted primary materials are brick and stone/manufactured stone.  The proposed specification of “Authintic Brick” by Meridian Brick is not a full depth brick and not permitted as a Primary Material. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Administrative Departure. Waiver Required (d) Permitted Secondary Materials: Limited to details and accents and include glass fiber reinforced gypsum, glass fiber reinforced gypsum, wood siding, fiber cement siding, metal, and exterior architectural metal panels and cladding.  Allura fiber cement siding in horizontal clapboard and inlay panels with trim forms is proposed. Met (g) Minimum siding thickness: To provide visual depth and strong shadow lines, clapboard siding must have a minimum butt thickness of a quarter of an inch .  Allura fiber cement siding specifications indicate a minimum nominal clapboard siding thickness of 5/16”. Met (2) Façade Material Transitions (a) Vertical transitions in façade materials shall occur at inside comers.  All buildings meet requirement for vertical transitions in façade materials Met (b) Where more than one façade material is proposed vertically, the 'heavier' material in appearance shall be incorporated below the 'lighter' material  The typical building elevations and material schemes proposed features a brick based below fiber cement siding. Met (3) Roof Materials (a) Permitted pitched roof materials include dimensional asphalt composite shingles with a 25 year or greater warranty, wood shingles and shakes, metal tiles or standing seam, slate, and ceramic tile.  Proposed roof material is dimensional asphalt shingles. No warranty information has been provided. FDP (e) Roof penetrations (fans, exhaust, vents, etc.) shall be concealed and shall not be visible from principal frontage streets.  No details on proposed roof penetrations has been provided. FDP (4) Color Colors for all building materials shall be selected from appropriate historic color palettes from any major paint manufacturer, or as determined appropriate b y the required reviewing body.  A color palette of material combinations has been provided. The colors listed are from the fiber cement siding manufacturer, not from a historic color palette from a paint manufacturer. Determ. of Arch. Approp. Required (F) Entrances & Pedestrianways (3) Entrance Design Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 6 | 18 153.062 – Building Types (a) Principal entrances on all building types shall be at a pede strian scale, effectively address the street and be given prominence on the building façade. This may be satisfied through the use of architectural features including, but not limited to, entranceway roofs; sidelight windows, transom window, or other adjacent windows; additional mouldings with expression lines; a bay of unique width; or a raised stoop of at least three steps and a minimum depth of five feet and width of five feet.  Three principal entrance design options are proposed: 1. A full undivided lite entry door with a canopy above. 2. A full undivided lite entry door with a sidelight on one side below a projecting bay on the stories above. 3. A full undivided lit entry door with sidelights on both sides and a canopy above. Met (b) Principal entrances on all single-family detached and single-family attached building types shall incorporate open porches or stoops as required by division (I) of this section.  No plan view details have been provided for principal entrance designs. FDP (G) Articulation of Stories on Street Facades Façades shall be designed to follow the stories of the buildings with fenestration organized along and occupying each floor.  The facades of all buildings have been designed with materials articulated in coordination with the individual stories of the building. Met (H) Windows, Shutters, Awnings and Canopies (1) Windows (a-c) Transparency percentage is required according to building type; highly reflective glass is prohibited; and spandrel or heavily tinted glass cannot be used to meet minimum transparency requirements.  Please refer to 153.062(O) - Building Type Analysis.  Window glazing specifications have not been provided. FDP (d) Windows may be wood, anodized aluminum, metal-clad or vinyl-clad wood, steel, or fiberglass. The required reviewing body may approve other high quality synthetic materials with examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates.  Proposed windows are ‘Profinish Contractor Series, Single Hung Windows’.  No window material specifications have been provided. FDP (e) To highlight the wall thickness as an important architectural feature conveying a substantial, high-quality appearance, flush-mounted windows are prohibited for single-family detached, single-family attached, apartment building, podium apartment building, historic mixed use, and historic cottage commercial building types.  Wall section details have been provided indicating that this requirement is met. However, the proposed specification of thin brick as a primary façade material is not reflected in the details, which generally results a flush-mounted window condition due to the two- dimensional qualities of thin brick. FDP (f) Windows in masonry walls shall have architecturally appropriate lintels and projecting sills  The proposed elevations and wall section details provided indicate that this requirement is met. Met Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 7 | 18 153.062 – Building Types (g) Windows within siding-clad walls shall have a projecting sill to serve as a base for either a minimum one by four (nominal) trim or brick mould casing  The proposed elevations and wall section details provided indicate that this requirement is met. Met (h) Windows in Single-Family Attached Building Type shall have vertically oriented windows with architecturally or historically appropriate window divisions. Horizontal windows are permitted only on non-street facing building facades.  All side elevations propose horizontally oriented windows at the third story. A significant number of these side elevations are street facing. FDP (3) Awnings and Canopies (c) Canopies 1-3 Canopies may be clad with glass, metal, wood, or a combination of these materials ; may be cantilevered or supported from the building wall by metal cables or rods ; and may include downward casting light fixtures and may be lighted from above by downcast fixtures mounted to the building wall.  Canopies are proposed in the entrance design options. Proposed canopies are constructed of wood with aluminum trim and supported from the building by ste el bars. No lighting is apparent. Met (I) Balconies, Porches, Stoops and Chimneys (applicable to street or parking lot facing facades only) (1) Balconies (a) Size: Balconies shall be a minimum open area of six feet deep and five feet wide  Balconies (‘Decks’ per plans) are proposed at the rear of all units at the second story over the garage doors. As depicted on the elevations and floorplan options, t hey are all 8 to 10 feet deep by 18 feet wide.  Where occupied space is proposed as a half story within the roof structure, Balconies (‘Roof terraces’ per plans) are proposed oriented toward either the front or rear elevation of the building. As depicted on the elevations and floorplan options, they are all 9.67 feet deep by 17.42 feet wide. Met (b) Connection to Building: Balconies may be recessed into a building façade or independently secured and unconnected to other balconies.  Second story balconies over garages are independently secured to the ground with posts .  Roof balconies are recessed into the building façade and roof. Met (c) Façade Coverage: Balconies may comprise a maximum of 40% of each of the front and corner side facades.  On an individual townhouse unit, balconies potentially comprise no more than ±20% of the front façade. Met (d) Juliet Balconies:  Juliet balconies are proposed as an option on ‘High Impact’ street facing side elevations. 1. Size: Juliet balconies may project up to 24 inches and shall not extend more than six inches past the fenestration  Details provided do not include dimensions. FDP Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 8 | 18 153.062 – Building Types Attachment: Juliet balconies used with windows must be secured to the outside window jamb.  All proposed Juliet balconies are in association with doors, not windows. N/A (2) Porches  No plan view details have been provided for principal entrance designs. FDP (3) Stoops  No plan view details have been provided for principal entrance designs. FDP (J) Treatments at Terminal Vistas When a street terminates at a parcel, the parcel shall be occupied by either an open space with a vertical element to terminate the view or by the front or corner side of a building. If view terminates at building, it shall incorporate one of the following treatments to terminate the view: a tower, a bay window, courtyard with sculpture, pronounced increase in building height, or other similar treatment incorporating a distinct vertical element.  