Resolution 19-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: March 16, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner I
Re: Resolution 19-21 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for the Primrose School (Case
#20-212FP)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final 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 Final Plat and made a
recommendation of approval to City Council on February 22, 2021, finding the proposal meets
the review criteria. This application was reviewed in conjunction with the Final Development
Plan, which was approved by the Commission. City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on
January 19, 2021.
Description
The site consists of one parcel, ±3.58 acres in size, with approximately 400 feet of frontage
along West Dublin-Granville Road. The proposal subdivides the site east to west, creating two
lots. Lot 1 is 1.370 acres in size and is the southern lot, and the Lot 2 is a 1.632-acre lot and is
the northern lot. The plat dedicates 0.528 acres of the site for right-of-way to accommodate
Abbey Lane, a Neighborhood Street fulfilling the requirements of the BSD Street Network Map,
which provides access to Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 has 222 feet of frontage along Abbey Lane. Lot 2
has 242 feet of frontage along Abbey Lane, 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 built prior to or concurrent with the
construction of the proposed daycare facility.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Resolution 19-21 - Final Plat – Primrose School
March 16, 2021
Page 2 of 2
The plat memorializes an existing utility easement for overhead lines and establishes
easements as necessary. The plat includes a 23-foot ingress/egress easement along the shared
property line of lots 1 and 2 for a shared access point between the two lots. A 7.5-foot
electrical/lighting easement is located north of the ingress/egress easement, with a 4-foot
electric/lighting easement along the west side of Abbey Lane.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the February 22, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff recommended
approval with the following conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council;
2) The applicant provide an approved street name for the neighborhood street, prior to the
submission to City Council; and,
3) The applicant work with Staff to identify and document a cross access easement,
between Lots 1 and 2, for the internal access drive, subject to Staff approval.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended to City Council the plat
acceptance. All conditions of approval have been addressed prior to City Council review.
City Council Recommendation
Recommendation of acceptance of the Final Plat by City Council.
ShamrockBlvdS to n e ri d g e Ln
SharpLn
B r i d g e P a r k A v e
ArdenleeCtMartin Rd BraelinnDrGle nloch CirDavid RdDublinCenterDrBraxmar PlMarcy LnBanker Dr
W Dublin-GranvilleRd
UV161
SITE
Lowe's
20-212PDPFinal PlatPrimrose Sc hoolPID: 273-009147 F0310155
Feet
Germain Lexus
Heartland ofDublin
DRAFT19-069JBAFIELDCHECKJBAJBA1346 Hemlock Court N.E.Lancaster, OH 43130Contact: Brett Adcock(740) 654-0600 - Lancaster(614) 837-0800 - Columbuswww.americanlandsurveyors.comMARCH 10, 2021FINAL PLATSCALE:DATE:JOB NO.:N/AREPLAT OF LOT 3 ~ JALL INVESTMENTS PROPERTIESPLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 1CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
DRAFT19-069JBAFIELDCHECKJBAJBA1346 Hemlock Court N.E.Lancaster, OH 43130Contact: Brett Adcock(740) 654-0600 - Lancaster(614) 837-0800 - Columbus(740) 455-2200 - Zanesville(740) 670-0800 - NewarkFax: (740) 654-0604www.americanlandsurveyors.com1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0MARCH 10, 2021FINAL PLATSCALE:DATE:JOB NO.:3015301"=30'REPLAT OF LOT 3 ~ JALL INVESTMENTS PROPERTIESPLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 1CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 4 of 18
Mr. Fishman stated that he believes the Muirfield Association requires approval of landscaping from its Design
Review Board, which he assumes they were intending to obtain. He agreed that there is insufficient space for
a playground with equipment. He is in favor of the proposal as long as it is approved by the Muirfield
Association, as well as staff.
Ms. Call noted that, typically, the 6 weeks to 6 years age group requires a higher teacher to child ratio, and
there are additional concerns when the site is adjacent to higher traffic areas. She is hopeful that the applicant
would work with staff to ensure that the children would have the space and opportunity for fresh air. She is
supportive of the applications.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the daycare would be providing bussing to local elementary schools for kindergarten
or first grade programs.
Ms. Bolongaita responded that they would not.
Ms. Kennedy stated that daycare programs providing that service sometimes have buses parked on site, in
which case, there probably would have been concerns from local residents. However, in this case, that will
not be an issue. She is supportive of the proposal, as well.
Ms. Call noted that if bussing were to be considered in the future, staff would work with them to address the
associated issues.
Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Minor Text Modification as follows:
Under Sub-section K: The following use shall be permitted as a Conditional Use for Muirfield Square, in
accordance with the requirements identified in the Suburban Office and Institutional District: Daycare, Child
or Adult (Child and Adult Daycare Center).
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier; yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan, 20-163AFDP,
with the following condition:
1) The applicant continue to work with staff to finalize landscape details for a small outdoor area, in
accordance with SO standards for daycares, subject to staff approval.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Conditional Use, 20-150CU, with no conditions.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
Ms. Call indicated that Cases 3 and 4 would be heard together.
