Resolution 31-23RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 30045
31-23
Resolution No. Passed , 20
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A FINAL PLAT FOR TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY,
SECTION 1, LOCATED WITHIN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT
WHEREAS, application for approval of the final plat for Towns on the Parkway
development, Section 1, has been made under Chapter 152 of the Codified Ordinances
of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the reports of staff, and the subdivision requirements of Chapter
152 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin, and desires to approve said plats
and accept all rights of way, easements, and other interests dedicated to the City
therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of
Ohio, (_ of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the final plat for the Towns
on the Parkway development, Section 1, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The City Manager, Law Director, Clerk of Council, and any other required
City employee or official are authorized to execute the plat on behalf of the City.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 4.04 of the Charter, this resolution shall take effect
immediately upon passage.
Passed this__/O% day of Apr | , 2023.
Mayor — Presiding Officer 7
asda (tual ATTEST:
Osnrfe
Clagk of Co inci L
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager
Date: April 4, 2023
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Taylor Mullinax, Planner I
Re: Resolution 31-23 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for Towns on the Parkway,
Section 1, located within the Bridge Street District (Case 22-076FP)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final Plat (FP), Section 1, to subdivide land, dedicate right-
of-way, easements, and reserves for 39 attached single-family residential units for a 2.19-acre
lot which includes eight buildings. The Plat establishes Lot 1 of 4 within the larger 11-acre
development site.
Process
As provided by the Law Director’s Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final
plats, the process is solely 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 separate application processes, approved by the
required reviewing bodies.
Background
A previous Preliminary Plat (PP) was submitted for the entire 11-acre Towns on the Parkway
development without sections. On December 10, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZC) made a recommendation of approval to City Council for a PP for the development of 154
townhomes, 0.7-acre of open space, and three public streets on 11 acres. City Council
accepted the previous Preliminary Plat on May 24, 2021 for the entire site.
On May 20, 2021, the PZC made a recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat.
However, following that recommendation the applicant identified the need to construct and
occupy the buildings within the development in sections and phases. The developer also
requested to construct adjacent infrastructure concurrent with the section being constructed.
This results in a revised PPs for each new section. This also allows Engineering to receive
performance bonds for the associated public improvements and conditionally accept these in
sections. The development contains four blocks; therefore, the platting of each section will be
done for each block as the buildings are constructed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed the revised Preliminary Plat for Section 1
and made a recommendation of approval to City Council on October 6, 2022, finding the
proposal meets the review criteria.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Resolution 31-23 – Final Plat – Towns on The Parkway, Section 1
April 4, 2023
Page 2 of 3
Description
The proposal subdivides 11-acres into 3.388-acres for Section 1, dedicates three public rights-
of-way (McCune Avenue, Holcomb Street, and Seville Street) and easements, and establishes
Lot 1 and Reserve “A”. The site is located north of John Shields Parkway and west of Village
Parkway and is zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) – Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is
surrounded by existing development including AMC Theatre to the east, Greystone Mews to the
south, Tuller Flats to the west, and Spectrum office building to the north. The remaining 7.612-
acres will be subdivided with future applications.
Lot 1 is a 2.189-acre parcel in the southwest portion of the site with frontage along John
Shields Parkway, Seville Street, McCune Avenue, and Holcomb Street. The McCune Avenue
extension bisects the site east to west, Seville Street bisects the site north to south, and
Holcomb Street bounds the site to the west. All streets have a right-of-way width of 50 feet and
include pedestrian facilities. On-street parking is on the north side of McCune Avenue and the
west side of Holcomb Street.
Publically accessible open space is required per the BSD Code, which was memorialized by the
PZC with a condition of approval of the Final Development Plan in May 2021. Following the
review of the revised PP and FP on October 6, 2022, it was determined the open space
configurations would not meet the requirements and the applicant added 0.023-acres of open
space (A2) for a total of 0.104 acres of open space to the revised PP and FP to meet Code. A
condition of approval has been added to memorialize this adjustment.
Additionally, the need for a sidewalk easement has been identified on the Tuller Flats PL 1, LLC
(adjacent owner to the west) property to accommodate the Holcomb Street roadway section.
The applicant will need to dedicate necessary easements on the Tuller Flats PL 1, LLC property
to the west of the Towns on the Parkway development to the City no later than conditional
acceptance of the Section 1 public improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A
condition of approval has been added to reflect this for both the PP and FP.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the October 6, 2022 PZC meeting, staff recommended Council approval of the Final Plat with
the following conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council, including any discrepancies in open space square footage;
and
2) The applicant continues to work with Engineering to dedicate necessary easements via
warranty deed or another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller Flats PL1,
LLC property prior to commencement of construction to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
City Council Recommendation
Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution 31-23 accepting the Final Plat with two
additional conditions.
Memo – Resolution 31-23 – Final Plat – Towns on The Parkway, Section 1
April 4, 2023
Page 3 of 3
1) The additional A2 open space in Section 1 be incorporated to meet the Code required
open space; and
2) The applicant dedicate necessary easements on the Tuller Flats PL1, LLC property to the
west of the Towns on the Parkway development to the City no later than conditional
acceptance of the Section 1 public improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
21TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY SECTION 1SURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon arebased on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone,as per NAD83 (1986 Adjustment). Control for bearings wasfrom coordinates of monuments FRANK 73 and FRANK 174,established by the Franklin County Engineering Department,using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment,giving a bearing of South 89° 24' 38" East for a portion of thesoutherly right of way line of Tuller Road.SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat are the records of theFranklin County, Ohio, Recorder.IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated hereon, unlessotherwise noted, are to be set and are iron pipes, thirteensixteenths inch inside diameter, thirty inches long with aplastic plug placed in the top end bearing the initials EMHTINC.PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers, whereindicated hereon, are to be one-inch diameter, thirty-inchlong, solid iron pins. Pins are to be set to monument the pointsindicated, and set with the top end flush with the surface ofthe ground and then capped with an aluminum cap stampedEMHT INC. Once installed, the top of the cap shall bemarked (punched) to record the actual location of the point.Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, in QuarterTownship 2, Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands, containing 3.388 acresof land, more or less, said 3.388 acres being comprised of a resubdivision of part of Lot 3of the subdivision entitled "Lands of Chauncey McGurer", of record in Plat Book 12, Page27, and part of that tract of land conveyed to PULTE HOMES OF OHIO LLC by deedof record in Instrument Number 202112140226233, Recorder's Office, Franklin County,Ohio.The undersigned, PULTE HOMES OF OHIO LLC, a Michigan limited liabilitycompany, by MATTHEW J. CALLAHAN, Division Vice President of LandAcquisition, owner of the lands platted herein, duly authorized in the premises, doeshereby certify that this plat correctly represents its "TOWNS ON THE PARKWAYSECTION 1", a subdivision containing Lot number 1, and an area designated as Reserve"A", does hereby accept this plat of same and dedicates to public use, as such, all ofHolcomb Street, McCune Avenue, Seville Street and all of the easements shown hereonand not heretofore dedicated.The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the Cityof Dublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns takingtitle from, under or through the undersigned.Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plat as"Easement", "Public Access Easement" or "Sidewalk Easement". Each of theaforementioned designated easements permit the construction, operation, and maintenanceof all public and quasi public utilities above, beneath, and on the surface of the groundand, where necessary, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of serviceconnections to all adjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within those areasdesignated "Sidewalk Easement" on this plat, an additional easement is hereby reservedfor the construction, operation and maintenance of a sidewalk for use by the public.Within those areas designated "Public Access Easement" on this plat, an additionaleasement is hereby reserved for the purpose of providing pedestrian access, ingress, egressand passage over and upon the areas depicted hereon. Easement areas shown hereonoutside of the platted areas are within lands owned by the undersigned and are herebyreserved therein for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Whereof, MATTHEW J. CALLAHAN, Division Vice President ofLand Acquisition of PULTE HOMES OF OHIO LLC, has hereunto set his hand this____day of ________, 20___. Signed and Acknowledged PULTE HOMES OF OHIO LLC In the presence of______________________________ By _____________________________ MATTHEW J. CALLAHAN, Division Vice President of Land Acquisition______________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared MATTHEWJ. CALLAHAN, Division Vice President of Land Acquisition of PULTE HOMES OFOHIO LLC, who acknowledged the signing of the foregoing instrument to be hisvoluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of said PULTE HOMES OFOHIO LLC, for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioRESERVATION OF EASEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED AREAACROSS DESIGNATED AREAS ON TULLER LAND HOLDINGS, LLC LANDCertain areas designated "Easement" and "Sidewalk Easement" shown hereonoutside of the 3.388 acres of land being platted as "Towns on the Parkway Section 1" arewithin lands located adjacent to "Towns on the Parkway Section 1" that are owned byTULLER LAND HOLDINGS, LLC by deed of record in Instrument Number202112140226235, Recorders Office, Franklin County, Ohio. Each of the aforementioneddesignated easements permit the construction, operation and maintenance of all public andquasi-public utilities above, beneath, and on the surface of the ground and, wherenecessary, for the construction, operation and maintenance of service connections to alladjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within those areas designated"Sidewalk Easement" on this plat, an additional easement is hereby reserved for theconstruction, operation and and maintenance of a sidewalk for use by the public.In Witness Whereof, WILLIAM J. RIAT, Manager of TULLER LANDHOLDINGS, LLC, has hereunto set his hand this day of __________ , 20___. Signed and Acknowledged TULLER LAND HOLDINGS, LLC In the presence of: _____________________________ By _____________________________ WILLIAM J. RIAT, Manager_____________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM J.RIAT, Manager of TULLER LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, who acknowledged the signingof the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act anddeed of TULLER LAND HOLDINGS, LLC for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ ___________________________________20___ Director of Planning, City of Dublin, OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ __________________________________20___ Director of Engineering/City Engineer, City of Dublin, OhioApproved by Resolution No. ____________, this ___ day of ____________, 20__, by voteof Council, wherein all of Holcomb Street, McCune Avenue, Seville Street, and all of theeasements dedicated hereon are accepted as such by the Council of the City of Dublin,Ohio.In Witness Thereof I have hereunto ___________________________________set my hand and affixed my seal this Clerk of Council, City of Dublin, Ohio_____ day of __________, 20___.Transferred this ____ day of ________, __________________________________20___. Auditor, Franklin County, Ohio __________________________________ Deputy Auditor, Franklin County, OhioFiled for record this ___day of _______, __________________________________20___ at __________M. Fee $_________ Recorder, Franklin County, OhioFile No. _________________________Recorded this ____ day of __________, _________________________________20___. Deputy Recorder, Franklin County, OhioPlat Book _______, Pages ___________
McCUNE AVENUE STREETHOLCOMB STREET
SEVILLE22TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY SECTION 1NOTE "A": At the time of platting, all of Towns on theParkway Section 1 is in Zone X (areas determined to beoutside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) as said zone isdesignated and delineated on the FEMA Flood Insurance RateMap for Franklin County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas, MapNumber 39049C0151K, with effective date of June 17, 2008.NOTE "B" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots inthe Towns on the Parkway Section 1 subdivision are herebynotified that, at the time of platting, utility service to Towns onthe Parkway Section 1 for electric power is provided byAmerican Electric Power and telephone service is provided byAmeritech.NOTE "C" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting,all of Towns on the Parkway Section 1 is in the City of DublinSchool District.NOTE "D" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN:Total acreage: 3.388 Ac.Acreage in Reserve "A" 0.003 Ac.Acreage in right-of-way: 1.196 Ac.Acreage in lot: 2.189 Ac.NOTE "E" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Towns on theParkway Section 1 is out of the following Franklin CountyParcel NumberParcel Number 273-013211 3.388 Ac.NOTE "F: At the time of platting, electric, cable, andtelephone service providers have not issued informationrequired so that easement areas, in addition to those shown onthis plat as deemed necessary by these providers for theinstallation and maintenance of all of their main line facilities,could conveniently be shown on this plat. Existing recordedeasement information about Towns on the Parkway Section 1or any part thereof can be acquired by a competentexamination of the then current public records, including thosein the Franklin County Recorder's Office.NOTE "G" - RESERVE "A": Reserve "A", as designatedand delineated hereon, shall be owned and maintained by anassociation comprised of the owners of the fee simple title tothe lots in the Towns on the Parkway subdivisions for thepurpose of open space.NOTE "H": Public Access Easement areas, as designated anddelineated hereon, shall be maintained by an associationcomprised of the owners of the fee simple title to the lots in theTowns on the Parkway subdivisions."NOTE "I" - PARKING: The City of Dublin, Ohio mayrestrict or eliminate on-street parking within the Avenues andStreets dedicated hereon. The owners of the fee simple title tothe lots in the Towns on the Parkway subdivisions, their heirs,successors and assigns, hereby waive any and all objections tosaid parking restriction or elimination.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 6, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Towns on the Parkway, Section 1 at PID: 273-013211
22-075PP Preliminary Plat
3. Towns on the Parkway, Section 1 at PID: 273-013211
22-076FP Final Plat
Proposal: Subdivision of a 2.19-acre site to create a 39-unit residential development
zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of Village Parkway with John Shields
Parkway.
Request: Review and approval of a Preliminary Plat and review and
recommendation to City Council for a Final Plat under the provisions of
Zoning Code §153.066.
Applicant: Adam Pychewicz and Matt Callahan, Pulte Group; and Aaron Underhill,
Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-075 and
www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-076
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to approve the Preliminary Plat and recommend
approval to City Council for a Final Plat with two conditions:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats including any dis crepancies
in open space square footage, prior to submission for acceptance to City Council; and
2) That the applicant continues to work with Engineering to dedicate necessary easements via
warranty deed or another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller Flats PL1 LLC property,
prior to commencement of construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Preliminary Plat and Final Plat were approved by consent and the Final Plat was
forwarded to City Council for approval.
RECORDED VOTES: STAFF CERTIFICATION
Lance Schneier Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Kim Way Absent _____________________________________
Warren Fishman Yes Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP
Jamey Chinnock Yes Planning Director
Kathy Harter Yes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 238EC9F1-1333-47C2-A5D7-BC06E8E77FD0
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes October 6, 2022
Page 2 of 12
Ms. Call stated that there are three cases eligible for the Consent Agenda, Towns on the Parkway,
Section 1, 22-075PP, Preliminary Plat; 22-076FP, Final Plat; and 22-119AFDP, Amended Final
Development Plan, and inquired if any Commission member wished to move the cases to the regular
agenda for discussion. No member requested that the cases be moved.
CONSENT CASES
2. Towns on the Parkway, Section 1 at PID: 273-013211, 22-075PP,
Preliminary Plat
Subdivision of a 2.19-acre site to create a 39-unit residential development zoned Bridge Street
District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, on a site located northwest of the intersection of Village
Parkway with John Shields Parkway.
3. Towns on the Parkway, Section 1 at PID: 273-013211, 22-076FP, Final Plat
Subdivision of a 2.19-acre site to create a 39-unit residential development zoned Bridge Street
District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, on a site located northwest of the intersection of Village
Parkway with John Shields Parkway.
Request to recommend Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and approval of the Final Plat with
two (2) conditions:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats including any
discrepancies in open space square footage, prior to submission for acceptance to City
Council; and
2) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to dedicate necessary easements
via warranty deed or another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller Flats
PL1 LLC property, prior to commencement of construction to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
Request for approval of the following four (4) Code Waivers:
1. §153.064 (G)(4)(e)(2) – Fully Enclosed Structures and Table 153.064-A.
Required: Enclosed accessory structures are not permitted within open spaces.
Requested: Permit an enclosed structure within an open space - pocket park.
2. §153.062 (B)(3)(e) – Accessory Structures.
Required: Accessory Structures are permitted within the buildable area of a lot not
occupied by principal buildings, located to the side or the rear of the principal building
and outside of the Required Building Zone (RBZ).
Requested: Permit an accessory structure within the front Required Build Zone (RBZ).
3. §153.074 (6)(a) – Required Location in Residential Zoning Districts.
Required: Accessory Structures are required to be located to the side or rear of the
principal structure.
Requested: Permit an accessory structure forward of the principal structures in Block B.
4. §153.065 (D)(3)(a) – Street Trees.
Required: One street tree per 40 linear feet of frontage. McCune Avenue – 23 street
trees (per north/south side of the street); Holcomb Street – 14 street trees (per
east/west side of the street).
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes October 6, 2022
Page 3 of 12
Requested: To permit 11 street trees on the north side of McCune Avenue and 9 street
trees on the west side of Holcomb Street.
4. Towns on the Parkway, Section 1 at PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-013211
22-119AFDP, Amended Final Development Plan
Amendment of the street tree requirements, residential building locations, and construction of two
booster houses for the approved residential development on an 11-acre site zoned Bridge Street
District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood, on a site located northwest of the intersection of Village
Parkway with John Shields Parkway.
Request for approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with two (2) conditions:
1) That the applicant dimension the building separations between buildings 28 and 29 and
between 26 and 27 in Block D to confirm the separation requirement is met, subject to
staff approval; and
2) That the applicant submit revised plans to Building Standards for any applicable building
permits related to the modifications in the AFDP.
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded approval of the Consent Case actions as requested.
Vote: Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr.
Fishman, yes.
[Motion approved 6-0]
NEW CASES
5. Mount Carmel Hospital - Northwest at 3865 Bright Road, 22-134AFDP,
Amended Final Development Plan
Request for approval of the development of a 150,000-square-foot, 30-bed, inpatient hospital on
a 35-acre site zoned Planned Unit Development District, Mount Carmel Hospital – Northwest. The
site is located southeast of the roundabout of Bright Road and Emerald Parkway.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Will stated that this 35.0-acre site located at 4105 Emerald Parkway is 750 feet southeast of
the intersection of Bright Road and Emerald Parkway and northwest of the I270 interchange at
Sawmill Road. This is an application for an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP), which
provides opportunity for the applicant to propose changes to the Final Development Plan (FDP)
approved on August 4, 2022. Tonight’s presentation will highlight the proposed changes and how
the prior Conditions of Approval were addressed.
The following changes have been made to the FDP in the proposed AFDP:
(1) Of the total 728 parking spaces, only 424 will be provided in Phase 1 of the project, the
remainder in future phases.
(2) One of the four (4) accesses -- the restricted access from Sawmill Road has been
removed from Phase 1 to be provided in a future phase.
(3) Only 3.0 acres of the total amount of 6.9 acres of open space will be in the first phase of
the project, which now has a modified west entry green and a reduced east staff green.
(4) The attached Medical Office Building (MOB) will be provided in a future phase.
