HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 31-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: May 18, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Re: Resolution 31-21 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for Bridge Park East, Section 4
(Block G) located within the Bridge Street District (Case #16-044FP)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final Plat to combine three parcels totaling ±2.29 acres
and to establish four public access easements for open space to facilitate development of
Bridge Park, Block G. The site is located north of Bridge Park Avenue and south of Tuller Ridge
Drive between Dale Drive and Mooney Street, and zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) – Scioto
River Neighborhood District. The site is surrounded by existing development including Bridge
Park, Block F (Springhill Suites) to the south; Bridge Park, Block C to the west; Bridge Park,
Block H (townhomes) to the north; and Sycamore Ridge Apartments to the east.
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 Final Plat and made a
recommendation of approval to City Council on April 15, 2021, finding the proposal meets the
review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with the Final Development Plan,
which was approved by the Commission. City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on March 9,
2015 (Bridge Park East PP, Case 15-002PP).
Description
The plat establishes a single, 2.286-acre developable lot (Lot 9) along with necessary public
access easements for open spaces. Lot 9 is the result of the combination of three parcels: a
.183-acre parcel, a .006-acre parcel, and a 2.097-acres parcel. The new lot has approximately
200 feet of frontage along Bridge Park Avenue, 450 feet of frontage along Mooney Street, 250
feet of frontage along Tuller Ridge Drive, and 415 feet of frontage along Dale Drive.
Four public access easements are proposed to be established. Three at corners of the site and
one bisecting the site. A .027-acre access easement is provided at the intersection of Bridge
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Resolution 31-21 - Final Plat – Bridge Park East, Section 4
May 18, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Park Avenue and Mooney Street, a .005-acre access easement is provided at the intersection of
Mooney Street and Tuller Ridge Drive, and a .019-acre access easement is provided at the
intersection of Tuller Ridge Drive and Dale Drive.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the April 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff recommended approval
with the following condition:
1) 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 one condition, which has been addressed prior to City Council review.
City Council Recommendation
Recommendation of acceptance of Resolution 31-21 for the Final Plat for Bridge Park East,
Section 4.
21BRIDGE PARK EAST SECTION 4Approved this _____ Day of _______ ___________________________________20___ Director of Land Use and LongRange Planning, Dublin, OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ __________________________________20___ City Engineer, Dublin, OhioApproved this ______ day of ______________, 20___, by vote of Council, wherein all ofthe "Public Access Easement" is accepted as such by the Council of the City of Dublin,Ohio.In Witness Thereof I have hereunto ___________________________________set my hand and affixed my seal this Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio_____ day of __________, 20___.Transferred this ____ day of ________, __________________________________20___. Auditor, Franklin County, Ohio __________________________________ Deputy Auditor, Franklin County, OhioFiled for record this ___day of _______, __________________________________20___ at __________M. Fee $_________ Recorder, Franklin County, OhioFile No. _________________________Recorded this ____ day of __________, _________________________________20___. Deputy Recorder, Franklin County, OhioPlat Book _______, Pages ___________SURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon arebased on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone,as per NAD83 (1986 Adjustment). Control for bearings wasfrom coordinates of monuments FRANK 73 and FRANK 74,established by the Franklin County Engineering Department,using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment,having a bearing of South 75° 57' 18" East between saidmonuments.SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat are the records of theFranklin County, Ohio, Recorder.IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated hereon, unlessotherwise noted, are to be set and are iron pipes, thirteensixteenths inch inside diameter, thirty inches long with aplastic plug placed in the top end bearing the initials EMHTINC.PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers, whereindicated hereon, are to be one-inch diameter, thirty-inchlong, solid iron pins. Pins are to be set to monument the pointsindicated, and set with the top end flush with the surface ofthe ground and then capped with an aluminum cap stampedEMHT INC. Once installed, the top of the cap shall bemarked (punched) to record the actual location of the point.In Witness Whereof, BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member of SCIOTOTULLER ACQUISITION, LLC, has hereunto set his hand this ________ day of________, 20___. Signed and Acknowledged SCIOTO TULLER In the presence of: ACQUISITION, LLC______________________________ By _____________________________ BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member_____________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared BRENT D.CRAWFORD, Authorized Member of SCIOTO TULLER ACQUISITION, LLC, whoacknowledged the signing of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deedand the voluntary act and deed of SCIOTO TULLER ACQUISITION, LLC for theuses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioSituated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, in QuarterTownships 2 and 3, Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands, containing 2.286acres of land, more or less, said 2.286 acres being comprised of a part of that tract of landconveyed to SCIOTO TULLER ACQUISITION, LLC by deed of record in InstrumentNumber 201308160140286 and all of that tract of land conveyed to BRIDGE PARKGBLOCK COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC by deed of record in InstrumentNumber 202002180024052, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio.The undersigned, SCIOTO TULLER ACQUISITION, LLC an Ohio limitedliability company, by BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member, and BRIDGEPARK GBLOCK COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Ohio limited liabilitycompany, by BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member, owners of the lands plattedherein, duly authorized in the premises, do hereby certify that this plat correctly representstheir "BRIDGE PARK EAST SECTION 4", a subdivision containing a Lot numbered 9,do hereby accept this plat of same, and dedicate to public use, as such, all of the "PublicAccess Easement" shown hereon and not heretofore dedicated.The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the City ofDublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns taking titlefrom, under or through the undersigned.In Witness Whereof, BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member of BRIDGEPARK GBLOCK COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, has hereunto set his handthis ________ day of ________, 20___. Signed and Acknowledged BRIDGE PARK GBLOCK In the presence of: COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC______________________________ By _____________________________ BRENT D. CRAWFORD, Authorized Member_____________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared BRENT D.CRAWFORD, Authorized Member of BRIDGE PARK GBLOCK COMMERCIALINVESTMENTS, LLC, who acknowledged the signing of the foregoing instrument to behis voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of BRIDGE PARK GBLOCKCOMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of Ohio
22BRIDGE PARK EAST SECTION 4NOTE "A" - MINIMUM SETBACKS: City of Dublinzoning regulations for Bridge Park East Section 4 in effect atthe time of platting are established per chapter 153 of the Cityof Dublin Code of Ordinances.Said zoning regulations and any amendments thereto passedsubsequent to acceptance of this plat, should be reviewed todetermine the then current requirements. This notice is solelyfor the purpose of notifying the public of the existence, at thetime of platting, of certain zoning regulations applicable to thisproperty. This notice shall not be interpreted as creating plator subdivision restrictions, private use restrictions, covenantsrunning with the land or title encumbrances of any nature, andis for informational purposes only.NOTE "B": At the time of platting, all of Bridge Park EastSection 4 is in Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the0.2% annual chance floodplain) as said zone is designated anddelineated on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map forFranklin County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas, Map Number39049C0151K, with effective date of June 17, 2008.NOTE "C" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots inthe Bridge Park East Section 4 subdivision are hereby notifiedthat, at the time of platting, utility service to Bridge Park EastSection 4 for electric power is provided by American ElectricPower and telephone service is provided by AT&T.NOTE "D" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting,all of Bridge Park East Section 4 is in the City of DublinSchool District.NOTE "E" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Bridge ParkEast Section 4 is out of the following Franklin County ParcelNumbers:273-008242 0.006 Ac.273-009155 0.183 Ac.273-012471 2.097 Ac.NOTE "F"- PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: A "PublicAccess Easement" is herein created for the purpose ofproviding reasonable pedestrian access, ingress, egress, andpassage over and upon the areas depicted hereon for thepurpose of providing passive or active recreation and gatheringspaces open to the general public.NOTE "G": At the time of platting, electric, cable, andtelephone service providers have not issued informationrequired so that easement areas, in addition to those shown onthis plat as deemed necessary by these providers for theinstallation and maintenance of all of their main line facilities,could conveniently be shown on this plat. Existing recordedeasement information about Bridge Park East Section 4 or anypart thereof can be acquired by a competent examination of thethen current public records, including those in the FranklinCounty Recorder's Office.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-199CU Conditional Use
Proposal: Conditional Use request to permit Bridge Park, Block G, Building G2
(McCallum Garage) to be unlined along a public street, Mooney Street.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with Mooney Street
and zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood.
Request: Review and approve a Conditional Use under the provisions of Zoning
Code Section 153.236.
Applicant: Evan Salyers, EMH&T
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-199
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to approve a Conditional Use without conditions to
allow Bridge Park, Block G to locate the garage and adjacent building services solely along
Mooney Street.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Conditional Use was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
Proposal: Construction of a 4-story residential building, a 4-story parking garage,
and a 5-story mixed-use office building with 0.58-acres of open space
within Bridge Park, Block G zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto River
Neighborhood.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street.
Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of
Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicant: Mathew Poindexter, EMH&T
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-045
MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to approve two Administrative Departures:
1. §153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage
Requirement: A minimum 90 percent front property line coverage is required.
Request: 83 percent be required to be provided along Dale Drive when Buildings G1 and G2 are
calculated together.
2. §153.062(O)(3)(a)(4) — Change in Roof Plane
Requirement: A single roof plane shall extend not greater than 80 feet in length.
Request: Permit a single roof plane to extend 85 feet in length along the north elevation of Building
G3.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The two Administrative Departures were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve 28 Waivers:
1. §153.062(O)(5), (O)(12), (O)(3) — Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious combined lot coverage for the Corridor Building, Parking
Structure, and Apartment building shall not exceed 80 percent for the Corridor Building and Parking
Structure, and shall not exceed 75 percent for the Apartment Building.
Request: Combined lot coverage, for Block G, not exceed 90 percent.
2. §153.062(O)(5)(b) — Building Height, Ground Story and Upper Stories
Requirement: Ground story floor height shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet.
Upper story floor height shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 14 feet.
Request: Ground story height for west end of the first story be permitted to be a maximum of 25
feet in height, and the fifth story be permitted to a maximum of 18 feet in height.
3. §153.062(D)(1)(a) — Parapet Roof Types
Requirement: Shall be no higher than necessary to screen roof appurtenances from view from street
or adjacent building of similar height. Parapets shall be no less than 2 feet and no greater than 6 feet
in height.
Request: Parapet heights less than 2 - foot minimum. (1.25 feet in height)
4. §153.065(E)(3)(b) — Mechanical Screening
Requirement: All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view at ground
level on all sides by one of the primary materials and colors of a street facing façade. Metal is not a
permitted primary material for the Corridor Building Type.
Request: Permit rooftop mechanicals to be screened by metal.
5. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 60 percent transparency be provided on the ground story of street -facing
facades.
Request: Reduced ground story, street-facing transparency along Mooney Street, Bridge Park
Avenue, and Dale Drive:
Mooney Street (West) — 35%
Bridge Park Avenue (South) — 48%
Dale Drive (East) — 40%
6. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with a stretch of 15 feet or
greater of uninterrupted façade.
Request: Permit a 17-foot blank wall along the west elevation of the connector to Building G2 Parking
Structure.
7. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The principal building entrance must be located along a Principal Frontage Street. The
Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street facing facades.
Request: Permit the principal building entrance (office lobby) along a Neighborhood Street (Mooney
Street), and to permit entrances at lengths greater than permitted:
Dale Drive: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 2 provided
Bridge Park Avenue: 197 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 5 provided
Mooney Street: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 3 provided
Page 2 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
8. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 45 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: ±89-foot increments
North Elevation: ±96-foot increments
South Elevation:±97- foot and ±95-foot increments
West Elevation: ±52-foot increments
9. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 68 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney Street).
Building G2 (Parking Structure)
10. §153.062(C)(1) — Incompatible Building Types
Requirement: Parking Structure and Single-Family Attached Building Types are not permitted directly
across the street from one another or on the same block face.
Request: Building G2 (Parking Structure) adjacent to Sycamore Ridge Apartments (Single -Family
Attached)
11. §153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front and corner-side required build zones for a Parking Structure are 5 feet to 25
feet from the property line.
Request: To permit zero feet to 25 feet required build zones to accommodate the following building
siting:
Front: 2.86 feet provided. Encroaches 2.14 feet beyond the required RBZ
Corner Side: 1.46 feet provided. Encroaches 3.54 feet beyond the required RBZ
12. §153.062(D)(4)(a) — Towers, Location and Quantity
Requirement: Towers on Parking Structures are permitted on facades only at terminal vistas,
corners at two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type. Where permitted by
building type, only one tower is allowed per building.
Request: Northwest tower allowed to deviate from location requirement, and a total of three towers
be permitted.
13. §153.062(D)(4)(b) — Towers, Height
Requirement: Tower height shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper floor of the
building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed its height. The maximum
upper story height for Parking Structures is 12 feet.
Request: Permit deviations from height and width requirements:
Building G2 Northeast Tower: Height 19.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
Building G2 Northwest Tower: Height 17.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
Building G2 Southwest Tower: Height 12.67 feet, width 18 feet
14. §153.065(B)(5)(c) — Interior Circulation, Ceiling Clearance Heights
Requirement: A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking structure
has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening, and the parking structure shall be designed and
constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20 feet of building by a commercial or
civic/public/institutional use.
Request: Permit at the Mooney Street frontage clear ceiling height at ±10 feet.
Page 3 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
15. §153.062(O)(12)(c) — Occupied Space
Requirement: Parking structures are required to be line with occupied space with a minimum depth
of 20 feet along principal frontage streets.
Request: Occupied space along Dale Drive be permitted to be less than 20 feet at 16.83 feet.
16. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 65 percent storefront transparency be provided on the ground story of
facades facing a principal frontage street.
Request: 41 percent ground-story storefront transparency along Dale Drive.
17. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(2) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with a 15 foot or greater
stretch of uninterrupted façade.
Request: Permit the south façade, adjacent to public open space, to be fully screened by scrim.
18. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street-facing facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Mooney Street where two are required.
19. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 30 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: ±102 foot increment
West Elevation: ±85 foot increment
20. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 35 percent primary building materials on the south elevation (open space).
Building G3 (Apartment Building)
21. §153.062(O)(3)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front required build zone for an Apartment Building is 5 feet to 20 feet from the
property line.
Request: To permit zero feet to 20 feet required build zones to accommodate the following building
siting:
Front: Dale Drive – Minimum 0.38 feet provided
Front: Tuller Ridge Drive – Minimum 4.75 feet provided
22. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: One building entrance every 75 feet along street-facing facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Tuller Ridge Drive where three are required.
23. §153.062(I)(2)(a) — Stoops
Requirement: Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet of open area.
Request: Three stoops provide smaller than the minimum dimensions required, and three provide an
at-grade sidewalk entrance (no stoop).
Page 4 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
24. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 40 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: 64.54 foot increment, 40.21 foot increment
North Elevation: 65.63 feet, 65.04 foot increments
West Elevation: 64.58 - foot increment, 40.29 77- foot increment
25. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 46 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney Street); 44
percent primary building materials on the north elevation (Tuller Ridge Drive); and 46 percent primary
building materials on the east elevation (Dale Drive).
Open Space
26. §153.064(F)(6) — Open Space Type, Park
Requirement: Parks (minimum of 2 acres in size) provide informal active and passive larger-scale
recreational amenities to city residents and visitors. Parks have natural plantings and can be created
around existing natural features such as water bodies or tree stands. Parks can be used to define
edges of neighborhoods and districts.
Request: Permit a dog park to be designated as a Park not meeting the intent and minimum 2-acres
size defined in the Code.
27. §153.064(G)(1)(b) — Open Space Proportions
Requirement: 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
Request: Permit a Pocket Park between Building G1 and G2 that has a length-to-width proportion of
over 6:1.
28. §153.064(G)(4)(f) — Impervious and Semi-Pervious Area
Requirement: For a Pocket Park, the maximum permitted impervious area is 30 percent with a n
additional 10 percent semi-pervious permitted.
Request: Permit the open space between Building G1 and G2 to be approximately 58 percent
impervious.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The 28 Waivers were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
Page 5 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
MOTION 3: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to approve a Shared Parking Plan:
A total of 526 parking spaces are required where 360 parking spaces are provided. Approval of a shared
parking plan is requested.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Shared Parking Plan was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
MOTION 4: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with 17
conditions:
1) That the applicant provide window specifications for Building G1 for staff review prior to
submitting for permits;
2) That the applicant provide installation details for the proposed Juliet balconies on Building G3 with
the building permit application;
3) That the applicant submit all proposed site furnishings associated with public open spaces for staff
review, prior to submitting for permits;
4) That the applicant designate the location and quantity of required bicycle parking with the building
and/or site permit applications;
5) That the applicant verify if parking structure security techniques and surveillance will be
implemented in Building G2;
6) That the applicant provide the three required loading spaces on the site plan for staff review prior
to submitting for permits;
7) That the applicant submit details of the proposed ground mounted mechanical enclosures with the
building/site permit application;
8) That the applicant adjust the proposed site lighting plans to provide the required lighting
uniformity with the site permit application;
Page 6 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
20-045FDP Final Development Plan
9) That the sidewalk along Dale Drive be revised to provide a minimum of six feet of clear sidewalk
width, subject to approval of the City Engineer;
10) That the applicant establish and execute a public access easement for the dog park , prior to
issuance of a Site Only permit;
11) That the applicant work with Staff to revise the landscape plan as detailed in the Staff Report,
prior to submittal of a Building Permit;
12) That the applicant extend design elements of the scrim screen through to the lower level Mooney
Street plaza;
13) That the applicant revise Building G3 entries along Dale Drive and Mooney Street to provide
architectural details, 153.062(I)(3)(a), for entrance design, in accordance with the Commission’s
discussion, subject to staff approval;
14) That Building G2’s parapet along Dale Drive be broken up in accordance with the Commission’s
discussion, subject to staff approval;
15) That the applicant submit a comprehensive open space lighting package, subject to staff approval;
16) That the brick foundation cladding on the northwest corner of Building G3 be revised, subject to
staff approval; and
17) That the fountain be revised to ensure a year round aesthetic, in accordance with the
Commission’s discussion, subject to staff approval.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Development Plan was conditionally approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Page 7 of 7
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G
16-044FP Final Plat
Proposal: Plat for an ±2.28-acre site (Lot 9) establishing public access easements
for open space zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with Mooney Street.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council under the
provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicant: Russel Hunter, Crawford and Hoying Development Partners
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/16-044
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Final
Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat , prior to submission to City
Council for acceptance.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Plat was recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 9 of 24
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes;
Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objection to the proposed revised conditions.
The applicant indicated he had no objection.
Mr. Way noted that the lighting package should not be limited to a lighting fixture, but should permit
projecting lights and factor in the lighting in the overhang.
Ms. Call challenged staff to work with the applicant, encouraging their creativity to achieve differentiation
for their building.
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Minor Project with four conditions:
1) The applicant receive approval of furniture selections by the Administrative Review
Team; and,
2) The applicant work with Washington Township Fire Department to finalize a fire
protection plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3) The applicant provide an exterior lighting package, subject to staff approval.
4) The applicant work with staff to enhance the entry design along Longshore Street.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Supelak,
yes; Ms. Call, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
[Cases 1, 2 and 3 related to the same project were heard together.]
1. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G, Conditional Use, 20-199CU
Conditional Use to permit Bridge Park, Block G, Building G2 (McCallum Garage) to be unlined along a
public street, Mooney Street. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with
Mooney Street.
2. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G, Final Development Plan, 20-045FDP
Construction of a 4-story residential building, a 4-story parking garage, and a 5-story mixed-use office
building with .58-acres of open space within Bridge Park, Block G zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto
River Neighborhood. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with Mooney
Street.
3. Bridge Street District, Bridge Park, Block G, Final Plat, 16-044FP
Plat for ±2.28-acre site (Lot 9) establishing public access easements for open space zoned Bridge Street
District, Scioto River Neighborhood. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue
with Mooney Street.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that these requests seek review and approval of a Final Development Plan with
Conditional Use and a recommendation for City Council approval of a Final Plat for Bridge Park, Block G.
Block G is located north of Bridge Park Avenue, south of Tuller Ridge Drive, east of Mooney Street and
west of Dale Drive, and zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood. The site is
bounded by an existing street network. An additional area northeast of the site is also proposed for
improvement with this application. The site is currently undeveloped, although it is surrounded by
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 10 of 24
development – Bridge Park to the west and the Sycamore Ridge Apartments to the east. [site photos
shown.]
Proposal
There are three requests with this proposal. The first is a Conditional Use to permit a parking garage
that is unlined with commercial space along the new street, which is interior to the Bridge Park
Development. The parking garage is lined along Dale Drive, which is the principal frontage street. The
second request is a Final Development Plan approval of the development of three new buildings:
• Building G1, a five-story 125,000-square-foot mixed use building containing restaurant, retail
and office space;
• Building G2, a four-story, 327-space parking structure lined with commercial space along
Dale Drive, the principal frontage street, and associated storage and utility space; and,
• Building G3, a four-story multi-family building containing 86 dwelling units (8 units with 3
bedrooms, 22 units with 2 bedrooms, 54 units with 1 bedroom, and 2 studio units) with an
associated 0.19-acre amenity space (not included in the open space calculation).
A total of ±0.58 acres of public open space and associated site improvements also is included. The open
space is distributed between Block G and the dog park, which is off-site. The third request is for a
recommendation of Council approval of a Final Plat. The plat combines three existing parcels owned by
Crawford Hoying and establishes public access easements for open spaces. The office building, Building
G1, is located at the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street. On the ground story of that
building, there is commercial space, including opportunities for retail and restaurants, as well as a lobby
to the upper-story office building. Centrally located on the site is the 4-story parking structure, which is
accessed via Dale Drive and Mooney Street. The ground story of the parking structure contains a variety
of support services, as well as parking spaces to support the residential and commercial tenants on this
block. In the northern portion of the site is a U-shaped condominium building, which contains the .19-
acre amenity space. Approval of a parking plan also is requested. The parking plan will look holistically
at parking across the Bridge Park Development, including opportunities for shared parking based on peak
hour use. A total of 360 parking spaces will be provided via onstreet and structured parking spaces,
although 512 parking spaces are required. A parking analysis has been conducted, and a proposal is
made to co-park this block with Block C, which is immediately to the west of Block G and contains a large
parking structure. The combined parking of Blocks C and G would be 1,306 parking spaces. Although
that number does not meet BSD Code requirement, per the parking study, it would meet the need. The
open space is also calculated on a ratio basis for the combined uses. A total of .44 acres of open space
is required; 0.588 acres of open space will be provided. There will be three pocket plazas, located: at
the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street; Mooney Street and Tuller Ridge Drive; and
Dale Drive and Tuller Ridge Drive. A linear, pocket park will be located immediately north of the office
building, south of the parking garage, connecting Mooney Street to Dale Drive. Due to the significant
grade change between Mooney Street and Dale Drive, the linear pocket park will be tiered with the lower
level being along Mooney Street and the upper level along Dale Drive. The accessible path between the
two is an interior elevator within the office building, as well as an exterior stair. A scrim screen (metal
panel) is proposed to clad the entirety of the south elevation of the parking garage. The screen will
contain a naturalized image, which will be a unique placemaking element within the City. The applicant
will coordinate with the Dublin Arts Council to select the art. Per Final Development Plan (FDP)
requirements, a final landscape plan was provided; staff is recommending several plant modifications.
Offsite open space is provided via a 17,000-square foot dog park, located at the intersection of Dale
Drive and Tuller Ridge Drive. The dog park contains curvilinear pods for play; artificial turf, per the Parks
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 11 of 24
& Recreation staff recommendation; walking paths and shade trees; and a six-foot fence enclosing the
area, as well as perimeter screening.
Pocket plaza designs have been provided. The two smallest pocket plazas are located along Tuller Ridge
Drive. The primary pocket plaza is located at the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street,
which will contain a water feature, movable furniture and a raised planting area. Not all of that area is
designated as open space, as there will be an opportunity in the corner for a private tenant to have a
private patio.
Building G1
Building G1 is a five-story, Corridor Building with the ground story occupied by restaurant/retail and lobby
space associated with the office users. The upper stories (floors 2-5) are occupied by office. A fully
enclosed pedestrian circulation connection between Buildings G1 and G2 is provided via a tunnel at the
ground floor and by elevator lobbies on the second through fifth floors, providing office tenants on all
levels with access to the parking garage. The predominant exterior building materials are a combination
of brick, concrete panel, concrete masonry, and glass storefront system. Medium gray toned masonry
defines the base of the building, with dark gray, medium gray, and white brick on the upper stories. The
secondary materials are composite metal panel, and glass/metal spandrel. Teak metal wall panels
highlight the office balconies at the southwest corner, which overlook the public open space at the corner
of Mooney Street and Bridge Park Avenue.
Building G2
Building G2 is a four-story parking structure containing 327 parking spaces and ingress/egresses on the
east and west sides of the building. The ground level of the parking structure includes a refuse/storage
room, water meter room and a generator for support of the uses in Buildings G1, G2, and G3. The parking
structure is unlined by commercial uses along Mooney Street (west), requiring review and approval of a
Conditional Use application. Along Dale Drive (east) three commercial tenant spaces line the garage on
the ground story. The spaces will have a warehouse aesthetic with tall ceilings and large windows. The
parking structure is clad predominantly in brick and has metal window frame inserts.