3. Primrose at PID: 273009147, 23-213FDP, Final Development Plan
A request for construction of a two-story, ±16,000-square-foot daycare and associated site improvements on
a 1.37-acre parcel located south of West Dublin-Granville Road, ±450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin
Center Drive and zoned Bridge Street District, Office.
4. Primrose at PID: 273009147, 20-212FP, Final Plat
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 5 of 18
A request for a Final Plat to establish two lots and dedicate one public right-of-way on a 3.58-acre site located
south of West Dublin-Granville Road, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection with Dublin Center Drive,
and zoned Bridge Street District, Office.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hounshell stated that the first request is for a Final Development Plan (FDP) for the development of the
Primrose School. The FDP is the third of three steps in the Bridge Street District (BSD) development review
process and the final step for approval of building materials, building design, landscaping, and any additional
specific details concerning the detail or property. The site under consideration is within the Bridge Street
District - Office zoning, located south of West Dublin-Granville Road. The site has few natural features, a slight
grade change from east to west and a tree line on the west side of the property. There is a 100-foot wide
AEP electrical easement, which limits vertical development within this area. On November 5, 2020, the
Commission reviewed and approved a Preliminary Development Plan for a new two-story, 15,850-square-foot
child daycare center with 38 parking spaces. They also approved four waivers, which were for: the facade
materials percentage; the front property line coverage; the maximum block size; and the vertical increments.
The Commission also reviewed and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat, which Council approved
on January 19, 2021. The second request tonight is for a Final Plat to be reviewed and recommended to City
Council for approval.
Proposal
The FDP Site Plan incorporates a number of changes in order to comply with the conditions for approval for
the Preliminary Development Plan, including the extension of the sidewalk across Lot 2 and the boundary of
the playground fence being moved to meet the 5-foot minimum setback requirement. The 15,850-square-
foot, two-story building is the Loft Building Type. The elevations remain consistent with the approved
Preliminary Development Plan. The applicant is proposing brick and stone as the primary building materials.
Brick would be the main primary material with stone as a water table along all elevations of the building.
Cementitious siding is proposed as the secondary material that would also act as the trim around windows
that are not storefront. The applicant proposes a storefront system with aged copper metal panels above the
main entrances. Signage is provided for reference only, as a Master Sign Plan would be required if Code is
not met for future signage.
Playground
A 12,900-square-foot playground is located 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 is required by the Bridge Street District Code to have
subdued, earth-toned colors. The applicant is proposing play equipment with earth-toned and subdued colors,
including dark green, brown, and tan. The playground will be enclosed by a 4-foot tall Ameristar black
aluminum fence. The black aluminum fence also would be used to separate the four different play areas. Per
the Commission’s direction, landscaping is provided around the playground fence.
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; therefore, a minimum of 318
square feet of publicly accessible open space is required for this 15,850-square-foot building. The applicant is
working with staff on a consolidated open space agreement with the City, which will consolidate the open
space required for this lot in conjunction with that for Lot 2, when it is developed.
Landscape Plan
As required with a FDP, a landscape plan is provided for the site and the neighborhood street, which will
feature a variety of plantings, including Pacific Sunset Maple trees, Dwarf Korean Lilac trees, and a number of
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 6 of 18
deciduous shrubs located around the parking lot. Each building frontage will be landscaped by a number of
different hydrangeas, burning bushes, boxwoods, annual flowerings, and perennial plants and grasses. As
noted, landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the playground fence. The applicant is also
providing the required 14 street trees along the new neighborhood street. The applicant will work with staff
to determine the final species and locations of the street trees and to finalize the overall landscape plan for
the entire site.
Lighting/Site Details/Dumpster
The applicant has provided a photometric plan with lighting profiles, which are required with the Final
Development Plan. The applicant is proposing 20-foot tall Lumark LED light poles along the access drive to
the north of the site and within the parking lot. The AEP Easement along the west property line requires that
no landscaping/lighting exceed 6 feet in height; due to this requirement, eight 30-inch tall Lumiere LED bollard
lights are proposed. These lights will be located along the west edge of the parking lot to fulfill the
requirements of AEP, as well as meet the required foot-candle average of 1 to 3 foot candles across the site.
The fixtures for both the poles and the bollard lights will be set at 3500K, which will lend a warm white lighting
across the site. The fixtures will be set to the same temperature to maintain consistent lighting across the site.
Proposed site details include benches, planters, a dumpster enclosure and playground equipment. The
dumpster enclosure will mimic proposed building materials; confirmation should be provided that the height
of the enclosure is one foot taller than the dumpster. The appl icant will work with staff to substitute a synthetic
wood gate rather than a metal gate for both the pedestrian entrance and the main entrance.
