Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 43-25RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO. Resolution No. 43-25 Passed. : ACCEPTANCE OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGE PARK, J BLOCK, LOCATED WITHIN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (CASE 25-056PP). WHEREAS, application for approval of the preliminary plat for Bridge Park, Block J, has been made under Chapter 152 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the reports of staff, and the subdivision requirements of Chapter 152 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin, and desires to approve said plats and accept all rights of way, easements, and other interests dedicated to the City therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ] of the elected members concurring that: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the preliminary plat for the Bridge Park, Block J development, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. Section 2. The City Manager, Law Director, Clerk of Council, and any other required City employee or official are authorized to execute the plat on behalf of the City. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Charter, this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. e Passed this | | day of Brass , 2025. —Aa_ 3 — Mayor — Presiding Officer ATTEST: i of Coftncil ( To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager Date: August 5, 2025 Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning Zach Hounshell, Planner II Re: Resolution 43-25 – Acceptance of a Preliminary Plat for Bridge Park, J Block, located within the Bridge Street District (Case 25-056PP). Summary This is a request to accept a Preliminary Plat for Bridge Park, Block J, which will establish two developable lots, two public rights-of-way, and two private reserves. A resolution for a Final Plat (Resolution 44-25) accompanies this resolution. Process As provided by the Law Director’s Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final plats within the Bridge Street District, the process is solely to identify property lines, establish easements, and create public rights-of-way. The site layout, architectural character, and open space locations/designs for the development are part of separate application processes, approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The preliminary plat is accompanied by a final plat resolution, as both have been combined as part of the development process. Background The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application for a Preliminary and Final Plat and made a recommendation of approval to City Council on July 17, 2025 finding the proposal meets the review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with the Final Development Plan, which the Commission approved. Description This is a proposal for a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of 5.25 acres of land, which includes the creation of two developable lots, two private reserves, and two public streets. The proposed plat creates Lots 20 (1.03 ac.) and Lot 21 (2.10 ac.) for the development of the phase 1 of Block J. The plat also creates Reserve C for the creation of the central open space and Reserve D for the creation of Green Street, a private street owned and maintained by Crawford Hoying. Banker Drive and Colwell Street will be dedicated public right-of-way that will be owned and maintained by the City of Dublin. The plat does not impact the existing parcel located at the intersection of Banker Drive and Dale Drive which is currently occupied by the COTA Park-and- Ride facility. Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo Memo – Resolution 43-25 – Preliminary Plat – Bridge Park, Block J August 5, 2025 Page 2 of 2 Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At its July 17, 2025 meeting, PZC recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions, which have been met: 1) Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will be required to update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. City Council Recommendation Acceptance of Resolution 43-25. DNUPDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS23578CBDE462.1B.1STORAGESTORAGEELECTRICALELEVATORNW STAIRBICYCLESTORAGE7.519AF6.46% UPWATERSERVICEUPU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUSITE BANKER DRIVE (Private) (To Be Deeded as Public) DALE DRIVE ( P U B L I C - P F S ) RIVERSIDE DRIVE (PUBLIC-PFS)S.R. 161 (PFS)DALE DRIVE (PF S ) LOT 4 BLOCK B LOT 10 BLOCK H FUTURE PARK BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC-PFS)JOHN SHIELDS PARKWAY (PUBLIC -PFS)TULLER RIDGE DRIVE (PUBLIC)MOONEY STREE T ( P U B L I C )BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC)LONGSHORE STREET (PUBLIC) LOT 3 BLOCK BLOT 2 BLOCK C LOT 1 BLOCK C LOT 5 BLOCK A LOT 6 BLOCK A LOT 7 BLOCK ALOT 8 BLOCK A GARAGE LONGSHORELOOP(RESERVE B)MONEY WAY ON E W A Y (RESERVE B) MOONEY WAY ( R E S E R V E A ) MOONEY STREET (PUBLIC) LOT 11 BLOCK H PROPOSED LARIMERSTREET (PUBLIC)MOONEY STREET (PUBLI C )LOT 12LOT 17 BLOCK DLOT 17 BLOCK D LOT 14 BLOCK D LOT 15 BLOCK D LOT 16LOT 13LOT 9 BLOCK G LOT 19 BLOCK F BLOCK C GARAGEBLOCK D GARAGE BLOCK B GARAGE MCCALLUM GARAGE WINDER DR IVE THE BAILEY GARAGE (Pr iva te )BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC-PFS)GREEN STRE E T COLWELL ST R E E T ( P U B L I C )● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 REGIONAL MAPJULY 25, 202525-003-COM CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C002 DRAWING NUMBER 2 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = feet 40 80 160 80 PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC)DALE DR IVE ( PUBL IC )COLWELL STREET (PUBLIC)PROP. GREEN STREETEGG CT (PRIVATE)S. OVAL ST (PRIVATE) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC) RESERVE A RESERVE BLOT 1 LOT 2 ● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 PRELIMINARY PLATJULY 25, 202525-003-COM CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C003 DRAWING NUMBER 3 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 40 feet 802040 PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DN UP UUU UU U U U U STORAGE STORAGE ELECTRICALELEVATORNW STAIR BICYCLESTORAGE 6.46% UP WATERSERVICE UPUUUUU U U U U BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC)DALE DR IVE ( PUBL IC ) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC) PHASE 1 OFFICE/RESTAURANT (MIXED-USE BLDG) LOT 1 THE ELLIS CONDOMINIUMS (89 UNITS) LOT 2 PHASE 1 PARKING GARAGE (500 SPACES)COLWELL STREET (PUBLIC)PROP. GREEN STREET (PRIVATE)OPEN SPACE RESERVE A EGG CT (PRIVATE)S. OVAL ST (PRIVATE) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC)RESERVE BCOTA BUS LOADING AREA FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 SITE PLANJULY 25, 202525-003-COM CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C101 DRAWING NUMBER 4 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER LEGEND GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 40 feet 802040 Bridge Park Block J City of Dublin Zoning Code Requirements Block J Building Phase 1 & 2 Condominium Buildings Phase 1 Office/Restaurant Building Phase 1 Parking Garage Building Type Apartment Building §153.062(O)(3) Mixed Use Building §153.062(O)(6) Parking Structure §153.062(O)(12) Front Required Build Zone (RBZ) 5-20 ft 0-10 ft 25% of front façade permitted between 10-20 ft 5-25 ft Corner Required Build Zone (RBZ)5-20 ft 0-10 ft 5-25 ft Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 75%Minimum 95%Minimum 90% Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft 0 ft 5 ft Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft Maximum Impervious Coverage 70%85%80% Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage 20%10%10% Maximum Height 4.5 stories 5 stories 5 stories Bridge Park Block J Front Line Property Line Calculations Total Length of Front Property Line Principal Structure Length in RBZ Front Property Line Coverage Garage 389 LF 374 LF 96% Phase 1 Condominium 478 LF 431 LF 90% Office/Restaurant 483 LF 249 LF 52% Future Phase 2 Condominiums*367 LF 341 LF*93%* * Calculations estimates the Future Phase 2 structure into the Front Property Line Calculations and is subject to change when site is developed. Bridge Park Block J Total Lot Coverage Calculations Phase 1 w/ Existing COTA Site Phase 1 and Future Phase 2 Condominiums Site Area (acre)5.24 Impervious Area (acre)3.58 3.76 Impervious Area Lot Coverage (%)68.4%71.7% Semi-Impervious Area (acre)0.07 Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage (%)1.4% Bridge Park Block J Individual Lot Coverage Calculations Phase 1 Lot Phase 2 Lot Office/Restaurant Lot 1 Phase 1 Condominium & Garage Lot 2 Open Space Reserve "A" Green Street "Reserve B" COTA Parking Lot Future Phase 2 Condominiums Site Area (acre)1.03 2.101 0.55 0.43 1.13 Impervious Area (acre)0.70 1.76 0.11 0.36 0.66 0.84 Impervious Area Lot Coverage (%)67.4%83.6%20.0%83.3%58.6%74.3% Semi-Impervious Area (acre)0.00 0 0.06 0 0.01 Additional Semi-Pervious Coverage (%)0.0%0.0%10.3%0.0%1.3% GENERAL NOTES PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DN UP DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS UUU UU U U U U UUU UU U U U U BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC) D A L E D R I V E ( P U B L I C ) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC)COLWELL STREET (PUBLIC)PHASE 1 OFFICE/RESTAURANT THE ELLIS CONDOMINIUMS (89 UNITS) PARKING GARAGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (ESTIMATED 105 UNITS) LOT 1 RESERVE A GREEN STREET (PRIVATE)RESERVE B LOT 2 ● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 UTILITY PLANJULY 25, 202525-003-COM CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C102 DRAWING NUMBER 5 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 40 feet 802040 LEGEND PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DN UP DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS STORAGE STORAGE ELECTRICALELEVATORNW STAIR BICYCLESTORAGE 6.46% UP WATERSERVICE UP BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC)DALE DR IVE (PUBL IC ) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC)COLWELL STREET (PUBLIC)OFFICE/ RESTAURANT BUILDING LOWER LEVEL FF=832.00 UPPER LEVEL FF=843.00 THE ELLIS CONDOMINIUMS LOWER LEVEL FF=847.50 UPPER LEVEL FF=853.00 PARKING GARAGE LOWER LEVEL FF=847.00 UPPER LEVEL FF=853.00 RESERVE "A" LOT 1 LOT 2RESERVE "B"PRO P GREEN S T R E E T (PRIVATE)FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 OVERALL GRADING PLANJULY 25, 202525-003-COM CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C201 DRAWING NUMBER 6 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1 inch = 40 feet 802040 LEGEND PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO BRIDGE PARK AVENUE (PUBLIC)DAL E DR IV E ( PUBL IC ) BANKER DRIVE (PUBLIC)COLWELL STREET (PUBLIC)● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOTREE REPLACEMENTPLANJULY 25, 2025PLN-2025-00020 CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C301 DRAWING NUMBER 7 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER 1 inch = 30 feet GRAPHIC SCALE 6001530 TREE PROTECTION DETAIL NOTE: LEGEND ● ● ● Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.Engineers Surveyors Planners Scientists5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648emht.comREVISION RECORDREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO.DUBENGV1-24 PRELIMINARY PLATBRIDGE PARK - BLOCK JCITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOTREE REPLACEMENTTABLESJULY 25, 2025CITY OF DUBLINPROJECT NUMBER C302 DRAWING NUMBER 8 OF 8 SHEET NUMBER * Estimated PLN-2025-00020 ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH (inches)No. of Trunks Condition 1 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 2 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 3 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 4 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 8 1 Good 5 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6,6 (12)2 Good 6 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 7 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 8 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 9 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 10 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 7 1 Good 11 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 7,7 (14)2 Good 12 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 13 Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina 6 1 Good 14 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 15 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 16 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 7 1 Good 17 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 18 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 19 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 20 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 21 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 7 1 Good 22 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 23 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 7 1 Good 24 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 25 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 8 1 Good 26 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 27 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 28 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 6 1 Good 29 Box Elder Acer negundo 6,6 (12)2 Good 30 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 10 1 Good 31 Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina 7 1 Good 32 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 1 Poor 33 Box Elder Acer negundo 14 1 Good 34 Box Elder Acer negundo 9 1 Good 35 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 1 Poor 36 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 1 Poor 37 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6 1 Fair 38 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 1 Fair 39 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 6 1 Good 40 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 10 1 Good 41 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 8 1 Good 42 Box Elder Acer negundo 6 1 Good 43 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 1 Fair 44 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 1 Fair 45 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 15 1 Good 46 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 7 1 Good 47 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 7 1 Good 48 Callery Pear Pyrus callergana 10 1 Good 49 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 8,7 (15)2 Good 50 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7,6,6 (19)3 Good 51 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 1 Good 52 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 1 Good 53 Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata 10 1 Good 54 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 22 1 Fair 55 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 20 1 Fair 56 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 18 1 Good 57 Red Maple Acer rubrum 11,8 (19)2 Good 58 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 7 1 Good 59 Red Maple Acer rubrum 14 1 Good 60 Red Maple Acer rubrum 14 1 Good 61 Hedge Maple Acer campestre 6,6 (12)2 Good 62 Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata 8 1 Good 63 Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata 8 1 Good 64 Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 14 1 Good 65 Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 19 1 Good 66 Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 17 1 Good 67 Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 17 1 Good 68 Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 17 1 Good 69 Hedge Maple Acer campestre 12 1 Good 70 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 12 1 Good ID Common Name Scientific Name DBH (inches)No. of Trunks Condition 71 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 8 1 Good 72 Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 18 1 Good 73 Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 16 1 Good 74 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 10 1 Good 75 Norway Spruce Picea abies 12 1 Good 76 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.8 1 Fair 77 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.8 1 Fair 78 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.7 1 Fair 79 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.8 1 Fair 80 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.7,6 (13)2 Fair 81 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.6 1 Fair 82 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.7 1 Fair 83 Crabapple sp.Malus sp.8,6 (15)2 Fair 84 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 15 1 Good 85 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 14 1 Poor 86 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 1 Poor 87 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 11 1 Poor 88 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 8 1 Good 89 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 1 Poor 90 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 1 Poor 91 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 10 1 Good 92 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 93 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 7 1 Good 94 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 95 Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 20 1 Good 96 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 6 1 Good 97 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 6 1 Good 98 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 99 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 100 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 101 London Plane Tree Platanus x hispanica 8 1 Good 102 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 103 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 104 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 105 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 106 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 6 1 Good 107 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 108 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 109 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 110 Small-Leaved Linden Tilia cordata 6 1 Good 111 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum *6 1 Good 112 Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata *8 1 Good 113 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *20 1 Good 114 Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata *4 1 Good 115 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *12 1 Good 116 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *10 1 Good 117 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *8 1 Good 118 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *8 1 Good 119 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *6 1 Good 120 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum *6 1 Good Inside Building Footprint Totals Poor Condition Ash Tree Caliper (inches)43 Fair to Good Condition Ash Tree Caliper (inches)32 Other Tree Caliper Total (inches)382 Outside Building Footprint Totals Poor Condition Ash Tree Caliper (inches)28 Poor Condition Silver Maple Tree Caliper (inches)14 Other Tree Caliper Total (inches)578 Trees To Be Transplanted Totals London Plane Tree Caliper Total (inches)67 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, July 17, 2025 | 6:30 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Bridge Park, Block J 25-056PP and 25-057FP Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Proposal: Request for review and approval of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat to allow a new mixed-use development. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood. Location: 4437 Bridge Park Avenue Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-057 MOTION: Mr. Way moved, Mr. Deschler seconded a recommendation of approval to City Council of the combined Preliminary Plat and Final Plat with the following condition: 1) Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will be required to update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. VOTE: 6-0 RESULT: The Preliminary and Final Plats were recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Rebecca Call Yes Kim Way Yes Kathy Harter Yes Jamey Chinnock Absent Gary Alexander Yes Jason Deschler Yes Dan Garvin Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Zach Hounshell Planner II MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, July 17, 2025 CALL TO ORDER Chair Call called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chamber and welcomed everyone to the July 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She stated that the meeting also could be accessed at the City’s website. Public comments on the cases were welcome from meeting attendees and from those viewing at the City’s website. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Call led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commission members present: Gary Alexander, Rebecca Call, Jason Deschler, Dan Garvin, Kathy Harter, Kim Way Commission members absent: Jamey Chinnock Staff members present: Thaddeus Boggs, Jenny Rauch, Bassem Bitar, Tammy Noble, Tina Wawszkiewicz, Heidi Rose, Dan Phillabaum ACCEPTANCE OF MEETING DOCUMENTS Mr. Way moved, Mr. Deschler seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and approval of the June 5, 2025 and June 12, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes. [Motion carried 6-0.] Ms. Call stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) 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 and make the decision. In other cases, the Commission has the final decision-making responsibility. The Rules and Regulations of the Planning and Zoning Commission state that no new agenda items are to be introduced after 10:30 p.m. Anyone who intends to address the Commission on administrative cases must be sworn in. Ms. Call explained the hearing process that would be followed. Ms. Call swore in staff and audience members who anticipated providing testimony. CONSENT CASE Ms. Call noted that there was one case eligible for the Consent Agenda. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 2 of 13 Case #25-027AFDP-CU NW Presbyterian Church – Amended Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan and Conditional Use to allow a 5,598 square-foot addition to an existing religious facility. The 11.5-acre site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Morse/Mast and R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and is located at 6400 Post Road. Ms. Call asked if any member wished to have the case removed from the consent agenda. There was no request to remove the item from the consent agenda. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Alexander seconded approval of the consent agenda. Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] CASE REVIEW Ms. Call noted that because the following four cases pertain to the same project on the same property with the same applicants, they will be discussed together. Separate votes will be held for each. Case #25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25-057FP, and 25-066CU Bridge Park, Block J – Final Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Conditional Use Request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan and recommendation of approval of a Preliminary/Final Plat to allow a new mixed-use development, and a request for review and approval of a Conditional Use for COTA Park & Ride located in a new parking structure. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Applicant Presentation Russ Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, thanked staff for working with them on the quick turnaround of this application. One of the things that makes Bridge Park special is the green spaces. The space on this site has potential to be something that does not exist yet. It has enough hardscape for events without feeling like Longshore Drive. The Crawford Hoying events team is excited about the potential of this site. The terminal vista is the tower on the side of the parking garage. Visitors and restaurant goers will use this as their beacon. Green Street points south directly at it. Jeff Pongonis, MKSK, 462 South Ludlow Alley, Columbus, stated that the heart of the plan is the open/common space. It is about ½ acre and is the location of what was previously a waterway. They wanted to pay homage to its history. It has a more natural character and slopes down from east to west. There are edge of woods experiences there to create an immersive environment different than along Longshore Drive or inside Bridge Park. On the furthest west end is the lowest Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 3 of 13 part of the open space filled with meadow grass. It has a slight undulation in grading and will not feel like an engineered detention basin. The east end is a more manicured version of the natural open space. It has mown lawn framed by natural landscape. There are two activators in the space. One is a bridge that cuts through the center to allow people to be a part of the natural space. Further east along Green Street is a wooden deck for spending time outside/social space. They are relocating ten Sycamore trees from the site to the south. Those trees are approximately 8 inches in caliper and will make the space feel like it has some age to it. It will anchor this green space from the outset. The idea of Green Street is to provide opportunity for delivery, garage access, and rideshare access. Automobile travel will be generally discouraged. The intent is for it to be a great pedestrian corridor. There is a loose assemblage of landscape islands, large trees, furniture and boulders. It is a curbless street. The edge of curb and boulders work together to define the curb line. It is a standard-width street. It will be safe for pedestrians. It will have a curb made of landscape islands and boulders instead of a traditional street curb. Dan Pease, MA Architects, 775 Yard Street, Suite 325, Columbus, highlighted the changes to the office building and garage. The high-pressure laminate (HPL) was eliminated from the office building. They changed from the blue color to a light copper color on the north elevation to help the building feel more continuous all the way around. On the south and west sides, there is a darker copper color. The west elevation was changed to add more charcoal brick while leaving light gray brick on the corner as a pop-out frame around that element. Along the south elevation, they changed from the horizontality of that design to a vertical design on the structural bays. They have used lighting to make that elevation stand out. On the garage, the element they want to call attention to is the stair tower. Another frame of charcoal metal panel has been added as well as a series of shading fins in front of the frosted glass. They wanted to create visual interest during the day as well as the evening. The fins stick out approximately one foot and are aluminum. There are three colors of fins that will blend with the office palette. The exposed corners of the garage now have a metal wrap on the column and the cast stone lines continue at the floor lines to help the corners blend into the rest of the garage design. They struggled with the open-air requirement for the garage. They are restricted on the north side and the south side because of the scrim. That is another reason the corners are left open. They were asked to study how to increase the pedestrian experience at the street level near the garage. They elected to do that through landscape and pulling the landscaping away from the building. They are excited about the final product. Matt Lytle, Sullivan Bruk Architects, 8 South Grant Avenue, Columbus, stated that they added ground floor entries for the three units along Bridge Park Avenue. Those will function much like those along the street to the east. The cladding material for balcony surrounds has been changed to black, which now blends in with the other black materials, like the metal guardrails for balconies and windows. They are using a pallet of dark and light masonry to complement the masonry of the garage and office building. He expressed appreciation for the Commission’s suggestions and feedback. Staff Presentation Ms. Rauch stated that there are multiple applications before the Commission. PZC has final authority on the Final Development Plan (FDP) and the Conditional Use. The Final Plat and Preliminary Plat require a recommendation to City Council. The FDP covers the final details including necessary waivers to construct the project. A future Phase Two will come forward for the redevelopment of the COTA Park & Ride site. This site is located in the Scioto River Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 4 of 13 in the Bridge Street District (BSD). The BSD Code provides recommendations about the mix of uses as well as ensuring residential is a key component of the plan to help complement the uses. The walkable network is an important part of the recommendations. As highlighted by the applicant, this project was before the Commission with a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for the site in May. The Commission highlighted building materials, garage façade treatment, the terminal vista, Green Street design and circulation, and the COTA Park & Ride. The updated site plan shows changes since last time such as the revised parking plan, the street network and streetscape. The City will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the right allocation of space for public street improvements. There are waivers required related to the proportion of the public green space and access that staff feels are appropriate given the uniqueness of this particular open space. There are conditions of approval related to lighting and screening of mechanicals. Green Street is intended to be a one-way private street through the development. The intent of the Bridge Street District is to have additional connections to aid in distributing traffic and providing access for all modes of transportation. Staff has worked with the Fire Department regarding the width of the street connection and the importance of making sure there is access to all the buildings. The comments from the Commission at the PDP have been incorporated and staff is supportive of the changes made. There are a number of waivers and departures though most are straightforward. Staff feels they are appropriate and help elevate the design. Regarding the parking garage, staff continues to have concerns about the exposed concrete and pedestrian entrances at the corners. Staff has recommended conditions of approval that they continue to work with staff on those details. The Code requires a Conditional Use to permit the future location of a COTA Park and Ride on this particular site. It is proposed in the garage. The Park and Ride lot will be relocated, allowing one hundred reserve spaces in the garage to accommodate the four users on site. The bus stop would be along Banker Drive with a shelter at the southwest corner of the structure. The goal is to be able to park in the garage and access the Park and Ride along Banker Drive. A future Conditional Use will come before the Commission for a temporary location for the Park and Ride while the garage is under construction. The Preliminary Plat and Final Plat create two lots within this area in addition to the reserves for Green Street and the large open space. Banker Drive and the future public street (informally called Dave Thomas Boulevard) will become public streets. Staff has recommended minor conditions related to stormwater and utilities, ensuring the plans include necessary details as it moves through the permitting process. Ms. Rauch summarized by stating that five actions are requested: 1. Administrative Departure Review for the office building 2. 17 Waivers 3. Final Development Plan with 13 conditions 4. Conditional Use 5. Preliminary and Final Plat with one condition. Commission Questions Mr. Garvin referenced the COTA Park and Ride and asked if staff felt the parking was sufficient. Ms. Rauch stated staff feels there are adequate spaces in the garage and on street. People may be parking in other garages and coming to this space. The garage will primarily be used by residents of the condos and office building users. Mr. Garvin asked why the cranberry color on the condo building was changed. Mr. Lytle stated that the Crawford Hoying sales team wanted more neutral colors. Mr. Garvin sought confirmation that there was no change in material. Mr. Lytle responded affirmatively. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Deschler asked how many waivers are typical on blocks with mixed use development. Ms. Rauch stated that it is not atypical for there to be as many as are requested with this application given the number of buildings. Mr. Deschler asked how much discussion was held with the applicant on how to avoid waivers on some of these items. Ms. Rauch stated that the goal is always for people to meet the Code requirements, but waivers can allow for a better or more unique design. She shared the example of the open space – this unique open space is desirable but cannot meet the Code requirements because it is unique to this site. Ms. Call stated that the application for Block G had 30 waivers. Mr. Deschler asked the applicant for more information on the discussions about the waivers using the example of the inability to get the vertical transitions. Mr. Hunter stated that it is difficult to design to Code, especially when you want to do something different. They first try to do what they believe is right and then apply that as best as possible to the site and the applicable Code. Sometimes it is impossible to meet Code requirements, especially on sites with a lot of grade change. On the south façade, the design team was trying to create something softer that put more focus on the open space. They always try to meet Code as best they can. Mr. Deschler asked about Green Street and delivery/service trucks. Mr. Hunter stated that there are pull-offs for each building so trucks do not block the path. Mr. Deschler referenced the change in materials and thin brick as a primary material. He stated that he understood that the desire was for the look of brick but the building cannot handle the weight of full depth brick. Ms. Rauch agreed that staff was comfortable with thin brick at this installation. She stated that staff worked with Mark Ford, consultant, to make sure it was in line with the Commission’s desire as previously discussed. Mr. Deschler asked for elaboration on staff’s concerns regarding the garage. Ms. Rauch stated that the applicant minimized some of the exposed concrete but there are still some areas where exposed concrete is shown. Staff’s concern was that does not meet the overall aesthetic of the garage and they may need to pay more attention to that. The other piece of that was concerning the pedestrian entrances at the corner. The current design does not signify entrance at the pedestrian level, and staff believed more attention should be given to that. Mr. Deschler asked for the applicant’s thoughts on how they could address those concerns. Mr. Hunter stated that his team considered cladding the concrete but the reason not to is that it lessens the shadow lines. The exposed concrete gives the opportunity to have that further back than the brick allowing for more depth. They also liked the different texture of the exposed concrete. It has been used sparingly in the district. Regarding the pedestrian entrance, they have a placeholder there now because they are still working with COTA on what exactly they want there. It will be a tenant improvement that COTA will want to do and will come back to staff or PZC. Mr. Alexander stated in previous applications where a private street is proposed, staff has not viewed that favorably. Ms. Rauch stated in solely residential developments, private streets pose problems from a long-term maintenance standpoint as that cost is borne by those individual homeowners. For context, there are two others in Bridge Park. Mr. Alexander asked if there is a maximum number of primary materials. Ms. Rauch stated that there is not a maximum number, but the goal is to get to 80% primary materials. Mr. Alexander stated that the goal is to have the same amount of solidity on each building. He asked if the intent was for there to be multiple primary materials because the language in the Code suggests continuity. Ms. Rauch stated that the intent was more about sticking to the “tried and true” materials listed in Code; continuity was secondary. Mr. Alexander asked if the applicant is confident the leaders coming down the building in the courtyard (5-story downspouts) can maintain a straight and continuous edge. Those could be tucked around a corner. Mr. Lytle stated that was done deliberately for stormwater to be routed and drain the roof effectively and economically. The offsets on some areas are not as great as they might appear and having the leaders coming through balconies would be a design conundrum. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 6 of 13 They chose to highlight them as an organizing piece. Mr. Alexander asked about parking on Green Street. Mr. Pongonis stated that across from the garage, there is a bank of on-street parking. Mr. Alexander stated that the elevations on the office building make connections at the corners with one another but there is not continuity for the building. The grid order that organizes one side of the building does not continue around to organize or integrate other parts of the building. He asked why the elevations on this building are so different. Mr. Pease stated that was an intentional design move. Each piece has a specific goal. They wanted to give a better variety of pieces for a different experience as a pedestrian goes around the building. It is similar to the G1 building. It was intentional with some elevations meant to address the park, a view, or a corner. Mr. Way referenced the Phase Two site on the illustrative site plan and asked for more details. Mr. Hunter stated that construction of the Phase Two condo building will take place 12 months after they begin construction of the other buildings with the intention that the core and shell of that building will largely be done when the other buildings are occupied so the block will look complete. They are not yet done with negotiations with COTA. Mr. Way stated that it will likely not be a grass field at all. Mr. Hunter agreed. Mr. Way stated that the landscape on the south edge of the open space looks minimal. If that is going to be a surface parking lot for a while, there should be some screening. Maybe in Phase Two there will be another look at that edge. While the Commission is approving what is shown, he is anticipating there will be another layer of landscape in Phase Two. Mr. Hunter stated that is correct. Mr. Way referenced Green Street and stated that this will be the first woonerf in Dublin. He asked why it was designed one-way south as opposed to one-way north. Mr. Hunter stated that Bridge Park Avenue is a more driven street than Banker Drive. Deliveries are more likely to come off Bridge Park Avenue. The idea was to get them off Bridge Park Avenue quickly instead of them parking in the middle of it like they do now. Another reason was so upon leaving the garage, no one could go through the space. Mr. Way asked if they considered making the southern end of Green Street two-way. James Peltier, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, stated that they did study the two- way movement south of the western entrance and decided against that because the main entrance people will use is the east entrance. The western entrance only accesses the lower level of the garage. Mr. Hunter stated Public Street A is on the thoroughfare plan and Green Street is not. Ms. Call asked if all levels of the garage can be accessed from the western side. Mr. Hunter answered affirmatively. Brian Quackenbush, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road, New Albany, stated that the majority of people using this garage will be residents or office users. It is easier to access all parking spaces by entering from the east side. Mr. Way stated that if both entrances are accessible from the south, it may reduce trips through Green Street. Mr. Way asked if there would be bollards on both ends. Mr. Hunter answered affirmatively. Mr. Way stated that the service lane/parking area on the north side does not look big enough for service or delivery trucks. Mr. Hunter stated that it is their intent to move delivery and service vehicles off of Bridge Park Avenue. Mr. Way referenced the accessible route through the open space, and suggested adding seating there as people may want a spot to rest. Mr. Pongonis stated that they hesitate to put furniture on a 5% slope. There are some other furnishings nested inside the park, but they will consider additional seating. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 7 of 13 Mr. Way asked about stormwater storage indicated in the submitted materials. Mr. Quackenbush explained that there is a series of 10-foot diameter corrugated metal pipes that will serve as the main storage for site. The bio retention at the low point the open space is solely management for the open space itself. All stormwater management for the site is occurring in those pipes with a dedicated outlet pipe that goes to the storm outlet in Dale Drive. Mr. Way stated that transformers stand out prominently. He asked what is planned for screening those. Mr. Pongonis stated there is nice topography by the pool holding up the pool courtyard. On the south side of that access the transformers are nested in the grade change and landscape. There are six-foot gates behind the landscape. They will have a wall around them and a gate. Ms. Harter asked about the exposed concrete in the garage and if it could be a different color. Mr. Hunter stated that it would be very difficult to stain the concrete and he does not think they would be happy with the results. It would be easier to clad it. She asked for more information on what the tower looks like during the day. Mr. Pease stated that there is a pop of color and texture during the day with a random pattern of metal shading fins. At night, there will be LED lights behind the screen to enhance it further. Mr. Hunter stated that they have complete control over the colors. The opacity is different in upper panes and lower panes for additional visibility. Ms. Harter asked about landscaping on the residential site. Mr. Pongonis stated that it is a robust landscape plan. Ms. Harter asked if staff has any concerns about the safety of Green Street. Ms. Rauch stated that staff’s findings are that the design slows traffic and staff has no initial concerns. Ms. Harter asked if the Commission will review the signage. Ms. Rauch stated that roadway signs are not in PZC’s purview. Ms. Harter stated that children will likely plan on the boulders. She asked about the safety aspect of the boulders. Ms. Rauch stated that they are being used to help delineate the street edge. Mr. Hunter stated it is possible that children will play on them but there is a difference between the boulders at the street edge and those embedded in the landscape. They have considered those concerns and have tried to take all necessary precautions. Ms. Call asked if metal cladding on exposed concrete on the garage would allow the depth to show. Mr. Pease stated that cladding would take the shadow line from six inches down to four inches. Ms. Call asked if there is space to add in curbs and landscaping if the boulders should not work for traffic delineation. Mr. Hunter answered affirmatively. Ms. Call referenced the condo building and asked if additional details like a cantilevered awning were considered in the recessed vertical element. Mr. Lytle stated that it would add some interest, but he was viewing that as a secondary element. Mr. Way stated that he is concerned about the boulders. He asked if there is a backup plan if the boulders prove to be an issue. Mr. Hunter stated that part of the intent was to visually call attention to the open space so then this space feels different and could be used differently in placemaking and activations. Mr. Way asked what the letter “V” indicates on the legend. Mr. Pongonis stated that it is an elevation change, not a material. Ms. Harter asked if the Dublin Arts Council (DAC) timeline allows for reasonable review of the scrim. Ms. Rauch stated that they have a monthly meeting. Mr. Deschler asked about drainage from the other buildings. Mr. Quackenbush stated that the stormwater management pipes will be located under the lawn area of the open space. There are 5 rows of them placed 10 feet deep. The roof drains from the office building, garage and both condominiums will go into the pipe system. The system is sized for future phases. All of the roof Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 8 of 13 drainage from those buildings, the surface drainage on Green Street, and any drainage from the open space goes into a storm sewer that goes into these pipes. There will be water quality devices before the water goes into the system. Those details will be worked through with the City’s engineering department during the private site improvement plan review. They will review stormwater calculations and quality requirements for the Ohio EPA permit. Ms. Rauch stated that with this site, the applicants will have to meet quality and quantity requirements. That is reviewed by engineering as part of the building permit review process. Mr. Way stated that the BSD Code encourages public art in parks. He asked if the applicant had considered public art. Mr. Hunter stated that they have already spoken to DAC about this block, beginning with the scrim. They continue to have conversations about more than just this block. There are many opportunities to seize. Public Comment No public comment. Commission Discussion Mr. Garvin stated that he had already supported the through street and is supportive of the design that has been decided upon for the woonerf. The green space feels a little tight and could use expansion in Phase Two. He would prefer the bolder colors but understands the reason behind the change. He does not have a problem with the exposed concrete and feels it echoes the North Market garage. Mr. Deschler stated that he appreciates the changes made. He is supportive of Green Street being one-way southbound. He likes the boulders. He agreed that the bold colors on the buildings were fun but understands the practicality from a sales perspective. He is generally supportive of all waivers and conditions. He asked if the Commission needs to opine on signage for private streets. Ms. Waszkiewicz stated that per the Ohio Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the private entity is required to use the same standards as the State. It is their responsibility to manufacture and install the signs but they must follow the same rules as the City of Dublin, which are the State standards. Mr. Alexander stated that he is comfortable with the garage including the exposed concrete. He will not support waivers for the office building because the elevations are not unified. The condo building is the perfect example of having variation but unified elevations. Continuity creates a unified image to market the location. His concern is not the locations, entrances, or organization. He just does not see it as a unified composition. The overall site plan is great. Mr. Way stated that he is supportive of the overall plan. He is excited about the woonerf. He does have trepidation about the boulders. There are many different people that drive and have different abilities. He is supportive of the approach to paving but is concerned about tire wear over time. He looked at other woonerfs around the world and many of them are more about pedestrians and bicycles and cars are secondary. As this is the road access to the garage, this might get more traffic than is typically seen with other woonerfs. There are some details that could help like public art and benches along the ADA path. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 9 of 13 Ms. Harter agreed with her colleagues. She is supportive of the exposed concrete on the garage. She is concerned about the safety of the boulders. Children will play on them. She likes the focus on walkability. She suggested the applicant think about lighting aesthetics. Ms. Call stated that this project has come a long way. She thanked the applicant for persevering. She does have some concern about the boulders. She appreciates the effort made to connect the belt through the site on two different sides. The vertical element on the condo building looks unfinished to her. She would like to make sure that if the boulders do not work, that there is room for planters should they be necessary. Ms. Call stated that she would like to consider adding language to Condition #8 that encourages the applicant to look for opportunities on the garage. On #7, she would propose to add language regarding the recessed window awning or alternate treatment. She would pose adding “Green Street with consideration of the boulders,” to Condition #1. Ms. Call referenced the cohesiveness of the mixed-use building and posed the topic for discussion by the Commission. Mr. Way stated that another way to look at this is there is a building that fronts on the street and a building that fronts on the park and they could have a different expression because the environment they are framing is different. Ms. Call added that it is a building that has multiple identities because it is a mixed-use building. Mr. Alexander stated that the condo building has possibly the best elevations he has seen in Bridge Park, because the elevations change as the circumstances change for the units so it is addressing different unit types and different unit conditions. He does not disagree with the points made but is looking for some way to create greater unity in the building. Ms. Harter stated that we could be moving away from traditional office buildings in this area. She sees the general direction of change of each elevation and is in support of keeping it as presented. Mr. Way stated that there is a playfulness to the way the colors work around the building and there is a different emphasis and prominence on different sides. He expressed his support for the building as proposed. Mr. Deschler stated that he is supportive of the building as presented. Mr. Garvin agreed with the premise that it is not cohesive. He likes the repeating element of the colors and even though the fenestration is not all the same, it does repeat some elements so he is supportive of the proposed design. Ms. Call stated that she likes the colors on the other buildings but would prefer there to be something on the concrete on the garage. Ms. Call stated that she finds the south elevation of the mixed-use building to be repetitive. Case #25-055FDP A Bridge Park, Block J – Final Development Plan Request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan to allow a new mixed-use development. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Way seconded to approve the following Administrative Departures: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 10 of 13 1. Section 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required to allow a vertical increment of approximately 47 feet on the south elevation where a maximum of 45 is permitted. 2. 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Required Change in Roof Plane or Type to allow an approximately 84-foot continuous roof plane at the northwest corner of the building where a maximum of 80 feet is permitted. Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Alexander, No; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 5-1] Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Deschler seconded to approve the following waivers: 1. 153.064(G)(1)(b) – Open Space Proportion to allow a ratio of approximately 3.875:1 for the proposed public green where a maximum of 3:1 is permitted. 2. 153.064(G)(2)(a) – Open Space Access to allow the proposed green to not be 100% perimeter along public streets or buildings where that is required. 3. 153.062(E)(2)(a) – Façade Material Transitions to allow vertical façade material transitions to not occur at the inside corners on the north, south, and west elevations where thin brick piers abut metal panels over storefront window where it is required. 4. 153.062(O)(5)(a)(1) – Front Property Line Coverage to allow approximately 76% front property line coverage along Bridge Park Avenue and 0% along Dale Drive where a minimum of 95% is required. 5. 153.062(O)(5)(a)(1) – Front Required Build Zone to allow a minimum front required build zone of approximately 43 feet along Dale Drive where 0-10 feet with up to 25% of the front façade permitted between 10-20 feet is permitted. 6. 153.062(O)(5)(b) – Upper Story Height to allow the 5th floor of the building to be approximately 16 feet where a maximum of 14 feet is permitted. 7. 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required to allow a vertical increment of approximately 66 feet on the east elevation, approximately 79 feet on the north elevation, and approximately 66 feet on the west elevation when a maximum of 45 feet is permitted. 8. 153.062(E)(2)(a) – Façade Material Transitions to allow vertical façade material transitions to not occur at the inside corners throughout on balconies where thin brick and metal singles meet where it is required. 9. 153.062(O)(3)(a)(1) - Front Required Build Zone to allow a minimum front required build zone of approximately 3 feet along Bridge Park Avenue where 5-20 feet are required. 10. 153.062(O)(3)(a)(2) – Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage to allow a maximum impervious lot coverage of approximately 86%, which includes the parking structure building type where 70 percent is permitted. 11. 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) - Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required to allow a vertical increment of approximately 74 feet on the south elevation, and approximately 49 feet on the north courtyard elevation where a maximum of 40 feet is permitted. 12. 153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) - Permitted Primary Materials to permit thin brick as a primary material for the building where permitted materials are stone, brick, and glass. 13. 153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) - Primary Façade Materials to allow a minimum of approximately 59 percent primary materials on the east elevation, approximately 44 percent on the north elevation, approximately 46 percent on the west elevation, approximately 58 percent on the south elevation, and approximately 26 percent on the north courtyard elevation Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 11 of 13 (includes thin brick as a primary material) where a minimum of 80% primary façade materials is required. 14. 153.062(O)(12)(a)(2) – Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage to allow a maximum impervious lot coverage of approximately 86%, which includes the apartment building type where 80% (70% maximum per shared lot with an apartment building type) is permitted. 15. 153.062(O)(12)(d)(3) – Street Facades - Number of Pedestrian Entrances Required to allow two entrances where three are required on the east elevation (Street A) and south elevation (Banker Drive). 16. 153.062(O)(12)(d)(4) – Garage Floors to allow a parking ramp facing the Banker Drive frontage where horizontal floors are required. 17. 153.065(B)(5)(a)(1) - Entry / Exit Lanes to allow two exit lanes where three are required. Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Alexander, no. [Motion carried 5-1] Mr. Deschler moved, Ms. Harter seconded to approve the Final Development Plan with the following conditions: 1. The applicant continues to work with Staff on the final streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue and Green Street regarding the consideration of the boulders, subject to Staff approval; 2. The applicant works with Staff on the dedication of right-of-way on the east side of Dale Drive; 3. The applicant works with Staff to finalize the parking space and drive aisle designs to align with the requirements listed in Code, subject to Staff approval; 4. The applicant works with Staff to meet the bicycle parking requirements and add the necessary spaces throughout the development, subject to Staff approval; 5. he applicant continues to work with Staff on the final design of the pocket park, subject to Staff approval; 6. The applicant obtains a right-of-way encroachment permit through the Engineering department; 7. The applicant provides window details and wall sections of the entire condominium building to ensure the windows are not flush-mounted and additional architectural details above the five vertical windows along the northern elevation, with the submittal of building permits; 8. Should COTA not occupy the space, the applicant continues to work with Staff on the exterior elevations of the proposed garage building; 9. The applicant coordinates with the Public Art Board to determine the artwork for the proposed garage scrim and any additional art within the open spaces; 10. The applicant works with Engineering Staff on final civil plan details at the Site Permit submittal stage and adhere to all of the City’s regulations and design requirements; 11. The applicant provides Staff with screening details for the mechanicals as part of the site permit, subject to Staff approval; 12. The applicant submits an updated photometric plan with their site permits, subject to Staff approval.; and, 13. The applicant submits additional specifications for all decorative lighting proposed on the site, subject to Staff approval. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 12 of 13 14. The applicant continue to work with staff to incorporate seating in the central open space along the accessible path, subject to Staff approval. Ms. Call asked for input from the applicant. Mr. Hunter stated that condition #2 may not be necessary. Ms. Rauch stated that they have worked with the applicant; would prefer to keep it, if it is not required, then that condition is satisfied. Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] Case #25-066CU Bridge Park, Block J – Conditional Use Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use for COTA Park & Ride located in a new parking structure. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Garvin seconded to approve the Conditional Use for COTA Park & Ride. Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Ms. Harter, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] Case #25-056PP & #25-057FP Bridge Park, Block J – Preliminary Plat & Final Plat Request for review and approval of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat to allow a new mixed-use development. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Deschler seconded a recommendation to City Council for approval of the combined Preliminary and Final Plat with the following condition: 1. Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will be required to update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes. [Motion carried 6-0] COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Rauch shared the following: • APA Ohio training is available in Toledo, Ohio September 24-26, 2025; commission members were advised to let staff know if interested in attending. • The annual joint training will be held Tuesday, July 22; dinner begins at 6:00 and the meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at 5200 Emerald Parkway. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 17, 2025 Page 13 of 13 • There continues to be conversation regarding the West Innovation District; additional Code modifications will come before the Commission by the end of the year. Ms. Call stated that SportsOhio will be hosting a a walk through tomorrow (July 18, 2025) at 11:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 pm. Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Deputy Clerk of Council 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING REPORT Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, July 17, 2025 Bridge Park, Block J 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-055 | https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-056 | https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25- 057 | https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-066 Case Summary Address 4457 Bridge Park Avenue, PIDs: 273-008242, 273-012836, 273-011148, 273- 008805, 273-012911 Proposal Request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan and recommendation of approval of a Preliminary / Final Plat to allow a new mixed- use development, and a request for review and approval of a Conditional Use for COTA Park & Ride located in a new parking structure. Request Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066; a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code Chapter 152 and review and approval of a Conditional Use (CU) under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.236. Zoning BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood Planning Recommendation Approval of 2 Administrative Departures Approval of 17 Waivers Approval of the Final Development Plan with Conditions Recommendation of Approval to City Council of the Preliminary / Final Plat with Conditions Approval of the Conditional Use Next Steps Upon review and approval of the Final Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use (CU), and the approval of the Preliminary Plat (PP) and Final Plat (FP) by City Council, the applicant may be eligible to apply for site and building permits. Applicant Case Manager Sarah Wilson, EMH&T Zach Hounshell, Planner II (614) 410-4652 zhounshell@dublin.oh.us City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 2 of 24 Site Location Map 1 2 COTA Park and Ride Vacant Daycare building and parking lot Significant grade change from Dale Drive 1 3 2 3 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 3 of 24 1. Introduction Request Review and approval of a Final Development Plan, Preliminary / Final Plat, and Conditional Use for a new mixed-use development within the Bridge Park development. Application Type and Process The Final Development Plan (FDP) is the final step in the development process, as outlined below: 1. Informal Review (optional) 2. Concept Plan (CP) 3. Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) 4. Final Development Plan (FDP) / Conditional Use (CU) / Preliminary Plat (PP) / Final Plat (FP) The FDP is generally intended to finalize materials and specific details of a development ahead of permitting. Review of the FDP should include architectural and material details of buildings, landscaping, and open space treatments. The FDP includes the consideration of Waivers not addressed with the PDP, which are deviations from specific code requirements that can be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Waiver and Administrative Departure requests are typically expected as part of the development process under the Bridge Street Code and are important tools for applicants to create high-quality development that is unique from other developments in the area. They are also designed to permit the form-based standards in the Bridge Street code to be softened based on unique site characteristics for high development quality. All Waiver and Administrative Departure requests are required to meet the criteria listed in the Code, which generally requires requests to improve the quality of the development and alignment with the intent of the Bridge Street District. A Conditional Use (CU) application has also been submitted and requires determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Finally, the applicant submitted a combined Preliminary and Final Plat with the FDP to dedicate public right-of-way to the City. This process will require a recommendation to City Council for the acceptance of a resolution. 2. Background Site Summary The combined ±5.37-acre site is zoned BSD, Bridge Street District – Scioto River Neighborhood, located southeast of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. The site consists of 5 properties containing an existing COTA Park and Ride lot, a vacant daycare facility, parking for Wendy’s property, and the staging area for The Bailey development to the west. The site features a significant grade change from the northwest corner to Dave Thomas Boulevard and the southwest corner. An abandoned stream bed is located centrally on the site, with mature vegetation lining the bed. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 4 of 24 Case History May 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Preliminary Development Plan and Conditional Use for the proposed development. The Commission provided the following comments and recommendations as part of their approval: • Emphasized the resolution of the design of the road and how pedestrian and vehicular traffic would be addressed • Expressed some concerns regarding the thin brick material on the condominium building • Recommended adding a vista point at the end of the central open space • Expressed concern with the HPL material on the office building • Expressed concern over the potential condition of the park-and-ride site during construction of the development • Expressed concern over the façade treatment of the garage building April 2025 City Council approved the Concept Plan which accompanied a Development Agreement. Council provided the following comments and recommendations for consideration moving forward: • Emphasized a need for more interest and attractiveness on the roof to screen mechanicals from adjacent buildings. • Emphasized the need to enhance the architectural design of the building at the corner of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. • Recommended a terminal vista at the east end of the open space. • Highlighted the need for key creative sign locations throughout the development • Expressed concern with the architecture of the garage and a desire to see it further integrated with the block, similar to the garage in Block G. • Expressed intrigue in the proposed open space and how it would be programmed. • Expressed a desire to see Street A become more pedestrian and create a seamless transition between the public open space and the courtyard of the Phase 1 condo building. December 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Concept Plan (CP) to City Council with conditions. PZC provided the following comments and recommendations for consideration moving forward: • Generally supportive of the layout of the site and location of buildings / open space. • Expressed concern over the design of Street A and how it could interfere with the pedestrian circulation of the development. • Recommended additional emphasis and articulation on the architecture of the garage • Emphasized the need for a parking study for the site to address parking needs • Recommended building materials be more complementary throughout the site 3. Bridge Street District BSD-SRN, Scioto River Neighborhood The BSD Code establishes Neighborhood Districts, where special attention to the location and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces is essential to establish a coordinated mix of uses that fulfills the objectives identified in the BSD Special Area Plan within the Community Plan. Each neighborhood anticipates the conceptual layout of critical elements, including street connections, open spaces, and gateways. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 5 of 24 The BSD-SRN Neighborhood District provides a significant opportunity for a well-planned and designed neighborhood with a balanced mix of land uses. Predominant land uses include a residential presence to complement and support a strong mix of uses, with office employment and supporting service and commercial uses. A comfortable, walkable street network strongly connects these diverse but complementary land uses. The site is located in the neighborhood’s southeast corner, bordered by Bridge Park Avenue to the north, Dale Drive to the west, a private section of Banker Drive to the south, and Dave Thomas Boulevard to the east. Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue are both designated as Principal Frontage Streets (PFS), which are intended to ensure certain street types are lined with continuous, pedestrian-oriented block faces of front building facades. Additionally, the neighborhood map shows a potential continuation of the shopping corridor along Bridge Park Avenue. However, the shopping corridor is not required to be extended with this development, as a shopping corridor has already been established along Riverside Drive and Longshore Drive. Only one shopping corridor is required in the neighborhood, and Staff has determined that this portion of Bridge Park Avenue would not be appropriate for an additional shopping corridor. Project This request is for the approval of phase 1 of Block J, which includes a new office building, condominium building, parking garage, and public green open space. The Final Development Plan is accompanied by Preliminary and Final Plats for the dedication of public right-of-way, and a Conditional Use for the COTA Park-and-Ride facility to occupy a portion of the proposed garage. Site Layout The layout of the site is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development Plan. The office building is proposed in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive; the condominium building in the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Public Street A (Dave Thomas Boulevard); and a garage building in the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of Banker Drive and Public Street A. Green Street is a proposed new north-south private service street that splits the property in half. Public open space is proposed in the western half of the development, connecting Dale Drive and Green Street. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 6 of 24 Lots, Blocks, and Streets The block is defined by Bridge Park Avenue (north), Public Street A (formerly known as Dave Thomas Boulevard) (east), Dale Drive (west), and Banker Drive (south). Private streets, such as Green Street, are typically considered service streets, which are not used to measure block length or perimeter. However, Green Street does provide a mid-block pedestrianway, which is required for block lengths that exceed 400 feet. A Waiver for block width and perimeter was approved with the Preliminary Development Plan. The conversion of Public Street A from an access drive to a public street requires the street to meet Bridge Street streetscape design standards and a 60-foot right-of-way, which is provided. This improvement requires alterations to Wendy’s site circulation and parking, which requires approval with the Final Development Plan. The applicant has worked with staff to determine best practices for on-street parking and streetscape design for each of the public street improvements, which are represented in the submitted plans. Staff and the applicant are working through details on the treatment of Bridge Park Avenue and how this section of the street should transition from the Bridge Park streetscape character to a greenway character as defined in the Bridge Street Character Guidelines. The applicant should continue to work with Staff on the final streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue, subject to Staff approval. Additionally, Staff has identified that additional right-of-way is required to be dedicated on the east side of Dale Drive with this development. This additional right-of-way is intended to contribute to the future streetscape improvements of Dale Drive that the City of Dublin will develop. These improvements are currently not contemplated in the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The applicant should work with Staff on the dedication of right-of-way on the east side of Dale Drive. Green Street Green Street was a specific topic of discussion by PZC at the Concept Plan and Preliminary Development Plan, as several members discussed the design of the street and whether a continuous street connection was appropriate with this development. Staff reviewed the proposed street connection and are supportive of the current configuration of the street. Green Street achieves the goals of creating smaller blocks of development with pedestrian facilities to create an urban, pedestrian-friendly environment. Terminating the central section of the street would not be acceptable to Staff, as the applicant would be required to provide an alternative means of egress through the site. The Washington Township Fire Department is also supportive of the proposed circulation through the site, as the street connection provides necessary access to all buildings and open space in the development. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 7 of 24 The applicant has made several updates to the private woonerf street design, which includes decorative concrete pavement designed to emphasize east-west pedestrian circulation over the north-south vehicular movement, natural barriers to delineate the vehicular circulation, and locations for removable bollards when events occur in the open space / private street space. The private street is proposed as a southbound one-way street to limit northbound traffic from the garage through the pedestrian area. Parking Parking is determined by the square footage of a specific use or the number of residential units in a development. Based on the estimated number of condominium units, the size of both office and residential uses, and a 10 percent reduction to the required parking due to the proximity of the COTA Park-and-Ride facility, the development is required to provide at least 618 parking spaces (including Phase 2). Although a parking plan was approved with the Preliminary Development, a modification to the parking plan is required with the Final Development Plan. The Block J development is proposing 545 parking spaces split between the parking garage (500 spaces) and on-street parking (45 spaces). The revised parking plan is required based on revisions to the plans and additional review by Staff to determine what could be counted for the development. The applicant has provided a parking diagram that includes adjacent parking garages in Blocks B, C, and G, and identifies the amount of available parking within 900 feet of the development based on peak parking demand times. The intent behind this request is to minimize the amount of excess parking provided on the site, as indicated on the plans. Similar parking plans have been approved for various blocks of the Bridge Park development that utilize shared parking across different garages. Additionally, loading spaces required for the Office/Restaurant building are not designated on the site, but are anticipated to occur only on Green Street, which is permitted. The applicant is not providing designated spaces for loading since access to the private street is available adjacent to the Office / Restaurant building. Staff supports the revised Parking Plan. Several areas of the proposed parking garage include parking spaces and drive aisles that do not meet the code requirements for width and length. Many parking spaces are impacted by structural columns that reduce their length. These spaces and dimensions can be mitigated by designating spaces as ‘Compact’ spaces, or by adjusting the striping. The applicant should work with Staff to finalize the parking space and drive aisle designs to align with the requirements listed in Code, subject to Staff approval. The applicant is also providing 111 bicycle parking spaces, where 135 spaces are required. These spaces are provided within the Block J parking garage. The applicant should work with Staff to meet the bicycle parking requirements and add the necessary spaces throughout the development, subject to Staff approval. Open Space Phase 1 of the Block J development requires approximately 0.46 acres of open space, with the full buildout (including Phase 2) requiring a total of approximately 0.94 acres of publicly- accessible open space in the development. Based on Staff’s calculations, the applicant is providing approximately 0.92 acres of open space on Phase 1 of the development, with opportunities for additional open space as part of Phase 2. With Phase 2, the applicant will need City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 8 of 24 to either meet the minimum open space requirements with additional open space, or request a Waiver to the open space requirements. The public green is a passive open space, including a proposed revitalization of an existing stream bed to assist in the site’s stormwater management strategy. The open space contains a bio-retention basin and a lawn area, which will be enhanced with benches, a decking/boardwalk, and additional greenspace. The public green feeds into the pocket park, which provide a variety of landscaping and seating options. Much of the pocket park is currently located within the right-of-way, with limited improvements occurring on the site. The space currently operates as a pocket plaza instead of a pocket park. The size and prominent visibility of the area designated for the open space provides an opportunity to introduce public art or some other characteristic to this open space to facilitate a dynamic triangulation of interest between the restaurant patio, the pocket park, and the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. The applicant should continue to work with Staff on the final design of the pocket park, subject to Staff approval. Waivers The applicant is requesting approval of 2 Waivers for the public green open space outlined below: 1) Public Green – Open Space Proportion 2) Public Green – Open Space Access The plan review section of this report provides explanations for the requested waivers. Staff supports these Waivers. Office / Restaurant Building Summary The office building is a 4-story Mixed-Use building type and approximately 105,000 square feet in size, with approximately 6,500 square feet of restaurant space in the western half of the first floor. The building will have frontage on two principal frontage streets, with outdoor patio seating areas adjacent to the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue for the restaurant user. The upper stories of the building will also feature balconies for office tenants. The proposed building will use brick, cast stone, and storefront systems, with synthetic panels as a complementary material. PDP (Previous) FDP (Proposed) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 9 of 24 Updates Based on previous comments by the Commission and Staff the applicant has made the following updates to the office building with the FDP: • Building Material – Replaced the use of HPL (not permitted) with a metal panel (permitted) • Building Color – Updated the color of the building materials to better complement the rest of the block • North Elevation – Updated the window divisions to reduce the horizontal appearance of the windows on the upper floors • South Elevation – Updated the lighting throughout the façade, provided more divisions throughout the façade to break up the face of the building, and introduced a more prominent corner treatment at the southwest corner of the building Staff Conditions Staff have identified the following conditions that will be applied to this building: 1) Right-of-Way Encroachments – The applicant is proposing retaining walls which encroach into the Bridge Park Avenue right-of-way. Engineering Staff are supportive of these encroachments, but the applicant will be required to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit through the Engineering department. Waivers / Administrative Departures At the PDP, the applicant received approval of 5 Waivers for the office building. The applicant is requesting an additional 5 Waivers and 2 Administrative Departures as outlined below: Waivers 1) Façade Material Transitions 2) Front Property Line Coverage – Bridge Park Avenue & Dale Drive 3) Front RBZ – Dale Drive 4) Upper Story Height – 5th Story 5) Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required – North, East, and West Elevations Administrative Departures 1) Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required – South Elevation 2) Façade Divisions – Required Change in Roof Plane or Type – North Elevation The plan review section of this report provides explanations for the requested waivers. Staff supports these Waivers and Departures. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 10 of 24 Condominium Building Summary The condominium building is a 5- story Apartment building type and includes 89 residential units in an approximately 160,000-square-foot building. The building is generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan. The building has frontage on one principal frontage street (Bridge Park Avenue), which will serve as the primary street frontage. An amenity deck with a swimming pool is proposed at the center of the building, which will open to Green Street and the public open space. The south side of the building connects to the garage, allowing residents to have direct access. The building is proposed to be constructed of cast stone, thin brick, and metal panels. Thin brick is not a permitted primary material and would require approval of a Waiver. The thin brick material is a clay / shale wire-cut thin brick manufactured in Ohio. Staff reviewed this thin brick material with our architectural consultant and are supportive of the material, as it is a trusted material that has been used in various project across the Columbus region. Updates Based on previous comments by the Commission and Staff the applicant has made the following updates to the office building with the FDP: • Building Color – The applicant has updated the accent colors of the building to bring more consistency with the rest of the development • Entry Stoops – The applicant has added entry stoops for first floor tenants along Bridge Park Avenue. These were originally included, but encroached into the right-of-way. The proposed stoops do not encroach into the right-of-way. Staff Conditions Staff have identified the following conditions that will be applied to this building: 1) Window Details – No details have been provided for windows located within the flat metal wall panel siding portions of the elevations. To verify that the windows are not flush-mounted, window details and wall sections should be provided with the submittal of building permits. PDP (Previous) FDP (Proposed) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 11 of 24 Waivers At the PDP, the applicant received approval of 6 Waivers for the condominium building. The applicant is requesting an additional 6 Waivers as outlined below: 1) Façade Material Transitions 2) Front RBZ – Bridge Park Avenue 3) Max Impervious Lot Coverage 4) Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required – South and North Courtyard Elevations 5) Permitted Primary Materials – Thin Brick 6) Primary Façade Materials – North, South, East, West, and North Courtyard Elevations The plan review section of this report provides explanations for the requested waivers. Staff supports these Waivers. Garage Building Summary The garage building is a 5-story Parking Structure building type and includes 500 parking spaces in an approximately 169,000-square-foot building. The massing of the building is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan. The garage is expected to have rooftop parking, which requires the addition of two towers in the northwest and southeast corners of the building. Parking structures are permitted to include parking on the roof, consistent with other parking garages in Bridge Park. The garage is proposed to be clad in brick, cast stone, and storefront systems with a perforated aluminum scrim on the south facade that will incorporate artwork in the future. Conditional Use – COTA Park-and- Ride A Conditional Use is required for the COTA Park-and-Ride to utilize a portion of the garage. The facility is currently located in the southwest corner of the site, but is proposed to be relocated to the Block J garage. The applicant has stated that the park-and-ride facility will reserve up to 100 parking spaces during business hours in the southwest corner of the building, with a built- in driver-only restroom and small waiting area within the garage. On the north side of Banker Drive, it is expected that a dedicated COTA bus loading zone will be provided for the facility. The temporary relocation of the park-and-ride is expected to occur at the northwest corner of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue while the development of Block J occurs. The temporary PDP (Previous) FDP (Proposed) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 12 of 24 relocation will require approval of a separate Conditional Use, which will be presented at a future Planning Commission meeting. Staff is supportive of this Conditional Use. Updates Based on previous comments by the Commission and Staff the applicant has made the following updates to the office building with the FDP: • Northwest Tower – The applicant has made significant improvements to the tower feature in the northwest corner of the site, immediately adjacent to the public open space. The tower now features a variety of vertical sunshades, frosted storefront glazing, and clear storefront glazing to create a more iconic architectural feature for the building. This tower will be uniquely illuminated in the evenings. • Elevations – The applicant has modified the first floor façade material color to provide more activation along the ground level of the structure. The applicant has also added horizontal elements to each façade to break up the repetitiveness of the building. • Corner Treatments – The corners remain open air, but the material cladding the structural concrete piers has been updated to a metal panel. • Landscaping – The applicant has updated the landscaping along the base of the garage to better screen the internal circulation of the garage and create a green buffer between the streetscape and the garage. Staff Conditions Staff have identified the following conditions that will be applied to this building: 1) Façade Treatments and Design – Although the applicant has made updates to the garage façade design to address concerns and comments from Staff, City Council, and Planning Commission, Planning Staff would like to continue to work with applicant to further refine the facades of the building and minimize the number of Waivers required. Staff is supportive of the changes to the northwest tower, but would like to see the following actions taken to bring the building closer to compliance with the requirements of the Code: a. Principal Pedestrian Entrance Design Updates b. Screening parked cars from the street c. Treatment of corners of the garage d. Reducing exposed concrete as a façade material e. Garage lighting The applicant should continue to work with Staff on the exterior elevations of the proposed garage building, subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval at a future date. Staff is supportive of the structural design of the garage and are recommending approval of Waivers necessary for the foundation and footings of the garage. The primary concern is the façade treatment of the building and how that is modified for future review. Should the façade of the garage be required to come back to Planning Commission, the applicant would be allowed to proceed with the foundations and structural permitting of the garage while the façade is being reviewed. Additionally, the proposed art scrim on the south elevation of the building will need to be reviewed by the Public Art Board, which is the determining body for public art in Dublin. The City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 13 of 24 applicant should coordinate with the PAB to determine the artwork for the proposed garage scrim. Waivers At the PDP, the applicant received approval of 6 Waivers for the condominium building. The applicant is requesting an additional 4 Waivers as outlined below: 1) Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 2) Street Facades - Number of Pedestrian Entrances Required – E S Elevations 3) Garage Floors – Banker Drive 4) Entry / Exit Lanes The plan review section of this report provides explanations for the requested waivers. Staff supports these Waivers. Stormwater Management, Utilities, and Services Stormwater Management and Public Utilities The applicant has provided civil plans for both stormwater management and the extension of public utilities throughout the site. The public green open space will provide opportunities for stormwater management through bioretention and underground detention. Additional details and refinement are required for all public and private utilities and stormwater management practices on the site. The applicant will continue to work with Engineering Staff on final civil plan details at the Site Permit submittal stage and adhere to all the City’s regulations and design requirements. Screening The applicant is proposing multiple locations for transformers and utility equipment along Green Street and along Dale Drive. These locations are required to provide service to the development. However, no details have been provided to address how these areas will be screened from the public. The applicant should provide Staff with screening details as part of the site permit, subject to Staff approval. Lighting The applicant has provided a photometric plan for the development, but the plan needs to be updated with additional information about combining existing photometric data emanating from the surrounding streetlights. The applicant should submit an updated photometric plan with their site permits, subject to Staff approval. The applicant should also submit additional specifications for all decorative lighting proposed on the site, subject to Staff approval. Preliminary and Final Plat The applicant is requesting review and recommendation of approval for a combined Preliminary / Final Plat for the creation of 2 developable lots, 2 private reserves, and the dedication of 2 private streets. The proposed plat creates Lots 20 (1.03 ac.) and Lot 21 (2.10 ac.) for the development of the phase 1 of Block J. The plat also creates Reserve C for the creation of the central open space and Reserve D for the creation of Green Street, a private street owned and maintained by Crawford Hoying. Banker Drive and Public Street A (formerly-known as Dave City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 14 of 24 Thomas Boulevard) will be dedicated public right-of-way that will be owned and maintained by the City of Dublin. The plat does not impact the existing parcel located at the intersection of Banker Drive and Dale Drive which is currently occupied by the COTA Park-and-Ride facility. Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will be required to update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Plan Review 1) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required No greater than 45 feet Request: To allow a vertical increment of approximately 47 feet on the south elevation Criteria Met: Although the vertical increment requirement is not met, the deviation is minimal in nature and will not negatively impact the intent of the requirement. 2) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Required Change in Roof Plane or Type No greater than every 80 feet Request: To allow an approximately 84-foot continuous roof plane at the northwest corner of the building. Criteria Met: The deviation from the roof plane requirement is minor in nature and contributes to a key architectural element of the building at the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. 1) 153.064(G)(1)(b) – Open Space 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. Request: To allow a ratio of approximately 3.875:1 for the proposed Public Green. Criteria Met: Although the proposed open space exceeds the length ratio, the open space is located centrally in the development with access to all buildings and streets. The extended length does not negatively impact the intent of the requirement. 2) 153.064(G)(2)(a) – Open Space Access Greens less than 1.25 acres in size shall have a minimum of 100% perimeter along public streets or buildings. Administrative Departures [153.066(J)] Mixed-Use Building Type (Office Building) Waivers [153.066(I)(6)] Open Space Types City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 15 of 24 Request: To allow the proposed Green to not be 100% perimeter along public streets or buildings. Criteria Met: The open space is largely contained by proposed buildings on the north and south (Phase 2), a public street on the west (Dale Drive), and a private street on the east (Green Street). The proposal meets the intent of the perimeter requirement. 3) 153.062(E)(2)(a) – Façade Material Transitions Vertical transitions in façade materials shall occur at inside corners. Request: To allow vertical façade material transitions to not occur at the inside corners on the north, south, and west elevations where thin brick piers abut metal panels over storefront windows. Criteria Met: The transition of materials at inside corners is not possible at these locations, as there are no inside corners to transition the materials. These material abutments do not negatively impact the construction and quality of the building. 4) 153.062(O)(5)(a)(1) - Front Property Line Coverage Minimum 95 percent. Request: To allow approximately 76 percent FPLC along Bridge Park Avenue and 0 percent FPLC along Dale Drive. Criteria Met: The FPLC for Bridge Park Avenue largely cannot be met due to existing grading issues along the street, which requires the addition of retention walls within the right of way. The FPLC for Dale Drive cannot be met due to grading challenges that require the building to be setback significantly from the street. 5) 153.062(O)(5)(a)(1) - Front Required Build Zone 0-10 feet with up to 25% of the front façade permitted between 10-20 feet. Request: To allow a minimum front RBZ of approximately 43 feet along Dale Drive. Criteria Met: Similar to the FPLC, the front RBZ cannot be met along Dale Drive due to grading challenges that require the building to be setback significantly from the street. 6) 153.062(O)(5)(b) - Upper Story Height Maximum of 14 feet for upper stories of a building. Request: To allow the 5th floor of the building to be approximately 16 feet. Criteria Met: The 5th floor is the top floor of the building, and the additional height does not significantly alter the height of the building. The additional height is due to the roof deck being 2 feet above the joist bearing point, necessitating the need for the Waiver. Mixed-Use Building Type (Office / Restaurant Building) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 16 of 24 7) 153.062(O)(5)(d)(4) – Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required No greater than 45 feet. Request: To allow a vertical increment of approximately 66 feet on the east elevation, approximately 79 feet on the north elevation, and approximately 66 feet on the west elevation. Criteria Met: Vertical increments are intended to minimize long stretches of unbroken façade on large buildings. Although these facades exceed the requirement, the applicant is providing material breaks and small articulations in the facades that meet the intent of these requirements. 8) 153.062(E)(2)(a) – Façade Material Transitions Vertical transitions in façade materials shall occur at inside corners. Request: To allow vertical façade material transitions to not occur at the inside corners throughout the building on balconies where thin brick and metal shingles meet. Criteria Met: The transition of materials at inside corners is not possible at these locations, as there are no inside corners to transition the materials. These material abutments do not negatively impact the construction and quality of the building. 9) 153.062(O)(3)(a)(1) - Front Required Build Zone 5-20 feet. Request: To allow a minimum front RBZ of approximately 3 feet along Bridge Park Avenue. Criteria Met: Although the apartment building does not meet the 5-foot minimum RBZ requirement, the building is still set back several feet from the edge of the streetscape. This creates the desired setback of the building and ground-story residential units from the Bridge Park Avenue streetscape. 10) 153.062(O)(3)(a)(2) – Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 70 percent. Request: To allow a maximum impervious lot coverage of approximately 86 percent, which includes the parking structure building type. Apartment Building Type (Condominium Building) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 17 of 24 Criteria Met: When considering the whole block of development (including Phase 2), the lot coverage for the site is approximately 72 percent. Although the building exceeds the lot coverage for an apartment building, the entire development provides significant amounts of natural open space to offset impervious improvements to the site. 11) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) - Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments Required No greater than 40 feet. Request: To allow a vertical increment of approximately 74 feet on the south elevation, and approximately 49 feet on the north courtyard elevation. Criteria Met: Both elevations are internal to the building and will not be easily viewed from the private green street. These vertical increment deviations do not negatively impact the design and quality of the development. 12) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) - Permitted Primary Materials Permitted primary materials are stone, brick, and glass Request: To permit thin brick as a primary material for the building. Criteria Met: Staff and our architectural consultant have reviewed the requested ‘Somerville’ thin brick material and are supportive of the material as a permitted primary material. This thin brick material is a clay/shale brick that has been used in various projects in Central Ohio, is manufactured in Ohio, and has been used on various projects by the architectural consultant. 13) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(5) - Primary Façade Materials Each façade of the building should contain a minimum of 80 percent primary façade materials. Request: To allow a minimum of approximately 59 percent primary materials on the east elevation, approximately 44 percent on the north elevation, approximately 46 percent on the west elevation, approximately 58 percent on the south elevation, and approximately 26 percent on the north courtyard elevation (includes thin brick as a primary material). Criteria Met: The reduction in primary materials for all facades contributes to the more modern design of the condominium building. This results in a high-quality building design that contributes to the urban nature of Bridge Park. 14) 153.062(O)(12)(a)(2) – Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage 80 percent (70 percent maximum per shared lot with an apartment building type) Request: To allow a maximum impervious lot coverage of approximately 86 percent, which includes the apartment building type. Criteria Met: When considering the whole block of development (including Phase 2), the lot coverage for the site is approximately 72 percent. Although the building exceeds the lot Parking Structure Building Type (Garage Building) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 18 of 24 coverage for a parking structure building, the entire development provides significant amounts of natural open space to offset impervious improvements to the site. 15) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(3) – Street Facades - Number of Pedestrian Entrances Required 1 per 75 feet of façade minimum Request: To allow 2 entrances where 3 are required on the east elevation (Street A) and south elevation (Banker Drive) Criteria Met: The entrances into the garage are located on the corners of the garage. The addition of a 3rd entrance on both elevations would negatively impact the circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and negatively impact the amount of parking spaces within the first floor of the parking structure. 16) 153.062(O)(12)(d)(4) – Garage Floors Garage Floors shall be horizontal along all street facades. Request: To allow a parking ramp facing the Banker Drive frontage. Criteria Met: Since the garage has frontage on 2 public streets, the parking ramps would not be able to be horizontal to at least 1 street frontage. The south elevation is largely screened by the metal mesh art wall, which will minimize the visibility of the internal circulation of the garage. 17) 153.065(B)(5)(a)(1) - Entry / Exit Lanes One entrance lane shall be required for every 300 spaces or part thereof and one exit lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces or part thereof. Request: Based on 500 parking spaces, the applicant is requesting 2 exit lanes where 3 are required. Criteria Met: The addition of an extra exit lane would significantly alter the design and vehicular flow of the garage. The applicant is providing 2 access points on the east and west elevations of the building, which has been identified as adequate by Staff. Criteria Review 1. The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP, and consistent with the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director’s recommendation; Criterion Met with Parking Plan, Administrative Departures, and Waivers: The proposal is largely similar to the PDP and consistent with the record established by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the approval of a revised Parking Plan, Administrative Departures, and Waivers. Final Development Plan City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 19 of 24 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted City plans, and citywide administrative and financial policies; Criterion Met: The proposal is largely consistent with all planning policies applicable to the site. 3. The proposed land uses conform to all applicable requirements and use specific standards of §153.059 Uses; Criterion Met with Conditional Use: The proposal conforms with all use requirements. 4. The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to the requirements of §153.062 Building Types and §153.065 Site Development Standards; Criterion Met with Administrative Departures and Waivers: The proposal conforms to the development standards of the BSD with the approval of Administrative Departures and Waivers. 5. The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060 Lots and Blocks; Criterion Met: The proposal conforms to the lots and blocks requirements of the BSD. 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, as amended; Criterion Met with Conditions: The proposal largely conforms to the street requirements of the BSD. The applicant should continue to work with Staff on the final streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue, subject to Staff approval. Additionally, the applicant should work with Staff on the dedication of right-of-way on the east side of Dale Drive. 