A terminal vista is created by the alignment of John Shields Parkway westbound at Buildings 3-F and 3-G. No distinctive architectural elements have been proposed on the elevations provided that would meet this requirement. FDP (K) Building Variety Building designs must vary from adjacent buildings by the type of dominant material (or color, scale or orientation of that material). Building designs must also vary through at least 2 of the following: (1) The proportion of recesses and projections (2) A change in the location of the entrance and window placement (3) Changes to the roof design, including roof type, plane, or material (4) Pronounced changes in building height FDP * Individual Building Elevations are unable to be reviewed as they have not been provided. All 30 buildings, 4 elevations each, are required to be submitted for review at FDP. FDP 153.062(O) – Individual Building Requirements Analysis 153.062(O)(2) –Single-Family Attached Building Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met? (a) Building Siting 1. Street Frontage Number of Principal Buildings Permitted (per Lot) Multiple Permitted Multiple Met Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75% Block 1: John Shields Parkway= 88% McCune Avenue=84% Block 2: Tuller Road=76% McCune Avenue=58% Met/ Waivers Required Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 9 | 18 Block 3: John Shields Parkway=79% Village Parkway=27% McCune Avenue=78% Block 4: Tuller Road/Village Parkway=78% McCune Avenue=52% Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Occupation of Corner Required (Yes/No) Yes Block 1: 3 corners met + open space proposed at Hobbs Landing & JSP Block 2: 2 corners met + not met at Hobbs Landing & Tuller or Hobbs Landing & McCune Block 3: 2 corners met + open spaces proposed at Village Pkwy & JSP, Village Pkwy & McCune Block 4: 2 corners met + open space proposed at Village Pkwy & McCune Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Waivers Required Front Required Building Zone 5-20 feet Block 1: JSP=10 ft. minimum McCune Ave=10 ft. minimum Block 2: Tuller Rd=10 ft. minimum McCune Ave=5 ft. minimum Block 3: JSP=10 ft. minimum Village Pkwy=20 ft. minimum McCune=10 ft. minimum Block 4: Tuller Rd/Village Pkwy=7 ft. min. McCune Ave=5 ft. minimum Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Met Corner Side Required Building Zone 5-15 feet Block 1: Hobbs Landing Dr=10 ft. minimum Grafton St=5 ft. minimum Block 2: Met Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 10 | 18 Hobbs Landing Dr=5 ft. minimum Grafton St=10 ft. minimum Block 3: Grafton St=5 ft. minimum Block 4: Grafton St=10 ft. minimum Required Building Zone Treatment Landscape; Porches, stoops, and balconies permitted in RBZ. Landscape; Stoops Met Right-of-Way Encroachments None None Proposed N/A 2. Buildable Area Minimum Side Yard Setback Required 5 ft., 10 ft. between buildings Side yards not applicable; Min. distance proposed between buildings=10 ft. Met Minimum Rear Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A Minimum Lot Width Required 16 ft. per unit ±440 ft. Met Maximum Lot Width Required None N/A N/A Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 70% Insufficient information provided FDP Additional Semi-Pervious Lot Coverage Permitted (Beyond Max. 70% Impervious Coverage) 20% Insufficient information provided FDP 3. Parking Location & Loading Parking Location Rear yard, within building Parking provided within buildings and at rear of buildings Met Entry for Parking within Building (relative to principal structure) Rear & Side Façade None Proposed N/A Access Alley/service street only All access is provided from service streets Met (b) Height Minimum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 1.5 stories 3.5 stories min. proposed Met Maximum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 4 stories 3.5 stories max. proposed Met Story Height 10 ft. Minimum 12 ft. Maximum 9.5 ft. minimum 10.5 ft. maximum (typical*) Height of top floor is measured from floor to roof eave on pitched roofs, which varies in height based on proposed roof design. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Administrative Departure. Admin. Departure Accessory Structure Height 2 stories max. None Proposed N/A Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 11 | 18 Minimum Finished Floor Elevation 2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk elevation Insufficient grading information FDP (c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements Ground Story Use Requirements Podium parking structures are conditional uses in accordance with 153.059(C)(3)(g) ‘Dwelling, Townhouse’ use proposed at Ground Story Met Upper Story Use Requirements No additional requirements N/A N/A Parking within Building Permitted in the rear of the first floor and fully in any basement Parking proposed within first floor of building Met Occupied Space Required Minimum 10 feet depth from the front facade Minimum 12.5 ft. depth of occupied use at ground story, upper stories occupied to full depth Met (d) Façade Requirements 1. Street Façade Transparency Transparency (%) Minimum 20% Insufficient window specifications provided FDP Blank Wall Limitations Required Full range of proposed buildings (variety in # of attached units) not provided FDP 2. Non-Street Façade Transparency Transparency (%) Minimum 15% Insufficient window specifications provided FDP Blank Wall Limitations Required Full range of proposed buildings (variety in # of attached units) not provided FDP 3. Building Entrances Principal Entrance Location Front, corner, or side; porches or stoops required All proposed entrances located on the front elevation. Additional information needed on proposed porch/stoop design. FDP Street Facades: Number of Entrances Required 1 per unit minimum 1 entrance per unit proposed Met Parking Lot Façade: Number of Entrances Required If parking lot or detached garage, 1 per unit Parking in rear of buildings. Met Mid-Building Pedestrianway 1 required for buildings greater than 250 feet in length Maximum building length is ±154 feet. N/A Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 12 | 18 153.063(C) – Neighborhood Standards, Sawmill Center Neighborhood District Code Section Requirement Notes Met, N/A, Adm. Dep., Waiver, Other (5) Placemaking Elements 4. Façade Divisions Vertical Increments Required Ever two units or no greater than 40 ft. Full range of proposed buildings (variety in # of attached units) not provided FDP Horizontal Facade Divisions Required (per ft. of facade) None N/A N/A Required Change in Roof Plane or Type None N/A N/A 5. Façade Materials Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass Thin Brick Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Waiver Required Minimum Primary Façade Materials 80% Full range of proposed buildings (variety in # of attached units) not provided FDP Permitted Secondary Materials Glass fiber reinforced gypsum, wood siding, fiber cement siding, metal and exterior architectural metal panels and cladding Fiber Cement Siding Met 6. Roof Types Permitted Types Parapet, pitched roof, flat roof; other types may be permitted with approval Pitched Roof Met Tower Permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type None Proposed N/A Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 13 | 18 153.063(C) – Neighborhood Standards, Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (d) Gateways 1. Gateways shall be provided in the approximate locations shown in the Neighborhood Standards Exhibit. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan, but locations shall be identified with the Preliminary Development Plan and shall be coordinated with the street network.  The site layout has been arranged in anticipation of a future gateway at the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. Location: Met Design: FDP 153.064 – Open Space Types Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (C) Provision of Open Space (1) Residential. There shall be a minimum of 200 square feet of publicly accessible open space per residential unit. Required open space shall be located within 660 feet of the main entrance of a multiple-family building as measured along a pedestrian walkway.  Residential Use Open Space Provision: 154 residential units are proposed, requiring 30,800 square feet (.71 ac.) of open space.  Total Open Space Provided: A total of ±27,970 acres (.64 ac.) of open space is proposed (as measured on Enlargement Plans) to be distributed as follows: Block 1:  Pocket Plaza ‘A’—a ±2,200 s.f. open space at the southwest corner of the block.  Pocket Plaza ‘H’—a ±1,220 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway near the middle third of the south side of the block.  Pocket Plaza ‘I’—a ±1,200 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway in the middle of the north side of the block. Block 2:  Pocket Plaza ‘B’—a 1,400 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway in the middle third of the north side of the block.  Square ‘J’—a ±12,600 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway in the middle third of the block framed by three buildings and open to the south along McCune Avenue. Block 3:  Pocket Plaza ‘D’—a ±1,250 s.f. open space and mirrored entry feature to Pocket Plaza ‘C’ proposed in the northeast corner of the block.  Pocket Park ‘E’—a ±4,670 s.f. open space and gateway location at the southeast corner of the block.  Pocket Plaza ‘F’—a ±1,200 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway in the middle third of the south side of the block.  