(5) Changes in the green ribbon are proposed, including moving the oncology garden and
respite areas to a future phase.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
PLANNING REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 6, 2022
TOWNS ON THE PARKWAY
22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119AFDP
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-075
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-076
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-119
Case Summary
Address PID’s 273-013211, 273-008811
Proposal
Preliminary Plat (PP) and Final Plat (FP) for a 2.189-acre site to create a 39-unit
residential neighborhood on Lot 1; and an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP)
for an ±11-acre site to amend street tree requirements, construct two booster
houses, and modify residential building locations.
Request
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a PP and FP under the
provisions of the Subdivision Regulations; and review and approval of an AFDP
under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Zoning
BSD-SCN: Bridge Street District - Sawmill Center Neighborhood
Planning
Recommendation
Approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with Conditions.
Recommendation of Approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
with Conditions.
Next Steps
The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) is the final reviewing body for the
AFDP. Upon approval, the applicant is eligible to apply for building permits. Upon
recommendation of approval to City Council from the PZC, the PP and FP
application is eligible for review by City Council for acceptance.
Applicant
Adam Pychewicz, Pulte Group
Matt Callahan, Pulte Group
Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Case Manager Taylor Mullinax, Planner I
(614) 410-4632
tmullinax@dublin.oh.us
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 2 of 12
Site Location Map
Tree line bisects the
site east to west
Future McCune Ave
connection
1
2
1 2
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 3 of 12
1. Overview
Background
The site is located northwest of John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. The Towns on the
Parkway development consist of 154 attached, single-family townhomes across four blocks:
Block A, B, C, and D. The development includes the extension of McCune Avenue and two new
public streets, Seville Street and Holcomb Street. John Shields Parkway, Village Parkway, and
Tuller Road are District Connector Streets. The surrounding streets are identified in the Bridge
Street District (BSD) – Street Network Map as Principal Frontage Streets (PFSs). The site has
frontage on Tuller Road (±1,300 feet) and John Shields Parkway (±1,000 feet).
For reference, the Final Development Plan (FDP) was approved with conditions in May 2021.
The appliance continues to work with Staff to address the following previous conditions:
1) The applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including
tree lawn and sidewalk widths, and adjustments to the on-street parking layout, as
necessary, prior to submitting a Final Plat to City Council;
2) That the applicant work with Staff to resolve the discrepancies in proposed amount of
open space provided; and
3) That planting plans for all areas of the site to receive landscaping be updated to include
plan specifications, locations and quantities, subject to Staff approval prior to submitting
for building permits.
Additionally, the PZC approved of an Administrative Departure and Waiver for lot coverage
requirements to permit lot coverage for Blocks A, B, and C at 77 percent and Block D at 85
percent.
Case History
November 2021- Amended Final Development Plan
PZC approved an AFDP to permit roof terraces on select front-facing, and end units.
May 2021 – Final Development Plan and Final Plat
PZC approved a FDP which included the approval of four Administrative Departures (AD), ten
Waivers, and sixteen conditions, and made a recommendation of approval to City Council for
the FP.
December 2020 – Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat
PZC approved a PDP and PP which included the approval of two AD’s, parking plan, and four
Waivers.
Process
The Commission is the final reviewing body for the AFDP, and the recommending body for the
PP and FP. The development process is generally three steps as follows with an additional
fourth step if amendments to a FDP are required.
Step 1 – Concept Plan
Step 2 – Preliminary Development Plan
Step 3 – Final Development Plan
Step 4 – Amended Final Development Plan
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 4 of 12
Waivers to numeric development standards may be granted at the AFDP stage. In cases where
a numeric deviation is less than a 10 percent an Administrative Departure may be approved in
lieu of a Waiver. If the deviation exceeds 10 percent a Waiver is required.
The PP establishes public streets and blocks in accordance with the Preliminary Development
Plan and applicable Code requirements. Utility easements are also delineated. The FP further
refines this information and includes items such as public access easements.
2. Community Plan & Zoning Code
The Bridge Street District (BSD) Code establishes Neighborhood Districts where special
attention to location and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces is important to fulfill
the objectives identified in the BSD Special Area Plan within the Community Plan. The Code also
provides a hierarchy of requirements for establishing a gridded street network which provides
the framework for development within the BSD. This site resides in the BSD-SCN: BSD –
Sawmill Center Neighborhood District.
3. Project
Project Summary
The applicant is proposing an AFDP to make modifications to street trees, add two booster
houses which includes a water pump and mailbox facilities within each structure, and revise
approved building locations across four blocks. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a PP and
FP to replat the site to create Section 1, which consists of 2.19 acres for Lot 1 (Block A) and
adjacent public streets and utilities needed to support Block A. The public streets include Seville
Street from John Shields Parkway to McCune Avenue, Holcomb Street from John Shields
Parkway to McCune Avenue, and McCune Avenue from Holcomb Street to Seville Street.
Subsequently, PP and FPs for Blocks B, C, and D, which will include the remaining public streets
and utilities for the project not identified as Section 1, will follow with future applications.
Amended Final Development Plan
Booster houses – Block B & D
In the FDP, the applicant was approved to have central mailbox facility within the large pocket
park (B2) of Block B. Due to lower than expected water pressure issues, two booster houses are
needed to provide adequate water pressure to the entire development due to the inability to
locate such facilities within the floor plan of individual residential units. The need for the booster
houses is due to the four story buildings within the development, which would not otherwise
have enough water pressure from individual facilities within each unit’s floor plan. The applicant
is proposing two, 238-square-foot booster houses to conceal water utility facilities and
incorporate a mailbox facility underneath the roof overhang for each booster house.
One booster house will be located within the open space of Block B, and another within an area
not designated as open space in Block D. Code states enclosed accessory structures are not
permitted to be within an open space. Additionally, accessory structures are permitted within
the buildable area of a lot not occupied by principal buildings, located to the side or the rear of
that building, and outside the Required Building Zone RBZ. The applicant is proposing to locate
both booster houses within the RBZ for Blocks B and D. The booster house in Block D
encroaches into the RBZ by 14-feet, and the booster house in Block B encroaches by 12.5-feet.
A Waiver is required to allow both booster houses to be located within the RBZ and to be
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 5 of 12
located forward of the principal structure for the booster house in Block B. All other setback and
spacing requirements are met. Additionally, the proposed booster houses meet the previously
approved Administrative Departure and Waivers for lot coverage.
The applicant has explored other locations within the development to locate both booster
houses outside of an open space and the RBZ, but various conditions limit where the booster
houses can be located. The booster houses serve multiple functions with the inclusion of the
utility and shelter for the mailbox facilities. The location of the mailbox facilities need to be
centrally located to service the entire development and the United States Postal Service (USPS)
requires mail facilities to be located within close proximity to the roadway, which are provided
by both proposed locations. Additionally for Block B, the lineal distance for retention cannot be
reduced or relocated elsewhere in the development and outside of the open space based on the
current site design. For Block D, the booster house is located within the only available space
without affecting the overall site design of Block D and if the booster house is located outside of
the RBZ, it would not be able to maintain the Code required 10-foot building separation
distance from adjacent building 25. The proposed locations of the booster houses are the
outcome of coordination between the applicant, the City Engineer, and the City of Columbus.
All materials proposed for the booster houses meet Code and were previously approved by the
PZC at the FDP stage. In the BSD Code, accessory structures are permitted one primary façade
material. The applicant is proposing brick as the primary façade material and cementious siding
as a secondary material. The roof of the booster houses will be finished in a Pac Clad midnight
bronze standing seam metal roof, previously approved by the Commission.
Building location changes
The applicant is proposing to revise the location of multiple buildings located in Blocks B, C, and
D due to encroachments into the utility easements at rear decks. The proposed modifications
will ensure the building protrusions are located outside of any easements, and meet the
required Code provisions for building setbacks. The applicant should dimension the distance
between buildings 28 and 29, and 26 and 27 in Block D to confirm the minimum 10-foot
separation requirement is met.
Street Trees
As a condition of approval of the Final Development Plan, the applicant was required to work
with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including tree lawn and sidewalk
widths, and adjustments to the on-street parking layout. Planning and Engineering staff have
worked with the applicant to satisfy the condition to finalize the public street sections and
ensure Code compliance. The applicant has provided a minimum 5.5-foot wide lawn area and
six-foot wide sidewalk which satisfies the BSD Code. Due to the combination of the tree lawn
curb bump outs and street parking, the required number of street trees (one street tree/per 40
linear feet of frontage) cannot be accommodated in all locations. The proposal meets the street
tree requirement along all roads in the development except for the west side of Holcomb Street
and the north side of McCune Avenue. The applicant is proposing the following modifications
per street.
McCune Avenue
North side: 23 street trees are required, 11 trees are provided, and there is a deficiency of
12 trees. A Waiver is required and requested below for the Commission’s consideration.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 6 of 12
South side: 23 street trees are required and have been provided by the applicant which
meets Code.
Seville Street
East and west sides: 10 street trees are required per side and have been provided by the
applicant which meets Code.
Holcomb Street
East side: 14 street trees are required and 15 have been provided by the applicant which
exceeds the Code requirement.
West side: 14 street trees are required, 9 trees are provided, and there is a deficiency of 5
trees. A Waiver is required and requested below for the Commission’s consideration.