Building G3
Building G3 is a four-story apartment building containing 86 dwelling units (8 units with 3 bedrooms, 22
units with 2 bedrooms, 54 units with 1 bedroom, and 2 studio units) with an associated 0.19-acre
amenity space. The east and west halves of the building are offset to accommodate the significant grade
change across the site. The offset design breaks down the mass and scale of the building adjacent to
Block H. The building is clad in a combination of brick, stone, and fiber cement siding.
Final Plat
Approval of a Final Plat is requested in conjunction with the Final Development Plan, establishing a single,
2.286-acre developable lot (Lot 9) along with necessary public access easements for open spaces. Lot 9
is the result of the combination of three parcels.
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the applicable criteria and recommends approval of a Conditional
Use; two Administrative Departures; 30 waivers; a Parking Plan; a Final Development Plan with 11
conditions; and a Final Plat.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 12 of 24
Commission Questions for Staff
Ms. Fox inquired if the total square footage of the buildings increased since the previous review.
Ms. Martin responded that actually, the height of the office building decreased from six to five stories.
Ms. Fox inquired if the footprints of the buildings increased in size.
Ms. Martin responded that she is not aware of any increase. The site plan and the foundations have
remained the same.
Ms. Fox requested clarification of the use on the corner of Mooney Street and Bridge Park. Would part
of that pocket park be utilized for private dining, and would the square footage of that pocket park
change?
Ms. Martin responded that the applicant has already accounted for that. The entire area at that corner is
not designated as open space; it is only a portion of that space.
Ms. Fox inquired if the public open space would be where the fountain is and outside of that; anything
interior would become private.
Ms. Martin responded affirmatively.
Ms. Fox inquired if there is an ADA-compliant ramp in the pedestrian midway.
Ms. Martin responded that is not a ramp; it is an elevator. It is necessary to enter the lobby to access
that elevator to reach the upper story of the pedestrian midway.
Ms. Fox inquired if the pedestrian midway is permitted to count as open space or if it is a sidewalk.
Ms. Martin responded that a midblock pedestrian way is permitted to traverse through an open space.
Open spaces are required to consist of a certain proportion, so a waiver is requested to the proportions
of open space; this is consistent with waivers that have been approved in other blocks at Bridge Park.
Mr. Supelak inquired if the midway park had been compressed since the previous review.
Ms. Martin responded that she does not believe it has been, but she would defer to the site civil engineer
or landscape architect.
Ms. Call stated that the staff report indicated that 512 parking spaces were required, but 360 are
provided. The applicant conducted a parking study, which was submitted for review. Per the study, this
Block and the adjacent block will provide a total of 1,306 parking spaces. What was the total amount
originally required for those two lots?
Ms. Martin responded that a parking plan for a reduced parking plan also was approved for Block C. The
original development plan for this mixed development did not anticipate development this dense. Staff
has concerns about over parking Bridge Park. C Block was approved for approximately 100 fewer spaces
than required.
Ms. Call stated that it appears that independently, each parcel is underparked according to Code and the
design criteria. She asked the applicant to address the changes that have been made since the previous
review.
Applicant Presentation
Russell Hunter, Crawford Hoying, Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio stated that the Commission has reviewed
this block several times, and it has evolved both in use and shape; however, the shape of the park has
not changed. Nor has the office building changed; its proportions are very specific to ensure the right
sizes are provided for office spaces.
Nelson Yoder, Crawford Hoying, stated that one area that did change was the ground floor retail, which
is smaller. The wall of the retail spaces was pushed back 10 feet, creating an overhang above that space
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 13 of 24
for outdoor seating. This was done to create more outdoor space on Bridge Park Avenue in response to
the Commission’s input at the previous meeting. The building is also smaller in relation to midblock
pedestrian way, which will allow a larger open space on Mooney Street and on Dale Drive.
Mr. Hunter provided a visual presentation depicting the variety of open spaces, softening the foundations
of the buildings and creating a cohesive open space from the inner section of the block to the façades of
the buildings. The appropriate amount of space is provided along the building façade so that future
tenants will be able to express their ideas regarding how to engage the open space. The ground-floor
storefronts will not be designed, allowing a variety to develop among the tenants. He showed views of
the proposed paintable scrim wall of the parking garage, which faces the interior courtyard. He has
contacted Mr. Guion, Director of the Dublin Arts Museum about the opportunity for discussion of art
ideas. A brief review of the revisions to the garage, dog park, service tunnel, parking and building floor
plates was presented.
Mr. Yoder stated that a holistic evaluation of the parking within the District was conducted on a summer
evening when restaurants and patios were full; there were 1,884 empty parking spaces. The proposed
parking for Block G will add 100 surplus parking spaces every night and 200 spaces on weekends. The
proposed parking plan will provide the appropriate level of parking space.
Commission Questions for the Applicant
Mr. Fishman stated that he appreciates the fact that currently, the District is overparked. However, some
day those buildings will have different owners. Are there cross easements to allow full use of the parking?
Mr. Hunter stated that these are public parking garages, so there will be no future issues. Anyone can
park anywhere, anytime.
Mr. Way requested clarification of the use of a green material at the entrance to office building. He was
looking for other uses of that color within the block, but it appears to be a single occurrence. Is that use
a deliberate intent to accentuate the office building entrance?
Dan Pease, M + A Architects, 775 Yard St., Suite 325, Columbus, OH stated that the color is intended to
draw attention to that offset niche.
Mr. Hunter stated that they recently held an interior design me eting for the public spaces within the office
building; there are opportunities for additional use of that color and material.
Ms. Fox stated that the steps that lead to the upper plaza do not make it apparent that the destination
is the midway plaza. Currently, they appear to lead into the building.
Mr. Pease responded that the area has been maximized to the extent possible, and the stairs span that
space. The green color is replicated up the stairs and on the scrim of the garage, and night lighting will
invite patrons to the upper plaza.
Mr. Yoder stated the green box actually is not an entrance to the offices. It is an entry to a public space
and a public elevator, which provides access to the garage and plaza, traversing the distance between
the lower and upper plazas.
Mr. Hunter provided further details on the green color and layout/connection of the area.
Mr. Supelak requested additional details about the scrim.
Mr. Hunter stated that a scrim also exists in Crocker Park. This is a paintable, translucent metal scrim,
punctuated with holes to allow air flow. The current view to the east is the side of the hill and trees. The
thought was to accentuate that green aspect within the space; however, other ideas can be entertained.
Mr. Yoder stated that it could be a canvas for public art within Bridge Park, elevating this public space
with a unique idea not used elsewhere within the District.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 14 of 24
Mr. Supelak stated that the side panels of this garage are a great opportunity, a large canvas for an idea.
Is that idea bound to a flat façade, or would the Dublin Arts Council have some opportunity, perhaps
with three individual panels to provide some dimension relief? Three dimensionality often is beneficial,
as they can sometimes integrate light.
Mr. Way stated that there is opportunity to include a pop of color in the courtyard that would tie into the
scrim. Perhaps there could be a color theme for the courtyard, reflected by the furniture and lighting.
Mr. Hunter indicated that he liked that suggestion.
Mr. Way that that in regard to the Dale Drive façade of the parking garage, it might be possible to break
the parapet line into three components, rather than one flat composition.
Mr. Hunter responded that the building will reflect a warehouse architecture style, but it might be possible
to break up the center line.
Mr. Yoder stated that they have already elevated the garage architecture from that of the previous open
garage concept, but they would take a look at the possible opportunity.
Mr. Way that he appreciates that they have succeeded in making the structure not look like a parking
garage, but the Code does contain direction about breaking the roofline periodically. This might be an
area where it would make sense to do so.
Mr. Hunter stated that the Dale Drive façade probably would not benefit from that, because of the
asymmetry of the liner, but the Mooney Street façade perhaps could benefit.
Mr. Way stated that he is less concerned about that façade, because there is not a view of the entire
composition; on Dale Drive, it can be seen.
Mr. Yoder stated that it would be just a matter of knocking the parapet up above the black portion and
below.
Mr. Way stated that he would not attempt to design it, but the long facade with no break in the parapet
caught his eye.
Mr. Hunter stated that there are two primary piers in the middle, and they would not necessarily need to
protrude more; it may be possible to use brick and detailing and make the parapet pop up. Creating a
break might be simple.
Mr. Yoder stated that the 1919 Building west on Bridge Street also reflects a warehouse design, which is
an interesting, utilitarian aesthetic. He was excited to be able to implement that look here, but there is
an art to getting it right.
Mr. Way stated that he was suggesting only that they think about it. He also has a question about the
corner of the residential building at Tuller and Mooney streets. The brick panel on the corner piece that
extends outward looks foreign to that entire corner piece. Is it occurring for a structural purpose? It
would appear that if it were “pushed back,” the corner piece would read as one architectural element.
Matt Lytle, Architect, SB Architecture, architect for the residential building, responded that as the height
of the grade increases along Tuller Ridge, the grade is raised above the floor line. They wanted the wall
to have a grounding element; the masonry was used to accomplish that. Perhaps it would not need to
reach to the bottom of the transom. It could be lowered to be at the bottom of the larger pane of glass.
Mr. Yoder stated that he would be supportive of that idea.
Mr. Lytle noted that they also wanted to provide some privacy for that particular unit, rather than
pedestrians having a straight view into the unit.
Mr. Call stated that if they were going to lower the brick there, she would prefer they also maintain
symmetry around the corner.
Ms. Fox stated that the individual doorways on the residential units do not have stoops, as there is
insufficient room; six to ten doorways face the sidewalk. Is it possible to elevate the appearance of those
doorways?
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 15 of 24
Mr. Lytel responded that the units along Mooney Street do not have direct access to the elevator, so
there is a need to provide an accessible, unique entrance to each of those units. That is the reason there
are no stoops leading up into those units. The units along Dale Drive have corridor access to the elevator
that is shared with the garage. The doorways could be embellished with landscape.
Ms. Fox stated that her issue is not the missing stoops; however, it is important that the entrance to the
building become a focal point, such as a portico. The doors should not look similar to the windows. The
entrances must stand out from the flat façade.
Mr. Lytel responded that the doorways could have a covered element with columns on either side,
keeping it out of the right-of-way, of course.
Mr. Fishman referred to the scrim wall of the garage. He would suggest that they attempt not only to
make it beautiful, but also unusual – not just a painting on a wall, but an element that people have not
seen anywhere else. It should be an element that would stand out and draw people to that area.
Mr. Supelak stated that it is essential that it not be a flat canvas. It might be possible to use hydrochromic
inks, which when wet, become something different, or thermochromic inks. There are vertical, seagrass
lights, almost fiberoptic, that “wander.” Looking at the surrounding space, there may be elements in that
space that could be integrated with the wall. Although it would become a larger undertaking, it could be
an incredible public art opportunity, if embraced appropriately.
Mr. Fishman stated that it should not be just a mural, but an attention-grabbing form of art that draws
people to that area to see it.
Mr. Yoder stated that they have budgeted the ability to hide the garage behind this interesting feature,
and he likes the ideas. However, some of the ideas posed would require a separate budget. Dublin Arts
Council does have a separate public arts budget that perhaps could be applied. With this wall, they have
provided a starting point. From there, the Dublin Arts Council potentially could use a focus group and
come up with an interesting idea.
Mr. Supelak responded that the developer has budgeted a scrim, furniture, and lights, and perhaps that
is the appropriate mix without the need to spend more substantial dollars. That conversation should
occur soon, however, before other decisions are made and taken too far.
Commission Discussion
Ms. Call reviewed the general reasons for the 30 requested waivers and requested Commission
comments.
Mr. Supelak stated the revised package is very good; their efforts are apparent. The renderings and
elevations shown were very helpful to the Commission’s review. He appreciates the open space; the
massing is good; the stepping in the parapets is well done on the north side; and he is excited about the
public art, and the other details that will be added. He has no significant issues with the design and is
supportive of the project. He would suggest the inclusion of up lighting for the buildings.
Ms. Fox complimented the applicants on the re-design. She appreciates that they reduced the level of
the parking garage. She has some concerns about the residential building on the other side of Mooney
Street. While it is possible to screen mechanicals from the ground units, what about the upper residential
units?
Mr. Hunter responded that staff and their designers looked at that aspect thoroughly.
Ms. Fox stated that particularly since we are doing noncompatible residential units in this area, it is
essential that the mechanicals be screened. She also has concerns about the lot coverage. Is the
combined lot coverage for Block G 90%? If so, what is the reason?
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 16 of 24
James Peltier, Engineer EMH&T, stated that the overall lot coverage is 82%. They attempted to achieve
as much greenspace on the block as possible. That is always a challenge with an urban development.
Mr. Yoder stated that a contiguous dog park area was added to the project to achieve several things:
one was to meet the requested open space requirement; the other was to meet the impervious surface
requirements. At 82% lot coverage, they are near the Code requirement of 80%.
Ms. Fox stated that she would prefer to see them adhere to the 75% and 80% requirements. The added
landscape makes it a more interesting and timeless development. However, she does not see how they
can have sidewalks greater than five feet wide, without reducing lot coverage. The proposal is for six-
foot sidewalks.
Mr. Peltier responded that the five-foot width sidewalk is along Dale Drive, which is along the right-of-
way. The lot coverage does not take into account that sidewalk in the right-of-way.
Mr. Fox inquired if it would be possible to have a 6-foot wide sidewalk, although some landscaping will
be lost.
Mr. Peltier responded that they would be able to do so, as it is within the right-of-way. It will not impact
the lot coverage for the development.
Ms. Fox stated that she is disappointed with the space on the corner of Bridge Park and Mooney streets.
Although the square footage is good – 1,382 square feet, some of it is being used as private space. The
only public space available will have a few linear benches along the perimeter. She would encourage
them to find a way in which to achieve more bulk space on the corners, not just tiny seating spaces. She
inquired about the blank wall limitations waiver along Mooney Street.
Ms. Martin responded that Waiver #8 relates to the connector between Building G1 and G2; there is a
stretch greater than 15 feet. The request is to permit a 17-foot length of blank wall.
Ms. Fox inquired if the reason is the grade change.
Ms. Martin responded that she believes it is to address the interior functionality of the space and the
elevator shaft.
Mr. Hunter responded that to reduce the size of the connector, there was a redesign that placed the
elevators against that wall. The elevators are in the area where the teak material is used.
Ms. Fox stated that she likes that material. She was thinking that it was the west elevation on McCallum
Garage.
Ms. Martin stated there is a second blank wall limitation, reflected with Waiver 19, which is the garage
wall on which the scrim is located.
Ms. Fox stated her primary concern is the doorway entrances. Street level entrances into the residential
building need to be enhanced. In regard to the open spaces – she likes the water feature. However, she
believes the open spaces on the block are simply benches that wrap the corners. Those spaces are less
innovative than is typical and are lacking in the placemaking element. She requested the sample images
she provided to be shown. [Images shown of linear open space, mid pedestrian ways, and outdoor dining
areas.] She believes these areas need to be made more attractive and appealing, similar to what is being
done with the scrim wall. Aside from that, she believes the design is very well done.
Mr. Yoder noted that the impervious space percentage has improved. In Blocks B and C, it was 97-98%;
however, in Block G, it is 82%.
Mr. Fox stated that she appreciates that improvement and really likes the water features. These are the
elements that will make the development timeless. However, she would ask them to attempt to ensure
the open spaces are not comprised of just a bench or table and chairs. More creativity is needed in these
gathering places, as was illustrated in the aspirational images she provided tonight.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 17 of 24
Mr. Schneier stated that he believes the revised design is very good. He appreciates the applicants
listening to the Commission’s previous comments and making some significant changes. The
development team has exhibited expertise, and they are aware of the direction of the Commission’s
comments. The Commission is encouraging as much as possible within the bounds of its authority and
Code. However, he congratulates them on this great design.
Mr. Grimes stated that this is a beautiful project. He likes the diversity within and throughout and the
changes in elevations. Block G is a gem block in this District – an excellent example is being set. He
appreciates the manner in which the applicant has responded to the Commission’s constructive criticism,
which is focused on seeing a high degree of excellence. Although the Commission urges for more, we
appreciate what they have done and will do. There is no bad side to this development!
Mr. Fishman stated that he agrees with his colleagues. He appreciates the fact that this project has
evolved into something better. The applicant has listened to the Commission’s comments and he is
confident they will do so with today’s comments, as well. The Commission is focused on achieving the
best out of every greenspace, for which Ms. Fox has provided so me excellent suggestions. He appreciates
their efforts toward achieving excellence and really likes the project.
Mr. Way stated that the Office Building is stunning, the Residential Building is top-notch, and the way in
which the Garage is addressed is unique. His remaining comments relate to three items. The staff report
noted some concerns about the viability of plants in the courtyard because it will be shaded year-round.
Sometimes, it is possible to use art and other elements to enliven a space. He would encourage them to
work toward that goal. He loves working fountains, but there was no discussion about what happens to
the fountain in the winter. He would encourage them to think about the water feature as water moving
over a surface, as when the fountain is turned off, there is still something to view that is attractive and
usable. Additionally, the southwest corner of this block will receive a significant level of sunlight and
direct heat in the summer. Shade will be important; perhaps they are considering mechanical shade,
such as umbrellas. This corner will be loved or hated, depending on the time of year. Those are his
comments, but this is a great project; their efforts have produced a great outcome.
Ms. Call stated that these buildings fit within Bridge Park. They display differentiation in architecture, but
work together. This project does not deviate from the high standard established in Bridge Park. She
appreciates the applicants taking the feedback from Commissioners’ different perspectives and creating
a cohesive design that reflects the vision of Bridge Park being a unique destination.
Ms. Call stated that actions on the following items are requested:
Conditional Use, 20-199CU:
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Way, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Final Development Plan, 20-045FDP
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the following Administrative Departures:
1) 153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage
Requirement: A minimum 90 percent front property line coverage is required.
Request: 83 percent be required to be provided along Dale Drive when Buildings G1 and G2 are
calculated together.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 18 of 24
2) 153.062(O)(3)(a)(4) — Change in Roof Plane
Requirement: A single roof plane shall extend not greater than 80 feet in length.
Request: Permit a single roof plane to extend 85 feet in length along north elevation of Building
G3.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Way, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Motion #3:
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following 28 waivers:
1. §153.062(O)(5), (O)(12), (O)(3) — Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious combined lot coverage for the Corridor Building, Parking
Structure, and Apartment building shall not exceed 80 percent for the Corridor Building and Parking
Structure, and shall not exceed 75 percent for the Apartment Building.
Request: Combined lot coverage, for Block G, not exceed 90 percent.
2. §153.062(O)(5)(b) — Building Height, Ground Story and Upper Stories
Requirement: Ground story floor height shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet.
Upper story floor height shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 14 feet.
Request: Ground story height for west end of the first story be permitted to be a maximum of 25
feet in height, and the fifth story be permitted to a maximum of 18 feet in height.
3. §153.062(D)(1)(a) — Parapet Roof Types
Requirement: Shall be no higher than necessary to screen roof appurtenances from view from street
or adjacent building of similar height. Parapets shall be no less than 2 feet and no greater than 6
feet in height.
Request: Parapet heights less than 2 - foot minimum. (1.25 feet in height)
4. §153.065(E)(3)(b) — Mechanical Screening
Requirement: All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view at ground
level on all sides by one of the primary materials and colors of a street facing façade. Metal is not a
permitted primary material for the Corridor Building Type.
Request: Permit rooftop mechanicals to be screened by metal.
5. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 60 percent transparency be provided on the ground story of street-facing
facades.
Request: Reduced ground story, street-facing transparency along Mooney Street, Bridge Park
Avenue, and Dale Drive:
• Mooney Street (West) — 35%
• Bridge Park Avenue (South) — 48%
• Dale Drive (East) — 40%
6. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with a stretch of 15 feet or
greater of uninterrupted façade.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 19 of 24
Request: Permit a 17-foot blank wall along the west elevation of the connector to Building G2 Parking
Structure.
7. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The principal building entrance must be located along a Principal Frontage Street. The
Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street facing facades.
Request: Permit the principal building entrance (office lobby) along a Neighborhood Street (Mooney
Street), and to permit entrances at lengths greater than permitted:
• Dale Drive: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 2 provided
• Bridge Park Avenue: 197 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 5 provided
• Mooney Street: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 3 provided
8. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 45 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
• East Elevation: ±89-foot increments
• North Elevation: ±96-foot increments
• South Elevation:±97- foot and ±95-foot increments
• West Elevation: ±52-foot increments
9. §153.062(O)(5)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 68 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney Street).
Building G2 (Parking Structure)
10. §153.062(C)(1) — Incompatible Building Types
Requirement: Parking Structure and Single-Family Attached Bui lding Types are not permitted directly
across the street from one another or on the same block face.
Request: Building G2 (Parking Structure) adjacent to Sycamore Ridge Apartments (Single-Family
Attached)
11. §153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front and corner-side required build zones for a Parking Structure are 5 feet to 25
feet from the property line.
Request: To permit zero feet to 25 feet required build zones to accommodate the following building
siting:
• Front: 2.86 feet provided. Encroaches 2.14 feet beyond the required RBZ
• Corner Side: 1.46 feet provided. Encroaches 3.54 feet beyond the required RBZ
12. §153.062(D)(4)(a) — Towers, Location and Quantity
Requirement: Towers on Parking Structures are permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners
at two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open s pace type. Where permitted by building
type, only one tower is allowed per building.
Request: Northwest tower allowed to deviate from location requirement, and a total of three towers
be permitted.
13. §153.062(D)(4)(b) — Towers, Height
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 20 of 24
Requirement: Tower height shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper floor of the
building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed its height. The maximum
upper story height for Parking Structures is 12 feet.
Request: Permit deviations from height and width requirements:
• Building G2 Northeast Tower: Height 19.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
• Building G2 Northwest Tower: Height 17.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
• Building G2 Southwest Tower: Height 12.67 feet, width 18 feet
14. §153.065(B)(5)(c) — Interior Circulation, Ceiling Clearance Heights
Requirement: A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking structure
has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening, and the parking structure shall be designed and
constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20 feet of building by a commercial or
civic/public/institutional use.
Request: Permit at the Mooney Street frontage clear ceiling height at ±10 feet.
15. §153.062(O)(12)(c) — Occupied Space
Requirement: Parking structures are required to be line with occupied space with a minimum depth
of 20 feet along principal frontage streets.
Request: Occupied space along Dale Drive be permitted to be less than 20 feet at 16.83 feet.
16. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 65 percent storefront transparency be provided on the ground story of
facades facing a principal frontage street.
Request: 41 percent ground-story storefront transparency along Dale Drive.
17. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(2) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with a 15 foot or greater
stretch of uninterrupted façade.
Request: Permit the south façade, adjacent to public open space, to be fully screened by scrim.
18. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street-facing facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Mooney Street where two are required.
19. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 30 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
• East Elevation: ±102 foot increment
• West Elevation: ±85 foot increment
20. §153.062(O)(12)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 35 percent primary building materials on the south elevation (open space).
Building G3 (Apartment Building)
21. §153.062(O)(3)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front required build zone for an Apartment Building is 5 feet to 20 feet from the
property line.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 21 of 24
Request: To permit zero feet to 20 feet required build zones to accommodate the following building
siting:
• Front: Dale Drive – Minimum 0.38 feet provided
• Front: Tuller Ridge Drive – Minimum 4.75 feet provided
22. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: One building entrance every 75 feet along street-facing facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Tuller Ridge Drive where three are required.
23. §153.062(I)(2)(a) — Stoops
Requirement: Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet of open area.
Request: Three stoops provide smaller than the minimum dimensions required, and three provide an
at-grade sidewalk entrance (no stoop).
24. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 40 feet to ensure a varied building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
• East Elevation: 64.54 foot increment, 40.21 foot increment
• North Elevation: 65.63 feet, 65.04 foot increments
• West Elevation: 64.58 - foot increment, 40.29 77- foot increment
25. §153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 46 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney Street); 44
percent primary building materials on the north elevation (Tuller Ridge Drive); and 46 percent
primary building materials on the east elevation (Dale Drive).
Open Space
26. §153.064(F)(6) — Open Space Type, Park
Requirement: Parks (minimum of 2 acres in size) provide informal active and passive larger-scale
recreational amenities to city residents and visitors. Parks have natural plantings and can be created
around existing natural features such as water bodies or tree stands. Parks can be used to define
edges of neighborhoods and districts.
Request: Permit a dog park to be designated as a Park not meeting the intent and minimum 2-acres
size defined in the Code.
27. §153.064(G)(1)(b) — Open Space Proportions
Requirement: 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
Request: Permit a Pocket Park between Building G1 and G2 that has a length-to-width proportion of
over 6:1.
28. §153.064(G)(4)(f) — Impervious and Semi-Pervious Area
Requirement: For a Pocket Park, the maximum permitted impervious area is 30 percent with an
additional 10 percent semi-pervious permitted.