Pocket Plaza ‘G’—a ±1,200 s.f. open space and mid-block pedestrianway in the middle third of the north side of the block. Not Met Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 14 | 18 153.064 – Open Space Types Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? Block 4:  Pocket Plaza ‘C’—a ±1,030 s.f. open space and mirrored entry feature to Pocket Plaza ‘D’ proposed in the southeast corner of the block. (D) Suitability of Open Space (1) The required reviewing body shall review all proposed open space types to determine the suitability of open space. In determining suitability of areas to be set aside for new open space types to meet the requirement, the ART or required reviewing body may consider all relevant factors and infor mation, including but not limited to: (a) The goals and objectives of the Community Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan; FDP (b) Suitability of the space for active or passive recreational use or preservation of natural features;  Many of the proposed open spaces provide similar elements and opportunities for passive recreational use. Additional analysis of the purpose and suitability of the proposed open spaces is necessary at the Final Development Plan.  There are no natural features to be preserved as part of the proposed open spaces FDP (c) The need for the specific type of open space and recreation in the Bridge Street District, particularly in the vicinity of the development taking into account the anticipated users;  Additional analysis of the need for the proposed open space types is necessary at the Final Development Plan. FDP (d) The proximity or potential connectivity to other open space types.  The proposed open spaces are not located in proximity to existing open space types. Additional analysis is needed on opportunities for connectivity to future open space types in the vicinity. FDP (F) Open Space Types (1) Pocket Plaza. Pocket Plazas provide a formal open space of relatively small scale to serve as an impromptu gathering place. It is designed as a well-defined area of refuge separate from the public sidewalk. Seating areas are required and special features, such as fountains and public art installations, are encouraged.  Eight of the ten open space types proposed are Pocket Plazas.  In five instances, Pocket Plazas are proposed in areas where mid-block pedestrianways are required—the middle third of blocks greater than 400 feet in length. Although mid - FDP Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 15 | 18 153.064 – Open Space Types Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? block pedestrianways can pass through various open space types, the requirements of both the open space type and mid-block pedestrianways must be met. (2) Pocket Park Pocket Parks provide small scale, primarily landscaped active or passive recreation and gathering spaces for neighborhood residents within walking distance. The design and programming of pocket parks should respond to the needs of residents in the immediate vicinity.  The proposed Pocket Park is located in the area designated for a gateway in the Sawmill Center Neighborhood Standards. Details for the design of gateways is required at the Final Development Plan. FDP (6) Square Squares provide formal open space of medium scale to serve as a gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. Squares are generally rectilinear and bordered on all sides by a vehicular right-of-way, which together with adjacent building façades define the space. Squares contain both hardscape areas, such as paths, fountains, gazebos, public art, and street furniture, as well as landscaping.  Review of the details of the proposed Square will be conducted at Final Development Plan. FDP (G) General Requirements (1) Size (a) Minimum Acreage/Minimum Dimension  All proposed Pocket Plazas, Pocket Parks, and Squares are within the minimum and maximum acreage ranges for the associated open space type, or noted as requiring a Waiver above.  The minimum dimensions for all proposed open space types are met. Met (b) Proportion: With the exception of the Greenway, all Open Space Types shall be sized at a ratio of not more than 3:1, length to width.  Several proposed Pocket Plazas exceed these maximum permitted proportions: ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘B’, ‘F’ and ‘G’. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Waiver. Waiver Required (2) Access/Orientation  The proposed Square does not meet the typical configuration of this open space type with right-of-way on 100% of the perimeter as exhibited by the existing Square to the west in Tuller Flats.  The preferred Pocket Plaza orientation is to front façade or corner of adjacent buildings or property lines of the parcel.  Five Pocket Plazas are proposed to be oriented toward the side facades of the adjacent buildings. FDP Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 16 | 18 153.065 – Site Development Standards Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (B) Parking and Loading (1) General Provisions (b) Parking Location 1. On-site Parking. Surface parking provided on-site may only be located on those areas of each development parcel that are not required by § 153.062 to be occupied by a principal structure.  Each block includes parking spaces behind several of the buildings which are located within the Required Building Zone. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Parking Plan. Parking Plan Required (2) Required Vehicle Parking (a) Minimum Parking Required. Each use shall provide the minimum amount of parking required as listed on Table 153.065-A, and shall be permitted to provide up to the maximum amount of pa rking. Proposed Use Minimum Requirement for Proposed Use Max. Spaces Permitted Area/# Dwelling Units Min. Spaces Required Max. Spaces Permitted Dwelling, Townhouse Townhouse 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit 154 308 308 Parking Plan Required Total Parking Required/Permitted: 308 Spaces 308 Spaces  Total Parking Provided: (308 in garages, 308 in surface lot on block interior) 616 Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Parking Plan. Parking Plan Required (3) Required Bicycle Parking (b) Minimum Number of Spaces Required. 1. Bicycle parking shall be provided as follows: FDP A. For residential uses, one space is required for every 2 dwelling units.  154 total dwelling units are proposed, requiring 77 bicycle parking spaces.  No bicycle parking space locations have been identified. (6) Surface Parking Lot and Loading Area Design and Construction (c) Curbs and Wheel Stops: Curbs are required to prevent vehicle conflicts with abutting landscape areas, sidewalks, streets, buildings, or lot lines. Planted areas shall be installed at a lower grade than the parking lot pavement and include curbing at the edge of a landscaped area with gaps to allow drainage into the planted area.  The grading plan indicates that the private vehicular drive aisles are designed with an inverted pitch, draining to storm structures in the middle of the aisle as opposed to structures at the outer edges of the aisle.  From the information provided it is not clear if curbs are provided in the private vehicular circulation areas. FDP Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 17 | 18 153.065 – Site Development Standards Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? (C) Stormwater Management FDP (D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation (2) General (b) Each application for development shall include a landscape plan, and the siting of buildings shall avoid the removal of desirable trees in good or fair condition, where alternate building siting is available.  Numerous existing street trees along Tuller Road are proposed to be removed, to be replaced with new street trees located in the same area. The location of these existing street trees does not appear to be in irreconcilable conflict with the proposed development. FDP (c) Protected trees shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146  A Tree Survey and removal plan has been provided with proposed replacement inches noted. FDP (e) Landscape Plans shall exhibit diversity in tree selection, as determined by City For ester and Director of Parks & Open Space  The Landscape Plans do not include plant specifications. TBD (3) Street Trees (d) Street tree openings shall be a minimum of five feet wide and five feet long and excavated to a minimum depth of three feet.  The typical street sections proposed for Hobbs Landing Drive West and McCune Avenue indicate tree lawns four feet in width. FDP (5) Surface Parking/Circulation Landscaping (a) Street Frontage Screening: Surface parking lots and vehicular use areas located within 40 feet of a public street shall either be landscaped, or a street wall installed.  There are several locations on each block where parking and drive aisles encroach into areas where buildings are required (RBZ). If this parking is permitted to remain in these locations via a waiver to the parking location requirement screening will be required in accordance with this section.  In several locations a ‘Screening Treatment’ is labeled on the plans, but no details are provided for the proposed frontage screening. FDP (7) Foundation Planting (a) Building foundation landscaping is required along all sides of a building not otherwise occupied by entrances, sidewalk, parking or loading areas, or similar areas.  No Landscape Plans have been provided depicting required foundation planting. FDP (E) Fences, Walls and Screening (3) Screening Insufficient information has been provided to determine compliance with requirements related to these site elements. Space between buildings is relatively narrow in numerous FDP Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday December 10, 2020 20-159 PDP – Tuller Road Townhomes PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANALYSIS Page 18 | 18 153.065 – Site Development Standards Code Section Requirement  Analysis Met? locations and is occupied by open space types in others, leaving few locations for ground mounted mechanical equipment to be sited and screened per code. (F) Exterior Lighting (6) Lighting Uniformity. Lighting across a horizontal surface shall have an average range from one to three footcandles.  