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; Criterion Met with Condition: The proposed circulation through the site creates a safe and efficient access for pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant should work with Staff to finalize the parking space and drive aisle designs to align with the requirements listed in Code, subject to Staff approval. Additionally, the applicant should work with Staff to meet the bicycle parking requirements and add the necessary spaces throughout the development, subject to Staff approval. 8. The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development, and avoids Criterion Met with Conditions, Waivers, and Administrative Departures: The proposed buildings are largely consistent with the character of the adjacent Bridge Park development. The applicant should provide window details and wall City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 20 of 24 overshadowing of existing or proposed development; sections of the condominium building with the submittal of building permits to ensure the windows are not flush-mounted. Additionally, the applicant should continue to work with Staff on the exterior elevations of the proposed garage building, subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval. Finally, the applicant should coordinate with the PAB to determine the artwork for the proposed garage scrim. 9. The proposed site design, landscaping, screening, and buffering is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines; Criterion Met with Condition: The development is largely consistent is the BSD Design Guidelines. The applicant will be required to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit through the Engineering department. Additionally, the applicant should provide Staff with screening details as part of the site permit, subject to Staff approval. The applicant should submit an updated photometric plan with their site permits, subject to Staff approval. The applicant should also submit additional specifications for all decorative lighting proposed on the site, subject to Staff approval. 10. The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community, benefit the community both within and outside the proposed development, and conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces; Criterion Met with Conditions and Waivers: The proposal largely meets the requirements for open space. The applicant should continue to work with Staff on the final design of the pocket park, subject to Staff approval. 11. 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 sewage services, recreational activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services; Criterion Met: The proposal allows the provision of public services to and around the site. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 21 of 24 12. The proposed development conforms to the requirements of §153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable; Criterion Met: The proposal meets all requirements of the Scioto River Neighborhood. 13. 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; Criterion Met with Conditions: The applicant will continue to work with Engineering Staff on final civil plan details at the Site Permit submittal stage and adhere to all of the City’s regulations and design requirements. 14. 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; Criterion Met: The proposal will meet all requirements for public and private infrastructure improvements. 15. If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently without the need for further phased improvements; and Criterion Met: The development is split into 2 phases. Phase 2 will be required to gain PZC approval at a future date. 16. 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. Criterion Met: The proposal is consistent with applicable policies and documents to the BSD. Conditional Use (153.236) Criteria Review 1. Harmonious with the Zoning Code and/or Community Plan. Criterion Met: The COTA Park and Ride was originally approved at the location immediately west of the garage. The relocation of the facility is harmonious with the zoning code and strengthens the goals of the Community Plan to create alternative modes of transportation throughout the City. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 22 of 24 Criteria Review 1. Plat Information, Zoning Code, and Construction Requirements Criterion Met with Condition: Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan. 2. Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike Path Standards Criterion Met: The proposed lots, streets, and easements meet the zoning standards. 2. Complies with applicable standards. Criterion Met: The use meets all applicable zoning standards. 3. Harmonious with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. Criterion Met: The use currently exists adjacent to the site and will maintain its harmonious state in the new structure. 4. The use will not have a hazardous or negative impact on surrounding uses. Criterion Met: The use will not have negative impacts on surrounding uses, as the use has been fully integrated with the development of the garage. 5. The use will be adequately served by public facilities and services. Criterion Met: The use will be adequately served by public facilities and services. 6. The use will not harm the economic welfare. Criterion Met: The use will not negatively impact the economic welfare of the area, as the use already exists. 7. The use will not be detrimental to any person, property, or the general welfare. Criterion Met: The use will not be detrimental to any person or property adjacent to the site. 8. Vehicular circulation will not interfere with existing circulation. Criterion Met: The use will not interfere with existing circulation, as the use currently exists adjacent to the site. 9. Not detrimental to property values in the vicinity. Criterion Met: The use will not be detrimental to property values of adjacent sites, since the use is an accessory to the garage. 10. Will not impede the development or improvement of surrounding properties. Criterion Met: The use will not impede the development or improvement of surrounding properties, as the use is fully contained with the proposed garage. Preliminary / Final Plat (Chapter 152 Subdivision Regulations) City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 23 of 24 3. Utilities. Criterion Met with Condition: The applicant is continuing to work with Staff on utilities and stormwater management for the development of the site and will provide updated information as part of the City Council and/or Site Plan submission. 4. Open Space Requirements Not Applicable: Open Space is determined by the uses on sites in the Bridge Street District, not by platting requirements. Recommendation Planning Recommendation: Approval of 2 Administrative Departures. Planning Recommendation: Approval of 17 Waivers. Planning Recommendation: Approval of Final Development Plan with a revised Parking Plan with the following conditions: 1) The applicant continues to work with Staff on the final streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue, subject to Staff approval; 2) The applicant works with Staff on the dedication of right-of-way on the east side of Dale Drive; 3) The applicant works with Staff to finalize the parking space and drive aisle designs to align with the requirements listed in Code, subject to Staff approval; 4) The applicant works with Staff to meet the bicycle parking requirements and add the necessary spaces throughout the development, subject to Staff approval; 5) The applicant continues to work with Staff on the final design of the pocket park, subject to Staff approval; 6) The applicant obtains a right-of-way encroachment permit through the Engineering department; 7) The applicant provides window details and wall sections of the condominium building with the submittal of building permits to assure the windows are not flush-mounted; 8) The applicant continues to work with Staff on the exterior elevations of the proposed garage building, subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval; 9) The applicant coordinates with the PAB to determine the artwork for the proposed garage scrim; 10) The applicant works with Engineering Staff on final civil plan details at the Site Permit submittal stage and adhere to all of the City’s regulations and design requirements; 11) The applicant provides Staff with screening details as part of the site permit, subject to Staff approval; 12) The applicant submits an updated photometric plan with their site permits, subject to Staff approval.; and, 13) The applicant submits additional specifications for all decorative lighting proposed on the site, subject to Staff approval. Planning Recommendation: Approval of a Conditional Use with no conditions. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 25-055FDP, 25-056PP, 25057FP, & 25-066CU | Bridge Park, Block J Thursday, July 17, 2025 Page 24 of 24 Planning Recommendation: Approval of a combined Preliminary and Final Plat with the following condition: 1) Prior to submitting to City Council, the applicant will be required to update the Preliminary and Final Plats to reflect all necessary changes to the plan made with the Final Development Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, May 1, 2025 | 6:30 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Bridge Park, Block J 24-157PDP Preliminary Development Plan and Parking Plan Proposal: New mixed-use development on a 5.37-acre site zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood. Request: Review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and Parking Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Location: South of Bridge Park Avenue between Dale Drive and Dave Thomas Boulevard. Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/24-157 MOTION 1: Mr. Deschler moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of Waivers to the following Code sections: 1) 153.060(C)(2)(a) – Maximum Block Size to allow a maximum block length of 640 feet and a maximum block perimeter of 1,950 feet for Block J where 500 feet of length and perimeter of 1,750 feet are required. Office Building (Mixed-Use Building Type) 2) 153.062(N)(4)(a)(3) – Blank Walls to allow for the middle portion of the north façade to be a blank wall where blank walls are prohibited. 3) 153.062(O)(6)(b) – Ground Story Minimum Height to allow a 14-foot-tall ground story height on the easter half of the building where a minimum height of 16 feet is required. 4) 153.062(O)(6)(b) – Ground Story Maximum Height to allow a 25-foot-tall ground story height for the restaurant space located on the west end of the building where 24 feet is the maximum. 5) 153.062(O)(6)(d)(3) – Street Façade: Number of Entrances to allow two entrances on the north façade where four are required; and to allow two entrances on the south façade where four are required. 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov 6) 153.062(O)(6)(d)(4) – Horizontal Façade Divisions to allow no horizontal façade division on the north and east facades where horizontal façade divisions are required within three feet of the top of the ground story. Condominium Building (Apartment Building Type) 7) 153.062(O)(3)(b) – Maximum Height of Building to allow a five-story apartment building where 4.5 stories is the maximum. 8) 153.062(O)(3(b) – Maximum Height of Stories to allow a first-floor story height of 17 feet 2 inches on the northwest corner of the building where 14 feet is the maximum. 9) 153.062(O)(3)(b) – Minimum Finished Floor Elevation to allow a finished floor level of 1.1 feet on the east façade of the building adjacent to the sidewalk where a minimum of 2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk façade is required. 10) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) – Vertical Increments allow the north, east and west façade of the building to exceed the maximum 40 feet for vertical increments. 11) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) – Required Change in Roof Plane or Type to allow a change in roof plane no greater than 117 feet on the north façade and 98 feet on the east façade where a change is required no greater than every 80 feet. Garage Building 12) 153.062(D)(4)(a) – Tower Quantity to allow two towers for the parking structure where one is permitted. 13) 153.062(D)(4)(b) – Tower Height to allow the northwest tower to be 18 feet tall and 29 feet wide, and the southeast tower to be 23 feet wide. Code requires tower height to be no 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. 14) 153.062(O)(1)(a) – Primary Façade Materials to allow 30% primary materials on the south façade where 80% exclusive of windows and doors is required. 15) 153.062(0)(11)(d)(3) – Street Facades: Number of Entrances to allow two entrances on the south, east and west facades where three are required. 16) 153.062(O)(11)(d)(4) – Vertical Increments to allow the east and west facades of the building to exceed the maximum 30 feet for vertical increments. 17) 153.062(O)(11)(d)(6) – Tower Locations to allow a tower in the southeast corner of the garage where they are permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners at two principle frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type. VOTE: 6-1 RESULT: The Waivers were approved. 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORDED VOTES: Rebecca Call Yes Kim Way Yes Kathy Harter Yes Jamey Chinnock No Gary Alexander Yes Jason Deschler Yes Dan Garvin Yes MOTION 2: Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and Parking Plan with the following conditions: 1) The applicant continues to work with Staff to address the streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue and Green Street at the FDP. 2) The applicant continues to work with Staff to provide streetscape improvements as required by the City Engineer. 3) The applicant continues to work with Staff on the design of the pocket park at the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue to create a more seamless transition between the streetscape and the office building. 4) The applicant update the plans to accurately represent lot coverage and front property line coverage. 5) The applicant work with Staff to address the façade recommendations of the office building as outlined in the report. 6) The applicant work with Staff to provide a connection between residential units and Bridge Park Avenue with condominium building; 7) The applicant work with Staff to address concerns about the façade treatment of the garage and condo building as outlined in the report and Commission discussion; and, 8) The applicant continue to work with the Engineering Staff on final civil plan details with the Final Development Plan. 9) The applicant enhance terminal vista opportunities on the site within and adjacent to the public green. VOTE: 6-1 RESULT: The Preliminary Development Plan and Parking Plan were approved. RECORDED VOTES: Rebecca Call Yes Kim Way Yes Kathy Harter Yes Jamey Chinnock No Gary Alexander Yes Jason Deschler Yes Dan Garvin Yes 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Community Planning and Development Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, May 1, 2025 | 6:30 p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Bridge Park, Block J 25-037CU Conditional Use Proposal: New mixed-use development on a 5.37-acre site zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood. Request: Review and approval of a Conditional Use under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Location: South of Bridge Park Avenue between Dale Drive and Dave Thomas Boulevard. Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner II Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-037 MOTION: Mr. Way moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the Conditional Use with the following condition: 1) The applicant continue to work with Staff to address concerns about the façade treatment of the garage as outlined in the report. VOTE: 6-1 RESULT: The Conditional Use request was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Rebecca Call Yes Kim Way Yes Kathy Harter Yes Jamey Chinnock No Gary Alexander Yes Jason Deschler Yes Dan Garvin Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Zach Hounshell Planner II Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 14 of 25 9) 153.062 (I)(1)(h) - Horizontal Windows to allow for horizontal windows on tall side elevations facing street. 10) 153.062 (O)(2)(d)(4) - Vertical Façade Division to allow for no vertical façade division widths greater than 40 feet (44 feet). With the condition that waiver #3 shall be subject to the applicant working with staff and identifying a modification to mitigate the appearance of the blank wall. Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Ms. Harter, yes. [Motion carried: 7-0] Mr. Deschler moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with the following conditions: 1) The applicant work with staff to revise the entrance apron material to match the entrance apron of Block H1 prior to Building Permit. 2) The applicant collaborate with staff to reduce the pavement and increase the green space at the entrance to Block H3 if feasible, while meeting the requirements of the Washington Township Fire Department. 3) The applicant to accurately represent side RBZ lines prior to Building Permit. 4) The applicant provides vertical landscaping at the end of the dead end streets. 5) The applicant provide ground lighting in pocket park and movement of bike rack as discussed. 6) The applicant provide samples for brick pavers and luminaire cut sheets prior to Building Permit. 7) The applicant work with Engineering Staff to demonstrate stormwater management compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code Ordinances, if required, at Building Permit. Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes, Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes. [Motion carried: 7-0] Ms. Call noted that because the following two cases pertain to the same project on the same property with the same applicants, they will be discussed together. Separate votes will be held for each. Case #24-157PDP Bridge Park, Block J – Preliminary Development Plan and Parking Plan Request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan to allow a new mixed-use development. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Case #25-037CU – Conditional Use Request for a Conditional Use to allow a parking structure along the street. The 5.37- acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 15 of 25 Applicant Presentation Russ Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, stated that it is remarkable that there continues to be interest in office space at Bridge Park. They have an anchor tenant that is heavily involved with the interior design of the space. An agreement has been reached with COTA. It is now understood exactly how the logistics will fall into place. Discussion continued after the Concept Plan review regarding the central street layout. There are a variety of logistical reasons they think it is important to connect the street. They heard the Commission’s feedback that the central park open space must all feel like one space. Hailey Wolfe, Landscape Architect, MKSK, 462 S. Ludulow Street, Columbus, stated that this is a lot less urban than other blocks in Bridge Park with more open space. As someone approaches the site, the most prominent corner is at Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. There is a pocket park there. The grade change was a big challenge but offered opportunities for some playful design elements. At this corner, the building sits approximately seven feet above grade. Walking up the accessible pathway to the main open space in central park area, people will arrive at a promenade on the north side of the green space. This has been through many iterations. There is a desire for a more natural feel compared to some of the more structural site pieces. This is partly a daylighted stormwater element and partly an occupiable space for the public. A small, illuminated footbridge connects the office/restaurant building to the Phase 2 site. To the west is a bio retention area that is structured as a stream with meadows, large boulders and other natural elements. To have the desired arboretum feel, they intend to transplant mature trees from the COTA site to the central space. East of the footbridge is a community lawn, which could be substantial enough for events or just day-to-day activities. Bookending that to the east is a community deck. This will allow the space to be used year round. It could also be additional program space. Ms. Wolfe stated that they are bringing more wood material into the programmatic elements such as the foot bridge and the deck. On the private street that bisects the block north and south, the design breaks away from the normal Bridge Park standard of streetscapes. They are still using the same materials but using unique planters. The most pedestrian activity is anticipated at the core of the site and where it should be th most fluid. The material there is being changed to a brick material used in a flush condition. They are also trying to create smooth transitions between the private and public spaces. There is a clear divide from the amenity deck of the condos on the east side down into the private street/plaza area so they stepped gardens instead of doing a very harsh wall. That is something they tried to accomplish across the site. Various foundation plantings buffer along the road, especially along Bridge Park Avenue. Dan Pease, MA Architects, 775 Yard Street, Suite 325, Columbus, began with the office building stating that he likes to consider the unique element to add to make each building a nice addition to Bridge Park and offer variety. The office building is a duality in composition. On the north side (Bridge Park Avenue) there is one aesthetic with a thicker, heavier brick base in charcoal with full depth brick above in light gray. There is a blue phenolic accent panel that was one of the things making this piece more unique. On the northwest corner is the blue phenolic panel wrapping the corner with balconies that offer a view down Bridge Park Avenue toward the river. The southwest corner and south side have a more simple elevation to offer an elegant backdrop to the park. They felt the park is what the attention should be on. There is a lot of detail but a simple order to this elevation. There is a wood look panel with a leathery texture. There will be an overlay pattern to light up the brick piers with sconces on the lower levels. On the southeast corner is the main entry. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 16 of 25 At this corner, charcoal brick is used. The charcoal brick and light brick are the unifying elements around the whole building. Mr. Pease spoke about the garage design. One would walk from the unique tower which is the main stair tower connected to the office building. It is what they call a beacon or anchor to the green space and residential courtyard. It will be frosted glass allowing people to be seen moving back and forth. The intent is to light it up at night to make it a unique feature. The garage was modeled after the North Market garage in Bridge Park. It is simliar in proportion and details. In an effort to create something more unique, they looked to the stair towers on the library garage, which are concrete walls and stairs. The scrim and ceiling will be lit up and unify this whole elevation as a uniqe piece. They will be working with the Dublin Arts Council to determine the artwork for the scrim. The material will be the same PVC scrim as that used on the Block G courtyard. It provides another opportunity to expose artwork to the community. Matt Lytle, Sullivan Bruk Architects, 8 South Grant Avenue, Columbus, stated that he is the architect for the condominium building and he noted that they have a great team assembled. Bridge Park Avenue is a fairly busy road and needs something to make a statement coming and leaving. That is why he created a grid around the balconies and colored it with a vibrant accent color. That can be seen on the corner of Bridge Park Avenue and Green Street as well as Bridge Park Avenue and Dave Thomas Boulevard. This is a five-story wood-frame building which poses some challenges and opportunities. Many of the same cues are being introduced that are being used on the garage and office building like a charcoal colored, full-depth masonry near the grade to help ground the building. They are using rusticated cast masonry that will undulate to get a nice shadow. From the second floor up in certain areas, he is introducing a thin brick material. It is essentially the same as the New Brick but behind this will be a concrete lined EPS rigid installation with a depth of 3¼”. The thin brick has a depth of ½” which gives a full-depth brick look. The plan introduces pedestrian activity and unit connectivity for ground level units along Dave Thomas Boulevard. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that there are three determinations requested this evening for waivers, Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use (CU). The PDP process is intended to assure consistency with the Concept Plan and further determine building locations, character and massing. Finite details like materials and open space treatments come with the Final Development Plan (FDP). The project site sits just east of Block F and is in the Scioto River Neighborhood. There is an open space corridor on the north side of Bridge Park Avenue. Conversations are still needed between staff and the applicant about the treatment of the streets. This project went before City Council last Monday (April 21, 2025) and received approval of the Concept Plan. It was before PZC in December of 2024. Some of the comments from PZC and City Council included a desire for the open space to feed through the central private street. There was also a lot of discussion about the treatments of buildings, especially the garage. City Council referenced Block G as a good example of a garage that fits in well with the established character of that block. The site plan is largely the same as seen previously. Buildings are generally in the same locations. Open space is nearly the same. The applicant is requesting approval of a parking plan as they are providing less parking than is required based on the two phases. Parking plans are consistently used throughout Bridge Park. Information in the application states that they would look to other garages within 900 feet of the office/restaurant building. Just over 500 spaces in the area are available at peak times. The applicant continues to work on the green street in an effort to not create a prototypical street but cater toward a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 17 of 25 pedestrian scale. They continue to work on that and the other street with Transportation and Mobility staff. The Conditional Use request is for the garage because it does not have a liner or usable commercial/residential space that screens the garage from the street. Conditional Uses for the garages have been approved on other blocks if they are interior to the block or site. The current site is the most acceptable location for the garage. There is one waiver request for this site regarding block size (length and perimeter). Staff does not consider the private street in their calculation toward the block length or perimeter. It still achieves much of the goals of the Bridge Street District to break the blocks down into smaller, more urban blocks that are walkable while providing safe vehicular circulation. The block layout is also consistent with the street network map approved with the area-wide rezoning. There are some items that could be waivers, but staff would like to continue to work with the applicant to mitigate some of the potential concerns. Staff is seeking clarification on the front property line and lot coverage. The applicant is looking for feedback on the panels. That would require a waiver at FDP. Staff has been working with the applicant on breaking up the south elevation. Staff is supportive of all requested waivers. The applicant is requesting feedback on the brick material (thin or NewBrick). A memo from the architectural consultant was provided regarding the NewBrick material. A waiver is requested to allow increased height from four and a half stories to five on the condo building. What is allowed for a four and a half story building is about 56 feet measured from the tallest elevation. This building is still 56 feet so it is not getting any taller. City Council, PZC, and staff made comments about the treatment of the garage and making it more complementary with what is currently in the District. There is some significant grade change moving from Dale Drive east and even with that grade change, the height of the condo building is still relatively similar as measure from sea level. Staff is recommending approval of the 18 waivers, the PDP with parking plan, and the Conditional Use. Commission Questions Mr. Chinnock asked if Dublin had control over what the Phase 2 site will look like until constructed. Mr. Hounshell stated that construction staging is handled through Building Standards. There are specific requirements that speak to staging, stockpiling, etc. That is something staff can bring back at FDP. Mr. Chinnock stated that there is no precedent for the art panels of that size/scale. Mr. Hounshell stated that this was done by the applicant on Block G. Mr. Hunter stated that they are similar in size but internal to the block. Mr. Chinnock asked if it is considered signage. Mr. Hounshell stated that it is art installation but considered as a building material. It is a perforated metal scrim and that would contribute to transparency considerations. Mr. Hunter stated that they met with the Dublin Arts Council. They are considering a national request for quotes process. The Dublin Arts Council would manage that process and then assist the applicant in the procurement of the piece. Mr. Chinnock asked for more information on Green Street. Mr. Hunter stated that they have studied it both ways – as a connected street and not. Both City Engineering staff and Fire/Safety had concerns about it not going through for access to buildings interior on the block. From the applicant’s perspective, the grade forces all services to be placed on the east side of that building on that section of Green Street. If that street did not go through, smaller trucks would have to pull in and back out. Should they have to create an area for a three point turn, it would make the area feel worse with more asphalt and the buildings further apart. They would be recreating the problem of service trucks on Bridge Park Avenue. In this section, Bridge Park Avenue is two lanes Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 18 of 25 instead of three, which makes the issue worse. On the southern end of the site, they need two egress points for the garage. Because the grade falls east to west, entries to the garage need to be placed on the east and west façade of the garage. Mr. Chinnock asked about limited access. Mr. Hunter stated that it will come down to how operationally that is used. There is one restaurant in that building. Mr. Chinnock asked if the vision is for the park to be connected to Bridge Park. As designed, it feels very isolated. Mr. Hunter stated that it is for public use. The space is interesting because it opens to Dale Drive and passersby get a peek from Bridge Park Avenue creating a path of discovery. It is an urban place surrounded by buildings that is large enough to be effective in a way the other pocket parks are not, but it is very different from Riverside Crossing Park. Mr. Chinnock asked if there was a way to activate it more, like allowing outdoor seating to spill out into the park. Mr. Hunter stated that the issue is the grade for ADA access on that sidewalk. Mr. Chinnock asked if there was consideration given to stepping the building to mitigate the long façade of the condo and garage. Mr. Hunter stated that the buildings on this block are, on average, a full story shorter than other buildings. There was thought about how that will continue to transition. If this is all successful, the future use across Dave Thomas Boulevard will not be a parking lot at some point. Ms. Harter asked about the colors on the building. Mr. Lytle stated that the lighter taupe color is the thin brick or NewBrick material. The darker brown is an interlocking metal panel. The charcoal is full-depth masonry. The reddish/burgundy is a metal panel that encapsulates some of the balconies. Ms. Harter stated that the frosted glass on the garage could be an opportunity for an additional art installation. Ms. Harter asked about the mesh on the south side below the scrim. Mr. Keys stated that they are still discussing whether they want the foliage to grow up the mesh. If they decide they do not, they will thicken the mesh so that it will screen the interior of the garage at grade. Ms. Harter asked if the mesh on the library garage covered the full height of the garage. Mr. Pease stated that it is only on the first level. The mesh on this plan is below the scrim on first level only, going down to grade. Ms. Harter stated across Bridge Park Avenue the landscaping is thick. She asked if there has been thought given to whether this project needs more. Ms. Wolfe stated that their property line goes to the multi-use path and it was their intention to leave that as is. The planting on that buffer on the other side is an asset to separate the blocks. Ms. Harter asked if there have been conversations with Sycamore Ridge. Mr. Hunter answered no; most of that area is City property. Mr. Way stated that moving east to west through Bridge Park, through Winder Street to Dale Drive, is a connection of a whole series of open space alleyways. Connectivity to this open space would be logical. He asked if there is hope of a pedestrian connection across Dale Drive at Winder Street. Ms. Wawszkiewicz stated that there is mid-block crossing within Bridge Park so that could be explored. They would have to configure curb ramps to allow ADA access there. Mr. Way stated that in the last proposal, there was discussion about the service access to the office building on Green Street being a back-in loading dock. Now trucks are stopping in a two- lane road. It could be disruptive if that is a through street. Mr. Hunter stated that there will be trash trucks. There are several of those areas along Longshore Drive. That was meant to act as a service alley that became something more. There might be opportunity for some additional width along the office building. The question then becomes, once they make the turn, where they go. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 19 of 25 The residential building is serviced in the garage. Mr. Way stated that Green Street is still unresolved. What has been done to the streetscape is beautiful but he is still looking for the functional side. Mr. Way asked if there is an intent to provide amenities for the COTA bus stop on the south side of the garage. Mr. Hunter answered affirmatively. More details will come forward with the FDP. Mr. Alexander stated that from conversations about thin brick, he senses a reluctance to use thin brick. He asked if the PZC has approved thin-cut stone or cultured stone. Ms. Call stated that the Commission has treated primary and secondary materials very differently. Mr. Alexander stated that the depth of cultured stone or thin-cut stone veneer is not much different than thin brick. If there has been past approval of those materials, disapproval of thin brick seems inconsistent. Ms. Call stated that the Commission has absolutely been against including thin brick as a permitted material in the Bridge Street District. Mr. Alexander asked if staff’s comment about excessive block length was referring to the development size along Bridge Park Avenue or the buildings along Bridge Park Avenue. Mr. Hounshell stated that block length is measured along the public right of way from corner property to corner property at the edge of intersections of public streets. In this case, measurements were taken from Dale Drive to Dave Thomas Boulevard. That exceeds the maximum length expected for newly created blocks. Mr. Alexander asked if thought was given to changing the articulation of the plan centered on the pool to emphasize its important location in the development. Mr. Lytle stated that he wanted to emphasize the light-colored masonry while not diminishing the courtyard. Mr. Alexander stated that it feels like a missed opportunity. Mr. Lytle stated that the backbone of the design is the two over two punched opening material. He wanted to create a hierarchy between the lighter material and the charcoal full deck masonry. Mr. Alexander asked about the relationship between the south elevation and the elevation that faces the street. Mr. Pease stated that they did not want a monotonous design. They began with the Bridge Park Avenue side creating a module that culminates in the balconies. They wanted simplicity on the south side even though there are a lot of regulating lines. Mr. Alexander asked if they have used the high pressure laminate (HPL) panels. Mr. Pease stated that he has not but it was recommended by their supplier. Mr. Hounshell stated that staff can bring those details back at FDP. Mr. Deschler referenced the condo building and stated that the Commission will not consider thin brick. Mr. Hounshell stated what is shown is thin brick but the applicant is looking for feedback regarding NewBrick. Thin brick is not considered a primary or secondary material but it was approved in multiple buildings in Bridge Park, Towns on the Parkway, and a few other buildings. Ms. Call stated that former commissions do not tie the hands of sitting commissions. Thin brick is not a permitted material in Bridge Park. It has been approved on a case-by-case basis. Staff can bring back case histories where it has been approved. Several years ago, there were specific concerns. At least one hotel in the City had thin brick that started popping off. That was before Mr. Ford was on retainer. Mr. Deschler asked about NewBrick. Mr. Hounshell stated that staff shared the NewBrick with the consultant. Their feedback is that it is a relatively new material. It is innovative. It has been used in similar climates in Dayton, Ohio. The warranty is 25 years. The main questions raised were on longevity. Mr. Hunter stated that they are limited to height on wood structures. They have been looking at alternative ways to make sure they do not have Hardie panel or some other metal panel on the top of every single building. They made a conscious decision that because thin brick has been approved that it was a safer alternative than a product no one has used before. They are aware this is an issue that needs solved. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 20 of 25 Mr. Deschler asked about security measures for pool access. Mr. Lytle stated that the pool itself by Code must have its own fence and can have an electronic lock with a key fob that only residents will have. The pool is encased in a fence. Mr. Lytle stated that the two sets of steps delineate public and private. There is also a significant elevation change between the street level and the courtyard. Mr. Deschler stated that people in the lower area traversing up there could infringe upon the privacy of the condo residents. Mr. Hunter stated it will be gated. The Waddell building is in a similar situation and they have heard no complaints. The public is not going past the upper end of the stairs. Mr. Deschler referenced the interplay between the garage and condo. He asked if it is the applicant’s expectation that residents of the condo have to exit all the way through the garage, then go out a different access to the condominium building. Mr. Lytle stated that every floor level has direct access to the garage. There is a condo lobby that is on Bridge Park Avenue. Mr. Hunter stated that it remains to be seen how the resident parking will work out because the garage is public. He noted that condo owners in G Block do not have reserved parking spaces. Mr. Deschler stated that he would not support Green Street being made a pass through. He asked staff if it was accurate to state that City Council would prefer it be pedestrian only. Mr. Hounshell stated that their comments were more about how to connect the open spaces. They wanted to ensure a consistent flow across the open spaces. He would not say they wanted it to be pedestrian only. Mr. Deschler stated that he thinks the amount of traffic on that street is being underestimated. He asked if there were other considerations like a cul-de-sac. Mr. Hunter stated that the minimum diameter for a cul-de-sac would be 96 feet. Mr. Hounshell stated that within the Bridge Street District the intent is to break down a lot of what would be done in a typical suburban city. That is why the block dimensions and lots were created. This would be considered an alley or service street, which is expected for very low capacity, low speed streets located near the rear of lots. It is intended for parking, providing services for parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas for refuse utility. Given the location of this street and the fact that it does not carry on a consistent path like Banker Drive or Longshore Street, staff is not overly concerned with vehicular traffic. A cul-de-sac or cutoff would not be recommended because it goes against the flow of vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. This Green Street also represents midblock pedestrian way so it contributes to the pedestrian scale while getting vehicles safely through. The City would want to see this as a through street. Capacities would not be expected to be similar to Dave Thomas Boulevard, Banker Drive or Dale Drive. Mr. Hunter stated that it takes over 90 feet for a regular box truck to make a circle and that is nearly twice the width between the office and condo buildings. Mr. Deschler stated that the City is wrong and woefully underestimating the amount of vehicular traffic expected. Mr. Garvin stated that he is supportive of the through street. He asked if any consideration was given to making it one way. Mr. Hunter stated that they have not studied that. Mr. Garvin asked if there was any thought given toward an actual arboretum. A variety of trees could be labeled, giving the area placemaking appeal. Ms. Wolfe stated that is something that could be considered, especially with the mature trees there already. Mr. Hunter stated that an arboretum has a specific definition that likely could not be met but the idea of having different varieties of trees could be part of making this area feel mature and lush. Mr. Garvin referenced the garage and asked if there has been thought regarding colored light or something more dynamic around the screen. Mr. Pease stated that they have not gotten to those details yet, but they could do something more dynamic through lighting or pattern on the glass. Mr. Garvin asked about the material and lifespan of the scrim. Mr. Pease stated that it is a PVC mesh scrim. Any image can be added as a silkscreen to the scrim. It has a 10-year warranty. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 21 of 25 Ms. Call stated that the lots and blocks maximum is 500 feet and 1,750 feet on the perimeter. She asked if the lot and block had been measured if the street is private. Mr. Hunter stated that the measurements are 340 feet from the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue to Green Street and Bridge Park Avenue. Ms. Call stated that with the perimeter at 1,950 for the entirety of the site, if it is bisected, it would fall under the 1,750-foot requirement. Mr. Hunter confirmed. Ms. Call stated that this applicant has done projects with Dublin before, and there have been areas where private open space is segmented but immediately adjacent to public open space. She asked if he had received any calls where that has not worked. Mr. Hunter answered that he has received no calls or concerns. Ms. Call asked about the voids on the garage. Mr. Pease stated that they modeled it after the North Market Garage where there is also exposed concrete between the materials. They use the splits along the building and then emphasize it at the corner. Ms. Call asked if there was thought given to incorporating features to make this look less like a garage. Mr. Hunter stated that repetitive 30-foot-wide horizontal openings read garage. Here they changed those proportions to make it look more vertical. The openings are eight or ten feet wide to appear as windows. When deciding what to put in those openings, they have done different things in Bridge Park. Metal cables are used to protect cars and leave it as open as possible. Creating something too similar to the garage across the street did not feel like the correct solution. They will ensure the concrete is finished to a certain level in order for it to look good. Public Comment No public comment. Commission Discussion Mr. Chinnock stated that he is excited about the project. The park is great. The road needs to be resolved. College campuses could be used as examples where they have sidewalks that are accessible by service vehicles only. He agrees that there will be much more traffic than is predicted. He is in favor of some of the waivers, but there are a lot of questions remaining on the towers, architectural articulation and façade materials. He likes the design of the office and is overall in favor of the project. Ms. Harter thanked the applicants for coming and agreed with Mr. Chinnock. She thinks the color brings warmth. She suggested the applicant work with staff on the brick and bring that back. She also suggested the applicant continue thinking outside the box with vegetation on the garages. She advised the applicants to always think about the walkability of the site. She is in favor of the art opportunity. The more the applicant connects with the public, the more people will buy into this and see it as part of this community. Mr. Way stated that he likes most of this project. The green space has become wonderful. There is an east-west spine through Bridge Park that ends here but does not have a terminal because it moves from the public environment to a private environment without a cue. He would suggest it be made a place. It needs something else; instead of tiered wall garden, maybe there is a waterfall or the road could be split and something put in the center. The loading issues need to be resolved, and the terminal place needs to be thought through more. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 22 of 25 Mr. Alexander stated that in an urban setting the site plan is important, but elevations define the space. The south elevation of the office building needs some help. It is so different from the northern elevation. It is very horizontal. The apartment building is divided nicely into a series of smaller scale vertical components building from the individual unit. He would not support HPL. It is a laminate product with a five- to fifteen-year warranty. Issues with it are delamination, color fading, heat sensitivity, difficulty of repair and environmental concerns due to the use of formaldehyde. Metal panels as used on the other building are an excellent choice with a long track record. Regarding the street, he referenced European spaces where there is a large public space where vehicles are accommodated at times. He suggested an allay of trees terminating in a fountain that is in some way linked to the pool above. The hierarchy is the people in the space. Mr. Deschler stated that since a decision is requested this evening, he would suggest more conditions. Ms. Call sought the applicant’s desire for a decision based on the late hour. Mr. Hunter stated that tabling would be problematic. He has not heard anything that could not be worked through between PDP and FDP. They would work very hard to move this forward however necessary. Mr. Deschler stated that he is not in favor of the material on the office building but is supportive of waivers on the garage and condo building with the condition that a decision must be made regarding the brick façade. He is supportive of the coloring of those buildings as long as it complies with the material requirement. It is a significant concern if nothing is decided upon that the Phase 2 piece cannot remain dirt, gravel, construction materials, etc. His last concern is adding a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to address Green Street. He will not support the project if that is not resolved at FDP. Mr. Garvin stated that he is supportive of the colors but not the HPL. He finds it difficult to grant a waiver for façade materials without knowing what they would be. He is supportive of Green Street connecting all the way through. It could be a wunerf with pop-up bollards. He is against dead ending either side as it creates logistical issues. The visual of that park’s expanse up to the pool is more important than actually getting to the other side of the street. It is important that it visually connects. He is supportive of the application but seeking resolution on the façade materials. Ms. Call stated that the midblock street meets the criteria for lots and blocks, and that was one of the items to which City Council and this commission paid specific attention. Circulation is needed in the Bridge Street District. Keeping service vehicles off main arterials is the preferred method. She agreed with the terminal vista comment and added that the solid building essentially creates a terminus on that side. She is not a fan of thin brick. She is not comfortable with the garage voids as they make it appear that the walls stopped. Overall, the design is what Dublin has asked for. She is not opposed to the height, especially given the height of five stories is the height of what would be seen at four and a half stories. She shares concerns with the NewBrick material. The Commission usually does not support things that are not proven. Warrantees are only as good as the companies that support the warranties. Even if a new material were supported, she would want to see it as a secondary material, then if they withstand criteria, it could be elevated to a primary material. She is also not supportive of the HPL material. Regarding the Phase 2 site, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 23 of 25 Ms. Call reminded the applicant that they are not exempt from Code Enforcement requirements because they are building a building next door. Ms. Call summarized that the Commission has a concern with the office building waiver 2 regarding materials. Mr. Boggs stated for the waivers that are not addressed tonight, they will be coming back at FDP and the applicant can request waivers then with more information. Procedurally, the Commission could remove waivers from their determination where there are open questions. Discussion continued clarifying whether the waivers covered the Commission's concerns. Mr. Hunter stated if they cannot use thin brick or NewBrick, then the condo building cannot be built as drawn because they cannot put full-depth brick up that high on a wood frame structure without adding steel inside the building, which is difficult and has shown to leak. There are at least 8 buildings in Bridge Park that use thin brick in some capacity successfully. Ms. Call stated that the Commission has approved thin brick in the past. She has been one who has voted yes, though she still does not like thin brick. Mr. Garvin stated that his top concerns are HPL and not feeling qualified to make a determination on NewBrick. It is very important that it be installed correctly. Mr. Deschler asked how much of the thin brick is being proposed. Mr. Hounshell stated that it is used only on the second story and above. Everything at ground level is masonry. Mr. Deschler stated that the percentage of thin brick is 36%. The brick base is 30% and metal is 33%. Mr. Deschler asked for the consultants’ opinion on thin brick. Staff will bring that to the Commission with the FDP. Mr. Deschler moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of waivers to the following Code sections: 1) 153.060(C)(2)(a) – Maximum Block Size to allow a maximum block length of ±640 feet and a maximum block perimeter of ±1,950 feet for block J where 500 feet of length and perimeter of 1,750 feet are required. Office Building 2) 153.062(N)(4)(a)(3) – Blank Walls to allow for the middle portion of the north façade to be a blank wall where blank walls are prohibited. 