Request: Permit the open space between Building G1 and G2 to be approximately 58 percent
impervious.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 22 of 24
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes;
Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Motion #4:
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded approval of the Shared Parking Plan permitting 360 parking
spaces to be provided where 526 are required.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes; Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Motion #5:
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with the Following 17
conditions:
1) That the applicant provide window specifications for Building G1 for staff review prior to
submitting for permits;
2) That the applicant provide installation details for the proposed Juliet balconies on Building G3
with the building permit application;
3) That the applicant submit all proposed site furnishings associated with public open spaces for
staff review prior to submitting for permits;
4) That the applicant designate the location and quantity of required bicycle parking with the
building and/or site permit applications;
5) That the applicant verify if parking structure security techniques and surveillance will be
implemented in Building G2;
6) That the applicant provide the three required loading spaces on the site plan for staff review
prior to submitting for permits;
7) That the applicant submit details of the proposed ground mounted mechanical enclosures with
the building/site permit application;
8) That the applicant adjust the proposed site lighting plans to provide the required lighting
uniformity with the site permit application;
9) The sidewalk along Dale Drive be revised to provide a minimum of six feet of clear sidewalk
width, subject to approval of the City Engineer;
10) The applicant establish and execute a public access easement for the dog park prior to
issuance of a Site Only permit;
11) The applicant work with staff to revise the landscape plan, as detailed in the staff report, prior
to submittal of a Building Permit.
12) The applicant extend design elements of the scrim screen through to the lower level Mooney
Street plaza.
13) The applicant revise Building G3 entries along Dale Drive and Mooney Street to provide
architectural details, 153.062(I)(3)(a), for entrance design, in accordance with the
Commission’s discussion, subject to staff approval.
14) Building G2’s parapet along Dale Drive be broken up in accordance with the Commission’s
discussion, subject to staff approval.
15) The applicant submit a comprehensive open space lighting package, subject to staff approval.
16) The brick foundation cladding on the northwest corner of Building G3 be revised, subject to
staff approval.
17) The fountain be revised to ensure a year round aesthetic, in accordance with the Commission’s
discussion, subject to staff approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2021
Page 23 of 24
Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes;
Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Final Plat, 16-044FP
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded a recommendation of City Council approval of the Final Plat
with one condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission to City
Council for approval.
Vote: Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes;
Mr. Fishman, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Mr. Yoder and Mr. Hunter thanked staff, Commission and the consultants for all their time and tireless
efforts to reach this successful outcome.
6. Specialty Hospitals Administrative Request – Code Amendment, 21-009ADM
Review and recommendation to City Council for a Code Amendment to establish requirements for
Specialty Hospitals.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that at the March 18 discussion, the Commission discussed the draft Code language
requested the following changes be made:
• A maximum building size be proposed for Specialty Hospitals.
• Fence specifications be omitted and if a fence is requested, those requirements would default
to Code.
• Parking standard be omitted and a Parking Plan defining the parking requirements based on
their operational needs be submitted.
• Addition of an emergency and perimeter security plan.
• References in the use specific standards that state “unless otherwise approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission” be omitted.
• Licensing or certification requirements be explored.
The requested modifications have been made with the exception of the licensing or certification
requirements. After significant research, there is no consistent state requirement for this process;
therefore, this was not included in the modification. Additionally, the Commission requested information
concerning minimum lot sizes and proximity to residential uses, and that information has been provided
in the packet that show that no residential areas will be negatively impacted.
Commission Questions/Discussion
Ms. Fox stated that a requirement has been included [page 9] that a Specialty Hospital must be located
a minimum of 500 feet from any residential district or use; however, on the following page, the language
states that the required Rear Yard “shall not be less than one-fourth of the sum of the height of the
structure. In no case, should the rear yard be less than 15 feet.” This seems to be a contradiction.
Mr. Rauch stated that those are two different items. A residential use cannot be within 500 feet, as
measured from the rear property line. The rear yard setback addresses where the building can be located
on that parcel.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
20-045FDP/20-199CU/16-044FP BRIDGE
PARK, BLOCK G
Summary Zoning Map
Proposal for the construction of three new
buildings on a ±2.29-acre block (Bridge
Park, Block G): a five-story 123,000-
square-foot mixed use building containing
restaurant, retail and office space, a four-
story, 327-space parking structure, and a
four-story multi-family building containing
86 dwelling units. A total of ±0.58 acre of
public open space and associated site
improvements is provided.
Site Location
North of Bridge Park Avenue between Dale
Drive and Mooney Street, south of Tuller
Ridge Drive.
Zoning
BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto
River Neighborhood.
Property Owners
Scioto Tuller Acquisition, LLC; City of Dublin, Ohio
Applicant/Representative
Russel Hunter, Crawford Hoying and Nelson Yoder, Crawford Hoying
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 153.066
Case Manager
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
(614) 410-4635
nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
Upon review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the Final Plat will be forward
to City Council for acceptance and subsequently will be recorded with Franklin County. The applicant may
file for a building permits upon approval of the Final Development Plan/Conditional Use.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 2 of 24
1. Context Map
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 3 of 24
2. Overview
Background
Bridge Park, Block G is a ±2.29-acres site is located north of Bridge Park Avenue between Dale
Drive and Mooney Street, and south of Tuller Ridge Drive. The site is comprised of three parcels
a .183-acre parcel, a .006-acre parcel, and a 2.097-acres parcel. The site is surrounded by
existing development including Bridge Park, Block F (Springhill Suites) to the south; Bridge Park,
Block C to the west; Bridge Park, Block H (townhomes) to the north; and Sycamore Ridge
Apartments to the east.
Case History
2020
On October 15, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed and commented on
a request for a second Informal Review. At the time, the Commission requested the applicant
provide the required amount of open space identified in the Code, and encouraged the open
space designs to be unique from previously approved Blocks. Additionally, the Commission
expressed concern with the treatment of the public realm, particularly along Bridge Park
Avenue, and requested the applicant make refinements to allow opportunities for gathering.
The Commission requested additional final design details regarding the office building and
parking garage, which have since been provided with the Final Development Plan (FDP).
On January 23, 2020, the Commission conducted an Informal Review for a revised final
development plan for Block G given the amount of time since the review of the Basic Plan
approval in 2018 (now known as Concept Plan/Preliminary Development Plan). At the time, the
Commission requested revisions to the garage to elevate the design. The Commission was
supportive of the warehouse aesthetic of the multi-family building. The Commission strongly
encouraged the creation of unique open spaces and recommended the office building have
additional architectural details.
2018
Under the previous BSD process, City Council approved on October 22, 2018 the Basic Plan for
Block G, which included four Waiver Reviews and six conditions of approval. Prior to that, the
Administrative Review Team (ART) recommended approval of the Basic Plan for this Block as
well as the waivers and conditions to City Council on October 11, 2018. PZC also provided
informal review and feedback of the Basic Plan on September 20, 2018. At the time, feedback
centered on the usability of the proposed open spaces, the need for green (lawn) open space,
the pedestrian realm, walkability and placemaking, the appropriateness of shared parking and
the continuation of the development as a destination point.
2016
On July 7, 2016, PZC recommended approval of the Final Plat for Bridge Park East Section 4
(Block G). The plat was never forwarded to City Council for acceptance. Today, the applicant is
seeking a recommendation of approval to City Council for a revised Final Plat.
Also in 2016, City Council approved a Site Plan for Block G and associated waivers based on a
recommendation from the ART, after an informal review by the Commission. Given the
significant changes within the proposal for Block G between 2016 and 2018, a new Basic Plan
was required.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 4 of 24
Process
The Code pertaining to the Bridge Street District was revised in May 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 ART.
As with the previous version of the Code, proposals with a Development Agreement in place,
continue to require a review and recommendation by City Council for the Concept Plan
(previously a “Basic Plan”), which occurred in 2018. City Council, as part of that review and as
required by Code, appointed PZC as the required reviewing body for future applications.
The Code also included the revision of nomenclature for the required three approval steps to
more closely align with those in the Planned Unit Development Process. Therefore, this proposal
is considered to have completed Step 1/Step 2 – Concept Plan and Preliminary Development
Plan (Basic Plan approved by City Council in 2018) and Step 3 – Final Development Plan.
Site Characteristics
Natural Features
The site is currently vacant and as has been used as a construction staging area for previous
blocks of development. There is approximately 20 feet of grade change from the high point in
the northeast corner of the site to the low point in the southwest corner.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North: Bridge Street District – Scioto River Neighborhood District
(Block H—Bridge Park Townhomes)
East: Bridge Street District – Residential District
(Sycamore Ridge Apartments)
South: Bridge Street District – Scioto River Neighborhood District
Bridge Park, Block F – Springhill Suites Hotel)
West: Bridge Street District – Scioto River Neighborhood District
Bridge Park, Block C – Mixed Use)
Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The site has street frontage on all sides. Sidewalks are present along the Mooney Street and
Tuller Ridge Drive. A cycle track extends along Bridge Park Avenue. The Dale Drive streetscape
is currently a temporary condition with no bike or pedestrian facilities along the site frontage.
Dale Drive is intended to be improved at a future date as a City project. A sidewalk is proposed
along the Dale Drive frontage with this application.
Utilities
The site will be served by existing public utilities (sanitary and water) from Mooney Street.
Proposal
The proposal consists of three new buildings, five open spaces, one amenity space, and
associated site improvements, including:
Building G1, a five-story 123,000-square-foot mixed use building containing
restaurant, retail and office space;
Building G2, a four-story, 327-space parking structure lined with commercial space
along Dale Drive and associated storage and utility space; and,
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 5 of 24
Building G3, a four-story multi-family building containing 86 dwelling units (8 units
with 3 bedrooms, 22 units with 2 bedrooms, 54 units with 1 bedroom, and 2 studio
units) with an associated 0.19-acre amenity space.
Uses
An integrated mix of residential and commercial uses are proposed, which meets the intent of
the BSD Area Plan. The BSD prioritizes pedestrian-oriented development while also recognizing
the need to accommodate vehicles. Unlined parking structures are identified as a Conditional
Use given the potential impacts to the streetscape character. The applicant is requesting
approval of a Conditional Use to permit an unlined parking structure along Mooney Street. The
request is consistent with previously approved blocks of development provided that the unlined
portions are interior to the development as is the case with Block G. Additionally, it allows for a
consolidation of building services for the garage and the adjacent apartment building along a
single elevation allowing additional pedestrian activity along the other adjacent streets.
Site Layout
Block G is defined by the existing street
network (Dale Drive, Bridge Park Avenue,
Mooney Street, and Tuller Ridge Drive).
The block dimensions defined by the Code
are met. The site layout is consistent with
the established development pattern
throughout Bridge Park. The core of the
block is occupied by a parking structure
with other supporting buildings and uses
surrounding along the perimeter of the
block.
Building G1 (mixed use) occupies the
southern third of the site and extends from Mooney Street to Dale Drive along Bridge Park
Avenue. An open space is proposed at the corner of Mooney Street and Bridge Park Avenue,
and a divided linear open space extends along the north side of the building. North of the open
space, is Building G2 (parking structure). Building G1 and G2 are connected (level 2-5),
bisecting the linear open space near Mooney Street. The northern third of the site is occupied
by Building G3 (residential). The U-shaped building wraps the corners of Mooney Street, Tuller
Ridge Drive, and Dale Drive. Building G3 is connected to Building G2 along the Mooney Street
and Dale Drive frontages.
Circulation
Vehicular access to Building G2 is proposed from Dale Drive and Mooney Street. The proposed
access along Dale Drive requires City Engineer approval for a curb cut along a Principal
Frontage Street (PFS). Given the overall site layout and surrounding conditions, the Engineering
Division is supportive of the vehicular access points as proposed. The Mooney Street entrance is
interior to the site and intended to provide access to necessary supporting services (mechanical,
dumpster etc.).
Pedestrian circulation along the perimeter of the block is provided by existing sidewalks along
Bridge Park Avenue, Mooney Street, and Tuller Ridge Drive and by a proposed sidewalk along
Dale Drive. The City Engineer has expressed concern that an inadequate sidewalk width, five
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 6 of 24
feet, is proposed along Dale Drive adjacent to on-street parking spaces. The applicant should
revise the sidewalk to be a minimum of six feet in width to allow sufficient width for vehicle
door swings and maintained circulation.
Parking
Recognizing that parking needs to be provided in conjunction with mixed use development, the
Code identifies minimum and maximum parking requirements. In cases where shared parking is
proposed, approval of a Parking Plan is required.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Parking Plan to permit shared parking across Bridge
Park; in this case, specifically with Block C given the proximity to Block G. Block C contains 869
parking spaces with an additional 327 parking spaces proposed in Block G. Cumulatively, Blocks
C and G provide an additional 109 on-street parking spaces. The total parking proposed to be
provided is 1,306 spaces.
Based on the proposed mix of uses, 512 parking spaces are required where 360 parking spaces
are provided for Block G. The applicant has conducted extensive study/observation regarding
the capacity of nearby garage spaces and their availability during a 24-hour period on weekdays
and weekends. The applicant is requesting the approval of a Parking Plan based on the findings
of a Parking Demand Study. Staff is recommending approval of the Parking Plan as it meets the
intent of BSD to establish walkable, mixed use communities where the need for vehicle parking
is minimized. The development requires 83 bicycle parking spaces, all of which are provided.
The location of the bicycle parking should be designated on the plans. Additional information
regarding required loading spaces should also be provided to ensure functionality.
Open Space
Based on the proposed combination of uses on Block G, a minimum of 0.44-acre of publicly
accessible open space is required to be provided. A total of 0.58-acre of publicly accessible
open space is provided throughout Block G and adjacent to Block G (dog park). In addition, a
0.19-acre private amenity space is proposed for residents of Building G3. Several Waivers are
required to accommodate the proportions of the open space as they do not fit squarely within
the Code requirements. In detail, the following open spaces, including pocket plazas, pocket
parks, and a park:
Pocket Plazas
A ±1,382-square-foot open space is proposed at the southwest corner of Building G1. A
linear water feature with seat walls is proposed to define the outdoor dining from the
sidewalk. Ornamental plantings complement the water feature.
A ±228-square-foot open space is proposed along Tuller Ridge Drive at the northwest
corner of Building G3 and is conceptually designed as a plaza with benches, creating a
place to stop or meet along the street.
A ±785-square-foot public open space is proposed at the northeast corner of Building
G3. This space provides a respite along the sidewalk with benches and ornamental
trees.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 7 of 24
Pocket Park
Two connected open spaces totaling ±5,828 square feet are proposed between
Buildings G1 and G2. These open spaces havefrontage on both Dale Drive and Mooney
Street, providing a mid-block pedestrianway. The two tiered open space has a
gathering plaza on the lower level along Mooney Street adjacent to the Building G1
lobby. The upper level along Dale Drive incorporates an artistic scrim screen to mask
the garage, and a combination of open turf, hardscape paths, shade trees, and pockets
of planting areas.
Park
A ±17,100-square-foot (0.39-acre) dog park is proposed at the southwest corner of
Dale Drive and Tuller Ridge Drive adjacent to the Sycamore Ridge Apartments. The dog
park is triangular in shape, bound by existing shared use paths to the east and south. A
double gate entry is proposed at the southwest corner of the park. Artificial turf is
proposed throughout to prevent degradation of the park given the limited size. A
number of shade trees and play boulders are proposed along with seating areas.
Additionally, the space is required to be fully enclosed with a six-foot tall fence. ight
poles are integrated into the dog park to allow for evening use, particularly in the
winter. Lights are intended to be on a timer and will not remain on all night. The
applicant should provide additional information regarding light levels to ensure that
lighting uniformity requirements are met. The space would need to be owned and
maintained by Bridge Park, but open to the public to qualify as publically accessible
open space and not simply an amenity for Bridge Park residents.
Landscape Design
Planning, in conjunction with Horticulture and the City Forester, are recommending a number of
modifications to the landscape design and plant selections. The intent is to provide more visual
interest and plant diversity, elevating the year-round aesthetics and long-term survivability. The
Staff analysis is based on the anticipated sun and shade for open spaces. The applicant should
revise the landscape plan in accordance with Staff’s detailed plan mark-ups provided via
electronic plan review. Additionally, final furniture selections and planter details are required to
be provided, subject to Staff approval.
Generally, the applicant is proposing shrubs, grasses, ground cover, perennials, and ornamental
trees. Staff is requesting an increase the number of species including more evergreen and
deciduous shrubs to replace perennials and ornamental grasses in select areas.
The linear open space between the buildings G1 and G2 is proposed to contain ornamental
shrubs and flowing trees providing attractive spring and fall color. Staff is concerned some of
the understory plants proposed will not receive adequate sun exposure. Suggested plant
species substitutes are recommended. Additional foundation landscaping along Mooney Street
has been identified as an opportunity to elevate the design.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 8 of 24
Building Types
Building Types establish the development standards applicable to each building. Building Types
are designated based on the form and use of a building. Building G1 is a Corridor Building,
Building G2 is a Parking Structure, and Building G3 is an Apartment Building. The Commission is
asked to refer to the attached development analysis.
The following analysis focuses on the requirements of the BSD Code that address the
fundamental urban form created by the proposed placement, and height/stories. The character
of each building is highlighted through a general description of the proposed exterior cladding
material composition. In review of the proposal, Staff has identified, in select cases, the need
for Administrative Departures and Waivers to numeric Code requirements. As well as conditions
of approval to confirm compliance with Code requirements.
The Code identifies building forms that are compatible and incompatible with each other. The
intent is to ensure development that is responsive to the surrounding context. Building G2 and
G3, a Parking Structure and an Apartment Building, are designated as incompatible with single-
family attached. A Waiver is required to permit the Parking Structure adjacent to the Sycamore
Ridge Apartments and an Apartment Building adjacent to Block H townhomes. The PZC
previously approved the same Wavier for Block D, adjacent to Block H. Waivers are also
required to permit additional lot coverage, which is consistent with previous requests approved
by the Commission. Additionally, Block G provides an excess of open space off-site, which is not
considered in the lot coverage calculation, although compensates for the additional lot
coverage.
Details
Building G1
Building G1 is a five-story Corridor
Building with the ground story
occupied by restaurant/retail and
lobby space associated with the
office users. The upper stories
(floors 2-5) are occupied by office.
The building is sited along Bridge
Park Avenue with secondary
entrances along the north (open
space) and east (Dale Drive)
elevations. The lobby for the upper-
story office is located along Mooney
Street. The principal building
entrance is located along Mooney
Street. A Waiver is required to
permit this condition as well as the location of other building entrances due to the highly
prescriptive nature of the Code. A fully enclosed pedestrian circulation connection between
Buildings G1 and G2 is provided via a tunnel at the ground floor and by elevator lobbies on the
second through fifth floors. A break in this architectural connection is provided at the first floor
level of the G1 building, accommodating a continuous east/west mid-block pedestrianway
between Mooney Street and Dale Drive. Given the detail of the design, a Waiver is required.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 9 of 24
The predominant exterior building materials are a combination of brick, concrete panel,
concrete masonry, and glass storefront system. Medium gray toned masonry defines the base
of the building, with dark gray, medium gray, and white brick on the upper stories. The
secondary materials are composite metal panel, and glass/metal spandrel. Teak metal wall
panels highlight the office balconies at the southwest corner, which overlook the public open
space at the corner of Mooney Street and Bridge Park Avenue. The applicant should provide a
specification for the storefront window system, subject to Staff approval. A minimum 80 percent
primary materials are required to be provide on all elevations. The applicant is deficient along
Mooney Street. Due to the interior nature there will be minimal impact to overall aesthetic of
the building. The Code provides standards for minimum transparency along street facing
facades. A minimum 60 percent transparency is required. Along Dale Drive, Bridge Park Avenue,
and Mooney Street the street facing transparency fall below the requirement. The amount of
transparency is consistent with the percent provided in previous blocks for Corridor buildings. A
Waiver is required to permit this condition.
The Code provides standards for minimum and maximum story heights which differ for the
ground story and upper stories. All story heights are compliant with the exception of the west
end of the first and fifth story due to the grade change. The Code also requires façade divisions
every 45 feet to ensure a building does not have flat plane. The proposal provides façade
division, but not at the numeric value required by the Code, requiring a Waiver. As proposed,
varied façade division accommodate a more unique architectural design.
Rooftop mechanical units and equipment are proposed to be screened behind a gray louver
screen. The parapet height is required to be no less than 2 feet in height to ensure all
mechanicals are fully screened. The parapet varies in height from 1.25 feet to 4.75 feet. All
mechanicals will be sufficiently screened. A Waiver is required to permit this deviation from
Code.
Building G2
Building G2 is a four-story parking
structure containing 327 parking
spaces to support the residents of
Building G3 and the commercial uses
in Building G1. The proposed
ingress/egress to the parking structure
is on the east and west sides of the
building. The ground level of the
parking structure includes a refuse
storage room, water meter room and a
generator for support of the uses in
Buildings G1, G2, and G3. The
Required Building Zone (RBZ) for
parking structures is between 5 and 25
feet from the right-of-way. Along both Dale Drive and Mooney Street, the building is not sited
the minimum of five feet from the right-of-way. This condition requires approval of a Waiver to
the Code requirement.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 10 of 24
The parking structure is unlined by commercial uses along Mooney Street (west), requiring
review and approval of a Conditional Use application. Along Dale Drive (east) three commercial
tenant spaces line the garage on the ground story. The depth of the tenant space is less than
Code requires, therefore a Waiver is required. The south façade of the parking structure is clad
in scrim screen. The north elevation faces the private amenity space for Building G3.
The parking structure is clad predominantly in two different colors of brick; the base level and
the entry/vertical circulation towers are clad in gray brick, and the upper levels of the parking
structure are clad with red brick. Cast stone is used to transition the brick color between the
ground story and upper stories. All elevations exceed the minimum primary material percentage
required, with the exception of the south elevation where a scrim screen is applied as a
placemaking element. Perforated metal panels (scrim screen) require a determination of
architectural appropriateness by the Commission. Metal panels are a permitted secondary
material.
In the northwest corner of the parking structure is the shared vertical pedestrian circulation –
lobby, mailroom, stairwell, and elevators – for the parking structure and Building G3. Additional
stairwells are proposed in the southwest and northeast corner of the parking structure, allowing
access to Buildings G1 and G3, respectively. The stairwells/elevators architecturally accent the
building. A total of three towers are proposed. Towers are only permitted at terminal vistas. A
Waiver is required to permit towers on Building G3 transitional elements.
Building G3
Building G3 is a four-story
Apartment Building containing 86
dwelling units (8 units with 3
bedrooms, 22 units with 2
bedrooms, 54 units with 1
bedroom, and 2 studio units) with
an associated 0.19-acre amenity
space. The east and west halves
of the building are offset to
accommodate the significant
grade change across the site. The
offset design breaks down the
mass and scale of the building
adjacent to Block H. The primary building entrance is located along Tuller Ridge Drive at the
offset in the building. There are no other building entrances along Tuller Ridge Drive, which
requires a Waiver. Individual stoop entries are proposed along Dale Drive and Mooney
Street as the grade permits it. The majority of the stoops meet the minimum Code required
although three provide at-grade entry, which is not permitted by Code. To permit this
condition, a Waiver is required. The RBZ for the Apartment Building type is 5-20 feet. The
building is sited less than 5 feet from the right-of-way along Dale Drive and Tuller Ridge
Drive, requiring a Waiver. The maximum permitted lot coverage for the building type is 70
percent where 90 percent is proposed. Similar to Building G1 and G2, G3 requires a Waiver
for the overall lot coverage to exceed the maximum.
The building is proposed to be clad in a combination of brick, stone, and fiber cement
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 11 of 24
siding. The permitted primary building materials for the Apartment Building type are brick
and stone, which must make up 80 percent of each elevation. Fiber cement siding is a
permitted secondary material. The applicant is proposing 46 percent primary materials on
each elevation and 54 percent secondary materials on each elevation. A Waiver is required
to permit this condition. Juliet balconies are proposed to provide visual interest along the
façade. Additional detail is required to confirm compliance with the Code.
The Code requires architectural details including vertical façade divisions. Similar to Building
G1, the proposal provides façade division, but not at the numeric value required by the
Code. As proposed, varied façade divisions accommodate a more unique architectural
design. A Waiver and Administrative Departure are requested to permit this condition.
Additionally, the Code requires a change in roof plane every 80 feet. Along the north façade
a 4-foot deviation is requested, meeting the threshold for an Administrative Departure.
Final Plat
Approval of a Final Plat is requested in conjunction with the Final Development Plan. The plat
establishes a single, 2.286-acre developable lot (Lot 9) along with necessary public access
easements for open spaces. Lot 9 is the result of the combination of three parcels: a .183-acre
parcel, a .006-acre parcel, and a 2.097-acres parcel. The new lot has approximately 200 feet of
frontage along Bridge Park Avenue, 450 feet of frontage along Mooney Street, 250 feet of
frontage along Tuller Ridge Drive, and 415 feet of frontage along Dale Drive.
Four public access easements are proposed to be established. Three at corners of the site and
one biscecting the site. A .027-acre access easement is provided at the intersection of Bridge
Park Avenue and Mooney Street, a .005-acre access easement is provided at the intersection of
Mooney Street and Tuller Ridge Drive, and a .019-acre access easement is provided a the
intersection of Tuller Ridge Drive and Dale Drive.
3. Criteria Analysis
Conditional Use
1) The proposed use will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives
or purpose of the Zoning Code and/or Community Plan.