A plan with proposed light pole locations has been provided but does not include footcandle data. FDP (G) Utility Undergrounding (1)-(3) TBD (I) Walkability Standards (1) Intent and Purpose Enhance connectivity, improve pedestrian safety, and promote comfortable walking and sitting environments. (2) Walkability Objective: Connectivity (a) Mid-block Pedestrianways are required on all blocks exceeding 400 feet in length.  ‘All blocks exceed 400 feet in length. No mid-block pedestrianway is provided in Block 4. FDP 3. Mid-block pedestrianways shall be located within the middle third of a block with access from the sides of a block exceeding 400 feet.  The southern portion of the mid-block pedestrianway on Block 1 is not located in the middle third of the block. 4. Design B. Mid-block pedestrianways shall be a minimum of 14 feet in width, with a minimum five foot sidewalk, and designed as a continuation of the streetscape, including materials and furnishings  Several design requirements are not met by the proposed mid-block pedestrianway design C. The mid-block pedestrianway shall be lighted using footlights, bollard lights, building lights, and/or adjacent street lights to provide for safety and visibility.  Lighting has not been provided in all areas of the mid -building pedestrianway FDP (b) Mid-building Pedestrianways.  Not required based on proposed building length. N/A (4) Walkability Objective: Comfort and Convenience (a) RBZ Treatment: All areas between the front and corner side property lines and the back of the RBZ or setback not occupied by a building shall be treated with either a landscape, patio or streetscape treatment as required by building type.  No Landscape Plans have been provided specifying proposed landscaping in this area. FDP PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF DISCUSSION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, March 5, 2020 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Tuller Road Townhomes 6851 John Shields Parkway 20-019CP Concept Plan Proposal: The development of 168 attached single-family homes with .9-acre open space, three public streets, and associated site improvements on an 11.61-acre site. Location: At the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for a Concept Plan. Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte and Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC Planning Contacts: Nichole M. Martin, AICP Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us and Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-019 MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Call seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for Concept Plan Option A with eight conditions: 1) That the applicant clarify and update the plans accordingly if 168 or 171 units are proposed prior to City Council review; 2) That the applicant revise the site layout to minimize view of auto-oriented drive and the rear of units from Principal Frontage Streets; 3) That the applicant work with the City Engineer to establish dedicated parking lanes with bump- outs prior to the Preliminary Development Plan; 4) That the applicant update the plan to meet the maximum impervious lot coverage permitted by Code; 5) That the applicant revise the building elevations to have four-sided architecture with additional attention to the side and rear of the homes prior to the Preliminary Development Plan; 6) That the applicant revise the building elevation to limit the application of cementitious siding and panels prior to the Preliminary Development Plan; 7) That the applicant identify air conditioning unit locations and other utility locations with required screening prior to the Preliminary Development Plan; and 8) That the applicant update the plan to meet the open space diversity required by Code. Page 1 of 1 PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov 3. Tuller Road Townhomes 6851 John Shields Parkway 20-019CP Concept Plan VOTE: 4 - 0 RESULT: The Concept Plan was recommended for approval to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Absent Jane Fox Absent Warren Fishman Absent Kristina Kennedy Yes Rebecca Call Yes Mark Supelak Yes Leo Grimes Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 2 of 15   TABLED CASES 1. Dublin Gateway (Gorden), Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Kennedy stated that this case is a request of a rezoning of ±45.4 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to facilitate the future development of 90 single-family lots and an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with ±12.5 acres of open space and five public streets. The site is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. Along with this request is also a request for review and an approval recommendation to City Council. The applicant has requested this application be tabled. 2. Dublin Gateway (Gorden), Preliminary Plat The subdivision of ±45.4 acres into 90 single-family lots, rights-of-way for five public streets and eight open space reserves. The site is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded to table the requests for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and for the Preliminary Plat. Vote: Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes. [Motion passed 4-0] NEW CASES 3. Tuller Road Townhomes, John Shields and Village Parkways and Tuller Road, 20-028CP, Concept Plan Ms. Kennedy stated that this application is a request for review and feedback of a future possible development to include 168 attached, single-family homes in 35 buildings with three public streets, and associated site improvements on an 11.61-acre site at the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. This site is BSD-SCN, Bridge Street District – Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and a recom mendation of approval for a Concept Plan for the construction of 168 attached, single-family homes with .9 acres of open space, three public streets, and associated site improvements on ±11.61 acres located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). The BSD development process for new, large-scale development proposals includes three steps, beginning with a Concept Plan. The Concept Plan when intended to be tied to a development agreement requires the Commission to make a recommendation to City Council regarding whether the concept could fit within the District. If approved by Council, it will be followed with a Preliminary Development Plan and a Final Development Plan. The site is located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. Recent adjacent development includes Tuller Flats, which is a for-rent apartment complex. Greystone Mews, an attached, single-family home development, is located to the south. Office and service-oriented uses are located to the north and east. The Bridge Street District Special Area Plan was established in 2010 and a Code for development of that area was adopted in 2012. In May 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed a proposal for a 2.48-acre portion of the site to be developed as townhomes and multi-family lofts. That proposal did not go forward. The BSD Code establishes Neighborhood Districts where special attention to location and character of buildings, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 3 of 15   streets, and open spaces is important to establish a coordinated mix of uses that fulfill the objectives identified in the BSD Special Area Plan within the C ommunity Plan. The Sawmill Center Neighborhood District is one of four neighborhood districts located within the Bridge Street District. The neighborhoods are intended to allow for special attention to location and character of streets, buildings and open spaces to establish a coordinated mix of uses. This neighborhood was envisioned to support a mix of uses, including entertainment and service uses supported by residential and office uses. The intent of the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, as outlined in the BSD Code, is to provide an active mixed-use environment through unique shopping, service and entertainment uses with supporting residential and office uses. The Bridge Street District Street Network is the backbone of the BSD Code. It establishes regional connectors, district connectors, and neighborhood streets. With this application, the applicant will be creating that backbone for development. The undeveloped site is located north of John Shields and west of Village Parkway. The existing tree row bisecting the site will be removed. Proposal The proposal is for 168 attached single-family units distributed across 35 buildings, which vary in size from three units to eight units, and 0.9-acre of open space on an ±11.61-acre site. The proposal includes the extension of McCune Avenue and two new public streets and will be developed in four blocks: A, B, C, and D. The blocks are proposed to be established by squaring off the intersection of Village Parkway and Tuller Road, and the extension of McCune Avenue (east-west) and creation of two new public streets (north-south). The primary access is centrally located along John Shields Parkway. There is one secondary access point along John Shields Parkway, and two secondary access points along Tuller Road. The site is also accessible along Village Parkway via McCune