3) 153.062(O)(6)(b) – Ground Story Minimum Height to allow a 14-foot-tall ground story height on the easter half of the building where a minimum height of 16 feet is required. 4) 153.062(O)(6)(b) – Ground Story Maximum Height to allow a 25-foot-tall ground story height for the restaurant space located on the west end of the building where 24 feet is the maximum. 5) 153.062(O)(6)(d)(3) – Street Facades: Number of Entrances to allow two entrances on the north façade where four are required; and to allow two entrances on the south façade where four are required. 6) 153.062(O)(6)(d)(4) – Horizontal Façade Divisions to allow no horizontal façade division on the north and east facades where horizontal façade divisions are required within three feet of the top of the ground story. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 24 of 25 Condo Building 7) 153.062(O)(3)(b) – Maximum Height of Building to allow a five-story apartment building where 4.5 stories is the maximum. 8) 153.062(O)(3)(b) – Maximum Height of Stories to allow a first-floor story height of 17 feet 2 inches on the northwest corner of the building where 14 feet is the maximum. 9) 153.062(O)(3)(b) – Minimum Finished Floor Elevation to allow a finished floor level of 1.1 feet on the east façade of the building adjacent to the sidewalk where a minimum of 2.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk façade is required. 10) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) – Vertical Increments to allow the north, east and west facades of the building to exceed the maximum 40 feet for vertical increments. 11) 153.062(O)(3)(d)(4) – Required Change in Roof Plane or Type to allow a change in roof plane no greater than ±117 feet on the north façade and ±98 feet on the east façade where a change is required no greater than every 80 feet. Garage Building 12) 153.062(D)(4)(a) – Tower Quantity to allow two towers for the parking structure where one is permitted. 13) 153.062(D)(4)(b) – Tower Height to allow the northwest tower to be ±18 feet tall and ±29 feet wide, and the southeast tower to be ±23 feet wide. Code requires tower height to be no 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. 14) 153.062(E)(1)(a) – Primary Façade Materials to allow 30% primary materials on the south façade where 80% exclusive of windows and doors is required. 15) 153.062(O)(11)(d)(3) – Street Facades: Number of Entrances to allow two entrances on the south, east and west facades where three are required. 16) 153.062(O)(11)(d)(4) – Vertical Increments to allow the east and west facades of the building to exceed the maximum 30 feet for vertical increments. 17) 153.062(O)(11)(d)(6) – Tower Locations to allow a tower in the southeast corner of the garage where they are permitted on facades only at terminal vistas, corners at two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type. Vote: Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Chinnock, no; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes. [Motion carried: 6-1] Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the following conditions: 1) The applicant continues to work with Staff to address the streetscape design of Bridge Park Avenue and Green Street at the FDP. 2) The applicant continues to work with Staff to provide streetscape improvements as required by the City Engineer. 3) The applicant continues to work with Staff on the design of the pocket park at the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue to create a more seamless transition between the streetscape and the office building. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes – May 1, 2025 Page 25 of 25 4) The applicant update the plans to accurately represent lot coverage and front property line coverage. 5) The applicant work with Staff to address the façade recommendations of the office building as outlined in the report. 6) The applicant work with Staff to provide a connection between residential units and Bridge Park Avenue with the condominium building; 7) The applicant work with Staff to address concerns about the façade treatment of the garage and condo building as outlined in the report and Commission discussion; and, 8) The applicant continue to work with the Engineering Staff on final civil plan details with the Final Development Plan. 9) The applicant enhance terminal vista opportunities on the site within and adjacent to the public green. Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Chinnock, no; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried: 6-1] Mr. Way moved, Mr. Deschler seconded approval of the Conditional Use with the following condition: 1) The applicant continue to work with Staff to address concerns about the façade treatment of the garage as outlined in the report. Vote: Mr. Chinnock, no; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes. [Motion carried: 6-1] COMMUNICATIONS Staff reminded the Commission that the May 15 regular meeting is cancelled and of the June 2 annual board and commission recognition reception. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 pm. Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Deputy Clerk of Council SUMMARY OF ACTIONS Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, December 12, 2024, 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rebecca Call, Kathy Harter, Jason Deschler, Dan Garvin, Jamey Chinnock, Kim Way, Gary Alexander ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS/APPROVAL OF MINUTES   MOTION CARRIED 7-0 TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE 11-07-24 AND 11-14-24 MEETING MINUTES CONSENT CASES 24-138CU – Central Irrigation Supply, 6091 Enterprise Court, Conditional Use Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use to allow a wholesale and distribution use in an existing building. The 3.33-acre site is zoned TF, Technology Flex and is located northeast of the intersection of Innovation Drive and Enterprise Court. 24-146AFDP – Mount Carmel, 4105 Emerald Parkway, Amended Final Development Plan Request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan to modify previously approved signs and add new chapel building uplighting. The ±34.5-acre site is zoned PUD: Mount Carmel Hospital Northwest and is located northwest of the 1-270 and Sawmill Road interchange. MOTION CARRIED 7-0 TO APPROVE THE 2 CONSENT CASES CASE REVIEWS 24-141CP – Bridge Park, Block J – Concept Plan Request for review and recommendation of approval of a Concept Plan for the development of an office building, condominiums and parking garage. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood and is located southeast of the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. MOTION CARRIED 7-0 TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1)The applicant continues to work with staff on the conversion of Banker Drive and Street B (Dave Thomas Boulevard) to public streets; 2)The applicant submits a Conditional Use Permit with the submission of the Preliminary Development Plan; and 3)The applicant continue to work with staff to explore alternative designs for Street A, based on the comments provided by the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Summary of Actions – December 12, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Public comment was provided. Next Steps: Concept Plan will be forwarded to City Council for determination in combination with a future Development Agreement 24-136INF - MAG – Volvo, 6335 Perimeter Loop Informal review and feedback on proposed building modifications and new signs. The 15.52-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), Midwestern Auto Group, and is located southeast of the intersection of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. NON-BINDING FEEDBACK PROVIDED   No public comment was provided. The Commission was not supportive of the architectural details and sign changes as proposed. The members shared that the proposed amendments do not align with the architectural design of the overall campus and are inconsistent with the previously approved sign allowances. Next Steps: Submission of a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan and Amended Final Development Plan. DISCUSSION ITEM PROPOSED 2025 PZC MEETING DATES MOTION CARRIED 7-0 TO APPROVE THE 2025 MEETING DATES COMMUNICATIONS Staff shared the change to the meeting packet delivery software to OnBoard for the second January PZC meeting and the upcoming OnBoard training. The next regular PZC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 2024. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 2 of 20  24-138CU – Central Irrigation Supply, 6091 Enterprise Court, Conditional Use Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use to allow a wholesale and distribution use in an existing building. The 3.33-acre site is zoned TF, Technology Flex and is located northeast of the intersection of Innovation Drive and Enterprise Court.  24-146AFDP – Mount Carmel, 4105 Emerald Parkway, Amended Final Development Plan Request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan to modify previously approved signs and add new chapel building uplighting. The ±34.5-acre site is zoned PUD: Mount Carmel Hospital Northwest and is located northwest of the 1-270 and Sawmill Road interchange. Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Consent Cases: 24-138CU – approval of the Conditional Use with no conditions; 24-146AFDP – approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with no conditions Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 7-0.] CASE REVIEW  24-141CP – Bridge Park, Block J – Concept Plan Request for review and recommendation of approval of a Concept Plan for the development of an office building, condominiums and parking garage. The 5.37-acre site is zoned BSD-SRN, Bridge Street District, Scioto River Neighborhood, and is located southeast of the intersection of Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. Applicant Presentation Russell Hunter, Crawford Hoying, 6640 Riverside Drive, Dublin, provided an overview of their Concept Plan proposal for an additional expansion of Bridge Park. Cenovus Energy will be their lead tenant, taking half of the office space in a new office building. Although the office market is not flourishing in the City of Columbus, it remains resilient in Dublin. He believes it’s a testament to the work of Crawford Hoying, the City and the Planning and Zoning Commission. They continue to create spaces that people want to be in. The development will also include two condominium buildings, one in Phase 1 and the other in Phase 2 on the existing COTA lot. Phase 2 condominiums will be similar to The Theodore condominiums in G Block; Phase 1 condominiums will be somewhat larger. Crawford Hoying is presently in discussions with COTA regarding a permanent solution for the existing Park and Ride and associated spaces, but also a temporary solution while the site is under construction. Their open spaces in the various block developments have been somewhat similar – urban and dense, but they have the opportunity to do something different on this site. Although there is an existing tree grove, the arborists have determined that few of the trees are worth saving. On the COTA lot, however, there are wonderful tree specimens that could be relocated elsewhere in the development and hopefully, create an urban arboretum. He invited MKSK to provide more details. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 3 of 20 Jeffrey Pongonis, MKSK, landcape architect and planner, 462 S. Ludlow Street, Columbus, provided a slide overview of the site and the proposed development. They have the advantage of a larger site area than they had with the earlier blocks in Bridge Park. The framework of this development will be wrapped around an east-west open space. The open space will have less hardscape and be more natural in character. Due to the grade change on the site, their plan is to terrace the landscaping. They will be moving stormwater through the site with a bioswale or similar feature that is integrated into the landscape. The boundaries of the project will be Street B, Banker Drive, Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. The edges will be streetscape, but some existing trees will be relocated in the interior of the open space, supplemented with other natural materials. In regard to streetscape – on the interior of the block, there will be a service drive or alley, which will provide opportunity to access the garage and opportunity for ride share and site circulation. They will attempt to amenitize the streetscape at the center of the block for pedestrians. Dan Pease, MA Design, 775 Yard Street, Suite 325, Columbus stated that their intent is to have a distinctive, simplistic architecture with a lot of rhythm and rich in materials. He showed inspirational images of buildings, which will engage the street with patio space. The north and south elevations of the office building will be quite different. The south elevation will address the natural park. They have chosen an earth-tone, woodgrain color construction panel. In addition to a lot of glass, the primary building material will be a gray brick. There will be screening in front of the parking garage, and a scrim will be used. [Inspirational images of the proposed buildings shown.] Matthew Lytle, Sullivan Bruck Architects, 8 South Grant Avenue, Columbus, described the condominium structure in Phase 1. He noted that although they have no inspirational images to show for the Concept Plan, there is a new material that they are requesting to use as a primary material. NewBrick is a thin brick alternative, a light-weight, insulated brick made by Dryvit. The condominium building will have 84 units that will be larger than those in The Theodore but smaller than those in The Warren with the same quality of finish. All ground-floor units along Bridge Park Avenue and Street B to the east will have direct access to a sidewalk, and the condominium units on all floors will have direct access to the parking garage. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that the combined ±5.37-acre site is zoned BSD, Bridge Street District – Scioto River Neighborhood, with primary frontages on Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue, public streets. There will be accessory frontage on Banker Drive and Dale Thomas Boulevard, both of which are privately owned and are essentially drive aisles. The site consists of 5 properties containing an existing COTA Park and Ride lot, a vacant daycare facility, parking for Wendy’s property, and the staging area for The Bailey development to the west. The site features significant grade change from the northwest corner to Dave Thomas Boulevard and the southwest corner. An abandoned stream bed is located centrally on the site, with mature vegetation lining the bed. Block J is the 8th block of Bridge Park East. A Concept Plan, which is the first formal step of the development process, establishes the general outline of the proposed development’s scope, character, and nature. All new developments within the Bridge Street District are required to receive approval for a Concept Plan followed by Preliminary (PDP) and Final Development Plan (FDP) approvals. This particular development will be accompanied by a development agreement, which involves a separate process between the applicant and City Council. A development agreement requires City Council to make the final determination on the Concept Plan. Although PZC is not the determining body, it must make a recommendation on the proposal to City Council. The BSD-SRN Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 4 of 20 District provides a significant opportunity for a well-planned and designed neighborhood with a balanced mix of land uses. Predominant land uses include a residential presence to complement and support a strong mix of uses, including office and supporting service and commercial uses. A comfortable, walkable street network connects these diverse but complementary land uses. With a Concept Plan, specific details are not provided. Mr. Hounshell reviewed the proposed street network. The development is expected to have frontage on five streets: Dale Drive (Public/Principal Frontage Street), Bridge Park Avenue (Public/Principal Frontage Street), Banker Drive (currently Private/to be Public), Street A (to be Private), and Street B (to be Public). Dale Drive and Bridge Park Avenue are currently not built to Bridge Street streetscape standards but will be updated with the development of this site. Banker Drive is presently a private street owned by Cadillac to the south. The proposal currently shows the portion of the Banker Drive streetscape on the proposed site to be updated to meet the streetscape standards. However, additional discussions between the City and the applicant are necessary to determine the future of the street with the development of this site. Street B (Dave Thomas Boulevard) is also a private access drive expected to provide public access to the proposed garage on the site’s east side. Additional discussions between the City, the applicant, and Wendy’s are necessary to determine how the street should be approached to accommodate the new development and the needs of Wendy’s operations to the east. The primary public open space is centrally located between the office building and the Phase 2 condominium building. The intention for the design of this public open space is a greener and more natural environment, including a proposed revitalization of an existing stream bed to assist in the site’s stormwater management strategy. It would be supplemented by benches, decking/boardwalk and additional greenspace with pedestrian facilities throughout the center of the site. The applicant has not identified the open space type at this time but will be required to provide an analysis of the open space requirements with the PDP. Open space requirements within the Bridge Street District are dictated by the uses in the development. One square foot of open space is required for every 50 square feet of commercial development, and 200 square feet of open space is required for each dwelling unit. For a mixed-use scenario, the requirements for open spaces are individually calculated. Based on the conceptual square footage of the development, ±1.10 acres of open space are required. This acreage includes the anticipated Phase 2 development of the condominium building. The applicant has not indicated the proposed amount of open space for the development. Should the open space be less than the required acreage, the Commission would need to consider whether a waiver would be supported based on the design and quality of the open space. Mr. Hounshell indicated that the condominium building is proposed to be an Apartment building type. This building is five stories tall and will include ±89 residential units at approximately 145,000 square feet. The building will have frontage on one principal frontage street (Bridge Park Avenue), which will serve as the primary street frontage. An amenity deck with a swimming pool is proposed at the center of the building, which will open up to Street A and the public open space. The south side of the building connects to the garage, allowing residents to have direct access. Renderings of the building have not yet been provided, but the applicant is requesting feedback on a potential building material called NewBrick. This brick-clay veneer is anticipated to be used on upper stories only. Approval of a waiver to use this material would be required at the PDP stage. Apartment building types with a maximum height of 4.5 stories are permitted in the Bridge Street District. A waiver would be needed to allow the building to exceed this height. The Commission should consider whether this future waiver request would be appropriate to allow a habitable 5th Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 5 of 20 story. Alternatively, the applicant may pursue a different building type that allows five stories but has different transparency, siting, and façade requirements. The garage is proposed to be a Parking Structure building type, which is compatible as an accessory to the Apartment building type. The garage is five stories in height with 534 parking spaces within a total of 200,000 square feet. The garage is expected to have rooftop parking, which would require the addition of an enclosed stairway and elevator in the northwest corner of the garage. This enclosed space will be six stories in height, which also would require a waiver. Parking structures are permitted to include parking on the roof, consistent with other parking garages in Bridge Park. Parking structures that are completely lined by space available for occupancy along a public or private street frontage and parking structures located on the interior of blocks with other building types situated between the parking structure and the street are considered Permitted Uses. However, all other parking structures are considered Conditional Uses. The applicant must submit a Conditional Use application for the standalone garage with the PDP. Staff has reviewed the Concept Plan against the applicable criteria and recommends the Commission’s recommendation of approval to City Council with two conditions. Commission Questions Mr. Garvin stated that the staff report indicated that Planning staff did not believe that shopping was an appropriate use. Is that because of the Sycamore Ridge apartments on the other side, or is it due to the grade of the land? Mr. Hounshell responded the Code requires at least one shopping corridor in the District, and that is provided along Longshore Drive, a north-south street. Staff believes that is adequate for the neighborhood, and that the City would not extend the shopping corridor along Bridge Park Avenue. Mr. Garvin inquired if negotiations were to be successful with Wendy’s and the daycare but failed with COTA if the applicant would still anticipate moving forward with Phase 1. Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. They and the City already have a signed agreement with Cynovus Energy, so they are anxious to complete the process. They are already negotiating with Wendy’s for a number of items, not the least of which is a 70-foot section of their property that is an existing unused parking lot; Crawford Hoying will be purchasing that property. There also have been many discussions regarding how best to address the public street. It will make a significant change to Wendy’s property. Wendy’s does not object, but there is a timing issue based on how long it will take to get through the process and ensure we can deliver to Cynovus, while we continue to work with Wendy’s and with Cadillac, the other property owner. Mr. Garvin stated that the Phase 2 units appear to be denser; how do they compare to the size of The Warren units? Mr. Hunter responded that the Phase 2 units are identical to The Theodore (G Block). The Phase 1 units are larger. The Warren units are larger, 1,800–1,900 SF; however, the intent is that the Phase 1 units will be 1,300-1,400 SF. The Theodore units are smaller than that. Mr. Garvin stated that if both phases advance, the proposed parking garage does not appear to meet the parking space requirements. Is there any parking plan to meet the anticipated parking space needs? Mr. Hunter responded that they are working on ways to achieve more parking spaces from the parking garage. It might mean that the anticipated building size is increased by two feet, which Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 6 of 20 would provide an additional 12 spaces per floor. The parking will be addressed as part of their PDP proposal. He noted that they anticipate meeting the open space requirements. Mr. Garvin stated that as he understands the LinkUs project, there needs to be a significant COTA location there. Do they anticipate that solution being achieved from additional land or property currently under their control? Mr. Hunter stated that they have been discussing LinkUs with COTA for many years. Their intention is that Bridge Park will be the temporary most northwestern location until the route is extended further west. Crawford Hoying is attempting to hold some space for them on the ground floor that would accommodate restrooms, driver break rooms and waiting space in the event that transit route would end at this parking garage. They do not how many parking spaces that will require, which is one of the reasons they have not yet determined how many parking spaces will be needed. There currently are 86 spaces on that lot right now, but how many are utilized today or will be utilized in the future is undetermined. Mr. Deschler requested clarification of the permitted condominium building height. Mr. Hounshell responded that every building developed in Bridge Park must align with a specific building type. The condominium building is the Apartment building type, which has a maximum height of 4.5 stories. The applicant is proposing 5 stories, so a waiver approval would be necessary to allow the additional .5 story. However, if the applicant should choose to pursue a Mixed-Use or Loft building type, the 5 stories would be permitted. However, the requirements, such as transparency and where the residential use may be located, may change with a different building type. Mr. Deschler requested clarification of the Garage building type transparency requirements. Mr. Hounshell responded that the Parking Structure is a permitted building type that is permitted if there is a liner building fronting the street and separating the garage from the public street. That is a condition that exists with a few other garages in Bridge Park. However, when a garage fronts a public street, it is considered a Conditional Use, and there is specific criteria that must be met. The Conditional Use is a separate application, but it accompanies the PDP process. Mr. Deschler inquired if that is because the proposed garage fronts the private streets. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Mr. Deschler inquired if Street A is proposed to be a public street. Mr. Hounshell responded that Street A would be a private street. The intent is that Banker Drive and Street B will have public access and must meet public street standards. Mr. Deschler inquired if there currently are any other private streets in Bridge Park. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Longshore Loop, which is behind the AC Hotel in Block A, and Winder Drive, between The Baily and the Spring Hill Hotel, are private streets. Mr. Deschler inquired if the owner of the private streets is responsible for the street maintenance. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Mr. Alexander inquired if the Commission could discuss the proposed brick material at the Concept Plan stage. Ms. Call responded that building material is a Final Development Plan (FDP) discussion item. She asked staff if the consultant had reviewed the proposed material. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Hounshell responded that he had shared the material with the consultant, who indicated that they are familiar with the material, but would be visiting the projects to evaluate how the material has held up. He has not yet received that follow-up information from the consultant. He anticipates providing that material with the PDP rather than the FDP, because it would potentially require a waiver. The applicant has provided a material sample tonight to place it before the Commission early in the process. Providing it early gives them the ability to revise their material proposal, if necessary. Ms. Call stated that preliminary feedback on the proposed building material would be acceptable tonight, but it will be discussed in a later development review stage. She requested the Law Director’s feedback regarding the discussion not being germane to the Concept Plan decision. Mr. Boggs responded that is correct. Material specifications are not part of the criteria for a Concept Plan review and determination. Ms. Call stated that initial feedback on the material is permitted, however. Mr. Alexander stated that the office and condominium buildings and adjacent sidewalks are not aligned in the site plan. Is there collaboration to create some uniformity between the two buildings? Mr. Lytle responded affirmatively. The color of the materials used on the building facades is complementary. He proposes use of a dark gray brick at the base of the condominium building; the architect for the office building is using a dark gray brick, as well. There are some other tones that they are attempting to make complementary. Mr. Way stated that he has some structural questions. Street A is not a required street. How does Street A serve the development? Mr. Hunter stated that there has been significant debate regarding that street. There are a couple of purposes for the street; one is to provide a secondary vehicular egress from the garage. The grade of the site changes east-to-west but not north-to-south. It will be difficult to achieve an egress from the garage on the south elevation. The second purpose is that in an urban environment, service is needed, such as trash rooms. They do not want the trash room for the office building to be located on the Bridge Park Avenue elevation, and the garage is too far away. Initially, they considered making Street A a pedestrianway; however, that would not align with the needed operations. Mr. Way stated that it would be possible to service just the end elevations of the office and condominium buildings instead of having a through road. Mr. Hunter responded that they studied that option, as well; however, it would not have matched what has been done in the rest of Bridge Park, i.e. a street actually takes you somewhere. The intent is to utilize materials that change the feel of the street, so that the connection from the urban arboretum on the west to the condominium amenity space feels the same. The space should feel like cars “can” be there, but probably “shouldn’t” be. A car on Bridge Park Avenue heading toward the garage but misses Dave Thomas Boulevard would still have an opportunity to access it. Essentially, this street design feels more correct. Mr. Way stated that he is enthusiastic about the proposed open space because it is different than everything else in Bridge Park. There is an opportunity here to do something unique. That is the reason that he has questioned having a road cut through that space. If it isn’t necessary, eliminating it would provide more open space and more pedestrian access, which is consistent with the street goals of the newly adopted Community Plan. He is supportive of the wider sidewalks, which include seating opportunities. It would be better if either the road wasn’t there or it was a road that had some type of operational aspect that permitted it to be closed down for day or evening events, making it a pedestrianway. If the concrete were extended across the area Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 8 of 20 in a plaza-like manner, it would appear more like cars really shouldn’t be there. Mr. Way referred to the “blue line,” denoting a historical drainage line that runs through the open space. Are they exploring opportunities to engage water with the space? Mr. Hunter responded that they are considering potential opportunities, such as aesthetic, stormwater and educational features. Mr. Way inquired about the east-west walkway that runs south of the office building. It is both wide and is located on a slope. Is there a purpose other than connection? Mr. Pease responded that there is a transition in the site north-to-south between the formal landscaping adjacent to the office building, incorporating a plaza-like entry area, and the less public entry for the condominium building to the south. Mr. Way stated that the east elevation of the garage was not shown in the site plan. Will it be the same as the south elevation and have another scrim? Mr. Pease responded that the east elevation will be very similar to the west elevation. Mr. Way inquired if the scrim would be only on the south side. Mr. Pease responded affirmatively, noting that it faces SR161. Mr. Way inquired about the proposed parking spaces. Mr. Hunter responded that there are 534 parking spaces right now. This information is not typically required with the Concept Plan. The difficulty they are having with working out this item is the COTA need. Ms. Harter stated that she recalls an earlier meeting about this area and the need for COTA in this area. Could the City pull that earlier meeting discussion so we can assess how that discussion evolved? Ms. Rauch inquired if she is interested in pulling the background discussion concerning having a COTA site in this area. Ms. Harter responded affirmatively. Ms. Rauch stated that the records would be searched for that discussion. Ms. Harter requested clarification of the intent with the proposed balconies on the office building. Mr. Hunter responded that the current office users really appreciate the balcony spaces, so they are interested in incorporating them where possible. The northwest corner of the building adjacent to the open space that will be created would be one obvious choice. There may be additional balconies on the building, as the design advances. Ms. Harter inquired if they would be usable spaces, with the intent of enhancing the open space opportunity. Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. Additionally, there will be patio spaces at the ground level of the building, which will overlook the open space. There is almost a full story of elevation change from the intersection up to those patios; another full story of elevation change at the end of the office building; and yet another full story at the end of the condominium building. Ms. Harter stated that the garage seems to be located far from the restaurant. Are the restaurant users anticipated to park in the garage or along the street? Mr. Hunter responded that it is difficult to predict, but in previous blocks, the parking was over- built. This block is more removed. The placement of the garage honors Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive as the primary streets. The patrons of any restaurants that develop on the western elevation of the building likely will park within the Bridge Park area. The new garage in this block Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 9 of 20 will likely be used by the office and condominium users. The distance from the garage exit to the office building entrance is only approximately 100 feet. Ms. Harter inquired about plans to enhance the walkability from this area to the shopping area across SR161, including the Wendy’s restaurant. Ms. Call stated that the walkability of that area falls more within the City’s responsibility than the applicant’s. She invited Ms. Rauch to share any comments. Ms. Rauch stated that this issue was raised during discussions concerning a different block in Bridge Park. The City has been studying how to transform the streetscape of SR161/Dublin-Granville Road. Pedestrian activity is desired on the street, not over the street. The desire is to improve the walkability, particularly at the roundabout. The City is studying potential design solutions. A potential over-the-street feature was discussed with the earlier Y block consideration. Because of the grade, that option would be difficult to achieve and extremely costly. Mr. Chinnock referred to Banker Drive and Street B, which will need to be widened consistent with public street standards. What is the reason that the additional widening space would be taken from adjacent sites, not this site? Mr. Hounshell responded that the goal is for the centerline of Street B to be the same as the current centerline of Dave Thomas Boulevard. The site plan provides half of the space needed to widen the streetscape for Street B. The applicant will build Street B and Banker Drive to meet the necessary streetscape standards. The issue is what to do about the other side of Street B so that a cohesive street design is achieved. Mr. Chinnock inquired if the needed street improvement space would come from the properties on both sides of the street. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Mr. Chinnock inquired if the graphics of the proposed garage scrim would not be considered signage. Mr. Hounshell responded that in the past, it has been considered art. Mr. Hunter noted that they worked with the Dublin Arts Council on the existing scrim on the garage in Block G. Mr. Chinnock inquired about the anticipated timeframe for the future condominium development. What would occur on that site, while the buildings in this phase are in use? Mr. Hunter responded that they should be constructed at approximately the same time. Although they will not open simultaneously, construction will be seen on both sites. Mr. Chinnock stated that the green space opportunity on this site is unique. How will it connect to the adjacent F Block to the west? Mr. Hunter responded that Banker Drive and Bridge Park Avenue align. Winder Drive will continue to evolve. A crosswalk is not possible due to its proximity to the intersection. There will be continued landscape and design development to ensure connectivity. Mr. Deschler inquired if there would be no onstreet parking on Dale Drive. Would onstreet parking be present only on Banker Drive and Bridge Park Avenue? Mr. Hounshell responded that discussion would continue with the City Street and Mobility Division to determine if onstreet parking would be desired on Dale Drive, as well. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Deschler inquired the size of the restaurant space on the first floor of the office building. Mr. Hunter responded that it would be approximately 10,000 SF. Mr. Alexander referred to the 6-story building in Bridge Park west of this site. Is that reflective of the building type that was selected for that site? Mr. Hounshell inquired if he was referring to the Spring Hill Hotel or The Bailey. Mr. Alexander responded that it would be the Spring Hill extended-stay building. Mr. Hounshell responded that he believes it is either a loft or mixed-use building type, but he is unsure if a height waiver was approved for the building. He could provide that information in the next development step. Ms. Call inquired what is the vision for separating the public open space from the private, condominium open space. Mr. Hunter responded that the grade of the site is in their favor, particularly in Phase 1. The site would incorporate a gentle staircase as well as landscaping that would separate the public from the private realm. He anticipates something similar in Phase 2. This is effectively achieved in D block, where a fountain is included. Mr. Way stated that earlier in the discussion, the applicant mentioned that if a couple of feet were added to the parking garage, they could achieve a certain number of additional parking spaces per level. He is concerned that it will require a bigger parking garage to achieve the needed parking spaces. Is that anticipated? Mr. Hunter responded that he would hope not as if the garage extends further north, it would sacrifice private space in this phase; if it extends further to the west, it sacrifices Phase 2 private space. They do need more parking spaces, but they anticipate submitting a shared parking plan for consideration. Currently, the parking is overbuilt in some blocks. Mr. Way stated that the staff report indicates 662 parking spaces are needed; they have 534 parking spaces. Therefore, 128 spaces are needed. This could have a significant impact on the proposed plan. Ms. Call stated that there currently are 5 separate parking areas that are equidistant to the existing parking garage. When submitted, the proposed shared parking plan should clarify the totality of the parking arrangement. Public Comment Scott Haring, 3280 Lily Mar Ct., Dublin, stated that there is no rezoning involved, so the project will be built to the established standards. He is hopeful that the proposed height and size of the buildings will comply with those rules. In the discussion tonight, there was reference to another project in Bridge Park that may have been granted a height waiver, and there may be consideration of a parking waiver. The Concept Plan proposal is for a 5-story garage. There was a statement that the rules allow a 4.5-story condominium. He recalls an application for a residential garage expansion in his neighborhood that was denied a few years ago. The denial was based on the assessment that the garage would look massive relative to the house. His question now is if a 5- story parking garage next to a 4.5-story condominium would look out of place. Additionally, many times in the past, the Commission has said that it did not want to consider projects in phases, but instead, see the overall plan. That makes this application seem peculiar, especially at this point, where the City has not yet acquired all the parcels intended for the project, i.e. the COTA site. He Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 11 of 20 recalls the review several years ago of the location of COTA to this site. An alternative prospect was to move COTA all the way out to a Bright Road/Emerald Parkway site. There was a large attendance and much testimony for that earlier COTA project. Is the intent now to kick COTA out of this location? Commission Discussion Mr. Chinnock stated that he believes the proposal is headed in a good direction. He has some concerns about the east elevation – a mass next to a parking lot. The architecture is currently lacking; more articulation and interest is needed. It will be important to identify what we really want with the private Street A connection. It is difficult to provide full support due to the level of unknowns at this point. Ms. Harter stated that it will be essential to identify another COTA location. She is concerned about proposed waivers; the parking garage size; the trees that would be removed; and the proposed color of the materials for the office building. She believes the open space plan is moving in the right direction. She appreciates the plans to enhance the appearance of the parking garage. The parking plan details will be important to this proposal. Mr. Way stated that the proposal is a very good use of this block. He likes the mix of uses – office and condominums. The organization of the site is appropriate and responsive to the Bridge Street Corridor plan. The open space will make this block unique. He is very supportive of the application. Mr. Alexander stated that he is supportive, as well. From an urban perspective, the application makes sense. He likes the way the plan reinforces the street wall and feels like the fabric of Bridge Park is being moved back. However, the fabric changes to the north. In the future, when we see the proposed facades, how will the applicant address the dramatically different scale across the street? There was some articulation of the office building façade, breaking it up into smaller volumes. With condominiums, there is a 4-story layer and a taller building behind that layer. This site is in a unique location, where it needs to address Bridge Park but still address the fabric of the sites in the other directions. He has no objection to the proposed building heights, due to the grade and important connections. Mr. Deschler requested clarification of the stand-alone garage, which appears to be attached to the condominium building. Mr. Hounshell responded that it is stand-alone in the sense that it is its own building type, attached to a different building type. That building type is conditionally permitted based on the fact that it does not have a liner building. Mr. Deschler inquired if every floor of the parking garage is attached to the condominium building. Mr. Hounshell responded that the parking garage is a separate building, but it is connected on all floors. Mr. Deschler referred to proposed Street A and stated that he is not supportive of the proposed cut-through. He inquired Mr. Way’s alternative suggestion. Ms. Call noted that subject would be PDP discussion item. However, early discussion of items can be valuable to the applicant. She inquired if the applicant would like to have additional discussion from the Commission on that particular plan element at this earlier phase. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 12 of 20 Mr. Hunter stated that if there are additional comments, they would like to hear them. At this point, they are not entirely sure that they know what the correct design is; there is further design to be done. However, it is possible that if the cut-through street there is not included, additional waivers would be required due to the block length. Mr. Way stated that the discussion has opened up some ideas that could be explored, and the Commission would like to see more exploration. The applicant has been made aware that a cut- through road is not well supported by the Commission. Perhaps there could be a street that is paved in a different manner and that provides opportunity for closure for different purposes or different times of the day. Mr. Deschler stated that if the proposal comes back and the street remains unchanged, the plan will not have his approval. He is hopeful that the Commission’s feedback tonight will encourage a new idea regarding the street. Ms. Call inquired if Mr. Deschler would like to explain his objection. Mr. Deschler indicated that his intent was for the Commission to enter into a discussion about that item during the prescribed time for deliberations. The applicant is supposed to gather their ideas from the Commission’s discussion and reactions to various elements of the proposal. At this point, he does not know what he wants to see, but he does know that he does not like what he sees. He does not believe there should be a cut-through street, because it creates the impression of two blocks. It is non-sequitur, not connected. Vehicles will use that street and travel through that area, exactly as Mr. Way has pointed out. He is generally supportive of the rest of the application. He is hopeful that the applicant can reach a resolution with Wendy’s and COTA. He likes the ideas for the office building and the parking garage. He believes there needs to be on-street parking on Dale Drive. Mr. Garvin stated that he believes the trees will be an important element of the open space area. The height is difficult to visualize due to the grade of the site. At the next stage of the development process, it would be helpful if the applicant provided some visual references to enable the Commission to envision the proposed heights against the skyline. Meeting the required parking spaces will be a challenge; we do not want the parking garage to become too large, nor to have a deficiency in needed parking spaces. The parking garage on the other end of Winder Drive may be the solution for achieving the needed spaces. Although some other Commission members may not agree, he likes the cut-through street. He believes additional issues could be created on either side by incorporating a dead-end street. Generally, he is supportive of the plan. He agrees that the greenspace will contribute to giving this block an interesting and viable block design. Ms. Call stated that at the Concept Plan stage, the application meets the vision of Bridge Park. The building types are acceptable. The use and layout are generally acceptable. She likes the additional ingress/egress public safety service street, although she does wish that it did not come at the cost of the greenspace. Perhaps there are ways to address that, such as changing the material type through the belt, so that it evolves from concrete or asphalt to brick or another material to give the feel that it is not a preferred vehicle route. The Commission would appreciate it being addressed in a manner other than a public street. A parking proposal with a shared-use agreement is anticipated at the next step. The architectural materials of the office building and the condominium do not need to match but be complementary. The parking garage in the drawing looks too plain, but at this point, we did not see the scrim. At the next step of the development process, visual images of the proposed scrim would be helpful. Planning and Zoning Commission   Meeting Minutes – December 12, 2024 Page 13 of 20 There was no additional discussion. Mr. Way requested that a third condition be added, which is that the applicant will explore some alternatives with Street A in terms of making it more pedestrian-friendly, based on the discussion. Mr. Hunter indicated that he had no objection to the additional condition. Mr. Way moved, Mr. Garvin seconded a recommendation of Council approval of the Concept Plan with 3 conditions: 1) The applicant continues to work with staff on the conversion of Banker Drive and Street B (Dave Thomas Boulevard) to public streets; 2) The applicant submits a Conditional Use Permit with the submission of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP); and 3) The applicant continue to work with staff to explore alternative designs for Street A, based on the comments provided by the Commission. Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion carried 7-0.]    24-136INF - MAG – Volvo, 6335 Perimeter Loop Informal review and feedback on proposed building modifications and new signs. The 15.52-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), Midwestern Auto Group and is located southeast of the intersection of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Applicant Presentation Brad Parish, Archall Architects, 49 E. 3rd Avenue, Columbus, stated that this application is related to the Volvo portion of the primary MAG building. The proposal is to update the exterior façade with brand elements. The Volvo brand imaging division recently updated its brand, which includes the following key items: replacing the showroom storefront with a frosted glass; introduction of a blue metal panel with the Volvo signage; display windows into the showroom; a metal entry portal with a wood texture; updating the uplighting for the vehicle display areas. The request also included 3 new signs -- 2 wall signs and one service sign. They are seeking the Commission’s feedback before filing a formal application. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for an Informal Review in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). An Informal Review provides the applicant with non-binding feedback from the PZC on a development concept. Following an INF, the applicant may submit an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) application for formal review by PZC, which is required when any changes to a previously approved FDP are requested. The 15.5-acre site is located southeast of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road, with a shared access drive off Perimeter Loop Road and two additional access drives off Venture Drive. It includes the Ferrari, Porsche, and main MAG dealership (including Volvo) buildings, outdoor display areas along the front of the buildings, associated parking, and pedestrian facilities along Venture Drive, Perimeter Loop Road, and Perimeter Drive. In March 2018, City Council approved an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) for a MAG campus comprehensive sign plan, including an inventory of all existing and proposed signs. This