Public Plat
The proposed Final Plat will split the parcel into two developable lots with dedication of a right-of-way for a
new public street to the east. Lot 1, the southern of the two l ots, which is 1.370 acres in size, will be developed
by Primrose. Lot 2 is 1.632 acres and is located to the north of Lot 1. The applicant will continue to work with
staff to identify an appropriate street name for emergency services, and to provide a cross-access easement
along the bordering property line for Lots 1 and 2 prior to City Council consideration.
The application has been reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval of the Final
Development Plan with 6 conditions and a recommendation to Council for approval of the Final Plat with three
conditions.
Applicant Presentation
Alena Miller, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton-Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that her only
comment was that the light fixtures would be consistent in color, which is dark bronze, which will match all
other lighting on the building.
Jim Alt, ALT Architecture, 2440 Dayton-Xenia Rd, Ste. B, Beavercreek, OH 45434, stated that they were
continuing to work with staff on the street name, but no final decision had been made.
Commission Questions
Ms. Kennedy inquired who would be responsible for the maintenance of the consolidated greenspace. Would
the maintenance of the consolidated space be handled initially by Primrose until there was an occupant on
Lot 1?
Mr. Hounshell responded that he believes the maintenance responsibility would be designated within the final
agreement.
Ehab Eskander, Primrose School franchise owner, 60 N. Brice Road, Columbus OH 43213, explained that the
cross easement agreement will address the maintenance for the easement, as well as the ingress and egress
along the drive between the two properties. It also will include maintenance related to the stormwater
management of both properties; snow plowing; and greenspace maintenance. The Primrose parcel would be
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 7 of 18
the responsible party and would bill the owner of the northern parcel on a pro rata basis. He noted that the
landscape plan provides benches and planters in the common spaces along the neighborhood street, which
will be sufficient for the Primrose building. They would be working with the owner of the northern lot to ensure
a continuous, not separate, appearance of the common areas. They will be cognizant of the final appearance
of the consolidated open space.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if open space consolidation was common within the City and would it be a desirable
situation for the Lot 1 tenant.
Ms. Martin responded that staff could not identify any good examples of where the City had done this in the
past, and the recommendation this evening reflects that. The Bridge Street District Code requires a very
specific amount of open space for each development, which can lead to very small open spaces and an
incremental improvement of each site. Therefore, staff’s recommendation, to which the applicant agreed, was
for a consolidated, usable open space, which could have a greater number of amenities and be more impactful.
Those amenities would be determined in conjunction with the entity developing the northern lot.
Ms. Kennedy asked if the cost of future amenities would be shared between the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. The legally binding agreement between the two parties would include the
maintenance component; the amenities would be dictated at a future date.
Ms. Call inquired if a shared use agreement would be analogous to a legally binding shared parking lot
agreement.
Ms. Martin responded that it would be similar. An item included with the legally binding open space agreement
would be an exhibit depicting the space, which is not dictated on the plat.
Mr. Fishman stated that he would assume the parties would be equally financially responsible. He is aware of
past experiences where if one of the owners became non-financially responsible, the responsibility fell on the
other party. How would that be addressed in this case?
Ms. Martin responded that the proposed agreement would be reviewed by the City Law Director’s office prior
to execution or recording.
Mr. Boggs stated that the intent of the agreement is to have a consolidated open space that acts as a single
unit with joint maintenance responsibility and an overall plan. This will ensure that the entirety of the
continuous open space is maintained consistently.
Mr. Grimes inquired as to what were the technical adjustments on the plat that must be addressed before
Final Plat approval.
Mr. Hounshell responded that the condition is a requirement required for all plats to ensure that if anything
had changed with the site layout, it would be depicted on the plat. It is essentially a “cleanup” precaution; he
is not aware of anything specific that would need to be changed. The other conditions address minor items,
such as the cross access easement and the street name.
Mr. Grimes asked if the agreement would be included with the deed when the land transfers. Would the
agreement need to be updated when the parcel changed hands?
Mr. Boggs responded that the proposed agreement has not yet been drawn up, but the intent is that it be
prepared so that when the northern lot is developed in the future, it would be part of that land transfer.
Ms. Call stated that the elevations displayed were not very descriptive. She requested that the applicant
describe the drop-off area near the front doors. It is not clear if there would be an awning over the front
entry.
Ms. Miller responded that a very low profile canopy would be provided. They do not want any structural
requirements for canopies on the building, as the structural system is already complicated. To create a slight
reveal at the front door to draw attention, a one-foot maximum protrusion outward from the face of the
storefront would be provided. The purpose is for articulation at that front entry facade rather than any weather
mitigation function.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 8 of 18
Ms. Call stated that her question concerned whether there would be a shelter for pick-up/drop off at the front
door; Ohio is not known for its dry seasons.
Ms. Miller responded that is the main reason Primrose Schools provide a vestibule immediately inside the front
entrances of their buildings. Some cities do not permit protrusions on buildings, so vestibules are provided
where patrons can gather themselves and their items upon entry. They had discussed awnings but would like
to refrain from using them on the exterior of the building.