Avenue. Six internal private drives are proposed. The drives access the rear-loaded garages associated with each unit. The street network map establishes standards for structures that front two streets. Some of the District connectors are established as principal frontage streets. That designation can be added to any street type, although typically not a neighborhood street. John Shields Parkway, Village Parkway and Tuller Road are all principal frontage streets. This designation is intended to minimize the number of vehicular conflicts along those frontages as well as establish a continuous, pedestrian-oriented, street-focused character. All of the buildings in the development will face a principal frontage street or a publicly accessible open space. With the roadway improvements, the intersection of Tuller Road and Village Parkway, which is currently curved, will be squared off. That proposed roadway project is one of the primary reasons the plan will be forwarded to Council for consideration of an infrastructure agreement. Some of the proposed private internal drives will terminate adjacent to principal frontage streets. Staff recommends these elements be revised prior to the Preliminary Development Plan, as principal frontage streets are i ntended to have building frontages and not visible access to parking areas. Additionally, there are several units where the rear of the unit faces a principal frontage street. For further development of the plan, the applicant will need to address the character of those rear elevations or modify the site layout to screen the elevations. In regard to the proposed four blocks, the Code establishes maximum block lengths and perimeters. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the blocks are walkable. The applicant is meeting all of these Code requirements. Further analysis will be provided with the Preliminary Development Plan. Building Types Building types are used in the Bridge Street Code versus Permitted Uses, which increases the flexibility of uses within the District. Based on the type and use, the Single-Family Attached building type is anticipated to be the building type selected in the Preliminary Development Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 4 of 15   Each building type includes development standards, which are reviewed conceptually in context with the District. This includes the siting of buildings within required build zones; maximum height; lot coverage; permitted materials; parking requirements; and open space. Architecture Proposed renderings depict 3.0-story to 3.5-story contemporary buildings emphasizing geometric forms, with parapet roofs emulating a flat roof or pitched roof appearance with a neutral color palette. The applicant has provided two options: Option A, with two variations -- a flat roof or a pitched roof, and Option B. The options are the same base building with alternative exterior characters. Option A The difference between the Option A - flat roof and Option A - pitched roof variations is that the pitched roof option allows for a 3.5-story structure with an up per story loft and roof terrace. Staff recommends Option A with a flat roof due to the established modern character of the District. Staff has recommended that the flat roof parapet with a pitched roof should be investigated further by the applicant. The majority of the proposals depict an architectural character that is contemporary and geometric in form, similar to other developments in the Bridge Street District. The base of the structures are clad in brick with cementitious siding on the second and third stories, and in selected areas, some cementitious panels. Staff has recommended that select units be completely brick in order to provide diversity across the elevation and reduce the application of cementitious siding. Also recommended is that the character of the auto-oriented areas, as well as the sides, ensure four-sided architecture. Staff recommends that the garage doors be painted within the auto-oriented areas. Staff has also recommended that the brick on the side elevations should be maintained at the same height as on the front elevations, but could be reduced on the rear elevation. There is a lack of fenestration on the side elevations, which can be revised. Option B The applicant has indicated that the intent is that the entire development be of one character. Option B is a side gable structure with decorative front gable elements to add visual interest. This proposal has significantly less brick than the Option A variation. It uses a mix of cementitious materials including horizontal siding, vertical board and batten siding and panels. Staff has reviewed the Concept P lan against all applicable criteria and recommends approval with nine conditions. Commission Questions Mr. Grimes inquired the reason the applicant desires to redesign the roadway intersection to remove the curve. How would that affect the flow of traffic within the area? Ms. Martin responded that with the formation of the Bridge Street District in 2010, a traffic study was conducted on the entire 1,000-acre area. As a result of that study, a street network with street classifications was established. A street grid network was also created for the purpose of distributing traffic efficiently. This anticipated squaring off of the intersection was included in that grid, which has been in place since the Bridge Street Code adoption in 2012. Mr. Supelak stated that there is currently on-street parking on John Shields Parkway. Could there be on-street parking on some of the surrounding streets, as well, such as Tuller Parkway, Village Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 5 of 15   Parkway and the proposed Public Street A? These streets make up the perimeter boundaries. Ms. Martin responded that at this point, the recommendation would not be to re-design those portions of Tuller and Village Parkways. However, the new streets and the extension of McCune could be designed to accommodate on-street parking with bumpouts, in coordination with the Engineering Division. Ms. Call requested information about the tree line that would be removed. That information is lacking in the packet. Ms. Martin stated that, at this time, the request is whether the Concept Plan can be further designed and developed under the Bridge Street District Code. If approved, the applicant would be required to provide that level of detail with the Preliminary Development Plan, which would include a tree survey. Any trees that cannot be replaced on site would require a fee paid in lieu of to the City’s Tree Fund. Ms. Call stated that according to her calculations, the open space numbers appear to be off. Perhaps she is missing an area calculation. Is the intent that the small triangular space at the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway be included in the open space calculation? Ms. Martin responded that it should not be included in the calculation, as it will not be Open Space. It is included in the calculation of impervious area. Ms. Call inquired if there is a definition of what constitutes a park. Are minimum amounts of amenities required? Ms. Martin responded that the Bridge Street Code includes a table that provides minimum and maximum sizes for each open space, as well as development requirements regarding what can be included. The applicant would need to follow that, if they proceed with the design. Ms. Call stated that these buildings are required to front principal roadways. There are some good examples of how that has been accomplished, but most are larger structures. Are there examples within the Bridge Street District of smaller parcels such as this that front on multiple corner lots? She is trying to understand how, when there are buildings that oppose one another, there would be buildings that wrap frontages on all four corners. Ms. Martin responded that the most analogous development would be Tuller Flats. However, they do not have three sides on principal frontage streets. They are two-sided on principal frontage streets or cornered by neighborhood public streets. Mr. Grimes inquired if, in context with the development further down the street, staff would have any preferences in regard to the roofs and architectural materials in the proposed development. What would staff recommend continuing, changing, or making more unique? Ms. Martin responded that the Building Code requires building diversity not only within one development but also across developments. Staff would recommend this plan address that context, as a modern, contemporary, infill project, diversifying it from other projects. Applicant Presentation Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, Ohio stated that also present for this case is Matt Callahan, Pulte Homes, who will be covering the housing product and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 6 of 15   other locations within the nation where the builder is building this product. This will be one of the first locations in this area for this particular product. He will provide some background on this site. Previously, an independent living facility project was proposed for this site, with which he was involved. After undergoing numerous hearings with the Commission and City Council, the project was abandoned. He and Mr. Callahan have tried to take information from those earlier hearings and use it in developing this proposal. One of those earlier concerns was the monolithic building with significant street frontage. This new proposal includes