Criteria met. The unlined portion of the parking garage is identified as a conditional use in
the BSD-Scioto River Neighborhood. The proposal strives to meet all of the standards
outlined in the Zoning Code and recommendations of the Community Plan by consolidating
services on one elevation, ultimately allowing for additional pedestrian activity along
adjacent streets. The proposal provides needed structured parking for the development.
2) The proposed use will comply with all applicable development standards, except as
altered in the approved conditional use.
Criteria met. The proposal strives to meet the standards of the Bridge Street District Zoning
Code except as modified by this Conditional Use request. The request allows for a
consolidated service area to maintain pedestrian activity along adjacent streets.
3) The proposed use will be harmonious with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 12 of 24
Criteria met. The proposed use complements the mix of uses within the block and the
overall development by providing structured parking for the residences, office and
commercial users, as well as the general public visiting the area. The design and
development of the parking garage is harmonious with the Bridge Park development, as it
provides commercial and residential liners on two sides and integrates materials and
character established with adjacent buildings.
4) The use will not be hazardous to or have a negative impact on existing or future
surrounding uses.
Criteria met. The use is complementary to many of the existing uses and will not detract
from the suitability of developing sites for future uses. The proposal also provides public
parking that will aid in activating tenant and office spaces in the area. Additionally, the
proposal consolidates services to one elevation, maintaining pedestrian activity on adjacent
streets.
5) The area and proposed use(s) will be adequately served by essential public facilities and
services.
Criteria met. The site and use will be served by existing utilities provided on site or through
extending services as part of the overall development. Any existing utilities for public utilities
will remain in place to ensure future connections and maintenance is maintained.
6) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Criteria met. The parking garage provides an amenity to the overall development by
providing necessary parking to support commercial, office and residential portions of the
development. Additionally, the added parking creates additional economic growth
opportunities on the site and in the vicinity.
7) The proposed use will not involve operations that will be detrimental to any person,
property, or the general welfare.
Criteria met. The use, although accessible 24 hours a day, is intended to provide parking for
office tenants, residents and patrons of businesses in the area, which will aid the
surrounding community. The design will not create any detriments to any surrounding
people or property.
8) Vehicular approaches to the property shall be designed as not to create interference
with traffic on public or private streets or roads.
Criteria met. The proposal uses the existing street network to access the garage.
Additionally, this design consolidates services to a single elevation, ultimately reducing
interference with traffic.
9) The proposed use will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.
Criteria met. The proposed use provides necessary parking to surrounding residential, office
and commercial uses. The design of the garage complements and integrates with
surrounding buildings.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 13 of 24
10) The proposed use will not impede the normal and orderly development of the
surrounding properties.
Criteria met. The proposal is for structured parking on an site which utilizes the existing
street network. The proposal does not modify adjacent properties, or impact their ability to
be developed. Additionally, the construction of a parking garage will allow for additional
development to occur in the surrounding area without additional pressure on parking within
the development.
Administrative Departures
1) 153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage
Requirement: A minimum 90 percent front property line coverage is required.
Request: 83 percent be required to be provided along Dale Drive when Buildings G1
and G2 are calculated together.
Criteria: Approval. Administrative Departure is consistent with previously approved
deviations from Code. The occupation of the front property line is largely met, which
meets the intent of the Code to ensure the position of buildings along the street.
2) 153.062(O)(3)(a)(4) — Change in Roof Plane
Requirement: A single roof plane shall extend not greater than 80 feet in length.
Request: Permit a single roof plane to extend 85 feet in length along the north elevation
of Building G3.
Criteria: Approval. The Administrative is minor in nature and does not substantially alter
the intent of the Code requirement.
Waiver Reviews
General
3) 153.062(O)(5), (O)(12), (O)(3) — Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious combined lot coverage for the Corridor Building,
Parking Structure, and Apartment building shall not exceed 80 percent for the Corridor
Building and Parking Structure, and shall not exceed 75 percent for the Apartment
Building.
Request: Combined lot coverage, for Block G, not exceed 90 percent.
Criteria: Approval. The proposed lot coverage is consistent with the estabalished
development pattern of Bridge Park. The proposed lot coverage is less that previously
approved blocks. Block G provides more open space and amenity space that previously
approved blocks.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 14 of 24
Building G1 (Corridor Building)
4) 153.062(O)(5)(b) — Building Height, Ground Story and Upper Stories
Requirement: Ground story floor height shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum
of 16 feet. Upper story floor height shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 14
feet.
Request: Ground story height for west end of the first story be permitted to be a
maximum of 25 feet in height, and the fifth story be permitted to a maximum of 18 feet
in height.
Criteria: Approval. The significant grade change across the site that impacts the story
heights resulting in numeric requirements of the Code that are not able to be met. The
Waiver is appropriate given the unique site conditions.
5) 153.062(D)(1)(a) — Parapet Roof Types
Requirement: Shall be no higher than necessary to screen roof appurtenances from view
from street or adjacent building of similar height. Parapets shall be no less than 2 feet
and no greater than 6 feet in height.
Request: Parapet heights less than 2 foot minimum (1.25 feet in height)
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is consistent with previously approved Waivers. All
mechanicals continue to be fully screened.
6) 153.065(E)(3)(b) — Mechanical Screening
Requirement: All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view
at ground level on all sides by one of the primary materials and colors of a street facing
façade. Metal is not a permitted primary material for the Corridor Building Type.
Request: Permit rooftop mechanicals to be screened by metal.
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is consistent with previously approved Waivers. All
mechanicals continue to be fully screened.
7) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 60 percent transparency be provided on the ground story of
street facing facades.
Request: Reduced ground story street facing transparency along Mooney Street, Bridge
Park Avenue, and Dale Drive:
Mooney Street (West) — 35%
Bridge Park Avenue (South) — 48%
Dale Drive (East) — 40%
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 15 of 24
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is consistent with previously approved Waivers. The building
has minimal frontage along Mooney Street and Dale Drive. The most transparency is
provided along Bridge Park Avenue where the retail tenant spaces are located. Tenant
fit-up modifications often result in increases and decreases in transparency.
8) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(1) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with 15 foot or
greater stretch of uninterrupted façade.
Request: Permit a 17 foot blank wall along the west elevation of the connector to
Building G2 Parking Structure.
Criteria: Approval. The connector is an architectural feature with unique constraints. It is
setback from the street, which minimizes the impact of the blank wall.
9) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The principal building entrance must be located along a Principal Frontage
Street. The Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street facing
facades.
Request: Permit the principal building entrance (office lobby) along a Neighborhood
Street (Mooney Street), and to permit entrances at lengths greater than permitted:
Dale Drive: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 2 provided
Bridge Park Avenue: 197 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 5 provided
Mooney Street: 164 linear feet = 3 entrances required, 3 provided
Criteria: Approval. The lobby location is located adjacent to an open space, which allows
for informal gathering meeting the intent of the BSD Code. The significant grade change
across the site that impacts the ability to locate entrances in accordance with the
numeric requirements of the Code.
10) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 45 feet to ensure a varied
building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: ±89 foot increment
North Elevation: ±96 foot increment
South Elevation:±97 foot and ±95 foot increments
West Elevation: ±52 foot increment
Criteria: Approval. The varied increments allow for a more architecturally engaging
building as a regularly occurring increment could appear monotonous. The request
enhances the overall character of the District.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 16 of 24
11) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 68 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney
Street).
Criteria: Approval. The west elevation is interior to the Bridge Park development. All
other elevations, front Principal Frontage Streets, comply with the minimum required
primary building materials.
Building G2 (Parking Structure)
12) 153.062(C)(1) — Incompatible Building Types
Requirement: Parking Structure and Single-Family Attached Building Types are not
permitted directly across the street from one another or on the same block face.
Request: Building G2 (Parking Structure) adjacent to Sycamore Ridge Apartments
(Single-Family Attached)
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is consistent with previously approved Waivers for Block H.
Sycamore Ridge Apartments has generous setbacks from Dale Drive, which minimize
any potential impact.
13) 153.062(O)(12)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front and corner-side required build zones for a Parking Structure are
5 feet to 25 feet from the property line.
Request: To permit zero feet to 25 feet required build zones to accommodate the
following building siting:
Front: 2.86 feet provided. Encroaches 2.14 feet. beyond required RBZ
Corner Side: 1.46 feet provided. Encroaches 3.54 feet beyond required
RBZ
Criteria: Approval. The Waiver is requested due to the curvature of Dale Drive. The
rectilinear building footprint in relation to the street warrants a minor deviation to the
numeric values in the Code.
14) 153.062(D)(4)(a) — Towers, Location and Quantity
Requirement: Towers on Parking Structures are permitted on facades only at terminal
vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type.
Where permitted by building type, only one tower is allowed per building.
Request: Northwest tower allowed to deviate from location requirement, and a total of
three towers be permitted.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 17 of 24
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is requested to provide architectural transitions between
Buildings G1, G2, and G3. The towers are a functional design element to accommodate
stairwells and elevators. Approval of the Waiver is consistent with previously approved
Blocks.
15) 153.062(D)(4)(b) — Towers, Height
Requirement: Tower height shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper
floor of the building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed
its height. The maximum upper story height for Parking Structures is 12 feet.
Request: Permit deviations from height and width requirements:
Building G2 Northeast Tower: Height 19.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
Building G2 Northwest Tower: Height 17.33 feet, width 21.33 feet.
Building G2 Southwest Tower: Height 12.67 feet, width 18 feet.
Criteria: Approval. The towers are a functional design element to accommodate
stairwells and elevators. Approval of the Waiver is consistent with previously approved
Blocks.
16) 153.065(B)(5)(c) — Interior Circulation, Ceiling Clearance Heights
Requirement: A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the
parking structure has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening, and the parking
structure shall be designed and constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20
feet of building by a commercial or a civic/public/institutional use.
Request: Permit at the Mooney Street frontage the clear ceiling height is approximately
10 feet.
Criteria: Approval. The significant grade change across the site that impacts the story
heights resulting in numeric requirements of the Code that are not able to be met. The
Waiver is appropriate given the unique site conditions.
17) 153.062(O)(12)(c) — Occupied Space
Requirement: Parking structures are required to be line with occupied space, with a
minimum depth of 20 feet, along principal frontage streets.
Request: Occupied space along Dale Drive be permitted to be less than 20 feet at 16.83
feet.
Criteria: Approval. Occupied space continues to be provided in a key location along a
PFS at the eastern edge of the Bridge Park development. While the numeric value in the
Code is not met, the intent of the zoning regulation is met.
18) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(1) — Street Facing Transparency
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 18 of 24
Requirement: A minimum 65 percent storefront transparency be provided on the ground
story of facades facing a principal frontage street.
Request: 41 percent ground story store front transparency along Dale Drive.
Criteria: Approval. Waiver is consistent with previously approved Waivers. The building
has minimal frontage along Dale Drive. The intent of the Code is fulfilled by providing
occupied space on the ground story of the parking structure.
19) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(2) — Blank Wall Limitations
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with 15 foot or
greater stretch of uninterrupted façade.
Request: Permit the south façade, adjacent to public open space, to be fully screened by
scrim.
Criteria: Approval. The scrim screen is an architectural feature that enhances the BSD.
The screen is an application that is not used elsewhere in Bridge Park and contributes to
the vibrancy.
20) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street facing
facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Mooney Street where two are required.
Criteria: Approval. While one entrance is proposed to be provided where two are
required, the parking structure is accessible from Buildings G1 and G3 via interior
connections meeting the intent of the Code.
21) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 30 feet to ensure a varied
building plane.
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: ±102 foot increment
West Elevation: ±85 foot increment
Criteria: Approval. The varied increments allow for a more architecturally engaging
building as a regularly occurring increment could appear monotonous. The request
enhances the overall character of the District.
22) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 19 of 24
Request: Permit 35 percent primary building materials on the south elevation (open
space).
Criteria: Approval. The south elevation is fully detailed in a perforated metal panel scrim
screen. The percentage of required primary building materials is met on all other
elevations.
Building G3 (Apartment Building)
23) 153.062(O)(3)(a)(1) — Required Build Zone (RBZ)
Requirement: The front required build zone for an Apartment Building 5 feet to 20 feet
from the property line.
Request: To permit zero feet to 20 feet required build zones to accommodate the
following building siting:
Front: Dale Drive – Minimum 0.38 ft. provided
Front: Tuller Ridge Drive – Minimum 4.75 ft. provided
Criteria: Approval. The Waiver is requested due to the curvature of Dale Drive and Tuller
Ridge Drive. The rectilinear building footprint in relation to the street warrants a minor
deviation to the numeric values in the Code.
24) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(3) — Building Entrances
Requirement: The Code requires one building entrance every 75 feet along street facing
facades.
Request: Permit one entrance along Tuller Ridge Drive where three are required.
Criteria: Approval. Due to the significant grade change along Tuller Ridge Drive, one
entrance is proposed to be provided where three are required. The unique site
conditions warrant a deviation from the Code requirement.
25) 153.062(I)(2)(a) — Stoops
Requirement: Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet of open area.
Request: Three stoops provide smaller than the minimum dimensions required, and
three provide at-grade sidewalk entrance (no stoop).
Criteria: Approval. The significant grade change across the site only accommodates
stoops along Dale Drive and Mooney Street. In these locations, numeric requirements of
the Code are not able to be met. The Waiver is appropriate given the unique site
conditions.
26) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) — Vertical Façade Divisions
Requirement: A vertical façade division is required every 40 feet to ensure a varied
building plane.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 20 of 24
Request: Permit fewer vertical façade divisions than required by Code:
East Elevation: 64.54 foot increment, 40.21 foot increment
North Elevation: 65.63 foot, 65.04 foot increments
West Elevation: 64.58 foot increment, 40.29 foot increment
Criteria: Approval. The varied increments allow for a more architecturally engaging
building as a regularly occurring increment could appear monotonous. The request
enhances the overall character of the District.
27) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) — Materials
Requirement: 80 percent primary building materials (glass, brick, stone).
Request: Permit 46 percent primary building materials on the west elevation (Mooney
Street); 44 percent primary building materials on the north elevation (Tuller Ridge
Drive); and, 46 percent primary building materials on the east elevation (Dale Drive).
Criteria: Approval. The building is primarily clad in brick and fiber cement siding. Fiber
cement siding is a cladding that is more residential in nature and provides an
appropriate transition to the townhomes (Block H) to the west. Brick remains a
significant element that contributes to the character of the building.
Open Space
28) 153.064(F)(6) — Open Space Type, Park
Requirement: Parks (minimum 2-arces in size) provide informal active and passive
larger-scale recreational amenities to city residents and visitors. Parks have natural
plantings and can be created around existing natural features such as water bodies or
tree stands. Parks can be used to define edges of neighborhoods and districts.
Request: Permit a dog park to be designated as a Park not meeting the intent and
minimum 2-acres size defined in the Code.
Criteria: Approval. The dog park is a unique open space type not specifically identified
the Code. This type of social recreation and the programmatic design of the space
makes it most similar to a Park Open Space Type. The design is naturalistic but resilient
and the proposed location defines the edge between an existing (Sycamore Ridge) and
a new neighborhood (Bridge Park). The .39 acre proposed dog park is smaller than the
minimum Park size of 2 acres required by Code; however contributes to the overall
provision of various open space amenities throughout Bridge Park.
29) 153.064(G)(1)(b) — Open Space Proportions
Requirement: 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
Request: Permit Pocket Park between Building G1 and G2 has a length to width
proportion of over 6:1.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 21 of 24
Criteria: Approval. The Waiver is consistent with the established development pattern of
Bridge Park, and similar to previously approved Waivers. The open space accommodates
a midblock pedestrianway while also servicing as an open space.
30) 153.064(G)(4)(f) — Impervious and Semi-Pervious Area
Requirement: For a Pocket Park, the maximum permitted impervious area is 30 percent
with an additional 10 percent semi-pervious permitted.
Request: Permit the open space between Building G1 and G2 to be approximately 58
percent impervious.
Criteria: Approval. The Waiver is consistent with the established development pattern of
Bridge Park, and similar to previously approved Waivers. The open space accommodates
a midblock pedestrianway while also servicing as an open space.
Parking Plan
1) Requirement/Request: A total of 526 parking spaces are required where 360 parking
spaces are provided. Approval of a shared parking plan is requested.
Criteria: Approval. Based on the findings of a Parking Demand Study, Staff is
recommending approval of the Parking Plan as it meets the intent of BSD to
establish walkable, mixed use communities where the need for vehicle parking is
minimized.
Final Development Plan
1) The proposal is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development Plan.
Criteria Met. This application is largely consistent with the approved Preliminary
Development Plan and surrounding development pattern. The architecture and site
layout are similar to the previously approved Preliminary Development Plan and Concept
Plan.
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 Waivers and Conditions. The proposal is largely consistent with all
adopted plans and policies. However, the applicant is requesting approval of Waivers,
which will allow for additional flexibility in site layout and building design when
developing multiple buildings in a block at a single time.
3) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific
standards.
Criteria Met with Conditional Use. All proposal uses are permitted in accordance with the
Zoning Code. The unlined parking structure, along Mooney Street, requires approval of a
Conditional Use. The unlined portion of the parking structure is interior to the Bridge
Park development.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 22 of 24
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 Administrative Departures and Waivers. The proposal is appropriately
scaled and complements the surrounding environment. The Administrative Departures
and Waivers allow for additional design elements that complement the surrounding
environment.
5) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060 Lots and Blocks.
Criteria Met. The lots and block dimensions are existing and were established with
previous phases of the development.
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.
Not Applicable. No new streets are required to be constructed in conjunction with Block
G’s development.
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 does not significantly alter the circulation
system, access points or connections to the public realm within Bridge Park. The site
layout provides adequate access for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle visitors to the
site. Additional information regarding bicycle parking and loading spaces is required to
be provided.
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 Waivers. The proposal conforms to applicable policies and plans. Staff
recommends approval of Waivers to items that do not meet the numeric requirements of
the Bridge Street District.
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 Waivers and Condition. The applicant is proposing a variety of open
space types, which enhance the public realm. The applicant should continue to work
with Staff to finalize the landscape design and plant selections in accordance with Staff’s
recommendations.
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
agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 23 of 24
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 incorporates elements consistent with the Scioto River
Neighborhood District specifically creating a vibrant mixed use community through a
vertical mixed use buildings, high-quality architecture, and engaging open spaces.
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. The proposal provides adequate stormwater management.
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 serviced 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.
Not applicable. The development is not proposed to be constructed in phases.
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 Conditions. The development will provide an interesting, walkable
setting for urban lifestyles that places value on human scale and a diversity of
experiences. The layout of the public spaces and function of the integrated sidewalk and
bikeway network and the mixed-use development is consistent with these principles.
Final Plat §152.018
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements
Criteria Met with Conditions. The applicant has provided all the necessary information
for the final plat. Any minor revisions should be made prior to the submission to City
Council for approval.
2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike path Standards
Criteria Met. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bikepath
standards for the Bridge Street District.
3) Utilities
Criteria Met. Proposed and existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat and
documented with the final development plan.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-045FDP/ 20-199CU/16-044FP | Bridge Park, Block G
Thursday, April 15, 2021 | Page 24 of 24
4) Open Space Requirements
Criteria Met. As part of the final plat, public access easements are required in areas
designated as open space.
4. Recommendations
Conditional Use
Planning recommends approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions.
Administrative Departures
Planning recommends approval of two Administrative Departures.
Waiver Reviews
Planning recommends approval of 30 Waivers.
Parking Plan
Planning recommends approval of a Parking Plan.
Final Development Plan
Planning recommends approval of the Final Development Plan with conditions:
1) That the applicant provide window specifications for Building G1 for staff review prior to
submitting for permits;
2) That the applicant provide installation details for the proposed Juliet balconies on
Building G3 with the building permit application;
3) That the applicant submit all proposed site furnishings associated with public open
spaces for staff review prior to submitting for permits;
4) That the applicant designate the location and quantity of required bicycle parking with
the building and/or site permit applications;
5) That the applicant verify if parking structure security techniques and surveillance will be
implemented in Building G2;
6) That the applicant provide the three required loading spaces on the site plan for staff
review prior to submitting for permits;
7) That the applicant submit details of the proposed ground mounted mechanical
enclosures with the building/site permit application;
8) That the applicant adjust the proposed site lighting plans to provide the required lighting
uniformity with the site permit application;
9) The sidewalk along Dale Drive be revised to provide a minimum of six feet of clear
sidewalk width, subject to approval of the City Engineer;
10) The applicant establish and execute a public access easement for the dog park prior to
issuance of a Site Only permit;
11) The applicant work with Staff to revise the landscape plan, as detailed in the Staff
Report, prior to submittal of a Building Permit.
Final Plat
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 1 | 31
ANALYSIS & DETERMINATIONS – FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE
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
BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District
Building G1/Corridor Building
(Mix of Commercial Uses Only)
Office, General 100,237 square feet
Yes Eating & Drinking 7,300 square feet
Retail 15,210 square feet
TOTAL 122,747 square feet
Building G2/Parking Structure
(Not completely lined with occupied space
along Mooney Street frontage—Conditional
Use approval required) Parking 327 parking spaces
Staff
Recomme
nds
Approval
Cond. Use
Approval
Required
Gallery 700 square feet Yes
Building G3/Apartment Building
(Multi-Family Residential Units Only)
(Permitted in Corridor Building per Scioto
River Neighborhood District Standards)
Studio 2 dwelling units
Yes
One Bedroom 54 dwelling units
Two Bedroom 22 dwelling units
Three Bedroom 8 dwelling units
TOTAL 86 dwelling units
Pocket Plaza and Pocket Park Open Space Types N/A Yes
BSD Residential District
Park Open Space Type (Dog Park) N/A Yes
153.060 – Lots and Blocks
Code
Section
Requirement
Analysis Met?
(B) Applicability
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 2 | 31
153.060 – Lots and Blocks
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.
Basic
Plan/
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 Block G is framed by existing public streets Dale Drive to the east, Bridge
Park Avenue to the south, Mooney Street to the west, and Tuller Ridge Drive to the
north.
Met
(2) Maximum Block Size
(a) Required Subdivision. All development requiring a Development 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.
Block G has a maximum length of approximately 449 feet and a perimeter of
approximately 1,352 feet.
Met
(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.
Met
(b) Blocks shall be arranged with front property lines along at least two sides.
Block F has front property lines along Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. 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)
Access to the block is proposed from Dale Drive, a principal frontage street. See below.
Met
Eng.
Determ.
Required
(5) Block Access Configurations
(a) Access for alleys, service streets and driveways shall not be permitted from a principal
frontage street.
A driveway is proposed on Dale Drive, a principal frontage street.
Met
Eng.
Determ.
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 3 | 31
153.060 – Lots and Blocks
(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.
One access point is proposed along Dale Drive. There are no existing access points on the
opposite side of the street.
One access point is proposed along Mooney Street, which does not align with the existing
curb cut on the opposite side of the street.
Met
Eng.
Determ.
Required
(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.
Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive frontages are front property lines.
Met
(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.
Mooney Street and Tuller Ridge Drive are corner side property lines.
Met
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.
Corridor Buildings and a Parking Structure are proposed and are permitted within the BSD
Scioto River 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 Corridor 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 Corridor and Parking Structure buildings are permitted within the Scioto
River 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
(e) Accessory Structures:
No accessory structures are proposed N/A
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 4 | 31
153.062 – Building Types
(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.
The proposed partially lined (at ground story) G2 Parking Structure is directly across the
street from Single Family Attached Buildings along Dale Drive.
Waiver
Required
(G2)
(D) Roof Type Requirements
(1) Parapet Roof Types (Buildings G1, G2 and G3 are Parapet Roof Types)
(a) Parapet Height: Shall be no higher than necessary to screen roof appurtenances from view
from street or adjacent building of similar height. Parapets shall be no less than 2 feet and
no greater than 6 feet in height.
The G1 parapet heights vary from 1.25 feet minimum to 4.75 feet in height maximum.
The G2 parapet heights are 4.67 feet.
The G3 parapet heights vary from 2.25 feet minimum to 2.67 feet in height maximum.
Waiver
Required
(G1)
Met
(b) Continuous Parapets Required: Shall wrap around all sides of the building.
Parapets wrap all sides of all buildings. Met
(c) Horizontal Expression Lines: Expression lines are encouraged to distinguish the parapet from
the upper stories of the building and to define the top of the parapet.
G1 features metal coping, G2 cast stone caps, and G3 incorporates an EIFS cornice and
fiber cement trim and panel siding, at the top of their respective parapets.
Met
(4) Towers
(a) Quantity: Where permitted by building type, only one tower is allowed per building unless
otherwise approved by the required reviewing body.
Building G2 features three towers—one each at the northwest, northeast, and southwest
corners of the parking structure.
Towers on Parking Structures are permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners at
two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an ope n space type.
The southwest tower is adjacent to an open space type, northeast tower is at a terminal
vista. Northwest tower location does not meet criteria.
Waivers
Required
(G2)
(b) Tower height: Tower height shall not be greater than the height of one additional upper floor
of the building to which the tower is applied. The width of a tower shall not exceed its
height. The maximum upper story height for Parking Structures is 12 feet.