Mr. Fishman noted that he was surprised at the amount of hardie plank used on the building, which is intended
to have an office-like appearance. It is his impression that is a material that does not weather the best and
could eventually detract from the appearance of the building. He would prefer to see less of that material.
There was previous discussion concerning the play equipment and the need to make the playground opaque
from the street view. It is important that be addressed.
Ms. Call noted that the image shown depicts awning over the playground equipment that has the Primrose
logo, which could be considered signage. If so, would a Master Sign Plan be required, if such signage is
inconsistent with the standard Sign Code?
Mr. Hounshell responded that the images are examples taken from other Primrose locations. As discussed
previously with the PUD, the play equipment for this development would not have the branding; however,
that could made a condition of approval.
Ms. Martin clarified that they would not need to add a condition as branding is prohibited unless approved
with a Master Sign Plan.
Ms. Call inquired if an enclosure that is one foot higher than the dumpster was the standard requirement.
Mr. Hounshell responded that it is standard with the Bridge Street District Code.
Ms. Call inquired if Code Enforcement would address issues with visible refuse on this site.
Mr. Hounshell responded that the site is subject to the nuisance requirements within the Zoning Code, and
any property maintenance issues would be addressed by Code Enforcement.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the playground would be completely enclosed with a fence.
Mr. Hounshell responded that it would be entirely enclosed by an aluminum fence four feet in height.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Grimes commended the applicant and staff for the hard work they invested in this project, which is very
attractive. He appreciates that the front half of the site has been addressed appropriately for an anticipated
future owner.
Mr. Schneier also expressed appreciation for the applicant and staff’s efforts, which have achieved a great
product on a difficult lot.
Mr. Fishman reiterated his colleagues’ praise concerning the work and results. He continues to have concerns
about the hardie plank, but recognizes that his colleagues do not share the same concerns. He appreciates
that the playground equipment would not display branding, but will it be properly screened from the
neighborhood?
Ms. Call inquired if landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the playground fence to effectively
shield it from street view.
Mr. Hounshell responded that the landscape plan includes landscaping around the perimeter of the fence.
Ms. Miller stated that the standard Primrose brand fence was included in their initial proposal. It is critical that
they be able to see out as well as in for child safety purposes. They have complied with the requirement for
the fence to be no higher than 4 feet, although generally, the perimeter fence is 6-feet in height to prevent
non-custodial parents accessing a child for whom they have no legal rights. The playground has been located
at the far end of the site for security purposes, as well. With the location of the fence and the provision of
shrubs and native plants around its perimeter, they have attempted to address the concern about visibility
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 9 of 18
from Dublin-Granville Road. They have complied to the extent their brand permits, as their first priority must
be child safety. Modifying the fence in any other way would be a detriment to the users or operators.
Mr. Fishman felt that they have done a marvelous job, although he continues to have concerns regarding the
use of hardie plank.
Ms. Miller responded that the Primrose franchise has moved to use of that material due to its ease of
maintenance. They have found that due to more advanced technology, the longevity of fiber cement boards
now exceeds past use experiences; consequently, the product now has a longer warranty. Use of cementitious
siding will provide a nice transition from an office building to residential homes. This prototype they are
developing will provide a mixed-use feel through variation of materials. At the previous hearing, the
Commission discussed the ratio of primary and secondary materials. One item not taken into consideration
was the percentage of glass used for the windows and storefront. With the high quality materials, the amount
of glazing provided and the variations of brick and stone, the inclusion of fiber cement board is a way to make
the facility marketable within a residential and commercial area. This product will not present future
maintenance issues.
Ms. Call requested clarification of the Code-required percentage of primary versus secondary materials.
Ms. Miller responded that with the Loft Building Type, they were required to provide an average of 65% in
primary materials across the façade.
Mr. Hounshell responded that the Code requires a primary materials percentage of 80% across all facades.
The waiver requested was not related to a specific material, but the percentage of secondary versus primary
materials. In regard to calculating transparency, the materials calculation does not exclude windows and
doors.
Ms. Call asked the percentage of primary materials used on this facility.
Mr. Hounshell responded that it differs on the facades, but he would check for the overall building percentage.
Ms. Kennedy thought that the proposed Primrose facility is a great project. One of the features she has
appreciated in Dublin is that its buildings do not look like the traditional buildings elsewhere in the country.
This structure does not look like a traditional daycare facility. She has no concerns regarding consolidation of
the open space, as she is confident it will be handled responsibly. She is supportive of the proposal.
Mr. Supelak stated that he also is supportive of the proposal. The applicant and staff have succeeded in
addressing the unfortunate path and additional hurdles to make this site work. This is an attractive product
and will be a nice addition to the City.
Ms. Call asked if Mr. Hounshell had located the material percentage details.
Mr. Hounshell clarified that with the Preliminary Development Plan, a waiver of the 80% primary materials
requirement was approved to permit: 72% primary materials on the north elevation; 65% on the south
elevation; 70% on the east elevation; and 56% on the west elevation. The waiver also permitted metal
paneling, not just cementitious siding, as a secondary material.