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
The applicant is proposing to replat the previously PP and FP to subdivide land and dedicate
right-of-way, easements, and reserves for 39 attached single-family residential units across a
2.19-acre lot which includes eight buildings and will establish Lot 1 of 4 within the development,
known as Block A. The remaining lots will be submitted with future PP and FP applications. The
proposed PP and FP will establish public rights-of-way for three roads including Holcomb Street,
McCune Avenue, and Seville Street. The plat also dedicates reserves, utility easements,
sidewalk easements, and public access easements where appropriate to accommodate public
and private infrastructure improvements which will support the private sites within the entire
development. The applicant should continue to work with Engineering to dedicate necessary
easements via warranty deed or another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller Flats
PL1 LLC property to the west of the Towns on the Parkway development. The proposed acreage
breakdown for Lot 1 includes the following:
Total acreage: ±3.388-acres
Lot 1 acreage: ±2.189-acres
Reserve “A” acreage: ±0.003-acres
Right-of-Way: ±1.196-acres
Public open space (A1): ± 0.081-acres
The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the acceptance of the
PP and FP. With conditions, the plats conform to the requirements of the BSD Code and
Subdivision regulations as well as the Street Network Map adopted by City Council.
4. Plan Review
Waiver Review
Requirement Request Review
1. Section 153.064 (G)(4)(e)(2)
– Fully Enclosed Structures
and Table 153.064-A
To permit an enclosed
structure within an open
space - pocket park.
Criteria Met: The proposed
booster house in Block B is
located within a pocket park,
and while enclosed structures
are not permitted within open
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 7 of 12
spaces, this structure is
required to be able to provide
adequate water service
pressure for the development
and most closely aligns with an
accessory use for a
maintenance or utility shed as
outlined in the general
requirements for open spaces.
The structure is partially open
under the roof overhang which
provides shelter for centralized
mailbox facilities for the
development and meets the
needs of the anticipated users.
2. Section 153.062 (B)(3)(e) –
Accessory Structures
To permit an accessory
structure within the front
RBZ where principal
buildings are required.
Criteria Met: The front RBZ
permits principal buildings
within the front RBZ along
main street frontages but does
not include accessory
structures. The City of
Columbus requires the
following: “there shall be no
more than 150-feet of service
line from the control valve to
the meter.” The meter
applicant is located the within
the booster houses. The
applicant considered other
locations for the booster
houses but it would impact the
site layout and trigger
additional Waivers. Staff
supports the Waiver request as
it requires the least amount of
Waivers to locate such a facility
and provide adequate water
service pressure for the
development.
3. Section 153.074 (6)(a) –
Required Location in
Residential Zoning Districts
To permit an accessory
structure forward of the
principal structures
where the required
location is to the side or
rear of a principal
structure.
Criteria Met: The proposed
booster house within Block B is
located forward of the principal
structures. The applicant is
requesting a Waiver to permit
the booster house forward of
the principal structures to be
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 8 of 12
able to provide a centralized
location for the mailbox
facilities. Staff is supportive of
the Waiver request as it
combines multiple uses into
one accessory structure to
service the development rather
than having multiple structures
which is more aesthetically
appropriate.
4. Section 153.065 (D)(3)(a) –
Street Trees
To permit 11 street trees
on the north side of
McCune Ave where 23
trees are required, and
to permit 9 street trees
on the west side of
Holcomb St where 14
trees are required.
Criteria Met: The applicant
has coordinated with Staff to
finalize their public street
sections, including tree lawn
and sidewalk widths, and
adjustments to on-street
parking layouts which was
conditioned in the FDP. Due to
the combination of the tree
lawn curb bump outs and
street parking, the required
number of street trees cannot
be accommodated and
therefore the applicant is
requesting a Waiver to this
Code requirement. Staff is
supportive of the requested
Waiver as the street profiles
are brought closer to
compliance with the BSD Code
with the exception of the street
trees.
Amended Final Development Plan Criteria
Criteria Review
1. The AFDP shall be
substantially similar to the
approved FDP, and consistent
with the record established by
the required reviewing body,
the associated Staff Report,
and the Director’s
recommendation.
Criteria Met: The application is generally consistent with
the approved Final Development Plan and is responsive to
the surrounding development character with the addition
of the two proposed booster houses to provide adequate
water service pressure to the development, building
location changes, and Waivers associated to the booster
houses, and street trees.
2. The proposed development is
consistent with the
Criteria Met: The amended proposal is consistent with all
adopted plans and policies.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 9 of 12
Criteria Review
Community Plan, BSD Special
Area Plan, BSD Design
Guidelines, other adopted City
plans, and citywide
administrative and financial
policies.
3. The proposed land uses
conform to all applicable
requirements and use specific
standards of §153.059 Uses.
Criteria Met: No changes are proposed to the land use.
The booster houses are classified as an accessory
structure which the use of essential utility services is
permitted.
4. The proposed buildings are
appropriately sited and
conform to the requirements
of §153.062 Building Types
and §153.065 Site
Development Standards.
Criteria Met with Waivers: The amended proposal
largely complements the surrounding character and
existing development with respect to the amended
principal building locations. The accessory structures meet
the development standards with Waivers.
5. The proposed lots and blocks
conform to the requirements
of §153.060 Lots and Blocks.
Not Applicable: The amendments to the FDP do not
affect the lots and blocks or conditions that were
approved as part of the FDP.
6. The proposed street types
conform to the requirements
and standards of §153.061
Street Types, including the
general pattern of streets,
blocks, and development
reflected on the BSD Street
Network Map, as amended.
Not Applicable: The proposed amendments to the FDP
do not affect proposed street types.
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.
Not Applicable: The amendments to the street profiles
which include sidewalk widths meet BSD Code
requirements and were made to satisfy a condition of
approval from the FDP. With that, amendments applicable
to the AFDP request only include street trees and the
associated Waiver requested which are not applicable
under this criteria.
8. The proposed design,
architecture, and materials of
buildings is consistent with
the BSD Design Guidelines,
while integrating with nearby
Criteria Met: The applicant is proposing two booster
houses which contain materials previously approved by
the PZC. The architecture and design are complementary
to the buildings in the rest of the development and
surrounding character.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 10 of 12
Criteria Review
development, and avoids
overshadowing of existing or
proposed development.
9. The proposed site design,
landscaping, screening, and
buffering is consistent with
the BSD Design Guidelines.
Not Applicable: The proposed amendments to the FDP
do not affect the site design, landscaping, screening, and
buffering. The applicant is continuing to work with Staff to
finalize planting plans as conditioned at the FDP stage.
10. The proposed open spaces
are appropriately sited and
designed to conserve or
enhance natural features as
appropriate, enhance the
community, benefit the
community both within and
outside the proposed
development, and conform to
the requirements of §153.064
Open Spaces.
Criteria Met with Waivers: The applicant is continuing
to work with Staff to finalize open space discrepancies as
conditioned at the FDP stage. The proposed Block B
booster house is located within the pocket park open
space where enclosed structures are not permitted. Staff
is supportive of the location of the Block B booster house
location with approval of the requested Waivers. Natural
features and community benefit will be preserved and
enhanced with the approval of the booster houses.
11. The scale and design of the
proposed development allows
for the adequate provision of
services currently furnished
by or that may be required by
the City or other public
agency including, but not
limited to, fire and police
protection, public water and
sanitary sewage services,
recreational activities, traffic
control, waste management,
and administrative services.
Criteria Met with Waivers: Staff supports the proposed
amendments to the FDP with Waivers regarding the
addition of the proposed booster houses and their location
as they play a critical role in providing adequate water
service pressure to the entire development. The City of
Columbus has jurisdiction over the private water mains
and has required that the meter within the booster houses
be located within 150-feet of these lines.
12. The proposed development
conforms to the requirements
of §153.063 Neighborhood
Standards, as applicable.
Criteria Met: The proposed amendments to the FDP do
not adversely affect the development. The development is
located within the Sawmill Center Neighborhood and
fulfills the vision of the neighborhood district.
13. The proposed development
provides adequate
stormwater management
systems and facilities that
comply with the applicable
regulations of this code and
any other applicable design
Criteria Met: The proposed amendments meet lot
coverage requirements with previously approved Waivers
at the FDP stage which maintain adequate stormwater
management systems and facilities.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 11 of 12
Criteria Review
criteria or regulations as
adopted by the City or
required by other government
entities.
14. The proposed development
can be adequately serviced by
existing and/or planned public
or private infrastructure
consistent with the City's
most recently adopted capital
improvements program.
Criteria Met with Waivers: The proposed amendments
to the FDP adequately service planned private
infrastructure with the addition of the proposed booster
houses and proposed Waivers.
15. If the development is
proposed to be implemented
in phases, each phase has
adequate infrastructure to
serve the development
independently without the
need for further phased
improvements.
Criteria Met with Waivers: The proposed amendments
to the FDP regarding the proposed booster houses and
associated Waivers will resolve water service pressure
issues the development is currently experiencing which
will service the entire development built out in phases.
16. The proposed development
demonstrates consistency
with the recommendations,
principles, and intent of all
applicable design standards
and guidelines, including but
not limited to buildings, open
spaces, and streetscapes.
Criteria Met with Waivers: The proposed amendments
to the FDP with Waivers are largely consistent with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all design
standards. The building location changes are minimal and
still meet Code requirements but allow buildings to be
located outside of utility easements at rear decks. The
Block B booster house is located within an open space,
but with approval of a Waiver, Staff is supportive of its
location. Lastly, with approval of the street tree Waiver,
the streetscape requirements meet Code.
Preliminary Plat/Final Plat Criteria
Criteria Review
1. Plat Information, Zoning
Code, and Construction
Requirements
Criteria Met: The proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Subdivision regulations.
2. Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and
Bike Path Standards
Criteria Met with Conditions: This proposal is
consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bikepath
standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant
should work with Staff to make any technical
adjustments prior to City Council review. The applicant
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
Case 22-075PP/22-076FP/22-119 AFDP | Towns on the Parkway
Thursday, October 6, 2022
Page 12 of 12
Criteria Review
will need to continue to work with Engineering to
dedicate necessary easements via warranty deed or
another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller
Flats PL 1 LLC property prior to commencement of
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. Utilities Criteria Met: Proposed and existing utility easements
are shown on the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat.
4. Open Space Requirements Criteria Met: Within the BSD, publically accessible open
spaces designations are required through the specific
requirement defined in the Zoning Code and not those
within the Subdivision regulations. The proposal includes
the appropriate open spaces noted on the plats. The
applicant shall continue to work with Staff to finalize any
discrepancies in open space to meet Code requirements
prior to City Council review.
5. Recommendations
Planning Recommendation: Approval of the 4 Waivers highlighted above.
Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with
conditions:
1) The applicant dimension the building separation between buildings 28 and 29, and 26
and 27 in Block D to confirm the separation requirement is met, subject to Staff
approval; and
2) The applicant submits revised plans to Building Standards for any applicable building
permits related to the modifications in the AFDP.
Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat with conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council, including any discrepancies in open space square footage;
2) The applicant continues to work with Engineering to dedicate necessary easements via
warranty deed or another acceptable conveyance mechanism on the Tuller Flats PL1 LLC
property prior to commencement of construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION - REVISED
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 20, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-033FDP Final Development Plan
Proposal: Development of 154 attached, single-family residential units with 0.71
acres of open space on an 11-acre site.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village
Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Request: Review and approve a Final Development Plan under the provisions of
Zoning Code Sections 153.057 - 153.066.
Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte Group/Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-033
MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve four Administrative Departures:
1. §153.062(E)(1)(a)General Building Types — Primary Materials, Minimum Primary Materials
Requirement: A minimum of 80 percent of each building façade visible from a street or adjacent
property, exclusive of windows and doors shall be constructed of prim ary materials.
Request: Permit reductions in primary materials percentages on the following facades of these
Elevation Models:
• Elevation Models 1, 4 and 7; Side Façade (High Impact Option) – 76 percent
• Elevation Models 3, 5 and 6; Side Façade (High Impact Option) – 79 percent
• Elevation Models 5 and 6; Front Elevation – 79 percent
2. §153.062(O)(2)(a)2Single-Family Attached Building Type — Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious lot coverage shall not exceed 70 percent.
Request: Lot coverage for Blocks A, B, and C shall not exceed 77 percent.
3. §153.062(O)(2)(b)Single-Family Attached Building Type — Height
Requirement: That the story heights shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 12 feet in
height.
Request: To permit the 3rd story of the proposed townhouse units to vary from a minimum height
of 9.69 feet, and a maximum height of 12.17 feet.
4. §153.062(O)(2)(d)(2)Single-Family Attached Building Type — Non-Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 15 percent trans parency be provided on all stories of non-street facing
facades.
Page 1 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: A63C7104-F092-443D-B7F7-8C82C3A360FA
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-033FDP Final Development Plan
Request: Reduction in the percentage of non-street facing transparency required for the side facades
of the following Elevation Models to the following percentage:
• Elevation Models 1, 2, 3 and 7; Side Façade; 3rd Story — 12 percent minimum
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The four Administrative Departures were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to approve 10 Waivers:
1. §153.062(E)(1)(a)General Building Types — Primary Materials, Minimum Primary Materials
Requirement: A minimum of 80 percent of each building façade visible from a street or adjacent
property, exclusive of windows and doors shall be constructed of primary materials.
Request: Permit Elevation Models 2 and 3 to provide a minimum of 70 percent primary materials at
the front façade, and for all Elevation Models to provide a minimum of 66 percent primary materials
with the non-High Impact Option.
2. §153.062(E)(1)(d)(h)General Building Types — Permitted Secondary Materials
Requirement: Permitted secondary materials are limited to details and accents and include glass
fiber reinforced gypsum, glass fiber reinforced gypsum, wood siding, fiber -cement siding, metal, and
exterior architectural metal panels and cla dding. Other high quality synthetic materials may be
approved as permitted primary or secondary materials by the required reviewing body with examples
of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates.
Request: Permit architectural details, trim and shutters to be constructed of polyurethane.
3. §153.062(H)(1)(h)General Building Types — Windows, shutters, awnings and canopies, Window
Proportions
Requirement: Windows in single-family detached, single-family attached, apartment building,
podium apartment building, historic mixed-use, and historic cottage commercial building types shall
have vertical proportions with architecturally or historically appropriate window divisions. Horizontally -
oriented windows are permitted for these building types only on non-street facing building façades.
Request: Permit windows with a horizontal orientation on street -facing side elevations.
4. §153.062(O)(2)(a)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious lot coverage for Single-Family Attached Buildings shall not
exceed 70 percent.
Page 2 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: A63C7104-F092-443D-B7F7-8C82C3A360FA
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-033FDP Final Development Plan
Request: Lot coverage for Block D shall not exceed 85 percent.
5. §153.062(O)(2)(b)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Height, Minimum Finished Floor
Elevation (FFE)
Requirement: That the FFE for the ground story be a minimum of 2.5 feet above the height of the
adjacent sidewalk elevation.
Request: To permit the majority of the townhouse units to not meet the minimum 2.5 -foot
difference in elevation between the FFE and the adjacent sidewalk elevation.
6. §153.062(O)(2)(d)(1)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 20 percent transparency be provided on all stories of street facing
facades.
Request: Reduction in the percentage of street facing transparency required for all side facades of all
Elevation Models to the following percentages at street facing side facades:
• Ground Story — 17 percent minimum
• Third Story — 11 percent
7. §153.062(O)(2)(d)(1-2)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Blank Wall Limitations, Street
Facing and Non-Street Facing
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with 15 foot or greater
stretch of façade by windows or other architectural elements.
Request: Permit a maximum 19 foot blank wall along the side facades of all seven Elevation Models
at the ground story and 2nd story.
8. §153.062(O)(2)(d)(2)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Non-Street Facing Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 15 percent transparency be provided on all stories of non -street facing
facades.
Request: Reduction in the percentage of non-street facing transparency required for all rear and side
facades of the following Elevation Models to the following percentages:
• All Elevation Models; Rear Façade--Ground Story — 6 percent minimum
• Elevation Models 4, 5 and 6; Side Façade--3rd Story — 11 percent minimum
9. §153.062(O)(2)(d)(3)Single-Family Attached Building Types — Building Entrance, Number Required
on Street Facade
Requirement: A minimum of one principal building entrance must be located along the street facing
building façade.
Request: Permit Buildings 14 and 16 to not provide a principal building entrance along the street
facing façade.
10. §153. 064(G)(1)Open Space Types — General Requirements, Size
Requirement: Pocket Plazas shall be a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 1,200 square
feet in size and Pocket Parks shall be a minimum of 0.10 and a maximum of 0.50 acre in size.
Request: To permit Pocket Plaza area to expand up to a maximum of 2,778 square feet and Pocket
Park area to reduce to a minimum of 2,778 square feet.
Page 3 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: A63C7104-F092-443D-B7F7-8C82C3A360FA
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-033FDP Final Development Plan
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The 10 Waivers were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
MOTION 3: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with 16
conditions:
1) That the applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street section s, including tree
lawn and sidewalk widths, and adjustments to the on-street parking layout, as necessary, prior to
submitting Final Plat to City Council;
2) That the site staking plan and Final Plat be updated to reflect Corner Side RBZ distances along
Holcomb Street and Seville Street;
3) That proposed roof penetration locations be located on the non-street side of the roof ridge lines,
and that vents and other utility elements be located on the rear façade of the building and painted
to match the color of the adjacent exterior cladding material;
4) That the optional roof terraces be prohibited from the front facade at the end units of any
building and no two adjacent units, in any location, both have front façade roof
terraces;
5) That the Juliet balconies, open porches and stoops comply with all dimensional requirements for
installation and size;
6) That the applicant work with Staff to create a terminal vista along John Shields Parkway in the
area of the mid-block pedestrianway through the specification of Elevation Models that can
provide strong vertical architectural elements flanking the pedestrianway;
7) That the applicant work with Staff to develop a cohesive building to building variety concept that
provides more balance in the amount of diversity proposed within each building through the
measured repetition of Elevation Models and Color Schemes within each building;
8) That the applicant work with Staff to resolve the discrepancies in proposed amount of open space
provided;
9) That the applicant provide supplemental information regarding the u nderground stormwater
management chambers to ensure no conflicts exist with the proposed landscape plans in these
areas, subject to Staff approval and prior to submitting for building permits;
Page 4 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: A63C7104-F092-443D-B7F7-8C82C3A360FA
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-033FDP Final Development Plan
10) That planting plans for all areas of the site to receive landscaping be updated to include plant
specifications, locations and quantities, subject to Staff approval, prior to submitting for building
permits;
11) That the applicant work with Staff to preserve the maximum number of existing street trees along
Tuller Road/Village Parkway, utilizing similar tree protection methods employed during the
construction of Tuller Flats along Tuller Road to the west;
12) That the applicant submit a final detail for space between vehicular driveways, not utilizing gravel
mulch between the driveways, subject to Staff approval;
13) That the applicant work with Staff to refine the planting plan and street wall details to screen the
vehicular-use areas located within 20 feet of any right-of-way, as required by Code;
14) That the applicant revise the layout of the proposed bollard lighting along the mid -block
pedestrianways to a staggered pattern, and provide photometric site data for the areas of the
proposed bollard lighting;
15) That the applicant submit a final phasing, subject to Staff approval, prior to submittal of the Final
Plat to City Council; and
16) That the applicant revise the landscape design details for the gateway corner in
accordance with the Commission discussion specifically to incorporate public art and
to increase granite, brick, and/or other accent materials, subject to Staff approval.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Development Plan was conditionally approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Page 5 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: A63C7104-F092-443D-B7F7-8C82C3A360FA
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 20, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
5. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991
21-034FP Final Plat
Proposal: Subdivision of 11 acres to establish four lots, three public rights -of-way,
and associated easements. The site is zoned Bridge Street District,
Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village
Parkway.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat
under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.057 - 153.066.
Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte Group/Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-034
MOTION: Mr. Grimes, moved, Mr. Supelak seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Final
Plat with four conditions:
1) That the applicant remove all RBZ information from the Final Plat;
2) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council;
3) That the applicant update the open space provisions to align with the Final Development Plan; and
4) That the applicant add public access easements in any areas where publicly accessible open space
is proposed.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Plat was recommended for approval with conditions to City Council and forwarded
for their review.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes _____________________________________
Kim Way Yes Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: A56B9F50-FBE5-42E4-869E-EF7D06F256E5
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 18 of 28
4) The applicant work with Staff to address outstanding landscape concerns prior to building
permitting, subject to Staff approval;
5) The applicant obtain approval from the City of Columbus and City of Dublin of the proposed fire
hydrant location to the satisfaction of the Washington Township Fire Department;
6) The applicant work with staff to ensure proper navigation area for building ingress and egress,
taking into consideration increased accessibility, subject to staff approval.
7) The applicant work with staff to provide additional architectural detail on the front elevation of
the building, including lintels and sills, subject to staff approval.
8) The applicant work with staff to reduce the blacktop area forward of the building while still
accommodating a Washington Township Fire Department fire apparatus, subject to staff
approval.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
4. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991, 21-033FDP, Final
Development Plan
A request for approval of a Final Development Plan (FDP) for 154 attached, single-family residential units
with 0.71 acres of open space. The 11-acre site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center
Neighborhood and is located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway.
5. Towns on the Parkway at PIDs 273-008811 & 273-012991, 21-034FP, Final Plat
A request for approval of a Final Plat for subdivision of 11 acres to establish four lots, three public rights-
of-way, and associated easements. The site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center
Neighborhood, and is located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan and review
and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat for the development of 154 attached
single-family townhomes homes, approximately 0.7-acre of open space, and three public streets on an
±11 acres site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). The Bridge Street District review process
was realigned in 2019 to more closely mimic the Planned Unit Development process. The three steps
required in that development process are Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan and Final
Development Plan. In March 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed a Concept Plan
for the development of 168 attached single-family townhomes, 0.9-acre open space and three public
streets on ±11.6 acres site. In December 2020, the Commission reviewed and approved a Preliminary
Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for 155 attached single-family townhomes, 0.7 acre of open
space, and three public streets. In February 2021, the Commission provided feedback on an Informal
Review of the proposed architecture for the development.
Site
The site is approximately 11 acres in size and is located north of John Shields Parkway, west of Village
Parkway and south of Tuller Road. It is surrounded by existing development, including Tuller Flats to the
west, existing office and hotel buildings to the north, Dublin Village Center to the east, and the Greystone
Mews neighborhood to the south.
Proposal
The Final Development Plan (FDP) proposal is to establish 4 blocks of development with 154 attached
single-family units distributed across 29 buildings, which vary in size from three units to eight units, with
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 19 of 28
0.7-acre of open space. The open space will include 3 pocket plazas and 4 pocket parks. Because the
amount of open space provided is deficient 3,000 square feet, a condition to the approval will require
the applicant to work with staff to submit a revised open space plan. Landscape details have been
provided. Details regarding benches, bikeracks, pavers and screening are also included with the FDP.
Conceptual renderings of the gateway character at the intersection of John Shields and Village Parkway
were included in the packet. With a FDP, in addition to the site-specific standards, the Commission is
tasked with reviewing the proposal in regard to building type requirements. Building types are generally
based on use and form. The Single-Family attached building type is the building type in this development,
which establishes the site standards. Some waivers and administrative departures were approved with
the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) due to the curvature of the surrounding street network;
however, an additional waiver is needed for Block D due to the increase in impervious lot coverage in
that block. With the FDP, all building and architectural standards are required to be met. If not met,
Administrative Departures and Waivers are required, as are requested with this FDP. The applicant has
worked to incorporate the Commission’s feedback and staff’s comments and established seven
architectural unit types. The intent is that these unit types will be combined in various groupings to
provide architectural diversity. The Commission had requested a traditional architectural character for
this neighborhood, which has been reflected in the final design. The designs are primarily clad in brick
and cementitious siding. Many of the unique architectural features will be fabricated from polyurethane,
which permits additional architectural detailing and is resilient and maintenance-free. Staff recommends
approval of a Waiver to permit this material. [description of architectural details]. The applicant has
provided a variety in side and rear elevations, which vary based on the footprint of the unit. [photo of
typical rear elevation shown.] There are two gateway elevations. They will not have rooftop balconies,
but will have a closed, full roofline to accent the open space. Five material color schemes were provided.
They will be combined based on the architectural features of each unit type. A detailed building variety
plan and a number of architectural character renderings were provided for the Commission’s review.
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the applicable criteria and recommends the Commission’s
approval of 4 administrative departures; approval of 10 waivers and disapproval of 2 waivers; approval
of the FDP with 16 conditions; and a recommendation for City Council approval of the Final Plat with 4
conditions.
Applicant Presentation
Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, Ohio, stated that the architect
has tried to incorporate all of the input provided by the Commission during the past reviews. Casto has
owned this property for several years, and recognized that an apartment development is not desired
here. PulteHomes is able to provide the product the community needs within the Bridge Street District.
They believe it will fit well within the greater fabric of the community. This project has evolved over
time, and they are now presenting the fourth design iteration. When they began this development
process, the anticipated price point of the units was $300,000 - $350,000. With the changes that have
been made as a result of the Commission’s direction, the price point has increased to the $400,000 -
$500,000. They have no issue with most of staff’s recommendations; however, there are two Final
Development Plan (FDP) conditions they would like to discuss:
(3) Use of polyurethane trim. It is important to be able to use that material on all buildin g elevations;
and
(5) Rooftop terraces should be prohibited from locations at end units of buildings. They would like
to have the ability to include rooftop terraces at the rear of the end elevations, which would be
less impactful than front terraces.
Keith Filipkowski, Director of Construction Operations, PulteGroup, 475 S. Metro Place, Dublin, 43017,
stated that at the last review, there was general support for a traditional architectural style, so that has
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 20 of 28
been maintained. With these most-recent improvements, they have attempted to focus on the front
entranceways. They have complied with Code in terms of the dep ths of the porches. For any full covered
porches, there will be a 6-foot clear space, which will provide usable opportunities. They have articulated
the appearance of the rooftop terraces, front and rear, and how those will be incorporated with the
interrupted roof ridgelines. They have proposed that in the instances where front rooftop terraces are
provided, they occur with the unit elevations that have the raised roof. That will allow the terraces to be
hid within the envelope of the existing roof condition. They have also worked on the appearance of the
architecture on the side and rear elevations, incorporating some specialty masonry details. There is an
elevated sense of architecture for the gateway in the southeast corner. They believe they have responded
to all of the Commission’s comments to the extent possible. With respect to the polyurethane trim –
achieving the finer details in the trim that will be provided with the front entryways requires use of a
material that permits those details. In his research, he has not found another material that offers a pre-
manufactured solution that will ensure quality. They have requested use of that material be permitted
on the ground level of the units. In terms of the end unit rooftop terraces, the intent is to offer the
rooftop terraces on the front elevations of those units with raised roofs. Rear rooftop terraces would be
available for any of the units, including end units, as the end units are the premium units on any building.
They will address the visibility factor for both the unit owners and the public.
Commission Questions
Mr. Supelak inquired if the units would not be built until the buyers had made selections re. elevations
and balcony details, or would the construction be completed first and the units subsequently sold.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that the building string would be identified first, working with staff to ensure
a mutually agreeable building variety. After those elements are identified, buyers would be offered an
option of interior structural options associated with the units. The rooftop terrace would also be an
option. Ideally, the units would be sold before construction begins, but that may not occur. Construction
may begin with a 50% sold occupancy.
Mr. Supelak inquired if there would be other exterior elements on which the buyers would have discretion
in addition to the rooftop terraces.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that they would have no other discretion on the exterior elements.
Ms. Fox inquired if all buyers of units would be permitted to s elect a rooftop terrace on the front elevation.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that a front rooftop terrace would be available only for units with raised roof
heights.
Ms. Fox inquired if that might mean only two or three of six units that would have raised roof heights.
Mr. Filipkowski responded affirmatively. Rear rooftop terraces, however, would be available for any of
the units, although not both front and rear on the same unit.
Ms. Fox complimented Mr. Filipkowski on the many attractive architectural changes made. She remains
concerned about the potential appearance of the front rooftop terraces on the streetscape. She also
would like to have clarification of the polyurethane trim material that is proposed. Will a particular brand
be used; does it have a warranty; and what is its durability for both lower and upper levels?
Mr. Filipkowski responded that the intent is to use Fypon for the decorative trim. It is an excellent product
both in terms of durability and appearance sustainability. They are very comfortable with the product
and use it for much of their single-family and townhome architecture.