Building G2 Northeast Tower: Height 19.33 feet, width 21.33 feet
Building G2 Northwest Tower: Height 17.33 feet, width 21.33 feet.
Building G2 Southwest Tower: Height 12.67 feet, width 18 feet.
NOTE: Parking Garage Sections provided do not show section through any proposed
towers. All heights noted here are to the top of the tower parapets, not to the tower roof
deck as measured by Code.
Waivers
Required
(G2)
(E) Materials
(1) Façade Materials
Please refer to 153.062(O) - Building Type Analysis.
(2) Façade Material Transitions
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 5 | 31
153.062 – Building Types
(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
Building G1 features a honed masonry base below brick and storefront system windows,
and Buildings G2 and G3 propose a darker brick base below a lighter colored brick.
Met
(F) Entrances & Pedestrianways
(3) Entrance Design
(a) Principal entrances on all building types shall be at a pedestrian scale, effectively address the
street and be given prominence on the building façade.
The principal entrance to Building G1 is at the northwest corner of the building highlighted
by a green metal spandrel system, sidelights and transoms.
Within Building G2, the principal entrances are located within aluminum storefront system
towers at the northwest and northeast corners of the parking structure.
The principal entrance within Building G3 is in the middle of the north elevation at a
raised, recessed stoop with sidelights, transoms and a metal canopy
Met
(c) Doors for commercial uses along all street frontages shall be consistent with the design of
principal entrances and include glass and full operating hardware in the design of the door.
Building G1 entrances are all consistent with the design of the principal entrance, and
include glass and full operating hardware to access the individual tenant spaces proposed
along the street frontages.
Met
(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 and defining the individual stories of each 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.
(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.
Building G1 windows are storefront windows, with no material specification provided.
Building G2 windows are aluminum storefront system windows
Building G3 windows are a combination of aluminum storefront windows and composite
windows.
Condition
of
Approval
(3) Awnings and Canopies
(c) Canopies
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 6 | 31
153.062 – Building Types
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.
Building G1 indicates cantilevered white and gray metal canopies at a number of
entrances.
Building G3 includes a prefinished metal canopy with hangar rods.
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
Building G1 has four balconies at the southwest corner of the building. They are all
approximately 8 feet deep by 37 feet wide.
Building G3 has a total of 32 units with balconies oriented to the street. The smallest
measures approximately 6 feet deep by 12 feet wide.
Met
(b) Connection to Building: Balconies may be recessed into a building façade or independently
secured and unconnected to other balconies.
Building G1 balconies are independently secured.
Building G3 balconies are independently secured.
Met
(c) Façade Coverage: Balconies may comprise a maximum of 40% of each of the front and
corner side facades.
Building G1 balconies comprise approximately 15% of the corner side façade (West
Elevation).
Building G3 balconies comprise approximately 10% and 18% of the front façades (North
and East Elevations, respectively), and 19% of the corner side façade (West Elevation)
Met
(d) Juliet Balconies:
Building G3 has a total of 8 units with Juliet balconies oriented to the street.
1. Size: Juliet balconies may project up to 24 inches and shall not extend more than six inches
past the fenestration
Floor plans indicate Juliet balconies projecting 6 inches and extending 6 inches past the
window/door fenestration.
Met
Attachment: Juliet balconies used with windows must be secured to the outside window
jamb.
Insufficient information has been provided to determine if Juliet balconies are used in
combination with doors or windows, and more detail is needed on proposed means of
securing to structure.
Condition
of
Approval
(2) Stoops
Building G3 has 10 units with stoops at grade facing the street.
(a) Size: Stoops shall have a minimum width and depth of five feet of open area.
Four out of ten stoops meet the minimum dimensions—those located at the northeast,
northwest, southeast and southwest corners of the building. Three provide stoops smaller
than the minimum dimensions required , and three provide only a sidewalk to the entrance
and no stoop.
Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 7 | 31
153.062 – Building Types
(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 present at the southeast corner of Block G for northbound travel along Dale
Drive resulting from the alignment of the roadway.
The south/east elevations of Building G1 and G2 terminates the view. Building G2 incorporates a
tower along Dale Drive, and there is potentially a slight view into the open space between
Buildings G1 and G2.
Met
(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
Met
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Dominant
Material
Recesses
and
Projections
Entrance/
Window
Placement
Roof
Design
Change
in
Height
Adjacent Buildings Required 2 of 4 Required
Bldg. G1 & Sycamore Ridge X X X X
Bldg. G1 & Bldg. F1 X X X
Bldg. G1 & Bldg. C3 X X X
Bldg. G1 & Bldg. G2 X X X
Bldg. G2 & Sycamore Ridge X X X X
Bldg. G2 & Bldg. C4/C5 X X X
Bldg. G2 & Bldg. G3 X X X X
Bldg. G3 & Bldg. C4/C5 X X X
Bldg. G3 & Bldg. H1 X X X X X
Bldg. G3 & Sycamore Ridge X X X X
(M) Signs
No sign details have been submitted.
(N) Individual Building Type Requirements
See Individual Building Type Requirements Analysis Below.
153.062(O) – Individual Building Requirements Analysis
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 8 | 31
153.062(O)(5) – Building G1 – Corridor Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
(a) Building Siting
1. Street Frontage
Number of Principal Buildings Permitted
(per Lot) Multiple Permitted 1 Proposed Met
Front Property Line Coverage
Minimum 75%
82% Provided at Bridge Park
Avenue
83% Provided at Dale Drive
(with Buildings G2 & G3)
Met
Occupation of Corner Required (Yes/No)
Yes
Bridge Park Avenue & Dale Drive
Yes
Bridge Park Avenue & Mooney St.
Yes, Open Space Proposed
Met
Front Required Building Zone
0-15 feet
Front RBZ = Bridge Park Avenue
Minimum 4.78 ft. provided
Front RBZ = Dale Drive
Minimum ±0.18 ft. provided
Met
Corner Side Required Building Zone 0-15 feet
Corner Side RBZ = Mooney Street
Minimum 4.35 ft. provided Met
Required Building Zone Treatment Patio or Streetscape Combination of Streetscape and
Patio Met
Right-of-Way Encroachments Projecting Signs,
Awnings, Eaves,
Patios & Canopies
None Proposed Met
2. Buildable Area
Minimum Side Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Rear Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Width Required 50 ft. ±447 feet Met
Maximum Lot Width Required None N/A N/A
Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 80% 90%
(With Buildings G2 & G3)
Waiver
Required
Additional Semi-Pervious Lot Coverage
Permitted (Beyond Max. 80%
Impervious Coverage)
10% 1%
(With Buildings G2 & G3) Met
3. Parking Location & Loading
Parking Location Rear, within building Provided in Adjacent Parking
Structure Met
Loading Facility Permitted (location
relative to principal structure) Rear None Proposed N/A
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 9 | 31
153.062(O)(5) – Building G1 – Corridor Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
Entry for Parking within Building
(relative to principal structure)
Rear, side, or corner
side façade on non-
PFS Streets
None Proposed N/A
(b) Height
Minimum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 3 stories 5 stories min. proposed Met
Maximum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 6 stories 5 stories max. proposed Met
Ground Story Height 12 ft. Minimum
16 ft. Maximum
14.0 ft. at east end
23.75 ft. at west end
(Ground story FFE steps down 9.75
ft. east to west w/ existing grade)
Waiver
Required
Upper Story Height 10 ft. Minimum
14 ft. Maximum
2nd thru 4th Stories: 14.0 ft.
5th Story: 16.81 ft.
Waiver
Required
(c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements
Ground Story Use Requirements Residential and
general office uses
prohibited in
shopping corridors*;
Podium parking
structures are
conditional uses in
accordance with
153.059(C)(3)(g)
*Neighborhood
Standard permits
Residential and Office
uses at Ground Story
‘Office, General’, ‘Retail’ and
‘Eating & Drinking’ uses 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 3 floors
and fully in any
basement
None Proposed N/A
Occupied Space Required Minimum 30 ft. depth
facing streets
Min. ±45 ft. occupied space depth
along street facing facades Met
(d) Façade Requirements
1. Street Façade Transparency
Ground Story Street Facing
Transparency (%) Minimum 60%
required
Dale Drive (East)=40%
Bridge Park Avenue (South)=48%
Mooney Street (West)=35%
Waivers
Required
Upper Story Transparency Minimum 30% Dale Drive (East) Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 10 | 31
153.062(O)(5) – Building G1 – Corridor Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
2nd Story=37%, 3rd Story=40%
4th Story=41%, 5th Story=35%
Bridge Park Avenue (South)
2nd Story=50%, 3rd Story=50%
4th Story=50%, 5th Story=42%
Mooney Street (West)
2nd Story=49%, 3rd Story=51%
4th Story=51%, 5th Story=44%
Blank Wall Limitations
Required
±17 ft. Blank Wall Area—At west
elevation connector to Building G2
Parking Structure
Waiver
Required
2. Non-Street Façade Transparency
Transparency (%)
Minimum 15%
Transparency
Open Space (North)
Ground Story=40%,
2nd Story=36%, 3rd Story=36%
4th Story=36%, 5th Story=30%
Met
Non-Street Façade Blank Wall
Limitations Required None Met
3. Building Entrances
Principal Entrance Location Principal Frontage
Street Façade of
Building
Principal Entrance is proposed at
Mooney Street. Not at either
available front property
lines/principal frontage streets
Waiver
Required
Street Facades: Number of Entrances
Required
1 per 75 feet of
façade minimum
Dale Drive:
164 linear feet = 3 entrances
required, 2 provided
Bridge Park Avenue:
197 linear feet = 3 entrances
required, 5 provided
Mooney Street:
164 linear feet = 3 entrances
required, 3 provided
Waiver
Required
Parking Lot Façade:
Number of Entrances Required
1 per 100 feet of
façade minimum N/A N/A
Mid-Building Pedestrianway
In shopping corridors,
1 required for
buildings greater than
250 feet in length
Building length is 197 feet and not
along a shopping corridor N/A
4. Façade Divisions
Vertical Increments Required No greater than 45 ft. East Elevation: ±89 ft. increment
North Elevation: ±96 ft. increment
Waivers
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 11 | 31
153.062(O)(5) – Building G1 – Corridor Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
South Elevation:±97 ft. and ±65ft.
increments
West Elevation: ±52 ft. increment
Horizontal Facade Divisions Required
(per ft. of facade)
On buildings 3 stories
or taller, required
within 3 feet of the
top of the ground
story
Changes in exterior material at line
of 2nd story on all elevations with
corbeling/caps.
Met
Required Change in Roof Plane or Type None Required N/A N/A
5. Façade Materials
Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass Stone, Brick, Glass Met
Minimum Primary Façade Materials
80%
South Elevation: 85%
Brick: 29%
Glass: 44%
Concrete Panel/Masonry: 12%
West Elevation: 68%
Brick: 11%
Glass: 43%
Concrete Panel/Masonry: 14%
North Elevation: 84%
Brick: 51%
Glass: 33%
Concrete Panel/Masonry: 0%
East Elevation: 86%
Brick: 47%
Glass: 37%
Concrete Panel/Masonry: 2%
Waivers
Required
Permitted Secondary Materials Glass fiber reinforced
gypsum, wood siding,
fiber cement siding,
metal and exterior
architectural metal
panels and cladding
Composite Metal Panel
Lightweight Concrete Panel
Metal Spandrel System
Met
6. Roof Types
Permitted Types Parapet, pitched roof,
flat roof; other types
may be permitted
with approval
Parapet Roof Proposed Met
Tower Permitted on facades
only at terminal
vistas, corners at two
None Proposed N/A
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 12 | 31
153.062(O)(5) – Building G1 – Corridor Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
principal frontage
streets, and/or
adjacent to an open
space type
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
(a) Building Siting
1. Street Frontage
Number of Principal Buildings Permitted
(per Lot)
Multiple Not
Permitted 1 Met
Minimum Front Property Line Coverage
90%
83% Provided at Dale Drive
(with Buildings G1 & G3)
Admin.
Departure
Occupation of Corner Required (Yes/No) Yes N/A N/A
Front Required Building Zone 5 feet to 25 feet
2.86 ft. provided. Encroaches 2.14
ft. beyond required RBZ
Waiver
Required
Corner Side Required Building Zone 5 feet to 25 feet 1.46 ft. provided. Encroaches 3.54
ft. beyond required RBZ
Waiver
Required
RBZ Treatment Landscape, Patio or
Streetscape. Streetscape and Patio Met
Right-of-Way Encroachments None Permitted None Proposed N/A
2. Buildable Area
Minimum Side Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Rear Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Width Required 80 ft. ±447 ft. Met
Maximum Lot Width Required None N/A N/A
Maximum Building Length 300 feet ±212.69 ft. max length proposed Met
Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 80% 90%
(With Buildings G1 & G3)
Waiver
Required
Additional Semi-Pervious Lot Coverage
Permitted (Beyond Max. 80%
Impervious Coverage)
10% 1%
(With Buildings G1 & G3) Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 13 | 31
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
3. Parking Location & Loading
Parking Location Within Building Only Parking is located within Met
Entry for Parking within Building
(relative to principal structure)
Rear, side, corner
side facades on non-
principal frontage
streets
Entries are provided on Dale Drive
(principal frontage street) and
Mooney Street (corner side façade
on non-pfs).
CU
Required
Vehicular entrance opening width Max. 30 ft. East entrance is 25.00 ft. wide
West entrance is 22.83 ft. wide
Met
Access
153.062 (N)(1)(c)
Access is proposed from street
identified as principal frontage
street.
CU
Required
(b) Height
Minimum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 2 stories 4 Story Minimum Height Proposed Met
Maximum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 5 stories*
*Height may not
exceed overall height
in feet of any
adjacent building or
any conforming
building immediately
across the street
4 Story Maximum Height Proposed
The overall height of the Parking
Structure is ±51.33 ft. to the top of
the parapet, less than the height of
Building G3 (±52.5 ft.) and
Building C4/C5 (±58.0 ft.)
Met
Ground Story Height 8 ft./12 ft. Minimum*
18 ft. Maximum
(*Requirements of
153.065(B)(5)
Parking Structure
Design shall be met)
12.33 feet Met
Upper Story Height 8.5 ft. Minimum*
12 ft. Maximum
(*Requirements of
153.065(B)(5)
Parking Structure
Design shall be met)
11.33 feet Met
(c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements
Ground Story Use Requirements Commercial Uses are
required only when
fronting a principal
Gallery uses are proposed in the
ground story along Dale Drive, a
principal frontage street.
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 14 | 31
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
frontage street,
shopping corridor or
a greenway
Upper Story Use Requirements No Additional
Requirements N/A N/A
Parking within Building
Rear of a ground
story with frontage
on a principal
frontage street,
shopping corridor or
greenway; all floors
above ground floor.
Parking is proposed on all floors.
Met
Occupied Space Required Min. 20’ depth where
ground story with
frontage on a
principal frontage
street, shopping
corridor or greenway
16.83 ft. depth occupied space
proposed along Dale Drive frontage
(PFS).
Waiver
Required
(d) Façade Requirements
1. Street Façade Transparency (This section only applies to parking structures facing streets)
Ground Story Street Façade
Transparency (%) (This section applies
only to parking structures fronting
streets)
Storefront with a
Minimum 65% on
principal frontage
streets, shopping
corridors, or
greenways; otherwise
refer to Blank Wall
Limitations
Dale Drive (East):
41% storefront transparency
provided
Waiver
Required
Street Façade Blank Wall Limitations No open area greater
than 30% of a story
façade, as measured
from floor to floor,
shall be windowless
on the ground story
and solid on the
upper stories
Dale Drive (East):
No solid areas greater than 30% of
story area on upper stories
Mooney Street (West):
No solid areas greater than 30% of
story area on ground or upper
stories
Met
Garage Openings Parked cars shall be
screened from the
street
All garage openings incorporate a
knee wall with an open storefront
system above.
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 15 | 31
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
2. Non-Street Façade Transparency
Blank Wall Limitations No greater area
greater than 30% of
a story façade, as
measured from floor
to floor, shall be
solid.
South Elevation:
South Elevation is open behind the
perforated metal panel murals.
Waiver
Required
3. Building Entrance
Principal Pedestrian Entrance Location
(This section only applies to parking
structures fronting streets)
All Street Façades of
Building
Principal Pedestrian Entrances are
provided at the northeast and
northwest corners of the Parking
Structure
Met
Street Facades: Number of Entrances
Required 1 per 75 ft. of façade
minimum
Dale Drive (East)
2 required, 2 provided
Mooney Street (West)
2 required, 1 provided
Waiver
Required
Parking Lot Façade:
Number of Entrances Required Not Applicable N/A N/A
Mid-Building Pedestrianway
Not Required N/A N/A
4. Façade Divisions (This section applies only to parking structures fronting streets.)
Vertical Increments Required No greater than 30 ft. East Elevation: 102 ft. increment
West Elevation: 85 ft. increment
Waivers
Required
Horizontal Facade Divisions Required within 3
feet of the top of the
ground story
Cast stone cap separates ground
story from upper stories Met
Required Change in Roof Plane or Type None N/A N/A
Garage Floors Garage Floors shall
be horizontal along all
street facades
Garage Floors facing Mooney
Street and Dale Drive are
horizontal.
Met
5. Façade Materials
Permitted Primary Materials (types) Brick, Stone, Glass Brick, Stone, Glass Met
Minimum Primary Façade Materials
80%
East Elevation: 96%
Brick: 73%
Cast Stone: 2%
Glass: 21%
South Elevation: 35%
Brick: 26%
Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 16 | 31
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
Cast Stone: 1%
Glass: 8%
West Elevation: 99%
Brick: 70%
Cast Stone: 5%
Glass: 24%
North Elevation: 100%
Brick: 100%
Stone: 0%
Glass: 0%
Permitted Secondary Materials
Glass fiber reinforced
gypsum, wood siding,
fiber cement siding,
metal and exterior
architectural metal
panels and cladding
ACM Panel System
Perforated Aluminum Panel w/
Mural*
*Panel with mural is being used
beyond the extent of “details and
accents” per Code for secondary
materials--covering nearly the
entire south elevation. Behind this
material there are no permitted
primary materials—only the
structural concrete and parked
ramps with cable railing.
Met
Determin.
of Arch.
Approp.
Required
6. Roof Type
Roof Type(s) Permitted Parapet, Pitched roof,
flat roof; other types
permitted with
approval
Parking proposed on roof screened
with parapet. Met
Tower (Locations Permitted) Permitted on facades
only at terminal
vistas, corners at two
principal frontage
streets, and/or
adjacent to an open
space type.
Northeast Tower is generally at a
terminal vista from south along
northbound Dale Drive.
Southwest Tower is adjacent to an
open space type.
Northwest Tower is not in
permitted location.
Waiver
Required
Tower (Number Permitted) One tower is
permitted unless
otherwise approved
Three towers are proposed Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 17 | 31
153.062(O)(12) – Building G2 – Parking Structure
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
by required reviewing
body.
153.062(O)(3) – Building G3 – Apartment Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
(a) Building Siting
1. Street Frontage
Number of Principal Buildings Permitted
(per Lot) Multiple Permitted 1 Proposed Met
Front Property Line Coverage
Minimum 75%
78% Provided at Tuller Ridge Drive
83% Provided at Dale Drive
(with Buildings G2 & G3)
Met
Occupation of Corner Required (Yes/No)
Yes
Dale Drive & Tuller Ridge Drive
Yes – Open Space Proposed
Tuller Ridge Drive & Mooney Street
Open Space Proposed
Met
Front Required Building Zone
5-20 feet
Front RBZ – Dale Drive=
Minimum 0.38 ft. provided
Front RBZ – Tuller Ridge Drive=
Minimum 4.75 ft. provided
(both encroach outside of RBZ)
Waivers
Required
Corner Side Required Building Zone 5-20 feet Corner Side RBZ – Mooney Street=
Minimum 7.25 ft. provided Met
Required Building Zone Treatment Landscape or less
than 50% Patio.
Porches, stoops, and
balconies permitted in
RBZ.
Landscape Met
Right-of-Way Encroachments None None Proposed N/A
2. Buildable Area
Minimum Side Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Rear Yard Setback Required 5 ft. N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Width Required 50 ft. ±447 ft. Met
Maximum Lot Width Required None N/A N/A
Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 70% 90%
(With Buildings G1 & G2)
Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 18 | 31
153.062(O)(3) – Building G3 – Apartment Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
Additional Semi-Pervious Lot Coverage
Permitted (Beyond Max. 70%
Impervious Coverage)
20% 1%
(With Buildings G1 & G2) Met
3. Parking Location & Loading
Parking Location Rear yard, within
building
Provided in Adjacent Parking
Structure Met
Loading Facility Permitted (location
relative to principal structure) Rear None N/A
Entry for Parking within Building
(relative to principal structure) Rear & Side Façade None Proposed N/A
(b) Height
Minimum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 2 stories 4 stories min. proposed Met
Maximum Building Height Permitted (ft.) 4.5 stories 4 stories max. proposed Met
Ground Story Height 10 ft. Minimum
14 ft. Maximum 11.33 ft. Met
Upper Story Height 10 ft. Minimum
14 ft. Maximum
11.33 ft. Min.
13.67 ft. Max. Met
(c) Uses & Occupancy Requirements
Ground Story Use Requirements Podium parking
structures are
conditional uses in
accordance with
153.059(C)(3)(g)
*Permitted by
Neighborhood
Standards
‘Dwelling, Multiple-Family uses
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 3 floors
and fully in any
basement
Parking proposed within adjacent
Parking Structure. N/A
Occupied Space Required Minimum 20 feet
depth facing street(s)
Dwelling Units occupy all street
facing facades Met
(d) Façade Requirements
1. Street Façade Transparency
Ground Story Street Facing
Transparency (%) Minimum 20%
Transparency
Dale Drive (East)
1st Story= 33%, 2nd Story=44%,
3rd Story=44%, 4th Story=36%
Tuller Ridge Road (North)
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 19 | 31
153.062(O)(3) – Building G3 – Apartment Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
1st Story= 23%, 2nd Story=31%,
3rd Story=31%, 4th Story=26%
Mooney Street (West)
1st Story= 27%, 2nd Story=43%,
3rd Story=43%, 4th Story=35%
Blank Wall Limitations Required None Met
2. Non-Street Façade Transparency
Transparency (%)
Minimum 15%
Transparency
South Facing Courtyard
2nd Story= 18%, 3rd Story=28%,
4th Story=28%, 5th Story=23%
West Facing Courtyard
2nd Story= 21%, 3rd Story=33%,
4th Story=33%, 5th Story=27%
East Facing Courtyard
2nd Story=32%, 3rd Story=32%, 4th
Story=27%
Met
Non-Street Façade Blank Wall
Limitations Required None Met
3. Building Entrances
Principal Entrance Location
Primary Street Façade
of Building
Principal Entrance is located along
north elevation facing Tuller Ridge
Drive. Additional principal
entrances are at northeast and
northwest parking structure
towers.
Met
Street Facades: Number of Entrances
Required
1 per 75 feet of
façade minimum
Dale Drive:
148.42 linear feet = 2 entrances
required, 5 provided
Tuller Ridge Drive:
213.83 linear feet = 3 entrances
required, 1 provided
Mooney Street:
148.42 linear feet = 2 entrances
required, 5 provided
Waiver
Required
Parking Lot Façade:
Number of Entrances Required Not Required N/A N/A
Mid-Building Pedestrianway
1 required for
buildings greater than
250 feet in length
Building length is ±224 feet. N/A
4. Façade Divisions
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 20 | 31
153.062(O)(3) – Building G3 – Apartment Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
Vertical Increments Required No greater than 40 ft. East Elevation: 64.54 ft. increment,
40.21 ft. increment
North Elevation: 65.63 ft., 65.04 ft.
increments
West Elevation: 64.58 ft.
increment, 40.29 ft. increment
Waivers
Required
Horizontal Facade Divisions Required
(per ft. of facade)
On buildings 3 stories
or taller, required
within 3 feet of the
top of the ground
story.
Corbeled Cast Stone Watertable
over Brick Soldier course at top of
ground story
Met
Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than 80 ft. North Elevation--84.88 ft.
continuous roof plane
Admin.
Departure
5. Façade Materials
Permitted Primary Materials Stone, Brick, Glass Brick, Stone Met
Minimum Primary Façade Materials
80%
West Elevation: 46%
Stone: 45%
Brick: 1%
North Elevation: 44%
Brick: 43%
Stone: 1%
East Elevation: 46%
Brick: 45%
Stone: 1%
Waivers
Required
Permitted Secondary Materials Glass fiber reinforced
gypsum, wood siding,
fiber cement siding,
metal and exterior
architectural metal
panels and cladding
Fiber Cement Siding Met
Facades Not Visible from Street or
Adjacent Property
Combination of
Primary and
Secondary Materials,
as determined by
required reviewing
body. Use of a
Secondary Material
for an entire façade is
not permitted
South Facing Courtyard:
Stone: 1%
Fiber Cement Siding: 68%
West Facing Courtyard:
Fiber Cement Siding: 68%
East Facing Courtyard:
Stone: 11%
Fiber Cement Siding: 60%
Required
Reviewing
Body
Determ.
Required
6.