Ms. Call inquired if, as presented tonight, the proposal met the criteria approved with the Preliminary
Development Plan.
Ms. Hounshell confirmed that the proposed elevations are consistent with what was approved with the
Preliminary Development Plan.
Mr. Fishman stated that the building is attractive, and if it meets the standards and is consistent with the PUD
approval, he has no additional objections.
Public Comment
Ms. Martin stated that they received no public comments during the case discussion.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Ms. Call stated that the Commission had established a good rapport with the Primrose team. The result is a
wonderful product that will meet the long term -- 50 to 100-year, planning objectives of the City. The goal is
to make Dublin an attractive community in which to live, work and play, which will now include Primrose.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objections to the proposed conditions.
Ms. Miller responded that they had no objections.
Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with the following six
conditions:
1) The applicant replace the metal siding dumpster gate with a synthetic wood gate and verify
that the height of the enclosure is one-foot taller than the enclosed dumpster, subject to staff
approval prior to building permit submittal;
2) The applicant work with staff to establish a legally binding agreement to require consolidated
open space for Lots 1 and 2 to be constructed with the future development of Lot 2, subject
to staff approval;
3) The applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the landscape plan prior to submission of
a building permit;
4) The applicant work with the City Forester to determine species, location, and planting of street
trees prior to issuance of building occupancy;
5) The applicant work with staff to finalize the photometric plan prior to submission of a building
permit; and
6) The applicant continue to work with staff to determine final details and locations of the
benches, planters, and bike racks, subject to staff approval.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objections to the conditions of approval for the Final Plat.
Ms. Miller indicated that they had no objections.
Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded a recommendation of approval of the Final Plat to City Council with
the following three conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council;
2) The applicant provide an approved street name for the neighborhood street, prior to the
submission to City Council; and
3) The applicant work with staff to identify and document a cross access easement, between
Lots 1 and 2, for the internal access drive, subject to staff approval.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
CODE REVISION INTRODUCTIONS
5. Bridge Street District - Amended Final Development Plan, 20-177ADMC, Administrative
Request - Code Amendment
Introduction to amend Zoning Code Section 153.066 to add an Amended Final Development Plan provision to
the development review process for the Bridge Street District in alignment with other review processes.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
Planning and Zoning Commisison
February 18, 2021
20-212FP/20-213FDP – PRIMROSE SCHOOL
Summary Zoning Map
This is a request for review and approval of
a Final Development Plan, and review and
recommendation of acceptance to City
Council of a Final Plat for the construction of
a new day care facility and new
neighborhood street located on a ±3.53-
acre site 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
zhounshell@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final reviewing body for the final development plan.
Following a recommendation from the Commission on the final plat, the plat will be forwarded to City
Council for review and final determination. Following approval, the applicant would be able to submit for
building permits.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 2 of 11
1. Context Map
20-213FDP
Final Development Plan
Primrose School
PID: 273-009147
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 3 of 11
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
surrounding property that was developed after the implementation of the Bridge Street District
rezoning.
History
In December 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a Preliminary
Development Plan for a 15,850-square-foot child daycare center and associated site
improvements. A Preliminary Plat was also proposed to establish a new Neighborhood Street
and two new lots. The Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat to City
Council, where it was accepted by City Council in January 2021 (Resolution 02-21).
In August 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the application
for a Concept Plan. The Concept Plan included a new child daycare center and neighborhood
street connection on the site. The plan included a conceptual layout for two lots to confirm that
the northern lot could be developed in compliance with 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 the 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.
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
In conjunction with the final development plan process, a final plat has also be submitted with
this application. The plat is required due to the reconfiguration of the lot, as well as the
dedication of a new neighborhood street.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 4 of 11
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.
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.
Proposal
The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story, 15,850-square-foot child daycare
center located on the 3.53-acre site zoning Bridge Street District – Office District on the
southern half of the site. The final development plan is intended to confirm compliance with the
preliminary development. The Commission is asked to review final development details
including building materials, open space, landscaping, and lighting associated with the proposed
daycare. Signs are required to meet the Code or the applicant is required to seek separate
approval of a master sign plan. A final plat accompanies the final development plan to subdivide
the site in accordance with the preliminary plat.
The applicant is proposing a Child Daycare Facility. This use is permitted within the Bridge
Street District – Office District. The BSD Code includes use-specific standards for ‘Daycare, Child
or Adult’ requiring that outdoor recreation areas be located to the side or rear of the principal
structure and be enclosed with a permitted 50 percent opacity fence, and that all play
equipment and shade structures visible from the right-of-way shall use earth-toned colors.
