The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 02-21RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Resolution No. 02-21 Passu A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF :3.58 ACRES INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS AND THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIMROSE SCHOOL. WHIEREAS, application for approval of the plat for Primrose School development 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 plat 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 plat for the Primrose School 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. Sedtion 3. Pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Charter, this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. Passed this L_day of -, 2021. Mayor — Presiding Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Form 6301 City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: January 12, 2021 Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner I Memo Re: Resolution 02-21— Acceptance of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide ±3.58 acres into two lots and to dedicate right-of-way for one Neighborhood Street for the future development of the Primrose School (Case #20-148PP) Summary This is a request for acceptance of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide ±3.58 acres into two lots and to dedicate right-of-way for one Neighborhood Street for the future development of the Primrose School. The undeveloped site is located south of West Dublin -Granville Road, and zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) — Commercial Zoning District. Process As provided by the Law Director's Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final plats, the platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines, establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site layout, architectural character, and open space designs for the development are part of a separate application process, approved by the required reviewing bodies. Background The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application for a Preliminary Plat and made a recommendation of approval to City Council on November 5, 2020 finding the proposal meets the review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan, which the Commission approved. Prior to these reviews, the Commission reviewed and approved a Concept Plan on August 6, 2020, Description The site consists of one parcel, ±3.58 acres in size, with approximately 400 feet of frontage along West Dublin -Granville Road. The site is proposed to be subdivided east to west, creating a southern lot and a northern lot, Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Lot 1 is 1.370 acres in size, and the Lot 2 is a 1.632 -acre lot. The plat dedicates 0.528 acres of the site for right-of-way to accommodate a future Neighborhood Street fulfilling the requirements of the BSD Street Network Map. Access to Lots 1 and 2 is provided by the future public street connection. Lot 1 has 222 feet of frontage along the future public street. Lot 2 has 242 feet of frontage along the future public street, and 339 feet of frontage along W. Dublin -Granville Road. The applicant is proposing to develop Lot 1 with a daycare facility while Lot 2 is reserved for future development. The Neighborhood Street will be required to be built prior to or concurrent with Memo — Resolution 02-21 - Preliminary Plat — Primrose School January 12, 2021 Page 2 of 2 the construction of the proposed daycare facility. The plat memorializing an existing utility easement for overhead lines and establishes easements as necessary. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At the November 5, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council, and; 2) The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended to City Council the plat acceptance. Condition 2 has not been met and the applicant will continue to work with Engineering to finalize a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission of the Final Plat application. City Council Recommendation Recommendation of acceptance of the Preliminary Plat by City Council with the following revised condition carried forward: 1) The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission of a Final Plat application. - ar �e cc Lowe's ' • ` � v ♦ J:.. v,- .� � n e ~aLr'Heartland of ID lip 4� S_to n e Tidge��'4 • h — } Germain Lexus --I f •_ Eli •—� -- -- - och I ► • - co MartinI Rd :, - g J GRAPHIC SCALE 30 15 0 30 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 30 ft. EX SAN. M. H. T.C.=898.94' S.E INV -889,7' FLOWLINE=887.54' i Ex. C. B. T.C.=894.07' B6SIS OF 13EARINGV BEARINGSOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATI NS, BEING THE OHIO ST TE PLANE COORDINAT SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 1983. I / I EX. C. B, T C.=99 01.39'' I '(BIRD &BULL) 1.7'W 0.6'5. Gla O ®° At- c0 i I NC 6 CURB I I I I I I 1 I 30" COMBINED CURB AND GUTTER a N w EX. C. B. T.C.=893.62' i PRELIMINARY PLAT / REPLAT OF LOT 3 N JALL INVESTMENTS PROPIERTIES / PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 1 / CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, O'IIHIO / EX SAN.M.H. SUAV T C=903.34' INV.=897.33' EX. ASPHALT PAVEMENT I I R=1890.50'\ I I I I d=1' 31'31' L=50.33' CB=S75. 4B'i pEx. co/vc. culze CD=50.33' OHIO HEALTHCARE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION NOT. NA, 200510260225249 LOT 4 -"2- \ \ ` +tia„_ bACXX+ fX C. CT -,q HFMFNr CURB \ -A- 1 \\ \�, ABG/c \�`-- \ / r EKC.B. T C.=902.17' S.W.WV=896.37' FLOOD NOTE: THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE "X" (UNSHADED), BEING AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE 0.21— ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) PANEL No. 39049C015K, DATED JUNE 76, 2008, ZONING NOTES: 1. THE SHOWN HEREON IS A PART OF THE BRIDGE PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THERE ARE NO BUILDING SETBACK LINES TD BE SHOWN. 2. DEVELOPER = EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GROUP 1209 HILL RDAD, SUTIE 200 PICKERINGTON, OHIO 43747 3. SURVEYOR = AMERICAN LAND SURVEYORS, LLC 7346 HEMLOCK COURT N.E. LANCASTER, OHIO 43130 4, THE SITES SHOWN HEREON WILL BE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. LEGEND: @O IRON PIPE FOUND (AS NOTED) ❑ CATCH BASIN �I STORM MANHOLE (DRAINAGE) (S) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE D TELEPHONE BOX u � I DIRECTION OF FLOW I 14 TITLE EXCEPTION NOTE (NUMBER MATCHES COMMITMENT) YS FIRE HYDRANT tl n II 1 ® WATER VALUE / 1 EX. 24" CURB/GUTTER Columbus " ke neyn,msw� Toe bin SIGN 8 VgIH VICINITY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION Situated In the State of Ohio, County of Franklin Pro the City of Dublin: Being Let Number Three (3) of PIT INVESTMENT PROPER➢ES„ mum r as the same is numbered and delineated upon the plot recorded ot thereof, of record, in Plat Book 80, .,as 1 and Z RecordersOffice, Franklin County, Ohio. BENCHMARKS: 1 0 ELECTRIC BOX SOURCE. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS IN 1rRAFFIc PULL aox CONJUNCTION WITH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 1 VHS NETWORK UTILIZING GEOID 12A, BEING THE NORTH AMERICAN 1 VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988. (NAA) 88) EX.ST M.H. TC=901.35' 1 S./W INV =895, iC Ni 00' �-1 Ex C. B. A` GAS LINE MARKER TC.=907.72' (D TELEPHONE MANHOLE CP p INV, -896.28' MAG NAIL SET IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT, 60' WEST OF THE EAST O D 1 UTILITY BOX PROPERTY LINE, 132' SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD.. DECEDIOUS TREE AND DIAMETER , �/'1 /EX72"'RCPT ELEV.=902.02 I I ///1 1 I I 1 `EXC.B. SURVEY CONTROL POINT -7/ I 1 INV'5TS-989584' T— 56' BUILDING LINE (BY ZONING) ___ -- - - - - ea7---- —\—--EDUCAa10N `QEWLOPMENT GROUP, SLC II R=1890.50' I I I I X10.18.42' 1N3> .�1d 2a19DsLoosszsl \ I I I L=340.24 —— I I I I CB=S81- 43'07-E I I I III CD -339.78'_ __—--- — \ \ 1632 Ac. LOT 1 \\ \\ \--ape— II 1.370 AC.� ---------- \\ C -�L II I __594--------\ --------------------�� -----------------��--------------- ---------\ -803--/--EY3-------- IV O a Lancaster, OH 43130 3985 W Dublin Granville �I Rd, Dublin, OH 43017 n all /I Mrd Hilliard uPF t ah,n u NST No. 201002220020767 100' EASEMENT TO C. & S.O.E. CO. 6Y P 12LOT (740) 455-2200 -Zanesville rar...a rand ii, � tl n II (740) 670-0000 - Newark Fax (740) 654-0604 li / rzrrers- Columbus " ke neyn,msw� Toe bin w SII 8 VgIH 1, TPendp 10' EASEMENT TO owi�ar�P� OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. owrshiP p:ea,din 6r fN de", Rttl, rYgmn l 61 T y{{p a p To lkkai Meet— r rel wrane>r. // Phell Aeon emcnfiela 75' Rf�KING SETBACK (BY ZONING) -- an "bcrn Tuvnv, Ta' i \I T--/--- ' 80 ----- 5?� 28 E _— ----------- ® 7rp —i--EBS----��I -- —rsPE EASEwENT_ ---------� -t-------------- arn:a, T.—ko LEGAL DESCRIPTION Situated In the State of Ohio, County of Franklin Pro the City of Dublin: Being Let Number Three (3) of PIT INVESTMENT PROPER➢ES„ mum r as the same is numbered and delineated upon the plot recorded ot thereof, of record, in Plat Book 80, .,as 1 and Z RecordersOffice, Franklin County, Ohio. BENCHMARKS: 1 0 ELECTRIC BOX SOURCE. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS IN 1rRAFFIc PULL aox CONJUNCTION WITH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 1 VHS NETWORK UTILIZING GEOID 12A, BEING THE NORTH AMERICAN 1 VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988. (NAA) 88) EX.ST M.H. TC=901.35' 1 S./W INV =895, iC Ni 00' �-1 Ex C. B. A` GAS LINE MARKER TC.=907.72' (D TELEPHONE MANHOLE CP p INV, -896.28' MAG NAIL SET IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT, 60' WEST OF THE EAST O D 1 UTILITY BOX PROPERTY LINE, 132' SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD.. DECEDIOUS TREE AND DIAMETER , �/'1 /EX72"'RCPT ELEV.=902.02 I I ///1 1 I I 1 `EXC.B. SURVEY CONTROL POINT -7/ I 1 INV'5TS-989584' T— 56' BUILDING LINE (BY ZONING) ___ -- - - - - ea7---- —\—--EDUCAa10N `QEWLOPMENT GROUP, SLC II R=1890.50' I I I I X10.18.42' 1N3> .�1d 2a19DsLoosszsl \ I I I L=340.24 —— I I I I CB=S81- 43'07-E I I I III CD -339.78'_ __—--- — \ \ 1632 Ac. LOT 1 \\ \\ \--ape— II 1.370 AC.� ---------- \\ C -�L II I __594--------\ --------------------�� -----------------��--------------- ---------\ -803--/--EY3-------- IV a Lancaster, OH 43130 AMERICAN �I . M.H. n all /I / OSU INTERNAL MEDICINE, LLC NST No. 201002220020767 100' EASEMENT TO C. & S.O.E. CO. 2 P 12LOT (740) 455-2200 -Zanesville / D.B. 3740, PG. 239 (740) 670-0000 - Newark Fax (740) 654-0604 \ / / II Z \ -- — UTILITY LINE-------��_�_ -- — I w SII ----------- ---- �— —\\ — — — — — — — — — — f-------------- 10' EASEMENT TO 4 OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. yk \ / O.R. 24616, PG. C74 J./ \ m / ` // 75' Rf�KING SETBACK (BY ZONING) -- — i --�—____OVERHEAD \I T--/--- ' 80 ----- 5?� 28 E _— ----------- ----Bp1-----_ —i--EBS----��I -- —rsPE EASEwENT_ ---------� -t-------------- \\\-- W III �j-586' Lancaster, OH 43130 AMERICAN \ `I . M.H. all 9 / (614) 837-0800 - Columbus 100' EASEMENT TO C. & S.O.E. CO. on (740) 455-2200 -Zanesville / D.B. 3740, PG. 239 (740) 670-0000 - Newark Fax (740) 654-0604 \ / Excellence Z \ -- — UTILITY LINE-------��_�_ -- — I ----------- ---- �— —\\ — — — — — — — — — — f-------------- "- J./ \ / ` // 75' Rf�KING SETBACK (BY ZONING) -- — i --�—____OVERHEAD UTLIT7�/E ----- —�1— ----- � � T--/--- ' 80 ----- 5?� 28 E _— ----------- ----Bp1-----_ —i--EBS----��I -- —rsPE EASEwENT_ 1.49 All 10 2TE_-- --226.77'----- —890—N5. 10' 27-E-",e-&Ee- PV-- y/.��---_- 'J ST No. 2 INVESTMENT LLC NST No. 209805170065867 TRACT 7 4.277 ACRES EX. ST M.H. TO B90.90' E INV =887.40 S.INV =897.30 �7y(@IR1Z& BULL) 1346 Hemlock Court N.E. Lancaster, OH 43130 AMERICAN \ `I . M.H. TC T..= --- —BBB" NJNV=885.54' / (614) 837-0800 - Columbus �7y(@IR1Z& BULL) 1346 Hemlock Court N.E. Lancaster, OH 43130 AMERICAN °on654'. Focused (74 0)654-0600 - Lancaster 00 - Lancaster (614) 837-0800 - Columbus LANA on (740) 455-2200 -Zanesville (740) 670-0000 - Newark Fax (740) 654-0604 SURVEyI nRS Excellence wwwamerlcanlandsurveyors com JON B. ADCOCK, P. CP J2 518" IRON PIN SET WITH PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "JON ADCOCK" S-8461, 35' NORTH OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, 70 FEET WEST OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. ELEV.=901.54' 41ill oy0 i JON B. f+: ADCOCK {+ 8461 4s•.�vFc1sTE�`�� d 8461 Ohio P.S. No. FIELD DRAFTffBA JBA JBA JOB NO. 19-069 DATE'. 4, 2020 SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 Date: SCALE. 1rr=30r DocuSign Envelope ID: FBC968CF-57E8-42E8-960B-A855EFOBB72D RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Primrose School PID: 273-009147 20-148PP Preliminary Plat Proposal: Establishment of two lots with public right-of-way on a 3.58 -acre site zoned Bridge Street District Office. Location: South of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of Subdivision Regulations Sections 152.085 — 152.092. Applicant: ALT Architects Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-148 MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat with two conditions: 1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat, prior to submission for acceptance to City Council; and 2) That the applicant provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street, prior to the submission to City Council for approval. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: The Preliminary Plat was conditionally recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION CDocuSigned ''by: & f' 6WA SU/ .f,�, R05nn115VA49n Zach Hounshell, Planner I PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 11 Ms. Call stated that this is a request for an allowance of a 4 -foot -high, split -rail fencing in the Indian Run Meadows subdivision, zoned Planned Unit Development District. The site is northeast of the intersection of Avery-Muirfield Drive with Avery Road. Public Comment Michael Welsh, 6857 Fallen Timbers Drive, Dublin, OH 43017: "As a resident of Indian Run Meadows and member of the Association board, I did vote to update our fence guidelines with respect to height and distance between posts. However, I want to stress that the "meadows" in our name refers to the greenspace formed behind the houses, as irregularly shaped lots blend. This confluence of property lines in the absence of structures gives the illusion of a meadow, instead of backing up to another house. I trust P&Z will scrutinize each application to ensure the split - rail fences are kept to the very narrow confines of the build zones to continue to preserve this special feature." No Commission member requested to move the case from the Consent Agenda for discussion purposes. Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded: 1. Approval of the Minor Text Modification as follows: Modification of the Development Plan text for Indian Run Meadows, Section (C)(a), that: A split rail fence, not to exceed four feet in height may be installed on any single-family lot. Said fence shall be constructed in accordance with the specification appearing on page 8 of said document. and 2. Approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with no conditions. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion passed 7-0] NEW CASES 1. Primrose School, PID: 273-009147, 20-147PDP, Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Call stated that this is a request for a two-story, 15,000 -square -foot daycare facility and associated site improvements on a 3.58 -acre site zoned Bridge Street District Office. The site is located south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. Primrose School, PID: 273-009147, 20-148PP, Preliminary Plat Ms. Call stated that this a request for recommendation of approval to City Council of a Preliminary Plat for the construction of a new day care facility and new neighborhood street located on a ±3.53 -acre site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and recommendation of City Council approval of a Preliminary Plat for the construction of a new day care facility and new neighborhood street located on a ±3.53 -acre site located within the Bridge Street — Office District (BSD -0). The site is located south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 340 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. An AEP high-tension power line runs along the western edge of the property and requires a 100 -foot easement on the western portion of the site. It is the primary reason this site has been vacant for some time. There is minimal existing vegetation other than a natural tree row along the western property line. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Site The site has frontage on W. Dublin -Granville Road (400 feet) to the north. Code requires a Neighborhood Street connection, and this project will include design and construction of a new north - south Neighborhood Street and create a new block. The proposed Neighborhood Street will partially subdivide the existing block defined by W. Dublin -Granville Road to the north, the new neighborhood street to the east, Stoneridge Lane to the south, and Shamrock Crossing Boulevard to the west. The BSD Code includes standards for maximum block dimensions. In the Bridge Street Office District, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length, and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. Both the north and south sides of the block exceed the 500 -foot maximum and the perimeter significantly exceeds the 1,750 -foot maximum; therefore, a waiver is required for the dimensions of the newly created block. A waiver for this block would be required with any application for this site, given the creation of the required Neighborhood Street. History In August 2020, the Commission approved a Concept Plan that included an approximately 15,000 - square -foot, two-story child daycare center, which replicated the requirements of a loft building. The applicant also proposed addition of a neighborhood street to the east of the site, as well as a lot split into two lots. The applicant would develop and occupy the southern lot, which would contain 38 parking spaces. Per the BSD Code, the applicant was required to provide a parking plan with the preliminary development plan. Proposal The applicant has provided a parking plan with this application, which indicates that in addition to the 38 on-site parking spaces, there would be an additional 24 on -street spaces along the new neighborhood street. Other Primrose locations within central Ohio have 38-46 parking spaces, so the proposed number is typical. Also proposed is a 12,900 -square -foot playground containing four separate age group areas. The perimeter of the playground will be contained within 4 -foot tall black aluminum fence; the individual areas will be split by a 4 -foot tall chain link fence. Because the BSD Code prohibits chain link fences, staff recommends the black aluminum fence also be used for separating the individual play areas. Currently, the playground will extend to within three feet of the southern property line. The minimum side -yard setbacks within this district for this loft building type is five feet. It is recommended that the site plan be revised to meet the minimum setback requirement. The applicant is required to provide 1 -square foot of open space per 50 square feet of building space; consequently, 318 square feet of public accessible open space would be required. The location of that open space is not indicated on the site plan. Based on the layout of the site, staff is concerned that any required open space on the site would not meet the intent of open space; therefore, it is suggested that the applicant consolidate an open space with the future development of the northern lot. Staff and the Law Director are working with the applicant on a way in which to memorialize any open space consolidation arrangement for the future development of the northern parcel as part of the Final Development Plan. Architectural Details Proposed is a two-story contemporary building with parapet roofs. Each story of the building is 12 feet in height, with varying parapet walls between 2 feet and 6 feet. The main entrance to the building is located at the northeast corner of the building. Loft buildings require a minimum of 80% primary building materials per fagade, excluding windows and doors; primary materials are stone, brick and glass. The applicant is proposing 72% primary materials on the north elevation, 65% on the south elevation, 70% on the east elevation, and 56% on the west elevation. Because the required percent is not met, the applicant is requesting a Waiver to the Primary Materials requirement for all four elevations. There will be two finishes of brick, natural stone, and glass as primary materials for the building and cementitious horizontal siding and two finishes of metal panels as secondary materials. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 11 The applicant is also requesting a Waiver to the Vertical Increments requirement for loft buildings. Loft buildings require vertical increments (distances on a vertical plane without breaks in the plane) not to exceed 40 feet on any elevation. The south (63.91 feet), east (64.93 feet), and west (62.21 feet) elevations all exceed this requirement. The applicant is also requesting a Waiver to the Front Property Line Coverage. For loft buildings, 75% of the front lot line coverage is required to be occupied by the building or permitted additional streetscape. The applicant is proposing 50.5 percent of the front property line coverage to be met. Most of the proposed architecture has not changed since the approval of the Concept Plan in August. Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing to subdivide and re -plat the site to create the Neighborhood Street right- of-way and two new lots. The new lot line is proposed from east to west, creating a north lot and a south lot. The southern lot (Lot 1) is a 1.370 -acre lot, and the northern lot (Lot 2) is a 1.632 -acre lot. 0.528 -acre of the site is being dedicated for right-of-way dedication of the new neighborhood street. The proposed neighborhood street results in a corner lot condition for the north lot and provides public street frontage for the south lot, as required by Code. The applicant is proposing to develop the southern lot, with future development taking place along S.R. 161. The Neighborhood Street will be required to be built prior to or concurrent with the construction of the proposed daycare facility. The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. Staff has reviewed the application against all applicable criteria and recommends approval of the four waivers; of the preliminary plat and parking plan with four conditions; and of the preliminary plat with two conditions. Applicant Comment Alena Miller, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton -Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that they understand the conditions and have no objections. Commission Questions Mr. Grimes stated that the report mentions the elimination of the sidewalk on the other northern lot. What is the purpose of doing so? Mr. Hounshell responded that a sidewalk connection is shown running through the northern lot. To prevent any land lock to the future development of that northern site, staff recommends that the connection be removed, as they will have the sidewalk connection along the neighborhood street. No development on the northern lot is being considered at this time. Ms. Kennedy stated that the public open space requirement has not been met. Are any special considerations being given in view of the fact that this is a daycare school facility, and there will be young children on this site? As a parent, she is uncertain if she would want the public in close proximity to her children. Ms. Call inquired if the City has a mechanism for fee in lieu of or for bonding, since the recommendation of staff is to consolidate the open space. Mr. Hounshell responded that the applicant will address this issue in detail. Staff and the Law Director's office have been in discussions regarding possible agreements to address this understanding. The intent is not to provide open space just to meet the open space requirement. The intent is that it be a valuable asset for the property owner and to pedestrians. Mr. Boggs, Assistant Law Director, stated that they have discussed the appropriate mechanism for this situation. There is a potential fee in lieu permitted by Code, but the preference is to have an agreement in place, to which the City is a party, for provision of a consolidated open space on the northern lot. That document has not been drafted at this time. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November S, 2020 Page S of 11 Ms. Fox stated that there is an eight -foot slope on the west side of the parcel. Is there any concern about stormwater runoff into the parking lot to the west? Mr. Stanford, City Engineering, stated that they did not identify an issue in their initial review. Staff will hone in on that factor as construction drawings are developed. However, if there should be a concern, there are possible solutions to remedy it. Ms. Fox inquired about the vertical elements for which a waiver is requested. Mr. Fishman stated that the City is receiving numerous waiver requests for the Primary Materials requirement of 80%. Those standards were set with much forethought, and recently, we seem to be permitting frequent variances. Typically, a building's appearance is improved with a greater percent of the primary materials. He also is concerned that the signs on the play equipment carry the name of the sign company, which is visible from the street. Mr. Hounshell responded that the vertical elements requirement relates to breaks in the plane along the building fagade. The requirement is that there be no spans greater than 40 feet without a break in the plane. The southern fagade of the building is approximately 60-62 feet without a break. There is lack of articulation. Although a waiver allows for deviation from Code, the intent is that it allows the applicant to be more creative outside the guidelines of the Code. It is the Board's task to determine if the variation in design results in a product that is equally good or better. The applicant has requested these waivers to complement the design of their building. Mr. Fishman stated that he has no objection to the proposed appearance of the building, but he is concerned about setting precedents. With some buildings, it is difficult to meet Code, but that does not seem to be the case here. Mr. Supelak stated that the requirement is for 80% primary materials; what qualifies as primary materials here? Mr. Hounshell responded that per the BSD Code, primary materials include stone, brick and glass. Secondary materials would be metal panels and cementitious siding. The calculation is exclusive of windows or doors. Mr. Fishman stated that the goal is that the buildings be able to withstand the test of time. The primary materials are quality materials. Ms. Kennedy inquired what the response is to the question raised about the signs on the playground equipment. The Primrose logo and name appear to be noted on the canopy equipment. Mr. Hounshell responded that the accessory details concerning the playground equipment, fencing, trash enclosure will be addressed in the Final Development Plan. At this point, any details are conceptual. The signage shown on the building will not be approved with this application. The signage on the playground equipment has not been discussed, but the applicant may be able to provide some information. Ms. Kennedy stated that if there is a proposal to have the applicant's name and logo on the playground equipment, she assumes it would be necessary for them to meet the sign requirements. Ms. Call inquired if the sign details would be reviewed and approved with the Final Development Plan application. Mr. Hounshell responded affirmatively. Commission Discussion Mr. Schneier stated that the Commission has reviewed the earlier Concept Plans for this project, and he has no objections to the requested waivers. This is a good development and addition to the community. He appreciates that flexibility is permitted; that the Code is not strictly required, if there is opportunity for a better outcome. He has no concerns with the proposal. Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Supelak stated that this is an attractive project. He has no qualms about the waivers or the conditions. The details regarding the canopies and signage will be provided with the Final Development Plan (FDP). Ms. Kennedy that she is satisfied if the signage details for the facility will be provided with the FDP. She agrees that this is an attractive project and a great addition to the community. Ms. Fox thanked the applicant for considering the Commission's earlier suggestions about the connectivity and appreciates the changes made. She agrees that the sidewalk in the northern site will need to be removed, but when that northern parcel is developed, it would be nice to have a sidewalk connection to the south parcel. She would like to see more architectural interest at the entrance, such as an awning; more detailing would break up the flat plane. That is important, particularly on the street side. Other than that suggestion, she likes the project. Mr. Grimes expressed agreement with Ms. Foxs comments. He is impressed with how the project has been laid out and the use of the land. He is supportive of the requested waivers. Because the building will be located near the back of the parcel, the waivers are justified. He is pleased with the project, which will encourage future development to the north. Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with Commission members' comments. He would encourage architecture that will not become dated. However, the placement of the building is good, although the pedestrian connection will be important. Ms. Call stated that she appreciates that staff will be working with the applicant on the open space arrangement. The building envelope on this parcel is a challenge, but they have made it work. She appreciates that AEP has loosened its restrictions and is permitting parking to be provided on the western side of the parcel. However, if there were a future need for AEP to use that area, it would greatly impact the amount of available parking for the business. Although the on -street parking would mitigate the issue somewhat, most of the parking is located on the parcel interior. She appreciates the fence change from chain link to black aluminum. In regard to lot coverage, she anticipates development of the front parcel will be a challenge in regard to lot line coverage. However, this is a great project. Public Comment No public comments on the case were received Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following four waivers: 1) Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.062(0)(4)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage (Approximately 50.5% coverage). 2) Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.062(E)(1) — Fagade Materials (72% primary materials on the north fagade; 65% primary materials on the south fagade; 70% primary materials on the east fagade; 56% primary materials on the west fagade). 3) Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.060(C)(2) — Maximum Block Size (W. Dublin - Granville Road = –1,200 feet; Stoneridge Lane = –1,218 feet; Perimeter = –3,325 feet). 4) Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.060(0)(4)(d)(4) — Fagade Divisions – Vertical Increments (South Fagade = 63.91 feet; East Fagade = 64.93 feet; West Fagade = 62.21 feet). Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion passed 7-0] Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the following four conditions: 1) The applicant remove the sidewalk connection across Lot 2; 2) The applicant revise the site plan to meet the 5 -foot setback requirement for the proposed fence; 3) The applicant replace the chain link fence with the proposed black aluminum fence used on the perimeter of the playground, and; 4) The applicant provide landscaping around the perimeter of the playground to provide additional screening from the street and adjacent properties. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion passed 7-0] Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy moved approval of the Preliminary Plat with two conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council, and; 2) The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. [Motion passed 7-0] 4. Turkey Run Apartments, 219 Perth Drive, 20-168AFDP, Amended Final Development Plan Ms. Call stated that this is a request for the installation of a 20 -square -foot ground sign for an apartment complex zoned Planned Unit Development District. The site is southeast of the intersection of Perth Drive with Frantz Road. Staff Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan for a ground sign for an existing apartment complex. The site is located southeast of the intersection of Perth Drive and Frantz Road. The applicant is proposing the installation of a monument sign at the northwest corner of the site near the intersection of Frantz Road and Edinburgh Road. The monument sign would be considered an Entry Feature Sign in the Zoning Code. Entry feature signs are permitted to be 20 square feet in size and shall not exceed 6 feet (72 inches) in height. The applicant is proposing an approximately 15.2 -square -foot entry feature/monument sign with a 3 - square -foot leasing sign below the main sign. The total height of the sign, including the base, is 51.5 inches. The base of the sign is clad with a synthetic stacked stone. The signs are proposed to be attached to the sign base by two 4 -inch thick aluminum square tubes painted black. The proposed sign faces are to be made from one-sided Aluminum Composite Material. The copy and logo of the sign will be constructed of PVC that are individually attached to the sign. The sign will have three colors, which meets the standard zoning Code requirement for signs. The logo is proposed to be Gold; the primary copy will be Green; and the background will be White. No illumination is proposed. Staff recommends that the applicant remove the "Now Leasing"' secondary sign from the monument sign; that the height of the stacked stone base to the base of the sign be increased; and that a sign cabinet be provided, rather than the tubes. The applicant has also provided a sign landscape plan with the submitted materials. Landscaping is a requirement for all monument signs within Dublin. Monument signs are required to be landscaped up to a 3 -foot perimeter around the monument sign. The applicant should continue to work with staff to finalize the required landscape plan. City of IDblin OHIO, USA Planning and Zoning Commisison November 5, 2020 20-147PDP / 20-148PP — PRIMROSE SCHOOL Summary This is a request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan, and review and recommendation of acceptance to City Council of a Preliminary Plat for the construction of a new day care facility and new neighborhood street located on a ±3.53 -acre site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). Site Location South of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 340 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. Zoning BSD -O, Bridge Street District — Office District Property Owner Peace Hanson LLC Applicant/ Representative ALT Architects Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.066 Subdivision Regulations 152.020 Case Manager Zach Hounshell, Planner I (614) 410-4652 zhounshellCa dublin.oh.us Zoning Map Next Steps Following recommendation of approval, the preliminary plat application will be forwarded to City Council for review and final acceptance. The applicant will also be eligible to submit a final development plan application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 2 of 15 1. Content Map 20Development 0 155 310 Preliminary Development Plan � Ci of Dublin Primrose School Feet PID: 273-009147 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 3 of 15 2. Overview Background The site is located south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 340 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. W. Dublin -Granville Road is a Corridor Connector Street as identified in the Bridge Street District (BSD) — Street Network Map. This site has remained vacant and undeveloped over time. The surrounding properties were developed prior to being rezoned to the Bridge Street District. State Bank, located northwest of this site, is the only property adjacent to the site that was developed after the implementation of the Bridge Street District rezoning. History In August 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the application for a Concept Plan. The Concept Plan included an approximately 15,000 -square -foot child daycare center and neighborhood street connection on the site. The Concept Plan included a conceptual layout of the northern lot to confirm that the northern lot could be developed to the standard of the Bridge Street District. The applicant is proposing to develop the southern of the two lots. In May 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and tabled this application for a Concept Plan. The applicant requested to table the application after the Commission discussed concerns regarding the available space to develop the northern site and the uncertainty of the northern site. In January 2018, the Administrative Review Team reviewed an application for a Preliminary Plat/Final Plat/Development Plan Review/Site Plan Review/Master Sign Plan. The application did not receive any approval during its time with the ART. This application was discontinued by the applicant following this meeting. In September 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a Basic Site Plan (now called a Concept Plan) and a Conditional Use application for the proposed hospital facility including the construction of a neighborhood street and associated site improvements. In August 2017, the Administrative Review Team reviewed and recommended approval for an application for the construction of an 18,000 -square -foot hospital facility including the construction of a neighborhood street and associated site improvements. Process The Zoning Code pertaining to the Bridge Street District was revised in Spring of 2019 and became effective on May 8, 2019. The revisions centered on the Review and Approval Process (Chapter 153.066) and eliminated of the requirement of a review and recommendation from the Administrative Review Team (ART). The three-step development process is as follows: • Step 1— Concept Plan • Step 2 — Preliminary Development Plan • Step 3 — Final Development Plan City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 4 of 15 In conjunction with the Preliminary and Final Development Plan process, a preliminary and final plat will also be submitted with this application. The plat is required due to the reconfiguration of the lot, as well as the construction of a new neighborhood street. Site Characteristics Natural Features The site is currently vacant with minimal existing vegetation, apart from a heavily vegetated natural tree row along the western property line. There is approximately fifteen feet of grade change from the eastern property line to the western property line. Historic and Cultural Facilities No historic or cultural faculties are present on the site. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: BSD-SCN, Sawmill Center Neighborhood District (Vacant) East: BSD -O, Office District (Ohio Healthcare Credit Union) South: BSD -O, Office District (Ohio State University Internal Medicine) West: BSD -O, Office District (Stoneridge Medical Office) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has frontage on W. Dublin -Granville Road (400 feet) to the north. Code requires a Neighborhood Street connection as indicated on the Bridge Street District Street Network Map. The project will design and construct a new north -south Neighborhood Street. This proposed street will have on street parking, sidewalk and street lighting. Along W. Dublin -Granville Road there is a sidewalk on the south side and a shared -use path on the north side. Utilities The site has access to public utilities (sanitary and water) from W. Dublin -Granville Road. This project will extend both public water and sanitary sewer mains to the south. An AEP high- tension power line runs along the western edge of the property and requires a 100 -foot easement on the western portion of the site. Stormwater Management This application will meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code by the construction of on-site storm sewer main and structures along with an underground water quality treatment system. Proposal The applicant is proposing a new two-story, approximately 15,850 -square -foot child daycare center located on the 3.53 -acre site zoning Bridge Street District — Office District on the southern portion of the site. The preliminary plat proposal includes the construction of a new Neighborhood Street along the eastern property line, as required by the Bridge Street District Street Network Map, and the split of the existing lot into two new lots. Use The applicant is proposing a Child Daycare Facility. This use is permitted within the Bridge Street Office District. The Bridge Street Code includes use -specific standards for 'Daycare, Child or Adult' requiring that outdoor recreation areas located to the side or rear of the principal