Ms. Call requested staff’s comments concerning the product. Is it a product typically used within the City,
and if so, is distinction made between its use at ground or upper levels?
Ms. Martin responded that there is precedent for this type of product being requested in the Bridge
Street District; however, previously, it has not been approved. There may be merit here, given the fact
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 21 of 28
that this type of architecture is far more detailed than the modern, streamlined forms existing elsewhere
in the District. Staff recommended approval of the synthetic material on the upper stories, but had
recommended wood or an alternate synthetic material be used on the ground story. The architect has
indicated that potentially, some of the architectural detailing may need to be simplified at the ground
story if made from a natural material. Historically, however, this material has not been approved.
Mr. Schneier inquired if the box bays and Juliete balconies would be ornamental only. Although the
Juliete balcony has doors, the depth would not accommodate use.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that the Juliete balcony projection is 12 inches. Code permits it to project up
to 24 inches but not extend 6 inches past the fenestration. Although, they did not provide a dimension
in the materials, they would ensure they were compliant with Code.
Mr. Fishman inquired if this is a condominium project with an homeowner association (HOA) responsible
for maintenance of the buildings.
Mr. Underhill responded affirmatively.
Mr. Fishman stated that previously, polyurethane material has not been approved. He has observed
many polyurethane windows that are faded, warped and damaged. What is PulteHome’s history of use
with this trim material?
Mr. Filipkowski responded that Fypon is a proven, superior industry material. The geometry of a long
fence plank is different than that of compact corbels and dentils, which would not readily permit warpage.
Pulte Homes has one of the best warranties in the industry, including on materials, mechanical plumbing,
water infiltration and structural. They stand behind their products, as does Fypon. Field-built trim that is
not being painted or otherwise maintained has potential to rot, warp and twist.
Mr. Fishman inquired if there is a site the Commission could visit and view use of the material, such as
single-family homes that would now have some age.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that there would be examples that they could identify and provide to the
Commission, if not on a Pulte Home, perhaps on an older home.
Mr. Fishman stated that this is a large project within Bridge Park, and its character will be impactful as
it ages. Using quality materials on a project this size is very important in such a prominent location. He
is unfamiliar with the product and would like to view the product in use and with age – 10 years old,
perhaps. How long has this product existed?
Mr. Filipkowski responded that he is unsure about its inception of use. However, their concern is the
same as the Commission’s, and in their opinion, the best product to use is the Fypon. Otherwise, they
would not suggest it.
Mr. Fishman stated that, regardless, he would like to see it aged. Has Mr. Filipkowski personally viewed
it in an aged condition? This is a very important project, on which slim brick also is being permitted, and
he has serious concerns about the quality and longevity.
Mr. Filipkowski clarified that they have proposed real brick for the project rather than slim brick.
Mr. Fishman thanked him for the clarification. Quality and longevity are the important elements to him.
He has seen many other products that did not meet the anticipated expectations.
Ms. Fox inquired if Fypon is the white, solid synthetic material that can be purchased at many lumber
and Home Depot stores. It looks like wood with a simulated wood grain.
Mr. Filipkowski responded that he believes that is a less durable, composite material. The same
articulation in moldings cannot be found in the products in those stores. They will be using a product
with specialty details consistent with traditional architecture.
Ms. Fox stated that she raised the question because there are concerns about durability of the product,
and she has had the experience of replacing wood window trim that had rotted 2 or 3 times. It was
replaced with an alternative synthetic product approximately 10 years ago, and today, looks just like the
original wood product. It has resisted all water damage and remained consistent in both hot and cold
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 22 of 28
temperatures. She is not opposed to a synthetic product, particularly if he would have to simplify the
architectural details. If staff is convinced that the product will meet the required durability and aesthetic
standards, it could be appropriate when this level of detailing is desired.
Mr. Supelak requested clarification of the amount of open space. One of the waivers would permit 27,000
square feet where 30,000 is required, but the plan indicates 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Underhill responded that his understanding is that it will be 30,000 square feet. He requested Mr.
Chillog to address the question.
Greg Chillog, Planner/Landscape Architect, Edge Group, 330 W Spring St, #350, Columbus, OH 43215
stated that as a result of recent discussions with staff, it is now essentially a technical or accounting
issue. Some of the boundaries depicted on the submittal have been revised and other boundaries
adjusted to make up the deficiency. When the report was written, the amount of space was deficient
because of an inaccurate boundary, but they have now identified a way to remedy the deficiency.
Mr. Way referred to the C-1 Pocket Park. A low, curvilinear wall is shown in the plans, but there is no
reference to what material is used.
Mr. Chillog responded that is actually curb detail, so would be made of concrete.
Mr. Way inquired if it would not be made of granite, which would match the planters along the street.
Mr. Chillog responded that it would not be granite.
Mr. Way inquired about the wood fence that ties two of the buildings together.
Ms. Call inquired if that is the same wood fence for which staff is recommending disapproval.
Ms. Martin responded affirmatively.
Mr. Way stated that if that means the fence will be eliminated, he is supportive of that decision.
Commission Discussion
Ms. Fox reiterated her compliments on the architecture. The changes made have elevated this project
to a level that she is confident will be proven to be timeless and attractive. She appreciates the applicant’s
responsiveness to the Commission’s previous comments. If staff is confident, she would be supportive
of the use of polyurethane for this project. She is not supportive of giving choices with the front rooftop
terraces. She has no concerns with rooftop terraces on the rear elevation. Great care has been taken
with creating the architectural variety, and she is concerned that the front rooftop terraces could become
the focal point instead of the attractive architecture. In regard to the detail at the rear of the buildings,
the balconies and the garages appear all the same, which is a disservice to the rest of the architecture.
Could the garage door styles and railing materials be varied for particular units? At the street level, all
the garages appear the same. She drove through Bridge Park earlier and observed that many of the
Juliete balconies in Bridge Park, even the smallest, contained chairs. These balconies are popular,
providing opportunity to sit outside. She would prefer a modification that would permit these balconies
to be 3 feet deep, which would permit an individual to sit on their balcony. It would provide more interest
and activate the street. The pocket park is located at a significant, gateway corner. She would like to
see that be more interestingly designed and landscaped – perhaps with some artwork or a fountain,
something that sets it off as the entrance to neighborhood. The entrances to Greystone Mews, next
door, are designed more comprehensively and distinctively. Another issue, which also was pointed out
by staff, is that some of the elevations look the same; for example, Elevations 3 and 5 look the same,
as do Elevations 3 and 6. As depicted, only a change in materials has been made. It is important that
staff work with the architect to ensure there is a good variation from one building to another, even if it
means an additional style is necessary.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 23 of 28
Mr. Fishman stated that he assumes this project will have a well-funded HOA, which would have the
responsibility of addressing any issues with the appearance of the polyurethane. He appreciates that the
applicant took the Commission’s previous comments into consideration. He was pleased to learn that
instead of thin brick, full brick will be used, which reflects quality. He agrees with Ms. Fox’s preference
to see the rooftop balconies at the back, not the front, and that the Juliete balconies be usable. Those
that currently exist in the District are being used. He appreciates all the efforts made on this project.
Mr. Supelak stated that this project is architecturally rich and detailed. This has not been easily achieved,
given the array of styles present. Although a good variety has been provided, if that variety is evenly
distributed, it becomes homogenous in a different way. That is the danger at this point. It has been
some time since he last used Fypon, but he could be convinced of its use on the lower level. Wood
cannot be detailed as well as Fypon, a molded, synthetic material. Perhaps it would be beneficial for the
Commission to view an actual sample before committing to its use. He agrees that there is a need for
a focal element in the gateway park and the park in the southwest corner. He agrees that there are
opportunities to add some variation in the garages – the Clopay catalog offers several designs. Variation
in the rails on the upper balconies would also improve the appearance of the rear of these buildings. He
really appreciates the high-impact ends – the box bays at the gateway and the herringbone details. He
believes a few more could be added, particularly near the main park on the west side. Buildings 14, 15
and 16 have ends in proximity to the park, where there will be significant foot traffic. The ends of those
buildings would benefit from having box bay bumpouts. Aside from those suggestions, this is an
attractive project. Kudos to the applicant for navigating this process with the Commission.
Mr. Grimes stated that there has been a thoughtful development of this project. In regard to the
polyurethane project – perhaps this is the time to try it. The materials may be what is needed to
differentiate this project. He likes the idea of a 3-foot Juliete balcony. He has no objection to both front
and rear terraces. It is obvious from the number of waivers and conditions that staff has worked diligently
with the applicant to be responsive to the Commission’s previous comments. He thanks the applicant for
offering this beautiful project; he would like to see it happen.
Mr. Schneier stated that this iterative process has yielded a fantastic result. He echoes a couple of his
fellow Commissioners’ comments. Having the Juliete balconies be functional would be preferable and
consistent with the City’s desire to encourage opportunities for people to be outside and offering both
front and rear rooftop terraces is a plus. He has no objection to the polyurethane material. The joint
effort invested has achieved an excellent result.
Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with fellow Commissioners’ comments.
Mr. Way stated that, as a new member on the Commission, this is his first review of the proposal. This
is an incredible project and will be a great addition to this area. He is amazed at the amount of investment
made in the “look and feel” of this development. It is spectacular. His only comment also concerns the
gateway corner, which at this point is not reflecting a “gateway” impression. Some additional elements
could make the difference. He does not believe a concrete seatwall there would fit. The planters along
the street are granite. If that feature were to be used here, stone should be used.