Final Plat
The site layout specifically streets, lots, and blocks were approved with the preliminary
development plan and documented on the preliminary plat. The proposal includes the
construction of a Neighborhood Street to align with the Street Network Map and the creation of
a new block of development. The proposed Neighborhood Street dedicated in the final plat will
partially subdivide the existing block defined by W. Dublin-Granville Road, Shamrock Crossing
Boulevard, Stoneridge Lane, and Dublin Center Drive. A waiver was approved for the
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 5 of 11
dimensions of the newly created block with the preliminary development plan and subsequently
accepted by City Council as part of the preliminary plat.
The final plat subdivides the site to establish the neighborhood street right-of-way and two new
lots. The new lot line is proposed to run east to west, creating a north lot and a south lot. The
southern lot (Lot 1) is 1.370-acres in size, and the northern lot (Lot 2) is 1.632-acres in size.
0.528-acre of the site is being dedicated for right-of-way to establish 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 is required to be built prior to or concurrent with the construction of
the proposed daycare facility. The applicant has provided a street name on the plat for the
neighborhood street, however, it has not been approved by Staff due to its similarity with other
street names in Dublin. The applicant should provide an updated, approved street name for the
proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council. The applicant is
proposing an internal access drive that will provide vehicular access for both Lots 1 and 2. The
applicant should work with Staff to identify and document an appropriate easement for the
internal access drive, subject to Staff Approval.
Open space is not required to be dedicated on the plat within the Bridge Street District. In the
Bridge Street District, open space is required to be publicly accessible, but is not required to be
owned by the City of Dublin, as required by the Subdivision Regulations. However, open space
is addressed by the requirements for preliminary development plan and final development plan.
Final Development Plan
Layout
The proposed two-story,
15,850-square-foot building is
sited on Lot 1. The applicant
has located the building at
the corner of the proposed
neighborhood street and the
internal access. An
approximately 12,900-square-
foot playground is proposed
to the south and west of the
building.
The site has one shared
vehicular access point from
the east along the
neighborhood street.
Sidewalk connections are
proposed from the building and parking lot to the public sidewalk along the neighborhood
street. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk extension to the south property line to allow for
additional connectivity in the future. The proposed sidewalk will also connect at the Lot 2
property line to allow for connectivity with future development of the northern lot.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 6 of 11
The applicant was approved for a parking plan with the preliminary development plan. The
applicant is providing 38 parking spaces to the west of the building, with an additional 24 on-
street parking spaces on the neighborhood street.
Architecture
Under the requirements for the
Loft Building Type, the applicant is
proposing a two-story
contemporary building with a flat
parapet roof. The main entrance to
the building oriented towards the
parking lot to the west, while also
providing substantive architectural
detail and finishes to the east
façade of the building that fronts
the neighborhood street.
The applicant is proposing the
building be clad in brick, stone,
cementitious siding, and metal all permitted materials within the Code. Two finishes of brick
(Landmark Velour and 671 Velour), natural stone, and glass as primary materials for the
building; and proposing cementitious horizontal siding (SW Foggy Day and 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 façade, excluding
windows and doors. Primary materials that are permitted 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, which have all been
approved via waiver with the preliminary development plan. All other Loft building type
requirements are met with this application.
Dumpster Enclosure, Playground, and Signs
A 6-foot tall dumpster enclosure located west of the building. The enclosure will match
materials utilized on the principal structure, utilizing a brick veneer with a stone watertable. The
gate for the enclosure is proposed to be 4-inch ribbed metal siding attached to two steel posts.
Planning Staff recommends that the applicant replace the metal siding gate with a synthetic
wood gate and verify that the height of the enclosure is one-foot taller than the enclosed
dumpster, subject to Staff approval prior to building permit submittal.
A 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. The applicant has provided playground cutsheets of the equipment that will be
located at this site. The playground will be enclosed by a 4-foot tall Ameristar black aluminum
fence. The black aluminum fence also be used to separate the four different play areas.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 7 of 11
The applicant has provided conceptual signage with the building elevations. The signs shown
are for reference only and not for review or approval. The applicant will be required to meet
code or seek approval of a master sign plan.
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.
Given the limited open space requirement, Staff is recommending 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. The applicant should continue to
work with Staff to finalize a legally binding agreement to require open space consolidation with
the future development of the northern parcel.
Landscaping
The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the site and the Neighborhood Street. The site
features a variety of plantings, including Pacific Sunset Maple trees, Dwarf Korean Lilac trees,
and a number of deciduous shrubs located around the parking lot. The building will be
landscaped on each frontage by a number of different hydrangeas, burningbushes, boxwoods,
annual flowerings, and perennial plants and grasses. The playground fencing will also be
screened by a selection of planting species listed above.
The applicant is proposing 14 required street trees along the Neighborhood Street. However,
the applicant should work with the City Forester to determine species and location of these
trees prior to issuance of building occupancy. The applicant should continue to work with Staff
to finalize the landscape plan prior to building permit approval.
The applicant is also providing DuMor benches and planter boxes on the site, as well as bicycle
racks. The applicant should continue to work with Staff to determine final details and locations
of the benches, planters, and bike racks, subject to Staff approval.