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 21 | 31
153.062(O)(3) – Building G3 – Apartment Building
Building Type Requirements Code Requirement Provided Met?
Permitted Types Parapet, pitched roof,
flat roof; other types
may be permitted
with approval
Parapet Roofs 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
153.063(F) – Neighborhood Standards, Scioto River Neighborhood District
Code
Section Requirement Notes
Met, N/A,
Adm. Dep.,
Waiver,
Other
(4) Building Types and Uses
(c)
Ground Story Use & Occupancy Requirements. Residential, Office and all related supports
spaces including lobbies, common areas, mechanical and service uses are permitted on
the ground floor. Mechanical rooms, service areas, and other related areas shall not front
a shopping corridor.
Bridge Park Avenue is a designated shopping corridor, with minimum shopping 600
linear feet corridor length requirements met on existing blocks to the west . No
mechanical rooms, service areas, or other related spaces front onto the street.
Met
(5) Placemaking Elements
(b)
Pedestrian-Oriented Streetscape. A minimum of 12 feet of clear sidewalk width shall be
provided along designated shopping corridors through the combination of public right-of-
way and required building zone area with public access easements. Outdoor dining and
seating areas shall not be permitted within the clear area.
The minimum designated shopping corridor requirements have been met by the
existing blocks to the west along Bridge Park Avenue.
Met
(6) Open Spaces
(a) Open Space Character
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 22 | 31
153.063(F) – Neighborhood Standards, Scioto River Neighborhood District
1. A greenway connecting the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood to the BSD Sawmill Center
Neighborhood District to the east along Bridge Park Avenue is intended to create
pedestrian and bicycle connections and natural corridors from the mixed use activity
center to Sawmill Center and throughout the Bridge Street District.
The proposed Greenway is incorporated within the streetscape as an extension of
the existing cycle track and sidewalk to the west on Bridge Park Avenue. On the
east side of Dale Drive this greenway takes on a more natural character, following
an existing tree row between Sycamore Ridge and Wendy’s Headquarters toward
Sawmill Road.
Met
53.064 – 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:
86residential units are proposed,
requiring 17,200 square feet (0.39 ac.)
of open space.
Total Open Space Provision: A total of
0.45 acres of publicly accessible open
space is required, 0.58 acres are
provided as follows:
1. A 17,100 square-foot (0.39 acre)
public dog park is proposed to the
east of the site at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Dale
Drive and Tuller Ridge Drive.
2. 8,223 square feet (0.19 acres) of
publicly accessible open space are
provided on site as follows:
a. 1,382 s.f. at the southwest
corner of Building G1
b. 5,828 s.f. between Building G1
and G2
c. 785 s.f. at the northeast corner
of Building G3
d. 228 s.f. at northwest corner of
Building G3.
Met (2) Commercial.
There shall be a minimum of one square
foot of publicly accessible open space for
every 50 square feet of commercial space or
fraction thereof. Required open space shall
be located within 660 feet of the main
entrance to the commercial space as
measured along a pedestrian walkway.
Commercial Use Open Space Provision:
123,447 square feet of commercial use
is proposed requiring 2,469 square feet
of open space (0.06 acres).
(D) Suitability of Open Space
(1) The ART or 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
information, including but not limited to:
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 23 | 31
(a) The goals and objectives of the Community Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan; TBD
(b) Suitability of the space for active or passive recreational use or preservation of natural
features;
All of the public open spaces proposed on site are suitable for a range of passive
recreational uses, and the active dog park is suitably located.
There are no natural features to be preserved as part of an of the proposed open
spaces
Met
(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;
The design of the proposed on-site open spaces and their more direct connection with
the activities in the adjacent buildings is unique to Bridge Park; and there is currently
no designated public dog park in the vicinity.
Met
(d) The proximity or potential connectivity to other open space types.
The proposed dog park and on-site parks along Tuller Ridge Drive complete a series of
open space nodes linking the central greens in Greystone Mews and Sycamore Ridge to
Riverside Crossing Park.
The proposed mid-block pedestrianway connects pedestrians to the existing mid-block
pedestrianway to the west in Block C.
Met
(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.
Proposed open spaces ‘2.a, 2.c, and 2.d’, identified in (C) Provision of Open Space
above fall within this Open Space Type category based on their size, function as of
refuge along the public sidewalk, and amenities proposed.
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.
Proposed open space ‘2.b’, identified in (C) Provision of Open Space meets the intent of
this Open Space Type. It is flexible in design to respond to the needs of the users in
the immediate vicinity—both as an outdoor extension of the spaces in Building G1, and
carrying the theme of public art from Building G2 through the multi-story mural
proposed on the façade of the Parking Structure.
Met
(6) Park
Parks provide informal active and passive larger-scale recreational amenities to city
residents and visitors. Parks have natural plantings and can be created around existing
Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 24 | 31
natural features such as water bodies or tree stands. Parks can be used to define edges
of neighborhoods and districts.
Proposed open space ‘1’--the public dog park--is a unique open space type not
specifically identified the Bridge Street Code. This type of social recreation and the
programmatic design of the space makes it most similar to a Park Open Space Type.
The design is naturalistic but resilient and the proposed location defines the edge
between an existing (Sycamore Ridge) and a new neighborhood (Bridge Park). The .39
acre proposed dog park is smaller than the minimum Park size of 2 acres required by
Code.
(G) General Requirements
(1) Size
(a) Minimum Acreage/Minimum Dimension
All proposed Pocket Plazas, Pocket Parks, and Parks 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 Pocket Plazas, Pocket Parks, and Parks 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.
The proposed Pocket Park between Building G1 and G2 has a length to width
proportion of over 6:1.
Waiver
Required
(2) Access
All proposed Pocket Plazas, Pocket Parks, and Parks provide the minimum percentage
of the open space perimeter along a street or building
Met
(4) Improvements
(c) Site Furnishings
The design intent images submitted for the open spaces include thematic site
furnishings. Code requires high-quality, City-approved site furnishings, and final
furnishing specifications must be submitted prior to submitting for building permits.
Condition
of
Approval
(f) Maximum Impervious and Semi-Pervious Permitted
The materials/hardscape plans for all Pocket Plazas and Parks meet the maximum
amount of impervious and semi-impervious surface permitted within the design of each
Open Space Type.
The Pocket Park between Building G1 and Building G2 is permitted a maximum of 30%
impervious and an additional 10% semi-pervious. The amount of impervious surface is
approximately 58% of the area of the open space.
Waiver
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 25 | 31
153.065 – Site Development Standards
Code
Section
Requirement
Analysis Met?
(B) Parking and Loading
(1) General Provisions
(b) Parking Location
2. Off-site Parking. Required parking provided off-site shall be located within 600 feet of the
subject parcel as measured along a walkway from the nearest pedestrian entrance to the
parking facility to the main entrance of the use being served.
Per the proposed Parking Plan, a portion of the minimum required parking for the
proposed uses on Block G is to be met by existing parking spaces in the Block C
parking structure.
The distance from the main entrance of Building G3 to the Block C Parking Structure is
460 feet, and the distance from G1 to this parking structure is 140 feet.
Met
(Pending
Parking
Plan
Approval)
(c)
Electric Car Charging Points—Parking lots and structures are strongly encouraged to
provide at least one electric plug-in service point for every 200 parking spaces.
A total of 526 parking spaces are required, which would result in 3 electric car
charging points. 10 Electric Vehicle charging spaces are provided, evenly distributed
on the floors of the Parking Structure
Met
(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 parking.
Proposed
Use
Minimum Requirement for
Proposed Use
Max. Spaces
Permitted
Area/#
Dwelling Units
Min. Spaces
Required
Max. Spaces
Permitted
Parking
Plan
Required
Gallery 1 space per 1,000 sf of
gross floor area
125% of Min.
Required
700 gsf 1 2
Retail,
General
3 spaces per 1,000 sf of
gross floor area
125% of Min.
Required
15,210 gsf 46 58
Eating &
Drinking
10 spaces per 1,000 sf of
gross floor area
125% of Min.
Required
7,300 gsf 73 92
Office 3 spaces per 1,000 ft. of
gross floor area
125% of Min.
Required
100,237 gsf 301 376
Dwelling
Unit,
Multiple-
Family
Studio 1 per unit
2 per dwelling
unit
2 2 4
1 Bedroom 1 per unit 54 54 108
2 Bedroom 1.5 per unit 22 33 44
3 Bedroom 2 per unit 8 16 16
Total Parking Required/Permitted: 526 Spaces 701 Spaces
Total Parking Provided:
(33 On-Street, 327 in Parking Structures, *Unspecified Number of
Spaces in Existing Block C Parking Structure)
360 Spaces
Parking
Plan
Required
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 26 | 31
153.065 – Site Development Standards
Code
Section
Requirement
Analysis Met?
(c) Accessible Parking Spaces. Within the total number of off-street spaces provided, a
minimum number of accessible parking spaces shall be provided consistent with Ohio
Building Code.
Based on the proposed provision of 360 parking spaces, 8 accessible parking spaces are
required. 9 ADA spaces have been provided within the G2 Parking Structure.
Met
(3) Required Bicycle Parking
(b) Minimum Number of Spaces Required.
1. Bicycle parking shall be provided as follows:
Condition
of
Approval
A. For residential uses, one space is required for every 2 dwelling units.
86 total dwelling units are proposed, requiring 43 bicycle parking spaces.
C. For commercial uses, one space is required for every 10 required vehicular spaces.
421 vehicular spaces are required for the commercial uses, requiring 43
bicycle parking spaces.
A total of 86 bicycle spaces are required. Two bicycle parking areas are proposed
within the G2 Parking Structure, but the number of space within is not provided.
(5) Parking Structure Design
(a) Entrance/Exit Lanes
1. One entrance lane shall be required for each 300 spaces or part thereof and one exit
lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces or part thereof.
Based on 327 parking spaces in the G2 parking structure, 2 entrance lanes and 2
exit lanes are required. 2 entrance lanes and 2 exit lanes have been provided.
Met
2. Double entrance and exit lanes shall be no wider than 24 feet at the street right-of-
way.
On the west elevation, two curb cuts are located adjacent to each other. One is a
garage entrance/exit 23.5 feet in width and the other is 24.67 feet wide and
provides access to the trash room.
Met
3. No entrance or exit lanes shall be permitted directly onto a principal frontage street
except as may be permitted by the City Engineer.
Entrance and exit lanes are proposed directly onto Dale Drive, a principal frontage
street.
Met
Eng.
Determ.
Required
4. On other street frontages, only one entrance and one exit lane shall be permitted for
each 200 feet of frontage unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
G2 Parking Structure has 121.33 feet of frontage on Mooney Street, and one
entrance and exit lane.
Met
(b) Stacking Spaces. Two, 20 foot long stacking spaces are required to be provided between
the street and the entry gate, and may not encroach sidewalk or public ROW.
No entry gates are proposed in the G2 Parking Structure.
N/A
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 27 | 31
153.065 – Site Development Standards
Code
Section
Requirement
Analysis Met?
At the Mooney Street entrance, two stacking spaces are provided between the
sidewalk and the first cross drive aisle.
At the Dale Drive entrance, one stacking space is provided between the ROW and
the first cross drive aisle.
(b) Stacking Spaces. Two, 20 foot long stacking spaces are required to be provided between
the street and the entry gate, and may not encroach sidewalk or public ROW.
No entry gates are proposed in the G2 Parking Structure.
At the Mooney Street entrance, two stacking spaces are provided between the
sidewalk and the first cross drive aisle.
At the Dale Drive entrance, one stacking space is provided between the ROW and
the first cross drive aisle.
Waiver
Required
(c) Interior Circulation
1. Maximum aisle length shall not exceed 400 feet without provided a cross-aisle
Maximum aisle length is ±147 feet in the G2 Parking Structure Met
2. Cross aisles shall be a minimum of 18 feet and no greater than 24 feet in width
24-foot cross aisles are located at the ends of the rows of spaces are proposed. Met
3. A minimum ceiling clearance height of 12 feet is required where the parking structure
has street frontage, excluding the driveway opening, and the parking structure shall
be designed and constructed to allow potential occupancy of the first 20 feet of
building by a commercial or a civic/public/institutional use permitted by §153.059(B).
At the Dale Drive frontage, the Gallery space has a clear ceiling height of
approximately 16 feet. At the Mooney Drive frontage the clear ceiling height is
approximately 10 feet.
Waiver
Required
4. Design of all other parking structures and upper levels shall have a minimum ceiling
clearance height of 8.5 feet.
Upper story clear ceiling heights are approximately 8.5 feet.
Met
(d) Pedestrian Safety
1. Stairways on the parking structures perimeter shall be visible from outside of the
structure. The maximum distance between parking spaces and the nearest stairwell
shall be 200 feet.
All stairways are visible from the exterior of the structure
The maximum distance from a parking space to a stairwell is approximately 120
feet.
Met
2. At least one elevator shall be provided to serve a parking structure. The maximum
distance between any parking space and an elevator shall be 350 feet.
Two elevators are provided in Parking Structure G2, and one elevator within
Building G1 is accessible from the parking structure.
The maximum distance from a parking space to an elevator is approximately 170
feet.
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 28 | 31
153.065 – Site Development Standards
Code
Section
Requirement
Analysis Met?
3. Pedestrian flow shall be channeled through openings to permit surveillance, either by a
booth cashier or by cameras being monitored from a remote location. If 24-hour
coverage is unavailable, active techniques with security personnel may be used.
Insufficient Information Provided.
Condition
of
Approval
(7) Required Loading Spaces
(b) Location
1. Off-street loading spaces may only be located on areas of a lot that are not required to
be occupied by a principal or accessary structure.
No off-street loading spaces are indicated.
Condition
of
Approval
4. On-street parking spaces may be counted toward meeting the minimum space
requirements for a parcel as part of a required Parking Plan, provided the spaces are
of adequate size, number and availability to serve the intended delivery vehicles
without creating conflicts.
No on-street spaces are proposed for use as loading spaces.
N/A
(c) Number Required
1. The number of off-street loading spaces required is based on the size of the principal
structure, and the nature of the typical delivery vehicles required for the associated
use.
Based on the gross floor area of Building G1 a minimum of 3 loading spaces are
required. No loading spaces are indicated.
Condition
of
Approval
(d) Design
1. All off-street loading spaces shall be at least 12 feet wide and 30 feet long with a
height clearance of 14 feet, unless required reviewing body determines that typical
delivery vehicle can be accommodated with reduced dimensions.
No loading spaces are indicated.
Condition
of
Approval
(C) Stormwater Management
TBD
(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.
There are no existing trees on the site.
N/A
(c) Protected trees shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146
No Tree Survey or Tree Replacement Plan has been provided N/A
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 29 | 31
(e) Landscape Plans shall exhibit diversity in tree selection, as determined by City Forester
and Director of Parks & Open Space
The Landscape Plans do not include plant specifications.
TBD
(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. Foundation
landscaping is not required for portion of the front or corner side building façades located
within 10 feet of the front property line and where a streetscape or patio is provided.
The Landscape Plans include planting plans for foundation planting.
Met
(9) Tree Preservation
(a) General Provisions
2. Tree Preservation Plan Required
A. Applicants shall submit a Tree Preservation Plan for approval by the required
reviewing body.
No trees are present on the site.
N/A
(E) Fences, Walls and Screening
(3) Screening
(b) Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
fully screened from view at ground level on all sides and, to the extent practicable, from
adjacent buildings of similar height.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed on Buildings G1 and G3.
Building G1 incorporates a metal mechanical screen, silver in color. Screens must
incorporate one of the primary materials and colors of a street facing façade. Metal is
not a permitted primary material for the Corridor Building Type.
Building G3 mechanicals are screened behind the parapet wall integral to the building.
Waiver
Required
(c) Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment
1. All ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be incorporated within the footprint
of a principal structure or shall be fully screened from view on all sides by one of the
following options:
A. Landscape material which provides a minimum 50% year round opacity
B. A living wall or vertical garden covered with vegetation to provide a minimum
50% year-round opacity
C. A decorative wall or fence that incorporates at least one of the primary materials
and colors of the nearest wall of the principal structure.
Ground mounted mechanical equipment is proposed at the northeast corner of
Building G3 screened by landscape material and at the southeast corner of
Building G2 screened by a decorative wall.
No details have been provided for the proposed mechanical screens.
Condition
of
Approval
(d) Outdoor Waste and Storage Containers and Enclosures
1. All waste, refuse and recycling containers shall be incorporated within the footprint of
the principal structure to the maximum extent practicable. If impracticable, containers
shall be screened from view on all sides by landscaping or a decorative wall fi nished to
match the materials of the nearest wall of the principal structure and shall be fully
opaque year round.
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 30 | 31
All trash is proposed to be located within the G2 Parking Structure.
(e) Off-Street Loading Areas. Off-street loading docks or areas used for the storage and
staging of materials shall be screened from view on all sides facing a street right-of-way or
adjacent property, as practicable.
No areas for storage or staging of materials is proposed.
N/A
(F) Exterior Lighting
(6) Lighting Uniformity. Lighting across a horizontal surface shall have an average range from
one to three footcandles.
Average light levels in the Pocket Park between Buildings G1 and G2 are below 1.0
across the majority of the space.
Average light levels in the Dog Park are above 3.0 across the majority of the space.
Condition
of
Approval
(7) Light Trespass. Light generated on site shall not add more than one footcandle to
illumination levels at any point at grade level ten feet beyond the property line.
The dog park photometric plan indicates footcandle levels between 3.3 along the
property line, and where there are no existing exterior lights.
Condition
of
Approval
(8) Lighting plans. Lighting plans shall include existing lighting from streets and adjacent
buildings developed under these standards, and proposed lighting generated from light
poles and building lighting.
The photometric plan for the G1 Building does not include existing light poles along
Bridge Park Avenue
Condition
of
Approval
(G) Utility Undergrounding
(1)-(3) TBD
(H) Signs
No sign details have been submitted.
(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.
‘Block G is ±449 feet in length. A Mid-Block Pedestrianway is provided between
Buildings G2 and G1, meeting all requirements for location and design.
Met
(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.
1. Where necessary to provide adequate sidewalk width in areas expected to have
high volumes of pedestrian activity, a streetscape RBZ treatment may be required
by the required reviewing body.
Met
Planning and Zoning Commission | Thursday April 15, 2021
20-045 FDP/CU – Bridge Park East Block G
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS
Page 31 | 31
Landscape Plans have been provided including foundation planting where
required.
(b) Building Entrances: A principal building entrance shall be on any principal frontage street
or the front façade of the building.
All buildings incorporate principal building entrances.
Met
Recommendation and Conditions
Recommendation of approval with 11 conditions:
1) That the applicant provide window specifications for Building G1 for staff review prior to
submitting for permits;
2) That the applicant provide installation details for the proposed Juliet balconies on Building G3
with the building permit application;
3) That the applicant submit all proposed site furnishings associated with public open spaces for
staff review prior to submitting for permits;
4) That the applicant designate the location and quantity of required bicycle parking with the
building and/or site permit applications;
5) That the applicant verify if parking structure security techniques and surveillance will be
implemented in Building G2;
6) That the applicant provide the three required loading spaces on the site plan for staff review
prior to submitting for permits;
7) That the applicant submit details of the proposed ground mounted mechanical enclosures
with the building/site permit application;
8) That the applicant adjust the proposed site lighting plans to provide the required lighting
uniformity with the site permit application;
9) The sidewalk along Dale Drive be revised to provide a minimum of six feet of clear sidewalk
width, subject to approval of the City Engineer;
10) The applicant establish and execute a public access easement for the dog park prior to
issuance of a Site Only permit;
11) The applicant work with Staff to revise the landscape plan, as detailed in the Staff Report,
prior to submittal of a Building Permit.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 15, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Bridge Park - G Block PID: 273-012471
19-129INF Informal Review
Proposal: Construction of a 5-story residential building, a 5-story parking garage,
and a 5-story mixed-use, office building for Block G in Bridge Park.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with Mooney Street
and zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood.
Request: Informal review and feedback for a Final Development Plan under the
provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.057-153.066.
Applicant: Russel Hunter and Nelson Yoder of Crawford Hoying Development
Partners
Planning Contacts: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager and
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us; and
614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-129
RESULT: The Commission reviewed and commented on a request for a second informal feedback based
on the Commission’s comments on January 23, 2020, for the construction of three new
buildings on a ±2.29-acre block with ±105,000 square feet of office space, with ±6,200
square feet of retail and ±14,000 square feet of restaurant space. The Commission requested
the applicant provide the required amount of open space identified in the Code, and
encouraged the open space designs to be unique from previously approved Blocks.
Additionally, the Commission expressed concern with the treatment of the public realm,
particularly along Bridge Park Avenue, and requested the applicant make refinements to allow
opportunities for gathering. The Commission questioned if adequate parking was provided for
the Block and throughout Bridge Park. There was a discussion regarding the distribution of
residential unit types. The applicant requested the Commission provide specific feedback
regarding a proposed dog park. At the time, the Commission raised a number of questions
and concerns for the developer to consider in relation to the dog park design. The Commission
supported the residential building and appreciated the refinements to the other buildings.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes _____________________________________
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1A56FCE-27E0-4A0A-8AED-A4ADBBF817C6
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 15, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Call, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. and provided the following opening remarks: “Good
evening and welcome to the virtual meeting of the City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission. The Ohio
Legislature passed several emergency laws to address the pandemic, including the ability for public entities
to conduct virtual meetings. We appreciate this ability to maintain our continuity of government and will be
holding our meetings online and live streaming on YouTube until further notice. You can access the live-
stream on the City’s website. In order to submit any questions or comments during the meeting, please use
the form under the streaming video on the City’s website. Those questions and comments will be relayed to
the Commission by the meeting moderator. We welcome your comments on cases. Please provide a valid
name and address when submitting your comments, and please refrain from making any inappropriate
comments. We appreciate your patience.”
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Mark Supelak, Rebecca Call, Leo Grimes, Warren Fishman, Lance
Schneier, Jane Fox, Kristina Kennedy
Staff members present: Jenny Rauch, Claudia Husak, Thaddeus Boggs, Chase Ridge
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Call led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded to accept the documents into the record and approve the minutes
of 10-01-20 as submitted.
Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion passed 7-0]
Ms. Call stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when rezoning and
platting of property are under consideration. In such cases, City Council will receive recommendations from
the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has the final decision-making responsibility. Anyone who
intends to address the Commission on administrative cases must be sworn in.
Ms. Call swore in staff and members of the public who intended to address the Commission on this evening’s
cases.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
1. Bridge Park - G Block, PID: 273-012471, 19-129INF, Informal Review
Ms. Call stated that this case is a request for informal review and feedback for a Final Development Plan for
Block G in Bridge Park consisting of a 5-story residential building, a 5-story parking garage, and a 5-story
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 2 of 11
mixed-use office building. The site is northeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue with Mooney Street
and zoned Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood.
Staff Presentation
Site
Ms. Martin stated that the applicant is requesting informal review and feedback for the construction of three
new buildings on a ±2.29-acre block. The site is comprised of two parcels; the site along Bridge Park Avenue
is owned by the City of Dublin. The site is located within the Bridge Park development, east of the Scioto
River, and is surrounded by development -- Block F to the south; Block H to the north; Block C to the west;
and the Sycamore Ridge apartments to the east. The proposal is for a six-story building containing ±105,000
square feet of office space, ±6,200 square feet of retail and ±14,000 square feet of restaurant space at the
ground story; a 414-space parking structure; and a multi-family building containing 100 dwelling units. There
is a total of ±0.52 acres of public open space and associated site improvements.
History
On January 23, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted an Informal Review of this project,
highlighted a number of concerns, and suggested some revisions. At that time, the open space was at the
forefront of the commons. The Commission encouraged that the open space be usable, inviting and create
opportunities for gatherings, and that all the required open space be designated within the block. The
Commission encouraged that the design of Building G1-Offices be elevated from the proposed flat, linear
appearance. They also requested revisions to Building G2-Garage to incorporate architectural elements more
similar to existing garages throughout Bridge Park. The Commission expressed support of the warehouse
architectural character of Building G3-Residential, which will be located on Tuller Ridge Drive.
Layout
Block G is divided into thirds. Building G1-Mised Use/Office occupies the southern third of the site and extends
along Bridge Park Avenue from Mooney Street to Dale Drive. An open space is proposed at the corner of
Mooney Street and Bridge Park Avenue, and a divided linear open space extends along the north side of the
building. North of the linear open space and in the middle third of the site is Building G2, a parking structure.
The centrally located structure, which is unlined along Dale Drive and Mooney Street, will require the
Commission’s future consideration of a Conditional Use. Building G1 and G2 are now connected via two tower
features, bisecting the linear open space near Mooney Street. The attachment occurs at Levels 2-5 of Building
G1; a stair will provide pedestrian access from Mooney Street to Dale Drive. On the northernmost third of
the site, Building G3 is a U-shaped building that wraps the corners of Mooney Street, Tuller Ridge Drive, and
Dale Drive. This allows the private amenity area to be screened and no longer visible from Dale Drive. At the
January 23 meeting, the Commission expressed concern about the large, blank façade of the Garage adjacent
to the amenity space; that façade is no longer visible from any public right-of-way.