multiple buildings. There were also earlier concerns about the lack of open space along John Shields and lack of opportunities for interaction between buildings and the community. There are balconies on the backs of these units; there may be ways to have those on the fronts, as well, or in lieu of rear balconies. That is a level of detail that would be covered in the Preliminary Development Plan, not the Concept Plan stage, of the development. Staff’s concerns as identified would be addressed in that next stage. This is a “for sale” product for which a range of buyers is anticipated – empty nesters, young professionals and families. Pulte’s history in other markets reflects this buyer trend. Pricing will be in the mid-$300K. There is a rental product to the west, and Bridge Park has a unique mix of residents. They believe the proposed product will meet a market niche between the two. The squaring off of Tuller Parkway is proposed, and is the primary reason that this application will be reviewed by City Council, as well. A development agreement will be necessary to accomplish a land swap. It will involve some financial assistance from the City via a TIF or other means, due to the fact that it is a project that will benefit the area at large. Architecture is a difficult topic, because it tends to be in the “eye of the beholder.” With the previous project, the applicant received conflicting feedback during reviews. One opinion directed them to follow the Tuller Flats example; another requested more traditional architecture. With this new proposal, they have provided two options of different directions. The examples are not specific proposals for Dublin; they are examples of other projects they have built. Their goal is to obtain clear direction on which direction to take this project, which they will then Dublinize as they proceed. The applicant is in agreement with all of staff’s recommended conditions except the third condition, which is related to maximum parking. The calculations appear to suggest they are greatly exceeding the maximum Code requirement. However, the nature of this product – having a garage that is internal, beneath and behind the living space – lends itself to needing a small driveway. With a “for sale” product, there is an expectation for a driveway. Backing out directly onto a community driveway is not the expectation here; that would be more common with an apartment complex. They believe this is a situation where a deviation may be warranted; although, they are open to providing other places in which guests could park outside of the proposed spaces. Matt Callahan, Pulte Homes, 475 Metro Place S., Dublin, 43017, stated that Pulte Homes is best known for building conventional, single-family homes throughout central Ohio, with a few isolated townhome products. In some of their other urban markets, townhomes are their primary product type. In central Ohio, they have been looking for the right opportunity and location for this product. When the previous application for this site was being considered, he was present for another case but recognized the opportunity for this site. They have studied the Bridge Street Code and looked at the context of the surrounding area, and have developed an approach and proposal that they believe fits well within the District. They have offered an affordable option for purchasing a new home within the Dublin community. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 7 of 15   Greg Chillog, Principal, Planner/Landscape Architect, The Edge Group, Inc., 330 W. Spring Street, Columbus, 43215, stated that this plan essentially designed itself due to the prescriptive nature of the Bridge Street Code. The primary task was to understand the Code. He will attempt to identify where and why the open spaces are where they are. John Shields Parkway is the spine through the District, and they would like to create a rhythm of different spaces and different sizes of the project viewed along that roadway. Beginning at its intersection with Village Parkway, that roadway extends down to the river. At its halfway point, the Tuller Flats community has a large, prominent park, so what they have attempted to provide is a gateway element, such as a pocket plaza with some pavement, seating and perhaps a community feature or some branding element for the District. Continuing along John Shields, there would be two additional pocket plazas before reaching the large, central greenspace. Before reaching that central greenspace, there would be a diversity of building frontages and open spaces along the roadway. Inside this development, along the public streets, will be some smaller, more traditional pocket parks with a community amenity, such as a mailbox kiosk. They have worked hard to provide mid-block crossings for pedestrians through the development. From east to west, the grade drops approximately 25 feet across the site. That helps with the rhythm of the buildings, allowing them to adjust the grade between the buildings. This building type provides more opportunity to do that, as opposed to larger, more monolithic structures. They have worked on providing 22- to 24-ft. wide private vehicular driveways along the private roads or alleyways, which will provide access to the rear of the building with the attached, integrated two-car garages and vehicular stacking space in front of the garages. In the next phase, they will address ways in which to integrate and screen that private stacking space separate from the public space in the front. These driveways are essential for a “for sale” product. Keith Philipkowski, Pulte Homes, 475 S. Metro Place, Dublin, 43017, stated that he is the architect for this project. [Displayed slides of streetscape views of the proposed community.] He understands that the Bridge Street Code establishes specific measures to account for building variety, and color and massing differences in the homes are ways in which to promote that diversity. Their intent is to customize the elevations for the community as a whole. Although not shown in the Concept Plan, finer details such as the screening of utilities are very important and will be addressed as the project proceeds. The inspiration of their design is primarily Tuller Flats, due to the similar geography. There is also an option for a more traditional appearance. At the Concept design stage, they are very open to design suggestions and would appreciate that feedback to ensure they pursue a desired direction. They have worked on both a flat roof and a pitched roof design, attempting to blend some features. Some detail is provided regarding how the overhang reacts with a gabled roof. The community may be able to see a gabled roof from the front façade and the ends of units more readily. Staff has recommended the flat roof option; however, that option may be problematic for achieving a third-level walkout onto rooftop terraces. Part of the inspiration for rooftop terraces is the intent to create an opportunity for outdoor living. To achieve that, rooftop terraces are very important. Decks also will be provided on the rear elevations to promote the outdoor living aspect. In regard to four-sided architecture, the side elevations will be addressed in a more pronounced manner as the plan proceeds. In regard to the Code requirements for fenestrations, windows will be added where possible, simultaneously protecting the interior configurations of the homes. If the window opportunities become too limited, they are interested in collectively identifying a solution. For any floorplan Pulte introduces, there is a lengthy 12-step process, beginning with ideation and ending with a prototype building. Virtual visualization is utilized, as well as consumer feedback testing. The concept is to have a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 8 of 15   floorplan shell with interchangeability. For instance, the floorplan rendering shown would be re- configured based on kitchen placement. Although the townhouse product is not the core of Pulte’s business in Ohio, in Cleveland they do offer a variety of townhome series. The core of their business is in New England. The floorplan shown is one of their most successful in urban markets. Over time, it has been fine-tuned to cater to the market. The Option B alternative shown has a more traditional look, but other traditional looks are possible, dependent upon the Commission’s feedback. He requests the Commission’s preference regarding a flat vs. a pitched roof. There was no public comment. Commission Questions Mr. Grimes inquired if the floorplan has sufficient flexibility to provide a mix of front and rear terraces. Mr. Philipkowski stated they had discussed that concept, but preferred the public-facing opportunity for outdoor living. He believes there may be that flexibility, but it would require further vetting. If that is an element the majority of the Commission would prefer, they would focus their efforts on achieving it for the next phase of the approval process. Mr. Grimes inquired about the intent for provision of mail and for refuse/trash pickup. Would it be the homeowners’ responsibility or would there be a common area for collection? Mr. Callahan responded that there would be a private trash pickup for each home. The homeowner association would handle that contract, and the cost would be included in the monthly HOA fees. In regard to mailboxes, the USPS has new regulations requiring all new communities to have centralized mailbox facilities. This is also the case for new single-home