Lighting
The applicant has provided a photometric plan with lighting profiles, which are required with the
final development plan. The applicant is proposing 20-foot tall Lumark LED light poles along the
access drive to the north of the site and within the parking lot. The AEP Easement along the
west property line requires that no landscaping/lighting exceed 6 feet in height. Due to this
requirement by AEP, the applicant is proposing eight 30-inch tall Lumiere LED bollard lights.
These lights will be located along the west edge of the parking lot to fulfill the requirements of
AEP, as well as meet the required foot-candle average of 1 to 3 foot-candles across the site.
The fixtures will be set at 3500 Kelvin, which equates to a warm white lighting setting. Both the
bollard lights and light poles will be set to this temperature to maintain a consistent setting
across the site.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 8 of 11
The applicant is proposing Lanterra LED cylinder lighting fixtures on all elevations of the
building. These building fixtures are capable of both uplighting and downlighting, both of which
are permitted for decorative lighting within the District. The applicant should work with Staff to
finalize the photometric plan prior to building permit submittal.
Stormwater Management
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.
3. Criteria
Final Development Plan §153.066
1) The proposal is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development Plan.
Criteria Met. This application is largely consistent with the approved Preliminary
Development Plan and surrounding development pattern. The architecture and site
layout are similar to the previously approved Preliminary Development Plan and Concept
Plan.
2) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD
Design Guidelines, other adopted city plans, and related policies.
Criteria Met with Previously 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.
3) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use specific
standards.
Criteria Met. The proposal is for a daycare use, which is permitted in this zoning district.
All playground requirements are met in accordance with the Use Specific Standards.
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 Previously Approved Waivers. The proposal is appropriately scaled and
complements the surrounding environment. The waivers allowed for additional design
elements that complement the surrounding environment.
5) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060 Lots and Blocks.
Criteria Met with Previously Approved Waiver. The dimensions of the created block
have been approved by a Waiver.
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.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 9 of 11
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 Previously Approved Waivers. The proposal conforms to applicable
policies and plans. Waivers have approved items that do not meet the requirements of
the Bridge Street District.
9) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to conserve or enhance
natural features as appropriate, enhance the community both within and outside the
proposed development, and conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces.
Criteria Met with Condition. Open Space is currently not provided on the site. The
applicant will continue to work with Staff to finalize a legally binding agreement to
require construction consolidated open space with the future development of the
northern parcel.
10) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate provision of
services currently furnished by or that may be required by the city or other public
agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public water and sanitary
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.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 10 of 11
14) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has adequate
infrastructure to serve the development without the need for further phased
improvements.
Criteria Met. The proposal includes the construction of a neighborhood street and the
construction of the daycare building. The projects will be built concurrently to allow for
access to the daycare site.
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.
1) Criteria Met with Conditions. The proposal is largely consistent with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all design standards. The applicant should
continue to work with Staff to finalize the landscape plan prior to building permit
approval. The applicant should work with Staff to finalize the photometric plan prior to
building permit approval. The applicant should continue to work with Staff to determine
final details and locations of the benches, planters, and bike racks, subject to Staff
approval. The applicant should also work with the City Forester to determine species and
location of these trees prior to issuance of building occupancy
Final Plat §152.018
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements
Criteria Met with Conditions. The applicant has provided most of the required
information for Final Plat applications. The applicant shall provide an updated approved
street name for the proposed Neighborhood Street prior to the submission to City
Council for final approval. The applicant should also work with Staff to identify an
appropriate easement for the internal access drive, subject to Staff approval.
2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike path Standards
Criteria Met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and
bikepath standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant shall provide a street
name for the proposed neighborhood street prior to the submission to City Council for
approval.
3) Utilities
Criteria Met. Proposed and existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat.
4) Open Space Requirements
Criteria Met. As part of the Final Development Plan, Planning Staff and the Law Directors
Office will work with the applicant to memorialize any open-space-consolidation
arrangement for the future development of the northern parcel. The applicant will
continue to work with Staff to finalize a legally binding agreement to require
consolidated open space with the future development of the northern parcel.
4. Recommendation
Planning recommends approval of the Final Development Plan with six conditions:
1) The applicant replace the metal siding dumpster gate with a synthetic wood gate and
verify that the height of the enclosure is one-foot taller than the enclosed dumpster,
subject to Staff approval prior to building permit submittal;
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Cases 20-212FP/20-213FDP | Primrose School
Thursday, February 18, 2021 | Page 11 of 11
2) The applicant work with Staff to establish a legally binding agreement to require
consolidated open space for Lots 1 and 2 to be constructed with the future development
of Lot 2, subject to Staff approval;
3) The applicant continue to work with Staff to finalize the landscape plan prior to
submission of a building permit;
4) The applicant work with the City Forester to determine species, location, and planting of
street trees prior to issuance of building occupancy;
5) The applicant work with Staff to finalize the photometric plan prior to submission of a
building permit; and,
6) The applicant continue to work with Staff to determine final details and locations of the
benches, planters, and bike racks, subject to Staff approval.