Changes
Previously, Building G1 was seven stories high to meet the needs of an identified office tenant. Ultimately,
that prospective tenant did not select this site; therefore, the building height has been reduced from seven
stories to six stories with 125,000 square feet. As before, restaurant and retail will be located on the ground
level along Bridge Park Avenue and at the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street. Due to the
change in Building G1, Building G2 also has been reduced from six to five stories with 414 parking spaces.
Because that amount is less than the 590 spaces required, a parking plan must be provided. The intent is
that the additional parking spaces will be provided by the parking structures in Blocks B and C. The two
tower features on the south and north ends of the façade facing Mooney Street will provide architectural
transition to the adjacent buildings. Building G3 is a U-shaped building that wraps the corners of Mooney
Street, Tuller Ridge Drive, and Dale Drive. The previous L-shaped, 4-story, 42-unit multifamily building has
been revised to 100 units. Previously, the L-shaped building had a private amenity area visible to Dale Drive,
a principal frontage street. The revised configuration reduces the private amenity area from .25 acres to .19
acres, and it will be screened, no longer visible from Dale Drive. In order to provide the total required open
space of .529 acres, the applicant has proposed a .39-acre dog park in addition to the .19-acre private
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 3 of 11
amenity space. Part of the space will complete the required amount for Block G; the remainder will be
designated to a future block of development. Conceptual layouts of the open spaces are provided. The dog
park will be bisected by a curvilinear fence to separate the small and large dogs, with a double gate entry
located at the southwest corner of the park. Artificial turf is proposed in the high traffic entry area. Because
the park will be publicly accessible, not an exclusive Bridge Park District amenity, it will receive significant
use. Staff has provided the following questions to assist the Commission in its discussion:
1) Does the layout of Block G effectively integrate with the surrounding development?
2) Is the proposed architectural character for each of the three buildings complementary to the
existing Corridor Buildings and Parking Structures in Bridge Park?
3) Do the landscape and open space plans provide an adequate amount of open space, enough
variety of open space, and sufficient quality and activation of public spaces?
4) Other considerations by the Commission.
Applicant Presentation
Russell Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Suite 500, Dublin, OH 43017, stated that he has no
presentation but is available to answer questions.
Public Comments
There were no public comments.
Commission Questions
Ms. Fox stated that the open space for the dog park is not actually within this Block, which she believes is
required by the Code.
Ms. Martin responded that the Code requires that the designated open space be within 660 feet of the
entrance of any building on the block, which is the case with this block.
Ms. Husak stated that the distance of this dog park is within the Code-required distance.
Ms. Fox inquired how the proposed tunnel connection would affect the pocket park.
Ms. Husak noted that Mr. Hunter would respond to that question.
Ms. Fox inquired if any significant changes had been made in response to the concerns raised by the
Commission at the January 23 review, such as usable open space and parking structure design.
Ms. Martin responded that those items were addressed in the staff report. However, the open space within
the block remains in essentially the same configuration, regarding which staff has expressed some concerns.
Ms. Husak noted that Mr. Hunter would provide additional detail s on the changes that were made in response
to the concerns expressed by the Commission.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the parking plan could be discussed at this point.
Ms. Husak stated that staff has discussed the parking. There are questions regarding whether the Code
requires too much parking, as Blocks B and C parking garages are experiencing a significant level of
vacancies. In view of that, staff is not concerned about the proposed number of parking spaces.
Ms. Kennedy stated that she likes the dog park proposal, but who would be responsible for its maintenance?
Ms. Martin responded that Crawford Hoying would own and maintain the dog park, as they do all their public
open spaces.
Mr. Grimes stated that he is interested in the number of requir ed parking spaces versus what exists and what
will be needed in the future. His experience is that there is an abundance of available parking within that
area. When must the parking plan be submitted?
Ms. Martin responded that the parking plan would be submitted with the Final Development Plan (FDP).
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 4 of 11
Mr. Grimes referred to a comment in the staff report regarding potential degradation of the dog park due to
its proposed size. If over-utilized, even the best-maintained spaces would deteriorate. What is an acceptable
size and location peripheral to this type of development?
Ms. Martin responded that the BSD Code does not have an open space category for a dog park; however,
the City Landscape Architect does have prior experience in the development of municipal dog parks. His
experience is that dog parks that divide the space for different dog sizes generally need to be larger than
dog parks that permit the sizes to be mixed. His recommendation was for a minimum of 1.0 acre, particularly
if natural turf would be utilized. From time to time, certain sections of the dog park would need to be closed
to care for the turf. For smaller dog parks, artificial turf is recommended. Due to the demand in this area,
significant use is anticipated.
Ms. Husak stated that, due to size limitations, the dog park might not serve as an exercise area but more as
a relief area. The limited size and intent to divide the space for small versus large dogs are concerns.
Mr. Fishman stated that the dog park on Linworth Road is four times the size proposed here, and is often
crowded and noisy. He is also concerned about the proposed parking. With the opening of the North Market,
Bridge Park will become busier; the area will be similar to the Short North and German Village. He would like
to ensure sufficient parking space is provided for those future needs. Because it is difficult to add more
parking later, he would prefer to be overbuilt than underbuilt.
Ms. Martin stated that the BSD Code requires high parking ratios for its residential areas. The number of
residential units in Building G3 increased from 42 to 100, and that increase is reflected in the parking space
requirement. However, the reduction in size of the Office building will reduce the parking needs for that
structure. Currently, 590 spaces are required; 414 are provided in the Garage, and 31 are reflected as on-
street parking spaces for a total of 445 parking spaces in Block G.
Ms. Husak pointed out that the BSD Code parking requirements for residential developments are based on
the number of bedrooms. In retrospect, that probably is not the best methodology for determining parking
needs. Third bedrooms often are used as offices. A future Code revision likely would not provide that
methodology. The anticipation was that the District would be less reliant on car owners than development
in the other areas of the City. Staff is not concerned with the proposed parking.
Mr. Fishman stated that it should be assumed that two adults living in a one-bedroom unit would have two
cars. Does the applicant regulate the number of people living in the units, based on its size and number of
bedrooms?
Mr. Hunter responded that he is not sure, legally, they can restrict tenants in how they use their apartments.
However, Crawford Hoying has studied the parking situation in Bridge Park extensively, particularly Blocks B
and C. The parking garages in those blocks provide nearly 900 parking spaces. Their experience has been
that at maximum usage, less than half of those spaces have been used, leaving more than 400 parking
spaces empty during peak hours. The Code attempted to predict the shared residential versus office usage,
i.e., as residents enter the parking garage, office users are leaving. However, the garages are not being used
to the extent anticipated. They are confident that the number of parking spaces proposed for this block will
be more than needed. All of those numbers will be included in the parking plan that will be provided with
the FDP.
Ms. Fox inquired if G3 had been revised from an L shape to a U shape to enable more residential units to be
included. What was the reason the visible open space from Dale Drive was closed?
Mr. Hunter responded that there was more than one reason. With the previous design, the units were for
sale; these units are apartments. During the previous review, the Commission expressed concerns about the
private pool amenity being exposed on the east side. The fact that the Office building was made narrower
increased the size of the open space. There was an opportunity to make the Residential structure wider and
wrap it around to connect to the parking structure at both ends, thereby improving the residents’ access to
their vehicles.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 5 of 11
Ms. Fox stated that she is very surprised that the open space, which was a previous concern, has been
further reduced. In addition, the earlier inspirational images of Building G1 were much more unique and
interesting. The open space on the corner near the restaurant use is very small.
Mr. Hunter agreed that the corner space is spartan, but the proposed water feature there should add some
interest. There is a need to keep the space flexible for the tenants’ use and to add interest, but it does need
some work. In contrast, the open space between G1 and G2 will be the most usable open space they have
included in Bridge Park. Creating a stair in the grade toward the west will make it more usable. That space
is poised to be something different. While there is work to do on the open spaces, there is also opportunity
to make them unique to Bridge Park and Dublin. The proposed dog park is responsive to Bridge Park
residents’ pet needs. Currently, the number of residential units in the District that are allowed to have pets
is restricted, including weight restrictions. The reorientation of the roads has created a strange space
between Dale Drive and Sycamore Ridge. This has provided the opportunity to meet this need not only for
Bridge Park residents, but the neighboring residential communities, as well. They are evaluating the design
of that space with City staff in terms of the use of artificial turf and a division for large vs. small dogs. The
developer will be responsible for maintenance of the park.
Ms. Fox inquired about the internal service tunnel next to the pocket park. What interest will attract people
into that park, and how would a service tunnel impact that space?
Mr. Hunter responded that the tunnel will be located behind the stairs and not visible. The grand stair
connection from the smaller pocket park at Mooney Street next to the Office building entrance will be a climb
of 20 feet into an outdoor space above. The tunnel is built into that grade and will connect the lower level
retail/commercial tenants to the interior of the Garage, where the trash compactors are located. The tunnel
will not be visible to the public.
Ms. Fox inquired the width of the pocket park.
Mr. Hunter responded that it is approximately 32 feet in width.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Schneier stated that the dog park would be either a wonderful amenity or a bad idea; however, both the
applicant and staff will be focusing on its configuration. In regard to the parking spaces -- basing the Code
requirements on number of bedrooms does not make sense. He shares the belief that there will be less cars
in the future.
Mr. Fishman stated that he remains concerned about the parking; however, the staff and applicant argument
makes sense. He agrees that the proposed dog park could be either a bad idea or great amenity. Presently,
some dog parks within the City are minor nightmares. People other than Bridge Park residents would use
that space, and many of the residents in the Sycamore Ridge units have pets. The proposed configuration
of the dog park would need to be improved.
Ms. Fox referred to contextual photos/views of Bridge Park areas that she has provided for the discussion.
As the blocks are further developed, the holistic view of the public realm is very important -- how the buildings
invigorate the street and how placemaking is used in the open space to invite people to linger.
[Commissioners viewed photographs.] If something different is not done to create a much more interesting
street face, it will continue to be a walk around the base of buildings. Pedestrians are craving places to stop
and linger, but that is not happening here. The revision of Bui lding G3 to a U-shape has completely eliminated
the previous view into the greenspace, making it entirely private. The only public spaces that remain are
corner patches of grass in which no one will stop and linger. The corridor pocket parks are nice, but there
are not enough. Because these buildings are so complex, the Commission needs architectural advice to help
understand and describe what is missing. With Building G1, there is very little difference between the floors.
The first floor must have movement and interest, and the front entries should be inviting. There should be
more greenspace areas for restaurant users and to create vitality along the street. Currently, the buildings
are flat-faced and linear with a small amount of positive/negative space, and no interesting public realm is
being created. There are only a couple of blocks remaining in Bridge Park, and this block is already
encroaching into the right-of-way, which the City Engineer has identified as an issue. This design requires
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 6 of 11
much more work. The earlier inspirational images were much more fascinating. In comparison, there is much
more interest in the Short North and in the Arena District, whe re the first floor street views make pedestrians
want to stop. Not enough of that occurs at the first floor level with the proposed plan. The parking garage
is a huge structure in the midsection of the block that has no interest whatsoever – only a view of many
cars. She is very concerned about the public realm. What Bridge Park is providing is a large amount of
concrete, masonry and glass and nothing to counter balance it. She is dissatisfied with the proposed design.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if Ms. Fox was indicating a need for more greenspace or for more usable greenspace.
Ms. Fox responded that more of both is needed. The Bridge Street District Vision Principles expressed an
intent for placemaking, the creation of interesting and distinctive destinations that attract people and
encourage special interaction. That is happening on Longshore Street, due to the fact that the street has
been closed off and an artificial public realm created. However, if that were taken away, there would be flat-
faced buildings with little interest at the first level. Usable greenspace is provided next to Dublin Fado and
the Hen’s Quarter, but the very small corner greenspace in this design is unusable. In addition, the
streetscape should provide an interesting walk, not just a view into glass facades. There is nothing here on
the streets that would make one want to walk them, only walls of masonry. The intent is to have places that
provide for social gatherings. The layout should be more flexible with a focus on retail rather than a view
into parking spaces, and it should provide an invitation to the residents to come out and socialize. The intent
of the Bridge Park District was to focus on the public realm, and it is the responsibility of the site designer
and architects to make that happen. That is not happening here; rather, the buildings are pushed all the way
to the outer edges, entirely ignoring the public realm. Therefore, she is not interested in talking about the
architecture, as the design is so in need of a better public realm.
Ms. Kennedy stated that one of the discussion questions was if the proposed design integrated with the
surrounding buildings in a complementary manner. She believes it does, as Bridge Park is a contemporary
modern style, which the renderings appear to match. In regard to the open space between G1 and G2, there
is potential to create a secret garden feel in the space. Because the open space needs to be more usable,
more refinement is needed.
Mr. Grimes stated that there are many rooftops and unused parking decks, which perhaps could be utilized
to meet some of the usable outdoor space needs of the Bridge Street residents. Other than the open space
considerations, he believes the proposed structures integrate with the District. He likes the changes made
since the previous review, but the design needs additional refinements.
Mr. Supelak stated that this is a good project, and often, good projects are criticized because there is interest
in meeting its potential. He believes the proposed dog park offers both opportunity and risk. He applauds
the massing change of Building G3. Along the façade, there is some “push/pull” in the architecture. He had
an earlier issue with the corner balconies, which felt like added scaffolding; those are better integrated in
this design. He has no issue with the proposed U shape and no c oncern with the proposed number of parking
spaces. In his previous comments, he shared concerns about the north and south facades of the garage.
They are large, outward-facing billboards, and there is opportunity to provide something better than
perforated panels facing the G1 building and the pocket park. While some efforts have been made with the
G1 architecture, it is not sufficiently effective. Although mullions and fins provide movement reminiscent of
the inspiration images shared with the first design, more interest in the facades is necessary. It is a good
building with a potential to add more interest, particularly with G1. He believes the previous recommendation
of Ms. Newell to “spin” Building G1 was very compelling. Having one building turn in a quirky manner to the
rest of the streetscape could accomplish an interesting opportunity for a corner pocket park that opens to
the pass-through park behind it. He likes the secret garden opportunity at the top of the stairs, but an
interesting amenity should be added. Such ideas would turn the pass-through places into destination places
with a personality and presence that distinguishes them from the other parks. He recommends adding the
missing visual layer of street trees, tables with canopies and pedestrian silhouettes to help the Commission
“feel” the space. In summary, we all recognize the opportunity to make Block G really great and much more
inviting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2020
Page 7 of 11
Ms. Call stated that she agrees with Mr. Supelak regarding the suggestion Ms. Newell made during the
previous review for adding “more” to the layout. She agrees with Mr. Fishman regarding the parking. In
retrospect, parking probably should not be based on the number of bedrooms, but because of the number
of one-bedroom units proposed, the numbers probably would not be much different if calculated in the
standard manner. She also agrees with other Commissioners concerning the need to improve the .39-acre
dog park -- the size as well as the turf material. Consistent with the expectation for this area, the architectural
character has an urban character. Ms. Fox offered good points about providing more open space within the
block. Previously, Mr. Hunter indicated that the open space design would provide an urban environment
with a backyard quality; that is not present with this design. Finally, the density and intensity in a
development like this is important. She was disappointed to see that the previous 42-unit proposal had been
replaced with 100 units, 77 of which are 445-square foot, one-bedroom units, which is a preponderance of
intensity and density! Although this area is the right place fo r higher density, it must be a “platinum” package.
That is not what is proposed.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant needed any additional clarification of the Commission’s positions.
Mr. Hunter responded that no clarification is needed. He believes the development of the blocks within Bridge
Park has gradually improved, and the same will occur with Block G.
Ms. Fox stated that she would like to see Bridge Park become a timeless place that people want to visit.
Along Longshore Street, there are some fun entrances, such as Cap City, but on every street there should
be places that cause people to stop and take another look. She urges them to pay attention to the first level.
Every 50-60 feet, there should be something that captures the public’s interest. If that does not occur, this
will be a place that people want to avoid at night, rather than linger. Outdoor spaces are needed more than
ever, and it is essential to create a timelessness in this area.
Ms. Supelak stated that what she is referring to is the “destination” quality of the design. Some of that will
occur with the tenants. As long as the design provides the ability for the tenants to add their unique flair at
the street level, that layer will come in time.
Mr. Hunter responded that is the number one lesson they learned as they developed Bridge Park. With the
beginning blocks, the storefront was included upfront. What that meant, however, was that the tenants
would be unlikely to replace them, as they would incur additional cost. With the exception of a few, including
Cap City, the businesses did not do so. They no longer provide the storefronts in the beginning. Instead,
opportunity is provided for the tenants to differentiate their space, and that will occur here.
Nelson Yoder, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Suite 500, Dublin, OH 43017, stated that after the
previous review, their team studied the Commission’s input and attempted to provide the requested unique
greenspaces. That effort resulted in the flat open space betwee n the Office and Garage buildings, where turf
and an opportunity for an outdoor meeting space now is provided. They also are considering the possibility
of including a water feature at the corner of Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street. Adding the dog park
will meet or potentially exceed the open space requirement. With four-sided architecture buildings, the
service/loading area typically occurs at the back door, which in this case opens into the public realm. They
considered that situation for some time and came up with the unique solution of providing an underground
access beneath the open space via an interior service corridor. This type of evolution within Bridge Park
achieves the “next level” in details, a platinum experience. Finally, the 445-square-foot one-bedroom units
offer WiFi-control opportunities. They appreciate the Commissio n’s input, and look forward to meeting again
soon.
The Commission thanked the applicants for their presentation.
2. Heartland Bank, 6500 Frantz Road, 20-139PDP, Preliminary Development Plan
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 9 of 15
Ms. Newell stated that she agrees that the revised plan has lost something from the original plan
provided with the Informal Review. At that time, she was generally supportive of the project.
With the Bridge Street Code, the purpose of a signage package is to permit more creative signage
when it is done exceptionally well. However, the original plan was more consistent with the intent
of the Bridge Street Code. This application teeters on being just a request for more signage,
lacking the creativity presented at the Informal Review. She does not have any objection to logos,
as they can be more discreet than and just as identifiable as a sign with many letters on a building.
There is also the issue of losing landscaping that will not be fully replaced on site. At the
applicant’s request, this application could be tabled to permit revision, or the Commission could
vote tonight on the application as is. She inquired the applicant’s preference.
Mr. Boggs provided clarification of the applicant’s choices.
Mr. Todd requested that the application be tabled.
Ms. Call moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to table Case #2.
Vote: Mrs. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0.]
1. Bridge Street District, G Block, Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive, 19-129INF
Informal Review
Ms. Newell stated that this a request for an Informal Review and feedback for a potential
development application in Block G consisting of a 4-story condominium building, a 6-story
parking garage, and a 7-story, mixed-use building. The site is northeast of the intersection of
Bridge Park Avenue and Mooney Street.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Husak stated that this is a request for an Informal Review of an additional block of
development within the overall Bridge Park development. Block G is the subject of this proposal.
Following the Planning and Zoning Commission’s review of the Basic Plan on September 20, 2018,
Council approved the Basic Plan for Block G, along with certain waivers, at their October 22, 2018
meeting. Tonight, the applicant is requesting an Informal Review of the proposed development.
Upon consideration of the Commission’s non-binding Informal Review, the applicant may proceed
with formal applications for Preliminary and Final Development Plans.
The site is located on the north side of Bridge Park Avenue between Dale Drive and Mooney
Street, south of Tuller Ridge Drive. The proposal consists of three new buildings on the
approximately 2.29-acre block. Building G-1 is a seven-story office building located on the south
end of the block and fronting Bridge Park Avenue, Dale Drive and Mooney Street. At the center
of the site, Building G-2 is a six-story, 468-space parking garage. Building G-3 is a four-story,
multi-family residential building, attached to the parking garage at Mooney Street and fronting
Tuller Ridge Drive. The residential building would contain 42 dwelling units and include a.25-acre
private amenity space with a pool. A total of 0.47 acres of open space and associated site
improvements are distributed throughout the site (.22-acre public open space and .25 acres of
private amenity space for Building G3).
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 10 of 15
One of the Code waivers Council approved was to permit the office building to be seven stories,
rather than limited to six stories, per Code. It is anticipated that there will be a single tenant for
this building, which will have 145,000-sq. feet of office space; 11,000 sq. feet of retail; 6,100 sq.
feet of restaurant space and office lobby space. [Building details and drawings of elevations
presented.]
Commission Questions
Mr. Supelak stated that a significant amount of history was provided on this case but it did not
contain the inspirational images shown with the Basic Plan. Are these images the same as those
earlier images?
Ms. Husak responded that they are not. The earlier images were only inspirational images for G
Block. With Basic Plan reviews, the intent is to address the streets, lots and blocks, building
locations and potential uses in the buildings. Without accessing and comparing the earlier images
with those provided for this meeting, she does not know if they are the same.
Ms. Fox stated that the plan indicates a 5-ft. sidewalk along Dale Drive. Currently, there is no
sidewalk along that road. As Bridge Park develops, there is already a sense that the sidewalks
are narrow given the volume of activity anticipated on them. A 5-ft. sidewalk on Dale Drive would
seem to indicate that no activity is anticipated there, but does the overall plan indicate a greater
sidewalk width for that area?
Ms. Husak stated that all the frontage of F and G Blocks is along Dale Drive. Although public
sidewalks are provided with the projects as a temporary solution for pedestrian connectivity, it
appears that, ultimately, a public project will be necessary to make Dale Drive a Bridge Street
District street. That future project would require significant increases in the width of the right-of-
way along the street.
Mr. Supelak stated that previous Council discussion included in the history does refer to the intent
to improve the condition of Dale Drive. It is a side street, that because of this development, it
may become an arterial.
Ms. Husak responded that it would require significant improvement to make it consistent with the
approved street types in the Bridge Street District. Currently, no funding has been identified for
that project.
Ms. Husak displayed the inspirational images of the buildings that were shown with the Basic Plan
Review.
Ms. Call stated that the staff report indicated that this proposal does not meet open space
requirements, but there has been consideration for where that could be provided elsewhere. She
is concerned about “kicking the can down the road,” as, often, the proposed accommodation does
not occur. Have there been discussions about how to meet the open space requirements within
this parcel?
Ms. Husak responded that detailed conversations on that topic have not yet occurred. The
discussion has been limited to fees in lieu of, and only a small amount of open space would be
required. There is also the potential of using those fees for activating other areas of Bridge Park
with excess open space, such as Tuller Flats.
Ms. Call clarified that she is not opposed to using fee in lieu of for already developed open space.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 11 of 15
Ms. Fox inquired the distance along Mooney Street from the south end of Building G2 to the north
end of Building G3.
Ms. Husak stated that the applicant indicates it is approximately 270 feet.
Mr. Fishman stated that he agrees with Ms. Call’s concern about “kicking the can” to a later date.
He does not like the “in lieu of” provision. He would prefer that the open space requirement be
provided within the respective blocks, if possible.
Mr. Supelak stated that in the history, concerns were expressed about a curbcut on Dale for the
parking lot. Would that involve a condition or a waiver?
Ms. Husak responded that it would be neither. It is approved by the City Engineer. In regard to
the open space issue – the amount of the shortage of open space in this Block is 0.04 acres, or
approximately 1,500 sq. feet.
Ms. Fox inquired if the applicant has worked with staff regarding the design.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Applicant Presentation
Russell Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin stated that the proposal was short
of open space in the Basic Review site plan, because the multifamily requirements were higher.
That has been reduced with this plan, so the plan will closely meet the open space requirement
in this Block. Those lines will continue to shift as the plan proceeds to the Final Site design. Their
team includes architects new to the Bridge Park project, consistent with their overall intent to add
variety in the architectural style. In regard to the G1 office building -- they, along with the City of
Dublin, are competing for a high-profile tenant. The prospective tenant requires 140,000 sq. feet,
so the building is larger than they would have constructed without this specific tenant in mind.
Many of the decisions made in this design process reflect the effort to secure that tenant. They
anticipate knowing that prospective tenant’s decision before the final decisions are made for the
office building. In regard to parking, Building G2 will not have the capacity to support the G1
office building. It is difficult to make accurate decisions regarding the amount of parking to
provide, and in Blocks B and C, they built too much parking. With the Final Site Plan for G Block,
they will be providing an analysis for shared parking for the overall site.
Commission Discussion
Ms. Call inquired if the prospective office tenant is working with an internal or external site
selector.
Mr. Hunter responded that they are working with an external site selector.
Ms. Call inquired if this project is competing with other greenfield or with existing buildings.
Mr. Hunter responded that they are uncertain with whom they are competing.
Ms. Call inquired if the prospective tenant were to select another site, would the applicant return
with a proposal for a reduced-size building.
Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively.
Ms. Call stated that due to the minimal size, she has no objection to accommodating the 0.04
acres of open space elsewhere. Does the proposed height of the G2 parking structure reflect their
observations regarding the other over-sized parking structures?
Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. They have proposed what they believe will be appropriate.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 12 of 15
Ms. Call noted that she is a proponent of over parking a site versus under parking, because
infusing more cars on the streets is not desirable. With the G1 building, the current rendering for
the building is less attractive than that shown with the Basic Plan Review. The inspirational
drawing appears to have more articulation and a mix of materials for the balconies. Have other
materials or designs been considered?