City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 5 of 15 structure and be enclosed with a permitted 50% opacity fence, and that all proposed play equipment and shade structures visible from the right-of-way shall use earth -toned colors. Streets, Lots, and Blocks The Code provides a hierarchy of requirements for establishing a gridded street network. The proposed site has two identified street types as referenced in the Street Network Map, a part of the city's Thoroughfare Plan: • Corridor Connector (S.R. 161) • Neighborhood Streets (proposed) Corridor Connectors are often designated as Principal Frontage Streets. Principal Frontage Streets are designated to ensure a continuous, pedestrian -oriented block. Generally, buildings are required to meet an elevated character and quality standard for facades that face Principal Frontage Streets. Additionally, buildings are required to be sited to occupy the build zone at a minimum percent, to create a continuous architectural edge uninterrupted by vehicular curb cuts. This proposal includes the construction of a Neighborhood Street to align with the Street Network Map and create a new block. The proposed Neighborhood Street will partially subdivide the existing block defined by W. Dublin -Granville Road, Shamrock Crossing Boulevard, Stoneridge Lane, and Dublin Center Drive. The Code includes standards for maximum block dimensions. In the Bridge Street Office District, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length, and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. The newly created block does not meet the length requirements on the south and north borders (1218 feet and 1200 respectively), and does not meet the perimeter requirement (3325 feet). A waiver is required for the dimensions of the newly created block. It should be noted that this waiver would be required with any application for this site, given the creation of the required Neighborhood Street. LPrellminary Plat The applicant is proposing to subdivide and re -plat the site to create the Neighborhood Street right- of-way and two new lots. The new lot line is proposed from east to west, creating a north lot and a south lot. The southern lot (Lot 1) is a 1.370 -acres lot, and the northern lot (Lot 2) is a 1.632 -acres lot. 0.528 -acre of the site is being dedicated for right-of-way dedication of the new neighborhood street. The proposed neighborhood street results in a corner lot condition for the north lot and provides City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-14]PE)P / 20-148PP I Primrose Sdool Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 6 of 15 public street frontage for the south lot, as required by Code. The applicant is proposing to develop the southern lot, with future development taking place along S.R. 161. The Neighborhood Street will be required to be built prior to or concurrent with the construction of the proposed daycare facility. The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. Layout The proposed two-story, approximately 15,850 - square -foot building is located to the rear of the existing parcel, fronting the proposed and required Neighborhood Street along the east property line. The applicant has located the building to the corner of the intersection of the proposed Neighborhood Street and a proposed internal access drive to the north. An approximately 12,900 -square -foot playground is proposed to the south of the building. The site has one vehicular access point to the east from the required Neighborhood Street. Sidewalk connections are proposed from the building and parking lot to the public sidewalk along the west side of the Neighborhood Street, as well as a sidewalk extension across Lot 2 and connecting directly with the existing sidewalk along W. Dublin -Granville Road. Planning Staff recommends that the applicant remove the sidewalk connection across Lot 2 to avoid pre determining the layout of a future development of Lot 2. Parking The Bridge Street Zoning Code requires that daycare uses provide a Parking Plan to demonstrate adequate site circulation --including pick-up and drop-off areas, as well as the number of parking spaces required to adequately support the daycare. The applicant is currently proposing 38 parking spaces to the west of the building, with an additional 24 on -street parking spaces on the Neighborhood Street. The applicant has provided information on the site plan explaining that a typical parking count for Primrose properties range between 38 and 46 parking spaces. The parking provided on site falls within this range. Building Type The BSD emphasizes building form while encouraging a mix of uses across a single zoning district. The Code permits specific building types for each zoning district. The Building Type based on the proposed use, number of stories and story heights, siting, and development character is a Loft Building Type. This is a permitted Building Type in the BSD Office District. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose Sdmol Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 7 of 15 The Loft Building Type requires the building to be located between 0 and 15 feet from the front property line. The proposed building varies between 8 feet and 13.2 feet from the front property line, in compliance with the Required Building Zone (RBZ). Within the RBZ, a minimum of 75% of the front property line must be occupied by the building footprint. The applicant is proposing approximately 50.5% front property line coverage along the Neighborhood Street, requiring a Waiver to the requirement. The 50.5% only counts for the proposed building. However, an approximately 37.7% of additional coverage is provided by the fence that is enclosing the proposed playground. This type of coverage is not typically included in the front property line coverage calculation. Loft buildings are required to have a minimum rear and side yard setback of 5 feet. The proposed shared drive aisle is permitted to encroach. The proposed fence along the south property line appears to be 3 feet from the property line. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to meet the 5 -foot setback requirement for the proposed fence. The maximum permitted lot coverage for the Loft Building Type is 80% impervious with an additional 10% semi -pervious. The applicant is proposing 50.10% of impervious coverage on the site, meeting this requirement. Architecture The applicant is proposing a two- story contemporary building with parapet roofs. Each story of the building is 12 feet in height, with varying parapet walls between 2 feet and 6 feet. The main entrance to the building is located at the northeast corner of the building. The applicant is proposing two finishes of brick (Landmark Velour and 671 Velour), natural stone, and glass as primary materials for the building; and proposing cementitious horizontal siding (Cobblestone), and two finishes of metal panels (SW 7740 Messenger Bag and Aged Copper) as secondary materials. Loft buildings require a minimum of 80% primary building materials per fagade, excluding windows and doors. Primary materials are consider stone, brick and glass. The applicant is proposing 72% primary materials on the north elevation, 65% on the south elevation, 70% on the east elevation, and 56% on the west elevation. The applicant is requesting a Waiver to the primary material requirement for all four elevations, as a majority of the secondary material shown on each elevation is cementitious siding. The applicant is also requesting a Waiver to the Vertical Increments requirement for Loft buildings. Loft buildings require vertical increments (distances on a vertical plane without breaks City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 8 of 15 in the plane) not to exceed 40 feet on any elevation. The south (63.91 feet), east (64.93 feet), and west (62.21 feet) elevations all exceed this requirement. All other Loft building type requirements are met with this application. Playground The applicant is proposing an approximately 12,900 -square -foot playground south of the proposed building. The playground is split into four different play areas to keep the different age groups of children separate. Playground equipment that is visible from the adjacent properties or the right-of-way are required by the Bridge Street District Code to use subdued, earth -toned colors. The applicant is proposing play equipment that will be earth -toned and subdued, including dark green, brown, and tan -colored equipment, which is standard for Primrose locations. The applicant has provided playground cutsheets of typical equipment the business uses at their various business locations. The perimeter of the playground will be enclosed by a 4 -foot tall Ameristar black aluminum fence. The fencing on the interior of the playground that separates the different sections is proposed to be a 4 -foot tall chain link fence. Chain link fencing is a prohibited fence type within the City. Staff recommends the applicant replace the chain link fence with the proposed black aluminum fence used on the perimeter of the playground. Signage The applicant has provided conceptual signage with the building elevation sheet. The signage shown is for reference only and not for review. The applicant will be required to provide a Master Sign Plan with the Final Development Plan to permit a wall sign on the parking lot elevation of the building. Open Space The intent of the open space type requirements is to ensure a variety of functional, well- designed open spaces carefully distributed throughout the Bridge Street District, located and planned to enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses, and visitors. Code requires one - square -foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of gross floor area of the proposed commercial building. Based on the approximately 15,900 -square -foot building, a minimum total of 318 square feet of publicly accessible open space is required. Based on the layout of the site, Staff has concerns that any required open space on the site would not meet the intent of open space within the Bridge Street District Code. Staff is concerned that any small open space provided for this site would be impractical and of little value to the site. Staff suggests the applicant consolidate an open space type with the development of the northern lot in the future. This option would allow for a higher quality open space type that would be better utilized and positioned either along the neighborhood street or along W. Dublin -Granville Road. Staff, in conjunction with the Law Director, are working with the applicant on the practical method to memorialize any open -space -consolidation arrangement for the future development of the northern parcel, as part of the Final Development Plan. Landscaping The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan for the proposed Lot 1 and the neighborhood street. The preliminary plan shows general locations of plantings that appear to City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 9 of 15 meet the requirements of the Bridge Street District Code. Final locations and tree species will be provided with the Final Development Plan. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide landscaping around the perimeter of the playground to provide additional screening from the street and adjacent properties. Stormwater and Utilities The applicant has provided stormwater calculations and utility information with this submission. The applicant is proposing underground stormwater management that would be built to scale for the development of both lots 1 and 2. The proposed location of the underground stormwater management is under the parking lot, west of the Primrose building. The applicant will continue to work with Engineering Staff ahead of the submission of the Final Development Plan to finalize details and plans regarding stormwater functions and public utility placements on the site and along the new neighborhood street. 3. Criteria Waiver Review 1 153.062(0)(4)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage Requirement: Minimum 75% coverage. Request: Approximately 50.5% coverage. 1) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner including easements and right-of-way. Criteria Met. The proposed Waiver is due to the need for a playground to accompany the site. Between the 100 -foot easement to the west of the building, and the required parking for the site, the applicant located the playground to the side of the building, where it will occupy approximately 37.7% of the RBZ. 2) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirement in 153.057 through 153.066. Criteria Met. Approval of the Waiver will allow the proposal to generally meet the spirit and intent of adopted plans and policies. 3) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost oras a matter of general convenience. Criteria Met. The Waiver request is not due solely to cost or convenience of the proposed materials. 4) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. Criteria Met. The Waiver request will ensure the development is still of great quality to the District. 5) The requested Waiver is better addressed through a Waiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 10 of 15 Criteria Met. The proposal is better addressed through a Waiver and an amendment to the requirements of this chapter are not necessary. 6) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the BSD district. Criteria met. The Waiver requested does not alter permitted uses or permitted open space types. Waiver Review 2 153.062(E)(1) — Fagade Materials Requirement: A minimum of 80% of each fagade visible from a street or adjacent property, exclusive of windows and doors, shall be constructed of permitted primary materials (brick, stone, glass). Request: To permit 72% primary materials on the north fagade; 65% primary materials on the south fagade; 70% primary materials on the east fagade; 56% primary materials on the west fagade. 1) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner including easements and right-of-way. Criteria Not Met. The proposed Waiver is not due to unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner. 2) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirement in 153.057 through 153.066. Criteria Met. Approval of the Waiver will allow the proposal to generally meet the spirit and intent of adopted plans and policies. 3) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost oras a matter of general convenience. Criteria Met. The Waiver request is not due solely to cost or convenience of the proposed materials. Cementitious Horizontal Siding has been used throughout the District with newer developments. 4) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. Criteria Met. Cementitious Horizontal Siding is an approved secondary material within the Bridge Street District and will not negate the development quality of the proposed building. 5) The requested Waiver is better addressed through a Waiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter. Criteria Met. The proposal is better addressed through a Waiver and an amendment to the requirements of this chapter are not necessary. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 11 of 15 6) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the BSD district. Criteria met. The Waiver requested does not alter permitted uses or permitted open space types. Waiver Review 3 153.060(C)(2) — Maximum Block Size Requirement: Office Zoning District: Length = 500 feet ; Perimeter = 1750 feet Request: W. Dublin -Granville Road = –1,200 feet ; Stoneridge Lane = –1,218 feet ; Perimeter _ –3,325 feet 1) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner including easements and right-of-way. Criteria Met. The proposed Waiver is required due to the creation of the neighborhood street within the existing street network. Any development of this site would require the development of the new neighborhood street, thus requiring the Waiver. 2) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirement in 153.057 through 153.066. Criteria Met. Approval of the Waiver will allow the proposal to meet the spirit and intent of adopted plans and policies. 3) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost oras a matter of general convenience. Criteria Met. The Waiver request is required due to the neighborhood street being constructed. 4) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. Not Applicable. The Waiver will not impact the development of the lot or building. 5) The requested Waiver is better addressed through a Waiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter. Criteria Met. The proposal is better addressed through a Waiver. 6) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the BSD district. Criteria Met. The Waiver requested does not alter permitted uses or permitted open space types. Waiver Review F4 153.060(0)(4)(d)(4) — Fagade Divisions – Vertical Increments City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 12 of 15 Requirement: No greater than 40 feet. Request: South Fagade = 63.91 feet ; East Fagade = 64.93 feet ; West Fagade = 62.21 feet. 1) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner including easements and right-of-way. Criteria Not Met. The proposed Waiver is not due to unique site conditions, the use of or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or circumstances outside the control of the property owner. 2) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirement in 153.057 through 153.066. Criteria Met. Approval of the Waiver will allow the proposal to generally meet the spirit and intent of adopted plans and policies. 3) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost oras a matter of general convenience. Criteria Met. The Waiver request is not due to matter of convenience or reduced cost. The waiver allows variation in the design of the building. 4) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other similar development features than without the Waiver. Criteria Met. The Waiver request allows for variation in building design on each fagade. The approval of the Waiver would not create a lesser product for the site. 5) The requested Waiver is better addressed through a Waiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this chapter. Criteria Met. The proposal is better addressed through a Waiver. This Waiver is unique to the project under consideration. 6) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the BSD district. Criteria Met. The Waiver requested does not alter permitted uses or permitted open space types. Preliminary Development Plan ,§153.066 1) The proposal is consistent with the approved concept plan. Criteria Met. This application is largely consistent with the approved concept plan and existing development pattern. 2) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted city plans, and related policies. Criteria Met with Approved Waivers. The proposal is largely consistent with all adopted plans and policies. However, the applicant is requesting approval of Waivers, which will allow for a cohesive modern aesthetic. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 13 of 15 3) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific standards. Criteria Met with Condition. The proposal is for a daycare use, which is permitted in this zoning district. The applicant should provide landscaping around the perimeter of the playground fence for additional screening. 4) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive development character that complements the surrounding environment, and conforms to the requirements of § 53.062 Building Types and ,§153.065 Site Development Standards. Criteria Met with Waivers and Conditions. The proposal is appropriately scaled and complements the surrounding environment. The waivers allow for additional design elements that complement the surrounding environment. The applicant should revise the site plan to meet the 5 -foot setback requirement for the proposed fence, and replace the chain-link fence with the proposed black aluminum fence. 5) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060 Lots and Blocks. Criteria Met with Waiver. The proposed Waiver for the dimensions of the created block will allow the block to conform to the district. 6) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards of ,§153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of streets, blocks, and development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map and the conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure. Criteria Met. The proposal includes a neighborhood street that is in accordance with the BSD Street Network Map. The street will be designed to City of Dublin standards. 7) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services. Criteria Met. The proposal does not significantly alter the circulation system, access points or connections to the public realm. The site layout provides adequate access for visitors to the site. 8) The proposed design of buildings conforms to the BSD Code and is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development. Criteria Met with Waivers. The applicant is requesting a Waiver to permit less primary materials on each fagade, and a Waiver for vertical fagade increments for the building. Otherwise, the proposal conforms to applicable policies and plans. 9) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the community both within and outside the proposed development, and conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 14 of 15 Criteria Met with Condition. The applicant should continue working with Staff to appropriately defer the provision of adequate open space with the development of Lot 1, at the Final Development Plan stage. 10) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate provision of services currently fumished 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. Criteria met. The proposal allows for the adequate provision of services. 11) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of §153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable. Not Applicable. The proposal is not located in an area subject to Neighborhood Standards. 12) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by the city or required by other government entities. Criteria Met. The proposal provides adequate stormwater management. 13) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the city's most recently adopted capital improvements program. Criteria Met. The proposal can be adequately serviced by existing infrastructure. 14)If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the development without the need for further phased improvements. Not Applicable. The proposal will not be phased. 15) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes. Criteria Met with Waivers. The proposal is largely consistent with the recommendations, principles, and intent of all design standards. However, the applicant is requesting a Waiver for the block dimensions and two Waivers for the development of the building that do not alter the intent and standards of the District. Preliminary Plat Requirements 152.018 1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements Criteria Met. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. 2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike path Standards City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 20-147PDP / 20-148PP I Primrose School Thursday, November 5, 2020 1 Page 15 of 15 Criteria Met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bikepath standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. 3) Utiiities Criteria Met. Proposed and existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat. 4) Open Space Requirements Criteria Not Met. Planning staff and the Legal department are working together and will be working with the applicant on the practical method to memorialize any open -space - consolidation arrangement for the future development of the northern parcel. 4. Recommendatic Waiver Reviews 1) Planning recommends approval of a Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.062(0)(4)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage (Approximately 50.5% coverage). 2) Planning recommends approval of a Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.062(E)(1) — Fa4ade Materials (72% primary materials on the north fagade; 65% primary materials on the south fagade; 70% primary materials on the east fagade; 56% primary materials on the west fagade). 3) Planning recommends approval of a Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.060(C)(2) — Maximum Block Size (W. Dublin -Granville Road = X1,200 feet ; Stoneridge Lane = 1,218 feet ; Perimeter = –3,325 feet). 4) Planning recommends approval of a Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.060(0)(4)(d)(4) — Fagade Divisions – Vertical Increments (South Fagade = 63.91 feet ; East Fagade = 64.93 feet ; West Fagade = 62.21 feet) Preliminary Development Plan Planning recommends approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with four conditions: 1) The applicant remove the sidewalk connection across Lot 2; 2) The applicant revise the site plan to meet the 5 -foot setback requirement for the proposed fence; 3) The applicant replace the chain link fence with the proposed black aluminum fence used on the perimeter of the playground, and; 4) The applicant provide landscaping around the perimeter of the playground to provide additional screening from the street and adjacent properties; Preliminary Plat Planning recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with two conditions: 1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to City Council, and; 2) The applicant shall provide a street name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for approval. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0056E275-926C-496D-822C3A263740AC13 RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, August c, 2020 1 6:30 Am The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Primrose School Parcel No. 273-009147 20-014CP Concept Plan Proposal: Construction of a two-story, 15,000 -square -foot building for early childhood education on a 3.53 -ave site. Location: South of W. Dublin -Granville Road, +450 -feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive and zoned Bridge Street District Office. Request: Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Applicant: ALT Architects Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-014 MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve the Concept Plan with nine conditions, which will have to be addressed prior to the review of a Preliminary Development Plan: 1) That the applicant work with Engineering Staff to finalize the design and dedication of the Neighborhood Street; 2) That the applicant work with Engineering Staff to finalize the location and details of all utilities and stormwater management on the site; 3) That the applicant continue to work with Planning Staff to finalize the layout of the new proposed lots; 4) That the applicant work with staff to evaluate the incorporation of a street wall along the playground frontage adjacent to the new Neighborhood Street; 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to determine the appropriate Open Space Type and location, prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan; 6) That the applicant update the plans to provide the dimensions of the proposed block; 7) That the applicant submit a Parking Plan for the proposed lot prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan; 8) That the applicant provide staff with analysis of the Building Type requirements with requested waiver requests; and Page 1 of 2 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 DopSip Envelope ID: 3. Primrose School Parcel No. 273-009147 20-0WP Concept Plan 9) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the internal site circulation and to determine the feasibility of a potential east -to -west access drive on the south end of the property. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: The Concept Plan was approved. Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION DMUSI �W: �� (keLutislu,ll, Zack Hounshell, Planner I Page 2 of 2 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkmv Dublin. Ohio 43017 ohone 614.410.4600 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2020 Page 6 of 20 3. Primrose School, Parcel No. 273-009147, 20-014CP, Concept Plan Ms. Call stated that this is an application for the construction of a two-story, 15,000 -square -foot building for early childhood education, and for a future two-story, ±28,000 -square -foot office building on a 3.53 -acre site. Case Presentation Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval for a Concept Plan for the construction of a new day care facility located on a ±3.53 acre site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). The site is located south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 340 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive The site is currently vacant with minimal existing vegetation, apart from a heavily vegetated natural tree row along the western property line. There is approximately 15 feet of grade change from the eastern property line to the western property line. There is an existing 100 -ft. wide electrical easement, in which there are overhead power lines, on the western edge of the property. Any development on the site would be prohibited from having any structure within the easement. The site is located at the intersection of two streets, W. Dublin -Granville Road, which is a Corridor Connector Street and Principal Frontage Street. To the east of the site is a proposed Neighborhood Street. Although not currently constructed, it will occur with any development of this site. The intent of the applicant is to split the site in half, from east to west. The site in consideration tonight would not have frontage on W. Dublin - Granville Road. Construction of the new Neighborhood Street will create a new block. Per the Zoning Code, new blocks are to meet certain dimension and size criteria. This newly created block would intersect with a Neighborhood Street to the east, Stoneridge Lane to the south, Shamrock Blvd. to the west, and W. Dublin - Granville Road to the north. Because this newly created block will not meet the necessary Code requirements, a waiver would be required with the Preliminary Development Plan. Any development of this site would be required to install that neighborhood street, so a waiver would be required for this application, or if it does not proceed, any future application. A previous Concept Plan was reviewed by the Commission on May 21, 2020. If the Concept Plan tonight moves forward, the applicant will be required to submit a Preliminary and Final Plat for dedication of the Neighborhood Street along the eastern boundary of this site. The applicant is proposing to subdivide and re - plat the site to create the Neighborhood Street right-of-way and two new lots. The new lot line is proposed from east to west, creating a north lot and a south lot. The proposed Neighborhood Street results in a corner lot condition for the north lot and provides public street frontage for the south lot, as required by Code. The applicant is proposing to develop the southern lot, with future development taking place along S.R. 161. The Neighborhood Street will be required to be built prior to or concurrent with the construction of the proposed daycare facility. Part of the concerns with the lot split proposed in the previous Concept Plan was that the northern lot would be difficult to develop. That earlier plan proposed a southern access drive that connected the Neighborhood Street to the parking for the site. In addition, the proposed parking throughout the site contained a number of winged parking bays, especially on the northern lot, that are concerning in regard to circulation. With the revised Concept Plan, the lot lines for the two new parcels have been adjusted to be equally developable and marketable. The southern access drive for this site has been removed. Staff would like to consider the opportunity for that access drive, should a connection be needed to the street to the south. With this application, a site capacity study for the northern lot has been provided, as well as a permitted Building Type with parking and open space depicted to show that the lot now created has potential to be developed. The applicant, however, is not proposing that for the Concept Plan, but only as a reference to show that it would be feasible. A future applicant for that site would be required to provide a Concept Plan to the Commission for consideration. This application is a proposal for the southern lot. The proposal is for a new two-story, approximately 15,000 -square -foot child daycare center with a 7,500 -square -foot footprint. 38 parking spaces are proposed for this site. For a daycare use, a parking plan is required, which would be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2020 Page 7 of 20 submitted with the Preliminary Development Plan. The Code requires one -square -foot of publicly accessible open space for every 50 square feet of gross floor area of the proposed commercial building. Based on the approximately 15,000 -square -foot building, a minimum total of 300 square feet of publicly accessible open space is required. The applicant should work with staff to finalize the location of the proposed open space prior to submitting the Preliminary Development Plan. With the previous Concept Plan reviewed in May, the Commission expressed concerns with the proposed towers on the east and west elevations of the building, which were not consistent with the Bridge Street Code. Those towers have been removed from the proposed elevations. The proposed primary building materials are brick, stone and glass; cementious siding and metal panels are secondary materials. With the Preliminary Development Plan, the applicant will be required to provide a full analysis of the Loft building type, which has been selected for this site and to present any necessary waiver requests. Staff has reviewed the Concept Plan against the applicable criteria and recommends approval with nine conditions. Applicant Presentation Alena Miller, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton -Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that they believe Mr. Hounshell has provided a thorough description of the changes to the plan that have been made since the May meeting, and they anticipate moving forward to approval. Commission Questions Mr. Fishman inquired if with the approval of this project, the easement for access to the property to the north would be in place. Mr. Hounshell responded that City engineers would work with the applicant to ensure that the shared access easement is included in the Final Plat. Ms. Fox that with the lot split reviewed at the May meeting, Commissioners were concerned that both parcels may not have been able to meet the required side and rear yard setbacks. Will that continue to be a concern? Ms. Miller responded that both parcels meet the required setbacks. Ms. Fox inquired if it would be necessary for the two parcels to share utilities; and if so, how would that be managed? Ms. Miller responded that the parcels would share utilities and stormwater management and detention. They will be working with City Engineering staff member Mr. Stanford to finalize that design. Stephen Butler, Community Civil Engineers, 2440 Dayton -Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that because it makes sense for these parcels to share the utilities, appropriate easements will be in place on both lots. Water and sanitary sewer utilities will not be shared; each lot will have its own service line. They are currently working with AEP, who is in the process of updating their easement language. They have provided AEP with their concept plan, including plans for placing the underground detention inside the electrical easement. AEP has provided their preliminary pole locations, so they can avoid that potential conflict. They would not permit above -ground detention in that easement. If AEP decides not to permit the underground detention within the easement area, they do have alternate plans to accommodate that need on site. Ms. Fox stated that the proposed Neighborhood Connector Street will terminate where there is an existing building; it cannot extend all the way to Stoneridge Lane. However, there does appear to be a driveway or access road that will extend to Dublin Center Drive. Is that access road a public road? If so, would the new Neighborhood Street be able to connect to it? Mr. Stanford, City Engineering, stated that as the approved street network map shows, the intent in that area is for a north -south street. That will require the redevelopment of the property immediately to the south. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2020 Page 8 of 20 As the development of sites within the street grid occur, the intent is for those pieces to be constructed along with the development of the site. The east -west connection at the southern terminus is not intended to be a public street; it does not appear on the street grid map. At this time, there is nothing that would cause it to be considered a public street. However, as this application proceeds, if there are access easements and agreements that could serve as a cross connection that could provide access for the existing and for the new parcel to the signalized intersection to the east, that will be considered. Ms. Fox inquired what is the possibility that could occur. Is it currently a private street? Mr. Stanford responded that it is not a private street, but a drive aisle on private property. However, they will be investigating the easement rights. Ms. Fox inquired if it would be curved so drivers do not access it. Is there risk of it being used as a cut - through from the new Neighborhood Street? Mr. Stanford responded that if they are able to succeed in securing legal access, it could provide connection to the street. Ms. Fox stated that it would be a nice connection. It will likely be some time before the building to the south is removed, enabling connectivity from that direction. Utilizing existing connection opportunities would be consistent with the intent of the Bridge Street District Code. Otherwise, asking the applicant to construct a public street that goes nowhere makes no sense, other than being consistent with the master plan. If there is an opportunity to make it functional, that would be preferred. It would provide better ingress/egress for this site. Her recommendation is that staff make an attempt to accomplish that. Mr. Stanford that as the Concept Plan proceeds, that would be their intention. Ms. Fox inquired how the required public open space would be achieved, if the playground on the site will be a private open space. Ms. Miller responded that since the review of their previous application, a drive aisle that ran east -west along the south side of the lot has been removed from the plan. That was an intentional decision in order to increase the opportunity for pedestrian circulation around the site and lessen pedestrian and vehicle interaction. The intent is that the access drive that splits both lots will be the main vehicular access for both lots. A pedestrian circulation loop has been designed, potentially, for both lots, but in particular around the perimeter of the Primrose School lot. Although it may not be visible on the Google map, there is also an existing path to the south with which the pedestrian loop could connect on the perimeter of the site. That perimeter loop will be .25 mile and will provide a health and fitness tool for the school. To accomplish this, it is necessary to limit the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles on both lots. The open space plan will be comprised of nodes of open space along the pedestrian path. It is necessary to be very careful in providing public access, given the program limitations of a daycare facility. Therefore, any amenities provided will be located to the rear of the lot away from the playground and classroom windows. They have considered planters, tall grasses and street walls, emphasizing that protecting the children is a priority. Every other Primrose School across the nation has a perimeter fence that extends across the front of the building space. They understand that is not permitted in the Bridge Street District. However, their public amenity spaces must align with the goal of protecting the children. Ms. Fox stated that the goal of the Bridge Street District is to include that vitality and walkability throughout the District. Due to the need to protect the children from unnecessary access here, the school will need to be imaginative in regard to including the open spaces. Ms. Miller stated that they are prepared to do so. They have conducted research and design charrettes that are not illustrated at the Concept Plan stage. Discussions have been held with the brand, clients and industry professionals, and they believe they can accomplish it but in limited and specific areas, i.e. next to a window or where an adult can loiter, as well. Because it must be strategic, they will be working with staff on the details. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2020 Page 9 of 20 Ehab Eskander, Primrose School franchise owner, 60 N. Brice Road, Columbus OH 43213, stated that this will be their sixth school. They have other challenging school locations, such as in Grandview and downtown Columbus. They have succeeded in achieving a good balance in order to protect their children, maintain some privacy, and yet provide a space for employees to take a mental break. In addition to the planters and benches in some areas, there are open space opportunities within the power line easement, which must remain clear anyway. They care about achieving the right feel and fit with the neighborhood. For accuracy of the records, there has been a name change. The school is now called The Primrose School of Dublin Riverside, to avoid confusion between them and the Bridge Park developers. Mr. Fishman stated that he is concerned that the issues need to be resolved within the development process. The vehicle access for both lots should be clarified before the project for this parcel is approved. Ms. Call inquired if the open space requirement could be met on this lot, exclusive of the other lot. Mr. Hounshell stated that the site is required to provide 300 square feet of open space. It would be difficult to achieve that on this lot alone. When both lots develop, there could be the opportunity of consolidating open spaces to the frontage along W. Dublin -Granville Road, with a fee consideration. Having that open space along that principal frontage would make more sense than having it on the Neighborhood Street. However, there are opportunities to be creative in how the open space is achieved. Mr. Supelak inquired if there is any reason the open space could not be in the electrical easement. Mr. Hounshell responded that it would depend upon the language of the easement. A following applicant, Chase Bank, was able to locate their open space within the electrical easement that runs along the front of their property, because no foundation was required within the space. A similar situation could be possible on this site. Mr. Supelak responded that he believes the applicant would be able to take advantage of that opportunity. The required 300 square feet already exists within that easement, which essentially amounts to two parking spaces. Ms. Miller stated that they have already conducted that research, and confirmed that the condition that Mr. Hounshell described does exist with this AEP easement. As long as they do not have a foundation in the easement, they can utilize the open space in the easement. They will be providing their parking plan with the Preliminary Development Plan, which exceeds the required number of parking spaces for both lots. They are confident that they will be able to provide the required open space, as well, for these two lots. Commission Discussion Mr. Supelak stated that he is generally supportive of the Concept Plan. There are a few issues to be resolved, and it will be essential to sequence these steps in the appropriate manner, so we do not "paint ourselves into a corner." In regard to the private drive aisle that could become a connector street — this would benefit the two adjacent properties, one of which is GFS; so there is motivation for that connection occurring. If it does occur, this Neighborhood Street will work. He compliments the team that accomplished this revision since the last meeting. Previously, the Commission was concerned with the viability of the proposed north lot. They have revised the lot split and demonstrated that it can and will work. The architecture and materials are attractive. He respects The Primrose School concept and is happy to have another school in the City. Mr. Schneier echoed Mr. Supelak's comments. If the applicant has no objections to the proposed conditions, it will be essential to address those before proceeding to the next phase. Ms. Kennedy stated that the proposed character of this building is attractive, especially for a daycare facility. It matches the cool and trendy character of the surrounding Bridge Park District. She is pleased with the renderings shown. She concurs with Mr. Supelak's comments regarding the greenspace. In Dublin, greenspace is preferred over an overabundance of parking. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 6, 2020 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Fishman stated that his comments are similar to that of his colleagues. He is anxious to see a complete transportation plan for both parcels before the project is approved. Mr. Grimes stated that he appreciates the applicant's responsiveness to the previous constructive criticism offered. The changes made to the layout, look and feel have made this a far better project. With the nine conditions, there is still a significant amount of work to do before the next step. Ms. Fox stated that the revisions are very nice. Because they have frontage on the new neighborhood street and a shared access to the site, they have the opportunity to make this an attractive place for clients to pull in and park in front of the daycare facility. She encourages them to enhance the frontage in the Preliminary Development Plan. If the private access road becomes a connector in the other direction, they will have a nice ingress/egress, which will be an asset to the Bridge Street District. The 300 square feet of open space required is not much. A shared parking arrangement between the two parcels would permit this applicant to use the parking toward the back and locate a nicely -designed greenspace closer to the street. Instead of having a street wall to camouflage the parking, they could have a pocket park. A greenspace located near the SR 161 frontage could be more of an advantage than spreading it throughout their parcel. The sidewalk connectivity will provide some nice pedestrian energy around the area. Ms. Call thanked the applicant for making the revisions in the areas of concern identified in the previous meeting, including the tower removal, the street alignment and adjusting the property line between the two parcels, to enable a more viable project on the front lot. She invites the applicant to focus on the intent of the Bridge Street District Code to provide engagement in the area. The Commission is interested in including art or seating opportunities in these greenspaces. Because of the relationship of these two parcels, she would be supportive of considering a different approach for the open space. Perhaps the back parcel could be bonded for its portion of open space, which the City could retain and incorporate into the future development of the front lot, or to add landscaping enhancements along the street corridor. Bonding opportunities offer some flexibility. The revisions have made this a more viable and beautiful project. The Commission looks forward to the fruition of this project. Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Concept Plan with nine conditions: 1) That the applicant work with Engineering staff to finalize the design and dedication of the neighborhood street; 2) That the applicant work with Engineering staff to finalize the location and details of all utilities and stormwater management on the site; 3) That the applicant continue to work with Planning staff to finalize the layout of the new proposed lots; 4) That the applicant workwith staff to evaluate the incorporation of a street wall along the playground frontage adjacent to the new neighborhood street; 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to determine the appropriate open space type and location, prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan; 6) That the applicant update the plans to provide the dimensions of the proposed block; 7) That the applicant submit a parking plan for the proposed lot prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Development Plan; 8) That the applicant provide staff with analysis of the building type requirements with requested waiver requests; and 9) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the internal site circulation and to determine the feasibility of a potential east -to -west access drive on the south end of the property. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes. [Motion passed 7-0] DocuSign Envelope ID: E48B2FD9-449453A-B7D3-A5968E927B74 RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning OHIO, USA Thursday, May 21, 2020 1 6:30 pm Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Primrose School 20-014CP Proposal: Location: Request: Applicants: Planning Contact: Contact Information Case Information: Concept Plan Development of a ±9,200 -square -foot, two-story early childhood education facility on a 3.53 -acre parcel. South of West Dublin -Granville Road, ±450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive and zoned Bridge Street District Office. Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. ALT Architects Zach Hounshell, Planner I 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-014 MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded, to table the Concept Plan. VOTE: 7 - 0 RESULT: The Concept Plan was tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION CDOCUSigned by: eassgor+sr�ase. Zach Hounshell, Planner I PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 15 of 26 4. Primrose School, Parcel: 273-009147, 20-014CP, Concept Plan Ms. Call stated that this is a request for the development of a ±9,200 -square -foot, two-story early childhood education facility. The 3.53 -acre parcel is south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, ±450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive and is zoned Bridge Street District Office. Staff Presentation Site Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Concept Plan for the Primrose School, located within the Bridge Street District. The Concept Plan includes the review of site layout, architecture style, building style, open space, building massing and street network. Concept Plans within the Bridge Street District, unlike those in other areas of the City, require approval before the project may proceed to the Preliminary Development Plan stage. The undeveloped site is located south of W. Dublin -Granville Road, approximately 340 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive. An AEP easement runs along the western portion of the property, which limits a large portion of the developable land for the entire site. In 2017, the Commission reviewed an application for the construction of a hospital facility; that application has since been withdrawn. On the northeast side of the site is where the connection of a future neighborhood street from W. Dublin -Granville Road (S.R.161) is proposed. The Bridge Street District Street Network Map was developed with the Bridge Street District Code to create a comprehensive network of streets throughout and connecting the entire Bridge Street District. W. Dublin -Granville Road is a principal frontage street, and any development in the District is required to be located along a principal frontage street. The Code requires a neighborhood street connection to that principal frontage street. The proposal of the new neighborhood street re -defines the boundaries of the existing block. The proposed neighborhood street will partially subdivide the existing block defined by State Route 161 to the north, Shamrock Crossing Boulevard to the west, Stoneridge Lane to the south, and the neighborhood street to the east. In the Bridge Street Office District, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length, and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. The newly created block will meet length standards for the east and west edges, but will be significantly larger than the maximum block dimensions along the north and south edges. The applicant has not provided information regarding the newly created block. Should the measurements prove to be larger than the maximum permitted, a waiver would be required. Three buildings and site improvements are anticipated on the site; however, the applicant is providing details on the southernmost building. There are no current plans for the northern two buildings along W. Dublin -Granville Road. The applicant is proposing a lot split from east to west. The applicant is proposing a daycare use, which is a permitted use within the BSD -Office District. The daycare use has specific use standards regarding any attached playground, one of which is the requirement that the playground be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 16 of 26 located behind the front elevation of the building. The applicant is proposing approximately 43 parking spaces on this lot and will be required to submit a parking plan. Open space will be provided on the site; but with the lot split, no open space is dedicated on this lot. Code requires that there be one square foot of open space per 50 square feet of building footprint, so that would need to be reflected on the Preliminary Development Plan. Architecture The anticipated building type is a Loft Building Type, which is permitted in the BSD Office District. The applicant is proposing brick, stone, and glass as primary materials for the building and cementitious horizontal siding as a secondary material. Two towers are proposed -- one on the east elevation fronting the neighborhood street and one on the west elevation fronting the parking lot. Zoning Code only permits towers on facades located at terminal vistas, corners of two principal frontage streets, and/or adjacent to an open space type. No terminal vistas or principal frontage streets are present with this lot, and additional information regarding open spaces on the lot would be required to make this determination. As it stands, Code would not permit the use of the two towers on the building. Should the applicant wish to move forward with this design that does not meet the criteria, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver or revise the plan. Staff has reviewed the Concept Plan against all applicable criteria and recommends approval with ten (10) conditions. Commission Questions Ms. Kennedy inquired if this would be a traditional lot split. What type of guidance was provided to the applicant regarding how a lot may be divided? Mr. Hounshell responded that without the development of the neighborhood street, the lot split could not occur. Each lot would need to meet the requirements of the proposed building type. It would be important to assure that the second lot would have an equal chance of development. Ms. Kennedy inquired if staff believes there would be an equal opportunity for the second lot to develop on principal frontage, as the lot split currently is proposed. Mr. Hounshell responded that because of the value of the principal street frontage on SR161, it is hopeful that development will occur soon, although the site is challenging. Because the applicant has the right to move forward with their site, staff is working closely with them to ensure that the lot split will work for both the northern and southern lots. Much work will be required for the Preliminary Development Plan, such as provision of the required rear -yard and side -yard setbacks, currently not met with the lot split. In addition, as proposed, the parking and underground stormwater elements encroach into the required setbacks. Planning is recommending that the applicant work closely with staff to determine the best layout for any proposed lot split to meet all necessary Code requirements. Ms. Fox stated that it is a difficult lot to develop because of the AEP easement, as well as the required construction of a neighborhood street. The lot split appears to cut through a parking lot, which is not permitted. Her concern is that a lot split would severely limit the ability of the front of the site to be developed, due to the open space, frontage, and setback requirements. Mr. Hounshell responded that the frontage along SR161 is challenging, as it is, regardless of the lot split. There is a minimum primary street frontage requirement for each building and also the 100 -ft. easement running from east to west, so setback waivers will be necessary. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 17 of 26 Mr. Fishman stated that the Commission does not know enough about the plan to approve it. The 5 -foot setback is not being met with just the proposed daycare center, and we have no idea what will occur in the other lot in regard to the buildings or the tenants. What he has observed in the past is if the Commission approves a lot split and development on one lot, in a few years, the applicant will claim a hardship because the other lot is not developable. They are proposing two buildings on the second lot — how can they meet the setback requirements? He is not in favor of approving a building on SR 161 that does not meet the setback requirements. There is a problem with approving anything at this point. Ms. Call reminded the Commission that at the Concept Plan stage, there are specific criteria to consider. The Concept Plan must outline the character and nature of the proposed development, including building massing, open space, location and the street network. Applicant Presentation Jim Alt, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton-Zenia Road, Dayton, Ohio 45434, stated that they have been operating under the assumption that they would have the opportunity to have the two other businesses function as one development, with cross easements for access and utilities, such as stormwater management. Those buildings would not be free-standing, functioning entirely on their own. They are aware of the history and challenges of this property. Despite its unique challenges, their client is very eager to make this development work. They have been aggressively marketing the SR 161 frontage property, assuming that there would be the opportunity to have a single entrance that would service the buildings with co -joined utilities and stormwater management. If the Commission requires each lot to be developed independently, then it would be necessary to have two entrances off the neighborhood street. They would like to have the Commission's position on that point. They are willing to work with staff on achieving what is required. Primrose Daycare owns and operates a number of schools, which provide premier early childhood education in the U.S. This would be the sixth location in the Columbus market. Ms. Call stated that the Commission has seen previous site development plans with multiple buildings on a parcel, occasionally with shared parking agreements with adjacent parcels. What makes this application different from that type of holistic site plan? Ms. Husak responded that staff has no information on what will be located at the front of the site in regard to uses and parking needs. There may not be a need for two, separate entrances from the neighborhood street; that arrangement may be possible with reciprocal easements. It is difficult to speak to the possibility of shared parking, without knowing more details about the uses, including peak hours of operation. At this point, there are too many unknowns. If the lot is split as depicted, it could negatively impact the second lot. Ms. Call stated that the issue is not that the Commission does not support the daycare facility project, but it is impossible to judge only one portion of the parcel, when we have no idea what the other half would require. Judging it all under its own criteria, it would not meet the current requirements. Based on what we do know, the request does not meet the Concept Plan criteria. Mr. Alt stated that the value of obtaining permission to build, either by purchasing the land or by having a land lease and not pursuing a lot split is a possibility. However, they have been endeavoring to create two co -equal lots. They have looked at the available alternatives for complementary uses in the District. There are opportunities for what would be considered a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 18 of 26 Conditional Use, such as a medical or office building use. For those uses, there would be sufficient parking. If the Concept Plan is approved, they will provide additional details regarding the uses on the second lot, as details emerge. The client has had the opportunity to discuss this property with candidate purchasers or land leasees, and they would like to be able to pursue those. Commission Discussion Mr. Fishman stated that, as he indicated earlier, there is insufficient information at this time to approve the Concept Plan. He is unable to support it, not knowing how the other lot would be developed meeting Code requirements. The City has a Code for a reason, and it would not be appropriate to approve a Concept Plan that does not even meet Code and with concerns the second lot would be unable to do so, as well. He is supportive of this initial use; however, perhaps there should not be a lot split. Perhaps they should use the entire lot. Over the years, he has observed the result of trying to place too much development on too little space. He is unable to support the Concept Plan with the current lack of information. Mr. Boggs stated that he wanted to clarify a copy of points about the Concept Plan stage of this application. There has been some discussion about where the proposed lot split would occur. Often, Concept Plan applications provide information about the building placements and the geographical layout of the site, and some of that information has been provided. He would encourage discussing those criteria, as well. He believes there is another applicant prepared to present some information. Ms. Husak clarified that a plat is required. The street right-of-way would need to be dedicated, and the lots would be created via the plat. The Preliminary and Final Plats would come before the Commission and Council for review and approval. Mr. Boggs stated that if the Concept Plan were to be approved tonight or tabled to permit changes to be made and then approved, the next stage would be Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval. Those applications would be consistent with the Concept Plan but provide a greater level of detail. Alena Miller, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton -Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that she is the architectural representative. Team member, Steve Butler, is also present. The answers to many of the questions asked are solely dependent on the site layout. They are aware of the challenges, and the intent is to work closely with staff to meet Code requirements. They are seeking approval at this stage, in order to be able to develop the greater level of detail that the Commission is requesting. They are very confident with this prototype and know their brand well. The decisions made are intentional and specific. In regard to the site plan, there are questions about the open space and setbacks. Although those items are not currently compliant, the goal is to strategize and meet the requirements. Mr. Butler is prepared to provide more details regarding the site, and she is able to provide more details on the building, if that should be beneficial at this stage of the review. Ms. Call stated that she does not believe Commission members have any objections to the daycare use. Their issues are with the front lot, about which there is currently no information. Information about the stormwater management, open space, utilities, and frontages are very important due to the presently unknown future development of the front lot. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 19 of 26 Mr. Grimes stated that it is clear that there are many challenges with this site, and there are many requirements that would need to be met, even if a Concept Plan were to be approved. Staff is recommending ten (10) conditions. It appears that this is an attempt to force a lot into a very small space. While he agrees that the concept of the school is great, it appears that this plan severely limits the potential for the balance of the property. The Commission does not want to risk many years of that ground lying fallow because of mistakes made with this project. The applicant will spend a significant amount of effort, time and money trying to make this work. He believes the Commission needs to know what will be the look of the whole property. He is confident Council would want to see that before agreeing to a lot split. It is important to have all the engineering requirements met, or this plan will never be approved by City Council. The AEP easement will make this project an even greater challenge. In summary, he is concerned with the attempt to do so much in a very small space. Ms. Kennedy stated that the Commission appreciates that Primrose Schools is interested in locating in Dublin, and that the applicant is willing to work with staff to address the challenges. However, there are currently too many unknowns for her to be able to support approval at this time. Ms. Call inquired if the applicant would like the Commission to vote on the request at this time, or prefer to table it and work with staff to bring back a revised proposal. Mr. Alt stated that there are some significant items that do need to be addressed. This is a peculiar lot. It is far deeper than it is wide and has the two unusual site challenges — the AEP easement and the requirement for the neighborhood street. However, they believe they have developed a strategy for the site that works. They have had discussions with AEP, who is demonstrating flexibility in regard to the use of the AEP easement for parking. To provide clarity, the traffic pattern and parking utilization associated with a Primrose school is more diffuse than that of a traditional elementary school. That makes a complementary use with a medical or office use more possible. They request that the case be tabled and that they have the opportunity to work with staff on addressing the needs. Mr. Hounshell stated that if the case will be tabled, it might be beneficial for the applicant to receive Commission's feedback regarding the architecture. Ms. Fox stated in regard to the architectural towers, there are three criteria for towers in the Bridge Street District, none of which the school meets. It would be necessary to provide a redesign that eliminates the towers. In addition, she is not opposed to shared -use parking on the site. Ms. Kennedy stated that she agrees that this project does not meet the necessary criteria for towers within this space and in this District. Although the tower is not appropriate, she likes the logo at the top. The architecture seems simple, appropriate for this application, and not inconsistent with the surrounding properties. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 Page 20 of 26 Mr. Fishman, Mr. Supelak and Mr. Grimes indicated that they concurred with the previous comments on the architecture. Mr. Supelak stated that he also concurs with respect to the tower, but would ask the applicant the reason they were proposed. Ms. White stated that the tower feature will be revised. As they read the Code, a parapet height of two to six feet was permitted, and the intent was to meet that requirement. Initially, the towers were proposed for a functional, rather than aesthetic reason -- the space would house the mechanicals and avoid the need to screen them. However, they understand that the towers do not meet the criteria, and will comply. One of the case studies they reviewed was the Penzone Salon. They agree that material transition in a variety and diversity of materials is critical for a building of this size. In summary, they are excited to expand the Primrose brand with modern technology and innovative materials. This will be the first of its kind, which they anticipate bringing to Dublin. Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded a motion to table the Concept Plan. Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes. [Motion carried 7-0] . :nirsxsT:r�:ssse�xrarnr-rear.�n-�r�er.�e�Rir.�+rs�aerir.�:r-t.�. ■-