communities. In this particular community, the plan includes two centralized mail facilities along the McCune Avenue extension. Those areas would be gathering spaces, as well, not just centralized mail locations. The space could include benches, gazebos and trellises. Ms. Call stated in regard to parking: a. If there is a balcony overhang on the rear elevation, having a street with cars driving immediately beneath would be undesirable. Therefore, she has no objection to individual driveways on the back of the units, which would provide two exterior parking spaces in addition to the two interior garage spaces. b. What is the anticipated parking occupancy rate? The proposal would provide 364 spaces in excess of what is required for the project. Could it be an over-parked product? Is an interior garage parking rate of 80% anticipated? If so, what would the anticipated exterior parking rate be? Mr. Callahan responded that with owner-occupied homes, private parking is very desirable to owners. Some owners use their garages for storage, so will need the additional exterior parking spaces for their vehicles, keeping them out of the public drive s and roadways. They do not believe the proposed community will be overparked. They are currently building a townhome community in the Pickerington market, which is a distinct, very different approach for townhomes. At the request of the existing homeowners, they have added additional parking areas to the community. In attached-unit communities, parking becomes a premium, and often is insufficient. He does not believe this project could be overparked, but they will work with staff to identify the correct solution. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 9 of 15   Mr. Chillog stated that from the design perspective of the townhome product, interior parking inside the structure is an essential. It provides the homeowner parking privacy and security. Ms. Call stated that the principal roadways here are John Shields Parkway, Village Parkway and Tuller Road. The Code requires that a building structure face the principal roadway, but where there are two 90-degree angles, that is difficult to accomplish. How would those corners appear if they were fronted by buildings? Mr. Chillog responded that those corners are very important. Extra time and attention will be necessary to achieve the best appearance possible. The streetscape is as important to Pulte as it is to the City. It is essential that there be accent features in these key places for the product to present well. It may be necessary to over emphasize four-sided architecture here. It is difficult to articulate how it would look without actually designing it, however. Ms. Call stated that she believes staff’s concerns are with two particular road stubs. Four-sided architecture may address the building itself, but it would not address the fact that the frontage needs to be fronted by a building. Are there other incidences in the District where multiple sides of the same building have a frontage requirement? Mr. Chillog responded that they do not have an L-shaped building with this product type that would satisfy the Code requirement on that corner. This is an opportunity for them to come up with a creative solution that provides a visual barrier from the public side to the private side. It may be architectural, landscaping or both. Ms. Call stated that they mentioned mailbox structures and benches in the interior pocket parks. Are any other amenities being considered for those interior pocket parks? Mr. Callahan responded that ideas have been discussed for these gathering places, such as covered structures. Particularly for the pocket parks on the north side of McCune Street, they want to articulate with some design features. They will bring back more evolved ideas on those features at the Preliminary Development Plan stage. In regard to the earlier question about the building frontage on the corner – treating those key points via the buildings and through site and landscape architecture - planning will be important. What occurs on the ground and in the surrounding areas has as much visual effect as what occurs on the building. A combination of both will be utilized to come up with the best solution. Ms. Kennedy, referring to the lower left corner of block B, stated that a road dead-ends there. The materials refer to a masonry or wrought iron element being placed in that location. The “feel” between the buildings is abrupt. Due to the amount of material already present at that corner, what is the logic in adding such an element at that location? Mr. Chillog responded that at the Concept Plan level, it is suggested because the Code requires it there. Although it is responsive to the Code requirement, they recognize that a 3-ft. high masonry wall does not work there. Ms. Martin stated that staff has a collaborative relationship with the applicant, so they will be working together to identify an appropriate resolution. Ms. Kennedy inquired if staff’s preference would be a landscaping element. Ms. Martin responded that they would begin by looking at the site layout with the applicant to determine if the smaller building closest to the intersection of John Shields Parkway and Public Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 10 of 15   Street A could become more than a 4 or 5-unit building and the 8-unit building on Public Street A become only a 5-unit building. Thereby, the drive would terminate at the rear of the John Shields building. These are some of the options that could be discussed as the plan develops. Mr. Callahan stated that it is important that they remain consistent with the rest of the building structures. When he refers to emphasizing character at a corner, they will be mindful of not being out of character with the whole, as well. They would prefer to integrate other methods of addressing the corner rather than physically changing the layout. He does not want the expectation to be anything different than they would consider to be appropriate in the end. Ms. Kennedy inquired if, with the flat roof variations of Option A, the pitched roof would be necessary to have rooftop terraces. Mr. Chillog responded affirmatively. As he considers how best to achieve that solution, it is very important to have feedback from the Commission on the flat roof option with rooftop terraces. Mr. Grimes inquired if the product would be consistent througho ut the four blocks, or would there be a mix of floorplans, perhaps differing in the blocks. Mr. Chillog responded that one or two primary floorplan configurations would be used throughout the community, but those floorplans can be diversified throughout the units. Mr. Grimes inquired about the roads. Ms. Martin responded that all of the new and extended streets would be public neighborhood streets designed to public standards. The driveways or alleyways accessing the units will be private and maintained by the HOA, as established by the developer. Mr. Callahan referred to the pitched roof rendering, and noted that this design concept is interesting. The buildings have the appearance of flat roofs because of the parapet extension off the front; however, they have pitched roofs, which provide ability for rooftop terrace, third-floor living. They are interested in having the Commission’s feedback on this option. Mr. Chillog stated that one of the ways variety is achieved is through roof design. In instances where they may not elect to have rooftop terraces – such as building sites less suitable for that feature -- there would be ability to lower those roofs. Commission Discussion Ms. Kennedy stated that Mr. Underhill has requested Commission feedback particularly in regard to flat versus pitched roofs and the parking deviation. Mr. Underhill responded that is correct. On everything else, they have clear guidance. Ms. Call stated that she has no concerns related to the proposed parking. Of note, the Code’s minimum is also the maximum permitted. She would like to see some integrated on-street parking, particularly in the pocket park areas. There is some on-street parking along John Shields Parkway, but there should be some opportunity for visitor parking outside the unit driveways. In regard to the pocket park amenities, a mail kiosk is not really an amenity, although they can look attractive if located within an enclosure as opposed to consisting of a multi-tenant mailbox arrangement. She would not visit a park to look at the pretty mailboxes, but she and her children would have gone there to use play equipment, for a picnic, for Frisbee golf, or other real amenities. In the urban areas of Dublin, people want to live, work and play. While a resident could take a walk to see a movie or go to a farmers market, what are the true amenities for this Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 11 of 15   particular neighborhood? Dublin likes to be “a cut above,” so the Commission is interested in partnerships. That is the reason the Commission asks detailed questions – to formulate that partnership and learn how amenable the applicant is to such a relationship for the purpose of achieving the best product possible for present and future Dublin residents. She really likes the roof terraces, so prefers the pitched roof option that looks like a flat roof, particularly with the rear terraces, as depicted in the meeting materials. She also likes the variety of open spaces, which creates an interesting visual experience along the street to the culmination of the new park on Riverside Drive. She