Mr. Supelak stated that in building an urban center, there will be some background buildings and
some signature buildings, such as the AC Hotel. The G1 Building has the potential to be a
signature building, as well. The height variable alone adds interest to the building. However, the
renderings of the elevations do not appear to do it justice. The larger gestures on the architecture
are good, but if this will be a signature building, there is opportunity to add more interest in the
design. The elevations of the G2 Building leave much to be desired, as well. Two of the facades,
in particular, will be experienced in the public space or the private pool area. On those facades,
there is opportunity to create a more attractive design through use of materials or adding
greenspace next to it. They are large walls, so some aesthetic sensitivity would be important. The
architecture of Building G3 is good. The transition in materials from the brick to the paneling
system can be done well or poorly. It would be important to make sure those materials are offset,
adding relief to the massing. Turning the corner of the building to the street side, the top of the
building is flat the entire way. If the Code permits it, providing different masses in certain locations
could alleviate that.
Ms. Fox stated that she likes the fact that Building G1 is more unique, but prefers the way in
which the inspirational drawings broke up the mass. Although one elevation in the current
renderings is interesting, the other elevations are essentially linear. If possible, adding a curved
element to the front would be attractive. Everything else in the District appears to rectangular,
with strong lines and sharp corners, so making a change in the shapes and forms and including
some softness in the signature piece would add interest. The G1 Building has opportunity to
provide more of that. She likes the restaurant and retail uses on the bottom level, but there is
only a 40-ft. by 20-ft. patio. This building is next to some residential development. It is difficult
to achieve street activity with such narrow sidewalks, so we are dependent upon the greenspaces,
much of which appear to be essentially through chutes or byways. When there is opportunity on
the corner, with a building such as this, to create a space sufficiently large for some placemaking
– that will make the building more interesting and activate the street. There is opportunity to
create more liveliness there, especially since the private space next to it will never be utilized by
the public. She would like to see more front door invitation to Building G1. In regard to Building
G2, she would prefer not to see a parking garage next to a residential building. If possible, the
two buildings should blend and the appearance of the parking garage be more disguised. She
would discourage mimicking Block D; there is opportunity here for architecture not seen
elsewhere in the District. As proposed, the building looks like a 1970s parking garage.
Mr. Hunter stated that G block is much narrower than many of the other blocks. When designing
a parking garage, a slope of 6.6 percent cannot be exceeded. If the garage were compressed
more, the ramps would exceed that Code allowance.
Ms. Fox inquired if the parking garage could be hidden behind the residential building.
Mr. Hunter responded that turning the building 90 degrees would impact the developability of
Block G. This is a very challenging block, because it is “pinched” in the middle. However, this
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 13 of 15
parking garage is significantly shorter along the road than the other parking garages in the
District. It is 120 feet in length; the parking garage in Block C, for example, is 300 feet in length.
Ms. Fox suggested that, aside from the ingress/egress opening on the ground floor, the other
openings should be disguised so that the walkway does not appear to lie past an open parking
garage. She encouraged them to make the walk past the building more inviting. In regard to
Building G3 – she is not enthusiastic about repetition of the loft idea in the District. In addition,
she would be interested in seeing some architecture that appeared to have evolved more naturally
in the area. Otherwise, one loft building has nothing different to offer from the others. In regard
to the uninviting greenspaces, essentially byways, she would like to see the configurations of
those spaces be made more unique and inviting. In urban cities that have evolved naturally, there
are square greenspaces and round greenspaces. In these blocks, the spaces squeezed between
buildings are essentially the same.
Ms. Newell stated that she understands that they have a premier client for whom they are
attempting to achieve as much square footage as possible with a 7-story building. However, a 7-
story building located on the hill will be more prominent than anticipated. Therefore, she has no
objection to the height of the parking garage, as it will help offset the scale of the office building.
When comparing the earlier, inspirational images with the current images, the inspirational
images depicted a significant amount of positive and negative space, or recesses, on the
elevations. The ground and the upper floors were not “box-like” because of the many changes in
the facades -- unlike the building images provided for this meeting. The entry feature is attractive,
which will make that elevation interesting, but the other facades appear flat, lacking depth, with
no accentuation of positive and negative spaces. The top floor is consistent with the bottom floor.
Due to the height of this building, they may want to consider treating the upper floor differently
than the ground floor. The greenspaces should be public spaces. She appreciates the desire to
provide a private pool for the residential building, but that will eliminate some public greenspace.
She has studied the site, looking for a way in which to improve that condition. Perhaps there is
the opportunity to skew Building G1, thereby increasing the amount of usable greenspace
between Buildings G1 and G2. Building G2 clearly looks like a parking garage. To date, all of the
parking garages with Bridge Park have been treated uniquely; however, this parking garage has
not been treated artistically. She assumes they can come up with something more creative for
that huge brick wall. In regard to Building G3, the plans do not provide much detail. She has no
objection to the building being all brick, as presented, as long as the brick detailing is very
attractive – projections and reveals, etc. She recalls an earlier statement regarding the
inspirational images that one of the buildings was mimicked after an industrial building, which is
a style she appreciates. The mullions on the residential building are too consistent. Building G3
could be a good candidate for the industrial look.
Mr. Fishman stated that when the Bridge Street Code originally was developed, the consultants
discussed at length the intent to have variations in architecture and to have open space/gathering
opportunities. He finds it disappointing that this site will fall short of meeting the open space
requirement. He enjoys visiting the Bridge Street Corridor, but has noted the narrow pass-through
areas, and is concerned that in 20 years, those narrow pathways will provide an opportunity for
graffiti and crime. That has been the experience of similar older neighborhoods. It is important
to ensure that the quality of the area, including its greenspace, endures for many years. He does
not object to an all-brick building, as long as the brick design incorporates variations and has
character. In summary, his concerns are that sufficient public greenspace and gathering spots be
provided and that there are variations in the architecture.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2020
Page 14 of 15
Ms. Call stated that the purpose of open space is for the public’s view and experience. Using open
space for a private pool is inconsistent with the purpose of open space.
Mr. Fishman stated that is his concern, as well. While providing some private space is necessary
to sell the condominiums, a pool would do nothing for the aesthetics and feel of the entire area.
Mr. Hunter stated that he has always viewed this issue as the difference between a front yard
and a backyard. As was noted, some amenities are necessary to sell these condominiums but
here, that space is rather small. If this space were to become a public space, there would be
strangers outside the residents’ rear windows. A balance is necessary, and they have tried to
provide both public and private spaces. Private amenities do not count toward open space
requirements, whether they are on the ground or in the air. There are many private open spaces
on different floors of the buildings throughout Bridge Park. If Bridge Park were to be viewed from
the top down, much more greenspace is seen than that located at the ground level. Their goal is
to give the residents opportunities to have backyards, while living in an urban environment.
Ms. Call inquired if the private pool was not factored into the required open space for this Block.
Ms. Husak responded that it was not. The open space plan differentiates the private versus
publicly accessible open spaces.
Mr. Fishman stated that the Commission’s concern is the public open space – those areas that
create the “feel” for the site. Instead of pass-throughs, there should be areas that invite people
to gather and mingle.
Ms. Fox clarified that open space can be a plaza or square, not just greenspace. In Historic Dublin,
people sit on benches next to a sidewalk and enjoy ice cream -- that is placemaking. There could
be opportunities along the perimeter of the G1 Building or with the front porches of the G3
Building to create interest at the street level, surrounded by natural materials. Simply benches
providing a place to have a morning coffee would activate the street without requiring much
space. The desire is to eliminate the homogenous feel of these urban streets that have no
welcoming character outside the front door. This can involve simply finding ways to provide
comfortable spots for people to sit and stay a short time.
Mr. Fishman stated that in Historic Dublin, people congregate in areas separated from the
sidewalk to have ice cream, use electronic devices and chat. These pocket gathering areas are
very popular. That is what was envisioned when the Bridge Street Code was developed --
assurance that there would be pocket parks everywhere in the District.
Ms. Newell stated that it would not be that difficult to accomplish in this Block. For instance, if
the pool house were to be recessed further toward the pool, moving it out of alignment with the
garage face, it would gain back some of the missing greenspace and create a nice gathering
space without affecting the private space. Eliminating a row of lounge chairs and shifting the pool
back slightly would not affect the goal of the development. Such little tweaks would result in
something more spectacular.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 5, 2015
4. BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District – Bridge Park Mixed-Use Development
15-002PP Riverside Drive and West Dublin-Granville Road
Preliminary Plat
The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a proposal for a Preliminary Plat that includes new
public streets and nine blocks for development for a 30.9-acre site for a new mixed-use development at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Riverside Drive and West Dublin-Granville Road. She said the
Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on this request.
Rachel Ray gave a brief summary of the City’s review process. She explained the Preliminary Plat is the
first step in the subdivision of land and dedication of right-of-way (ROW) for public improvements. She
listed the review criteria. She said plats in the Bridge Street District (BSD) require very close coordination
with the BSD zoning regulations and the applicable Development and Site Plans.
Ms. Ray presented an overall BSD area map and pointed out the site’s location. She presented the map
from the Thoroughfare Plan and Community Plan that showed the major streets to which this plat must
coordinate. She said the grid street network with nine development blocks, five new public streets, and a
future mixed-use shopping corridor were part of the Basic Development Plan that was approved by City
Council on January 20, 2015. She said the Preliminary Plat is a technical analysis of the subdivision of land
and dedication of rights-of-way. She explained the Preliminary Plat identifies where new ROW is proposed
to be dedicated to the City, and in this case, where some land is currently controlled by the City that would
be incorporated into the new lots. She added the details of this arrangement will be determined through
the development agreement, and presented a graphic showing how the ROW reconfigurations are
proposed. She presented a slide showing where the existing east/west portion of Dale Drive will be vacated,
and the new Bridge Park Avenue will become the new east/west street segment, in addition to the other
new proposed streets. She presented a slide showing where there is reconfiguration of the ROW at the
intersection of John Shields Parkway and Riverside Drive.
Ms. Ray stated that a condition of approval for this application is that City Council approves a plat
modification for the requirement that rights-of-way lines at street intersections must be connected with a
straight line tangent. She presented a slide that diagrams this condition.
Ms. Ray said street sections are the other major element included with the Preliminary Plat, which show all
of the elements that are to be provided within the ROW. She explained that in an urban environment, the
line separating the public ROW from private property is much harder to discern and is preferred for the
overall area to be considered public realm (the spaces between the building façades on each side of the
street); this includes the vehicular and pedestrian realms but they are much more closely related. She
indicated the vehicular realm is entirely within the public ROW, but the ROW overlaps the pedestrian realm,
and beyond the ROW is private property, where dimensions can vary depending on where the building is
situated. In a successful urban environment, she said a pedestrian walking along the street should not be
able to tell where the ROW line is; it should feel seamless.
Ms. Ray said the other hallmark of a great urban street is how well it is framed by buildings. She said the
narrower the space between the building façades, the more comfortable it is from a pedestrian standpoint.
She said once the buildings faces get too far apart, the street starts to feel too wide open and suburban.
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Page 2 of 6
She stated it is important to make sure the public realm includes just the right amount of pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular elements to maintain this delicate balance from an urban design standpoint.
Ms. Ray said on Bridge Park Avenue, which is part of the BSD Cycle Track Bicycle Network, the pedestrian
realm is a little different than all of the other street sections. She said there are five-foot at-grade tree
pavers, a five-foot cycle track, and a five-foot sidewalk at the edge of the ROW. She explained the 5 -30
feet of additional space provided on Bridge Park Avenue is for additional walkways, patios, and seating
areas.
Ms. Ray presented the BSD Cycle Track System graphic. She explained that most of the cycle track will be
provided along greenways; however, the section leading up to the pedestrian bridge necessitates a different
approach. She noted some examples of cycle tracks that were included in the packets that have similar
arrangements from around the world to show how they will function. She indicated that cycle tracks are
designed for a range of bicyclists, from children to casual riders, whereas more “serious” commuter cyclists
will tend to ride in the street. She said the cycle track is designed to serve as an overlap zone and an
extension of the sidewalk.
Ms. Ray presented the approved street section for each of the five new streets, as approved by City Council
with the Basic Development Plan and formalized with the proposed Preliminary Plat. She pointed out the
various sections and how they differ in width on Bridge Park Avenue, Riverside Drive, Mooney Street,
Longshore Street, Banker Drive, and Tuller Ridge Drive.
Ms. Ray reported that Planning and the Administrative Review Team have reviewed the proposed
Preliminary Plat, and based on the review criteria, approval is recommended to City Council with two
conditions:
1) That City Council approves a plat modification for the requirement that rights-of-way lines at street
intersections must be connected with a straight line tangent; and
2) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and other adjustments as noted
on this report are made prior to final review by City Council.
The Chair invited public comment. [Hearing none.]
Victoria Newell asked to see the bicycle examples again and pointed out that one of the images shows a
street heavily congested with bicycles. She said she is concerned with only having 10 feet of area left over
once a restaurant with a fenced-in patio is added right next to the public sidewalk. She pointed out there
is 14 feet, 5 inches from the building area to the edge of where the cycle track is proposed in some areas.
Ms. Ray said the recommendation for this section was to ensure a balance, the right delineation of spaces.
She said there might be some days or even times during the day where there are lots of pedestrians and
no bicyclists, and other times when the opposite occurs. She stated that this area should be shared by a
variety of users. She said when this project comes forward for Site Plan Review we will see where those
fences are proposed to make sure there is enough space remaining.
Ms. Newell asked if there was anything in the text that will hold that line. She said the way it is written
now, the applicant will return and will be allowed to build all the way out to the right-of-way. She said “you
never know what the future is going to bring.” She said she believes this amount of space for a very active
area, which we want to be active, is too tight.
Amy Salay said she shared Ms. Newell’s concern. She said she was never a fan of combining the cycle track
with the sidewalk but was persuaded by points made by Staff and fellow Council members. She indicated
the expectation is that cyclists are not going to be whizzing through this area. She said it is anticipated that
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Page 3 of 6
the ‘serious’ cyclists will use the street and not the cycle track. She indicated discerning the correct width
is a challenge and a balance needs to be reached.
Cathy De Rosa pointed out some differences in the types of paths shown in the examples provided by Staff,
based on her experiences with some of the European examples. She said there are some paths are meant
for cyclists who are commuters not using a car, and others where the paths are meant for leisure day
outings, tourists, and weekenders, and that there is a real difference between the two of them in terms of
the way they are designed and feel. She indicated the design seems to facilitate what the most common
use of that space will be. She said the question for the Commission to determine is what we want to happen
in that particular corridor, and the commuters would need a wider path as opposed to the casual riders.
Ms. Newell said there were previous discussions among the Planning and Zoning Commission members,
where the Commission had envisioned a scenario in the Bridge Street District where the bicycle is the
primary mode of transportation to work, live, and play rather than relying on cars. She said she is concerned
with bicycle congestion on top of pedestrian activity, patio areas, sandwich board signs, and all of the other
activities that happen in this space. She said this does not mean that the right-of-way needs to be
substantially wider, but a six-foot walk and five-foot cycle track would be more comfortable if there was
more space around it. She said previously, the Commission’s consensus was that 12 feet of sidewalk area
seemed reasonable, but when bicycles are factored in with adjacent patio areas crowding up to the
sidewalk, there is no guarantee that there will be enough space. She said she was concerned that applicants
would be coming in and requesting to build fenced-in patios right up to the edge of the right-of-way, with
no room for overlap.
Ms. Salay requested clarification regarding the 12-foot clear area sidewalk requirement. She said she
assumed there was additional width at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Bridge Park Avenue.
Ms. Ray said the 12-foot clear area is the zoning requirement along designated shopping corridors, which
the applicant has designated along both sides of Bridge Park Avenue between Riverside Drive and Mooney
Street, and along portions of Riverside Drive. She said Staff’s recommendation is that the 12 -foot area is
provided through the five-foot sidewalk, the five-foot cycle track, and two feet of overlap space on the
paver tree grates. She added that in the portions of the streetscape where there are no street trees, there
will be an additional five feet of pavement.
Ms. Salay verified that there is at least 12 – 15 feet of clearance in Staff’s review.
Ms. Ray said in the Basic Site Plan, nothing less than five feet is shown on the adjacent private properties
and the minimum 12 feet is provided within the public right-of-way. She said at Bridge Park Avenue and
Riverside Drive, the sidewalk widens from five to seven and a half feet adjacent to the five-foot cycle track.
Ms. Newell said there is a 12-foot clearance but it is being judged as going over what are actually tree
grate planting areas where the Commission had previously envisioned planting beds.
Ms. Ray said at-grade pavers will be used in all areas except at the intersection of Riverside Drive and
Bridge Park Avenue.
Ms. Newell reiterated her point that she did not consider the tree pavers a path for travel.
Deborah Mitchell said she was concerned about the safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and that there is
enough room for them to coexist without problems. She said she has never seen paths delineated in the
manner proposed with this application, but her experience has been when both groups are sharing the
same right-of-way or path, typically there is more than 10 feet and maybe even be more than 12 feet. She
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Page 4 of 6
said people walking dogs should be considered as well as someone walking with children, strollers, etc.
She stated that the paths can get very congested.
Ms. Mitchell stated that we do not know what is going to happen with restaurants or other businesses that
would encroach into this public space. She said in her experience, in vibrant urban environments, all the
action is on the walkways and they have to be more than just ways to get around. She indicated the paths
have to be wide enough so festivals can occur, there is enough space for street performers, and people
can do things individually and in groups. She said without any kind of rules or restrictions to ensure that
space is not lost, she fears this will become a path to go from point A to point B. She said if one restaurant
is encroaching into that area, maybe that is fine in limited instances, but if there is not enough room to
have people milling around, a lot of vibrancy will be lost.
Steve Langworthy pointed out that this is the plat phase, and not the Site or Development Plan phases. He
said there are a series of squares and open spaces that are also planned to occur along the streetscap e
with this project so the activity will not all be forced onto the sidewalks, although there will still be space
for that. He said he hopes congestion is a problem. He referred to a meeting staff had held with David
Dixon, formerly with Goody Clancy, who had assisted with the Bridge Street District vision. He said Mr.
Dixon emphasized the need to provide a balance of space. Mr. Langworthy recalled Mr. Dixon saying if
areas are too large that are not used all the time, the spaces appear to be too large and too empty and
uncomfortable. He said Mr. Dixon had recommended that it was better to have smaller spaces with some
congestion rather than larger, emptier spaces.
Mr. Langworthy said the population in this area will not be huge – certainly not like New York City population
numbers. He said it is expected to be more like 1,500 – 2,000 people living here. Obviously, he said there
will be visitors to Bridge Park, but they will not all be on the street at the same time. He indicated he is not
anticipating huge crowds here that would require 15 – 20-foot wide spaces to accommodate them; this is
not that kind of environment. He added this cannot be compared to Boston or New York City.
Ms. Mitchell stated 10 feet wide would be fine if it did not also include bicycles and that is what she is
struggling with – that there is space to provide enough room for people, bikes, events, etc.
Ms. Newell indicated she had the same concerns. She said she remembers when sidewalk sales occurred
and tables were pulled out onto the sidewalk for display. She said there are still a lot of places you go
where that still happens, like in resort communities or farmer’s markets. She stated Dublin has had a
number of festivals that have been well-attended and included vendors. She said her concern was that
lively environments like that would be created but there would not be adequate room to accommodate the
activity.
Ms. Newell asked how five feet was determined to be an appropriate dimension for the cycle track. She
said she is a cyclist that would likely use the path since she has never been comfortable riding in the street
with her kids. At five feet, she said she envisions two bicycles traveling side-by-side because it is very
common to have a parent and a child riding together. She said maybe kids are not envisioned for this area
in the short term, but planning should be considered for 30 – 40 years out, and there may be kids here in
the future, or as visitors.
Ms. Ray said the five-foot cycle track was intended for one-way traffic so people on the north side of Bridge
Park Avenue will traveling west toward the river, and bicyclists on the south side of the street will be
traveling east away from the river. She said the dimensions had been reviewed by representatives who had
served on the City’s Bicycle Advisory Task Force as well as the City’s streetscape design consultant, MKSK.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Page 5 of 6
Ms. Salay said she envisions the casual bicyclist using the cycle track, and that those types of bicyclists
would disembark and walk their bikes in the areas that were too congested. She agreed that the more
serious commuter cyclists would ride in the street.
Ms. De Rosa asked if all the cycle tracks were planned to be five feet wide. Ms. Ray said the cycle track
configuration along Bridge Park Avenue is a special circumstance in the overall BSD Cycle Track loop
network. She said elsewhere on the loop, including along the west side of Riverside Drive between Bridge
Park Avenue and John Shields Parkway, the path would be two-way and would be 10 feet wide.
Ms. De Rosa indicated that it may be possible to make tracks in certain areas intended for commuters and
make tracks in other areas for the casual riders that will be traveling at a much slower pace.
Ms. Ray presented the BSD Cycle Track loop map and stated that the planned network provides a lot of
unique and interesting contexts, with the path adjacent to a number of planned greenways, through the
highly active Bridge Park development along Bridge Park Avenue, through the Historic District, and across
the pedestrian bridge. She pointed out the paths adjacent to the Indian Run would be more natural in
character than the newer areas that are a result of the extension of John Shields Parkway that will be more
urbanized in character. She indicated there are a lot of different experiences offered.
Ms. Salay asked if there will be sharrows in all of the public streets. Ms. Ray said Staff is just recommending
the sharrows in the center of the travel lanes on Bridge Park Avenue at this point in time.
Ms. Salay asked how wide the pedestrian bridge is going to be. Ms. Ray answered 15 feet wide.
Bob Miller asked if the City’s bicycle consultants were ever asked to discuss conflict and conflict resolution.
He said he believes the cyclists will be primarily on the road and when Ms. Newell said she would not be
on the road, it caused him some thought. He said for the most part, if he is riding in this area, he would
be on the road so he would be able to get where he needed to go quickly. He said he sees the cycle track
as aesthetically pleasing more so than functional, but could see residents and pedestrians having issues
with bicyclists being in what they would consider to be “their” space. He asked if that is something that
would be traffic controlled and would have to be policed.
Mr. Langworthy reported that the Bicycle Advisory Task Force told Staff that when comparing the serious
bicyclist to the recreation bicyclist, the serious cyclist would stay on the road (even if you try to force them
off the road) and would not be in the conflict area.
Mr. Langworthy recalled a time when he visited Portland, Oregon and he was at a restaurant watching
bicyclists go by and when they would get on the sidewalk, they would tend to get off their bikes and walk
them through the congested areas. He indicated there may even be some signs to that effect. He said cities
make accommodations that way and the various cyclists and pedestrians ultimately learn to live together
in that environment.
Mr. Langworthy commented on walking around planting areas. He said he will walk a few steps around a
tree and that would not prevent him from walking in that area just because there are tree pavers.
Ms. Newell said she thought she recalled a presentation that suggested trees would be planted in raised
planting beds and not just within tree grates or maybe something has changed. She said at one time the
plantings were to be raised. She said someone wearing high heels would not be comfortable crossing a
tree grate.
Ms. Salay asked if there would be individual trees because she read in one section there would be raised
planters.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Page 6 of 6
Joanne Shelly explained the way the Code reads, there is an option to have a planter box with plants or
have an option to do some type of pervious pavement, whether it is a tree grate or a permeable paver.
She said in areas where there will be high pedestrian activity we encourage the applicant to go with some
type of tree grate and pervious paver material. She said for areas right at the intersection of Bridge Park
Avenue and Riverside Drive, we would encourage extra lush seasonal plantings as an entry feature, and at
the bridge, there would be planter boxes. She said the City also has a preference of instead of having
planter boxes everywhere, make sure we have planter boxes in areas where we can maintain them at a
high level of quality and make expressions of interest and seasonal color in those locations and be more
subdued and careful of our plantings in other locations so we can maintain the level of quality and visua l
interest we want at these intersections.
Ms. Newell said she appreciated that response. She said as a Commission, we have to make the decision
on what the bike path is going to be. She said if it is really going to be just a casual bike path, then mayb e
the solution here is a little bit more agreeable, but the Commission’s previous discussion had been an
attempt to accommodate something that works for all types of users. She said she thought she recalled
the Commission’s last recommendation involved a p ath on a different level, separate from the pedestrian
sidewalk and the street with their own truly dedicated bike lane. She said where it becomes difficult is now
they are right next to one another. She said she does not know that there is a magic solution one way or
the other. She said she anticipated struggling with this solution as it goes forward, but at this point, she
did not think the discussion would prevent the application from being approved. She said she remained
concerned with what would happen adjacent to the public right-of-way on the private side of the public
realm.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Zimmerman motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to recommend approval of this Preliminary Plat to City
Council because the proposal meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, with two conditions:
1) That City Council approves a Plat modification for the requirement that rights-of-way lines at street
intersections must be connected with a straight line tangent; and
2) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and other adjustments as noted
in this report are made prior to final review by City Council.
The Chair asked if the applicant agreed with the two conditions. Nelson Yoder said he agreed with the
conditions.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Zimmerman,
yes; and Ms. De Rosa, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)