Planning recommends approval of the Final Plat with three conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council;
2) The applicant provide an approved street name for the neighborhood street, prior to the
submission to City Council; and,
3) The applicant work with Staff to identify and document a cross access easement,
between Lots 1 and 2, for the internal access drive, subject to Staff approval.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, November 5, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Primrose School PID: 273-009147
20-147PDP Preliminary Development Plan
Proposal: Construction of a 2-story, 15,000-square-foot daycare facility and
associated site improvements 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 approval of a Preliminary Development Plan, including
Waivers 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/20-147
MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve the following four Waivers:
1. §153.062(O)(4)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage – Requirement: Minimum 75%; Request:
Approximately 50.5% coverage.
2. §153.062(E)(1) — Façade Materials Requirement: A minimum of 80% of each façade 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 façade; 65%
primary materials on the south façade; 70% primary materials on the east façade; and 56% primary
materials on the west façade.
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; and Perimeter Street = ~3,325 feet.
4. §153.060(O)(4)(d)(4) — Façade Divisions – Vertical Increments - Requirement: No greater than 40
feet; Request: South Façade = 63.91 feet; East Façade = 64.93 feet; and West Façade = 62.21
feet.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: All four Waivers were approved.
Page 1 of 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A99E04A-8011-4882-AE9B-D37E68CDCC5D
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
1. Primrose School PID: 273-009147
20-147PDP Preliminary Development Plan
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve the Preliminary Development Plan
with 4 conditions:
1) That the applicant remove the sidewalk connection across Lot 2;
2) That the applicant revise the site plan to meet the 5-foot setback requirement for the proposed
fence;
3) That the applicant replace the chain link fence with the proposed black aluminum fence used on
the perimeter of the playground; and
4) That the applicant provide landscaping around the perimeter of the playground to provide
additional screening from the street and adjacent properties.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Preliminary Development Plan was conditionally approved.
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
_____________________________________
Zach Hounshell, Planner I
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A99E04A-8011-4882-AE9B-D37E68CDCC5D
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, November 5, 2020 | 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
_____________________________________
Zach Hounshell, Planner I
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A99E04A-8011-4882-AE9B-D37E68CDCC5D
Planning and Zoning Commission
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.
2. 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-O). 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
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 façade, 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
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
Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2020
Page 5 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 façade. The requirement is that there be no spans greater than 40 feet without a break
in the plane. The southern façade 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
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. Fox’s 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(O)(4)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage
(Approximately 50.5% coverage).
2) Waiver to Zoning Code Section 153.062(E)(1) — Façade Materials (72% primary
materials on the north façade; 65% primary materials on the south façade; 70%
primary materials on the east façade; 56% primary materials on the west façade).
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(O)(4)(d)(4) — Façade Divisions – Vertical
Increments (South Façade = 63.91 feet; East Façade = 64.93 feet; West Façade =
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
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.
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 i ntent 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 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
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]
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 21, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4.Primrose School
20-014CP Concept Plan
Proposal: Development of a ±9,200-square-foot, two-story early childhood
education facility on a 3.53-acre parcel.
Location: South of West 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.
Applicants: 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, 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
____________________________________
Zach Hounshell, Planner I
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020
Page 15 of 26
2) The applicant provide Planning with an updated plan that incorporates all conditions
of approval prior to issuance of sign permits.
Vote: Ms. Call, no; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, no; Mr.
Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, no.
[Motion approved 4-3]
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 op portunity 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 t onight 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 ne ed 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 th at 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]
5. Chase Bank, 6515 Sawmill Road, 20-041CP, Concept Plan
Ms. Call stated that this is a request for the construction of a ±4,100-square-foot, one-story bank
and associated site improvements. The 0.85-acre site is northwest of the intersection of Sawmill
Road and Banker Drive and is zoned Bridge Street District - Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval of Concept Plan for the Chase
Bank located within the Bridge S treet District. A Concept Plan for a Bridge Street District application
is different from a traditional Concept Plan, as approval is needed to proceed to a Preliminary
Development Plan.
Site
The site is located west of Sawmill Road, northwest of the intersection with Banker Drive, and is
zoned Bridge Street District - Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site was originally occupied by
Boston Market, but has since become vacant. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing
approximately 2,850-square-foot restaurant building and redeveloping the site with a new,
approximately 4,200-square-foot bank. On the south end of the site, there is a full access
entrance from Banker Drive to the site. The Bridge Street District street network was developed
with the Bridge Street District zoning code to create a comprehensive network of streets
throughout the District to accommodate different modes of transportation and to create a street
grid to connect the District. On the east, the site borders Sawmill Road, which is a Corridor
Connector and Principal Frontage street, and Banker Drive is an established Neighborhood Street.
Principal Frontage Streets are some of the most important streets within the District. Generally,
buildings are required to meet an elevated character and quality standard for facades that face