is excited with the degree of opportunity here and is interested in a collaborative effort to realize it. This Concept Plan proposes a fantastic product, and she is looking forward to seeing it completed. Mr. Grimes stated that he likes the rooftop terraces, as well. It is a very nice feature that distinguishes the product. He is concerned about the view when travelling down John Shields Parkway. The property located above this development, and residents travelling down Tuller Road will be looking at this product as the gateway piece. This will be a highly visible product from all directions. Care must be taken as to how it presents from all angles, not only as the face of this product. but for its “feel” to the greater community. Mr. Supelak stated that he entirely agrees with the points made about four-sided architecture. Sensitivity can solve some of the corner and rear of building conditions. This item is addressed by #6 in the recommended conditions. He concurs with Ms. Call on the unit driveways. They are an important amenity to homeowners. There is also merit to having opportunities for on-street parking adjacent to pocket parks. It may be nice on Public Street A. On-street parking provides opportunity for front door approaches to the homes for visitors, as opposed to garage approaches. In regard to the architecture, he recognizes that this is a product already used in other areas that is being adapted to this community, but it is a good product. With this many buildings, diversity will be very important. With rowhouse buildings, there are some opportunities for diversity on the elevations. However, the end units have opportunities to be massed a little differently, and thereby be addressed through four-sided architecture. There are some end units, for instance, that do not face another unit. Larger bumpouts can change the relief on a side unit and provide opportunity for a second balcony, perhaps. Empty nesters often prefer living space without stairs. There is opportunity to reduce the height of end units. In the bottom of the left corner, there was a suggestion to swap the building on Public Street A with the building on John Shields Parkway. However, if the building on Public Street A were to be repositioned slightly and a special unit added at the elbow, that would close the street up and create an intentional corner. There would be no need to add wall features or other articulations. Focusing on sensitivity with the corners will begin to define those opportunities. An additional level of design is needed at this point. Staff provided material recommendations for the facades. On the third level of some buildings, all brick was used. On some elevations, there were multiple types of brick or stone. Two materials rather than one will help with diversity, so he concurs with staff regarding the need to extend the diversity up the façade. If a parapet is used with a flat roof solution, he would advocate for adding more vertical relief. He likes the rooftop terrace concept, if the roofline aesthetics succeed. It is a selling point and an amenity that will enrich this community. Balconies on the front façade would provide diversity on that side. He likes the proposed approach to open space and amenities. He recognizes that the plan is in the concept stage, but the landscaping appears to be low-lying. He would encourage incorporating vertical landscape elements to the building facades. Chimneys can add articulation, perhaps in the end units, which are aesthetically lacking. He is confident this Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 12 of 15   experienced builder will address such issues, and if the corner conditions are addressed well, he is supportive of the Concept Plan. Ms. Kennedy stated that she is in agreement with other Commissioners regarding a preference for Option A with a pitched roof. She likes the open space continued here as it is in other areas of Bridge Park. There are opportunities in this area for great views. As mentioned earlier, she would prefer the proposed masonry or wrought iron element be replaced with a landscape element. She concurs with the comments on the building wrap-arounds and how those are represented on the corner spaces. The pocket park areas facing John Shields Parkway are so small that they are likely unusable. She would like to see some additional considerations for those open spaces. Perhaps having fewer small spaces in favor of some larger spaces. She concurs with Mr. Supelak’s comments that there are some opportunities to make the architecture more expressive and interesting. At this point, it seems too sterile. She would like to see more character and dimension. The proposed structures are similar to apartment buildings – flat fronts without diversity. She would encourage a more individual character, a different look from anything around the site. With those recommendations, she is very excited about this proposed addition to Dublin. Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had received responses to his questions and had clear direction. There are some Commission members absent tonight. Mr. Underhill responded that they appreciate the feedback and consensus among the members present. Their guidance is appreciated. Mr. Chillog inquired if, as he works on refining the proposed design, he is unable to accomplish all of the direction given, would the Commission be opposed to his changing directions to a completely traditional architectural character. Is the Commission interested in seeing only a contemporary style of architecture? Ms. Call responded that she much prefers Option A with the pitched roof over Option B, or a contemporary, minimalist design, assuming the quality is high. Mr. Supelak inquired if the Bridge Street Code is more amenable to one architectural approach over another. Ms. Martin responded that the Bridge Street Code principles can be applied to any architectural style. The traditional style must meet the development character defined in the Code. Mr. Supelak that he concurs with Ms. Call’s comments, but Option B is also good, as the dormers help in breaking up the roofline. If not Option B, any other traditional design could do so, as well. Pulte is an experienced builder, and he is confident that they can work with staff and achieve the best design solution for this site. Ms. Kennedy stated that she prefers a traditional design. It is different and would stand out more as opposed to matching everything around it. It is more similar to the construction at The Grand, which achieves more diversity. However, she is supportive of either design approach, as long as it is of a high quality and meets the required characteristics for this site. Mr. Underhill reiterated the applicant’s request to delete Condition #3, related to the parking. With the condition, if they are unable to meet the Code requirement, it would be necessary to return to the Commission later to request a waiver. They would like to have the ability to resolve the issue without that necessity. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the applicant would be in agreement with the remaining eight conditions. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2020 Page 13 of 15   Mr. Underhill responded that the applicant is in agreement. Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Call seconded to recommend approval of t he Concept Plan to City Council with the following 8 conditions: 1) The applicant clarify and update the plans accordingly if 168 or 171 units are proposed prior to City Council review. 2) The applicant revise the site layout to minimize the view of auto-oriented drives and the rear of units from principal frontage streets. 3) The applicant work with the City Engineer to establish dedicated parking lanes with bump-outs prior to the Preliminary Development Plan. 4) The applicant update the plan to meet the maximum impervious lo t coverage permitted by Code. 5) The applicant revise the building elevations to have four-sided architecture with additional attention to the side and rear of the homes prior to the Preliminary Development Plan. 6) The applicant revise the building elevations to limit the application of cementitious siding and panels prior to the Preliminary Development Plan. 7) The applicant identify air conditioning unit locations and other utility locations with required screening prior to the Preliminary Development Plan. 8) The applicant update the plan to meet the open space diversity required by Code. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes. [Motion passed 4-0] CONSENT AGENDA Ms. Kennedy noted that there were no requests to remove the following items from the Consent Agenda: 4. The Corners, Rings Road and Frantz Road, 20-028 FP, Final Plat The subdivision of ±24 acres into three lots for the future development of ±70,000 square feet of office and commercial space and a public park. The site is at the intersection of Frantz Road and Rings Road and currently zoned OLR, Office Laboratory & Research and PUD, Planned Unit Development District. There was no public comment. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded to recommend approval of the Final Plat to Council with the following two conditions: 1) The applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal, and; 2) That the City coordinate the vacation of the retention easement in the southeast portion of the site. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes. [Motion passed 4-0] 5. University Boulevard , Shier Rings Road, 20-027 FP, Final Plat