Ms. Call requested clarification on the direction the Commission desires to give on the polyurethane and
prohibiting rooftop terraces on the end units. The applicant has requested ability to offer rear terraces
only on the end units.
Ms. Fox stated that she had not realized that a terrace, either front or rear, would be available on every
unit. Her concern is that the feel of the front terraces does not appear to match the lower architecture.
They appear to be cut out with only a rail added. Could they limit the number available on a building or
could better integration with the lower architecture be achieved?
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 24 of 28
Mr. Supelak inquired if the percent of terraces at the front could be limited to a certain percent.
Ms. Fox stated that they are only permitted on the units with the higher roofs, so are already somewhat
restricted. However, the front terraces will change the view at the street level, so should they be
permitted?
[Number and percentage of front terraces discussed.]
Ms. Fox stated that the reason she encouraged deep porch stoops and usable Juliete balconies was to
offer ability for outdoor activity at the front and perhaps have less need for front terraces. She has no
objection to the terraces at the rear, but would prefer not to see them on the front.
Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with Ms. Fox’s position. What the architect has achieved with the
beautiful architecture could be minimized with views of the front rooftop terraces.
Mr. Way stated that the Commission should see what 3-foot Juliete balconies would look like. He is not
sure the Commission would like that look within the composition of these facades. He could not support
that without first understanding how they would look.
Mr. Fishman agreed.
Ms. Call stated that it would be a shame for this project to come this far, then, at this point, require 3-
foot balconies that we may not like the look of when constructed. It would be a disservice to the
applicant, the Commission and to the City itself. We have an application on the table, and the
Commission needs to make a decision on the conditions proposed. She has seen polyurethane peel and
that material gives her some unease. Although an HOA will be responsible, it is preferable that there be
no issues to address. The other condition in question is permitting terraces on the end units. In regard
to front terraces, the roof articulation will limit the number of front terraces and prevent any two being
side-by-side. What is the Commission’s position on permitting some front terraces?
Mr. Supelak clarified that where there is a choice, front/parkside terraces will be the choice, so a
maximum of 50% of the units would have front terraces.
Mr. Filipkowski clarified that in the instance where there is a reverse gable at the front or a box bay that
engages with the main roof, that architectural element would not be disturbed. Rooftop terraces would
not be available on those units, so the percentage of front terraces would be further limited. This plan
has evolved, and although a terrace railing system with trim on the ends was proposed with the earlier
iteration, that is no longer included. With 3.5 stories and parapet walls, the front terraces will be much
less visible.
Ms. Fox stated that she would prefer the Juliete balconies be somewhat usable, but that will be an
architectural decision.
Ms. Call inquired if there was consensus on permitting the poly urethane on both upper and lower stories.
[Commission indicated consensus.] There was no request for staff to view material samples.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any questions or objections to the condition concerning landscape
design details in the gateway park.
Mr. Underhill responded that a fountain would be difficult to add at this point, but they would look into
opportunities for addition of artwork.
Ms. Martin indicated that it would be staff’s expectation that granite be incorporated into the landscape
design instead of concrete, which would result in a mix of materials, brick, granite and concrete.
Matt Callahan, Pulte Homes, 475 Metro Place S., Dublin, 43017, requested the recommendation to be
clarified.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 25 of 28
Ms. Martin responded that the recommendation was to replace the concrete curb and/or seatwall with
granite. It would not be a holistic redesign of that space but an elevation of the material selections in
the gateway open space only.
Mr. Callahan responded that they would work with staff to identify the right material solution there.
Ms. Call inquired if there was consensus on adding variety to the garage detail and railing.
(There was insufficient support to add that condition.)
Mr. Supelak noted that it would remain a suggestion, not a requirement.
[Conditions were reviewed and clarified.]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following 4 Administrative Departures:
1. Section 153.062(E)(1)(a). General Building Types - Primary Materials, Minimum Primary
Materials.
Requirement: A minimum of 80 percent of each building façade visible from a street or
adjacent property, exclusive of windows and doors to be constructed of primary materials.
Departure: Permit reductions in primary material percentages on facades with the following
Elevation Models:
• Elevation Models 1, 4 and 7; Side Façade (High Impact Option) – 76 percent
• Elevation Models 3, 5 and 6; Side Façade (High Impact Option) – 79 percent
• Elevation Models 5 and 6; Front Elevation – 79 percent
2. Section 153.062(O)(2)(a)2. Single-Family Attached Building Type - Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious lot coverage shall not exceed 70 percent.
Departure: Lot coverage for Blocks A, B, and C shall not exceed 77 percent.
3. Section 153.062(O)(2)(b). Single-Family Attached Building Type - Height
Requirement: Story heights shall be a minimum of 10 feet and maximum of 12 feet in height.
Departure: Permit the 3rd story of proposed townhouse units to vary from a minimum height
of 9.69 feet, and a maximum height of 12.17 feet.
4. Section 153.062(O)(2)(d)(2). Single-Family Attached Building Type - Non-Street Facing
Transparency
Requirement: Minimum of 15 percent transparency be provided on all stories of non-street
facing facades.
Departure: Permit 12 percent transparency for side facades of Elevation Models 1, 2, 3, and 7.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak,
yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the following 10 Waivers recommended by staff:
1. Section 153.062(E)(1)(a) General Building Types - Primary Materials, Minimum Primary
Materials
Requirement: A minimum of 80 percent of each building façade visible from a street or adjacent
property, exclusive of windows and doors shall be constructed of primary materials.
Request: Permit Elevation Models 2 and 3 to provide a minimum of 70 percent primary materials
at the front façade, and for all Elevation Models to provide a minimum of 66 percent primary
materials with the non-High Impact Option.
2. Section 153.062(E)(1)(d)(h) General Building Types - Permitted Secondary Materials
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 26 of 28
Requirement: Permitted secondary materials are limited to details and accents and include glass
fiber reinforced gypsum, glass fiber reinforced gypsum, wood siding, fiber-cement siding, metal,
and exterior architectural metal panels and cladding. Other high quality synthetic materials may
be approved as permitted primary or secondary materials by the required reviewing body with
examples of successful, high quality installations in comparable climates.
Request: Permit architectural details, trim and shutters to be constructed of polyurethane.
3. Section 153.062(H)(1)(h) General Building Types - Windows, shutters, awnings and canopies,
Window Proportions
Requirement: Windows in single-family detached, single-family attached, apartment building,
podium apartment building, historic mixed-use, and historic cottage commercial building types
shall have vertical proportions with architecturally or historically appropriate window divisions.
Horizontally-oriented windows are permitted for these building types only on non-street facing
building façades.
Request: Permit windows with a horizontal orientation on street-facing side elevations.
4. Section 153.062(O)(2)(a) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Lot Coverage
Requirement: Maximum impervious lot coverage for Single-Family Attached Buildings shall not
exceed 70 percent.
Request: Lot coverage for Block D shall not exceed 85 percent.
5. Section 153.062(O)(2)(b) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Height, Minimum Finished
Floor Elevation (FFE)
Requirement: That the FFE for the ground story be a minimum of 2.5 feet above the height of
the adjacent sidewalk elevation.
Request: To permit the majority of the townhouse units to not meet the minimum 2.5-foot
difference in elevation between the FFE and the adjacent sidewalk elevation.
6. Section 153.062(O)(2)(d)(1) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Street Facing
Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 20 percent transparency be provided on all stories of street facing
facades.
Request: Reduction in the percentage of street facing transparency required for all side facades
of all Elevation Models to the following percentages at street facing side facades:
• Ground Story - 17 percent minimum
• Third Story - 11 percent
7. Section 153.062(O)(2)(d)(1-2) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Blank Wall Limitations,
Street Facing and Non-Street Facing
Requirement: Blank walls are not permitted. A blank wall is an elevation with 15 foot or greater
stretch of façade by windows or other architectural elements.
Request: Permit a maximum 19 foot blank wall along the side facades of all seven Elevation
Models at the ground story and 2nd story.
8. Section 153.062(O)(2)(d)(2) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Non-Street Facing
Transparency
Requirement: A minimum 15 percent transparency be provided on all stories of non-street facing
facades.
Request: Reduction in the percentage of non-street facing transparency required for all rear and
side facades of the following Elevation Models to the following percentages:
• All Elevation Models; Rear Façade--Ground Story - 6 percent minimum
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 27 of 28
• Elevation Models 4, 5 and 6; Side Façade--3rd Story - 11 percent minimum
9. Section 153.062(O)(2)(d)(3) Single-Family Attached Building Types - Building Entrance, Number
Required on Street Facade
Requirement: A minimum of one principal building entrance must be located along the street
facing building façade.
Request: Permit Buildings 14 and 16 to not provide a principal building entrance along the street
facing façade.
10. Section 153.064(G)(1) Open Space Types - General Requirements, Size
Requirement: Pocket Plazas shall be a minimum of 300 square feet and a maximum of 1,200
square feet in size and Pocket Parks shall be a minimum of 0.10 and a maximum of 0.50 acre in
size.
Request: To permit Pocket Plaza area to expand up to a maximum of 2,778 square feet and
Pocket Park area to reduce to a minimum of 2,778 square feet.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr.
Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with 16 conditions:
1) The applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including tree
lawn and sidewalk widths, and adjustments to the on-street parking layout, as necessary, prior
to submitting Final Plat to City Council;
2) That the site staking plan and Final Plat be updated to reflect Corner Side RBZ distances along
Holcomb Street and Seville Street;
3) That proposed roof penetration locations be located on the non-street side of the roof ridge
lines, and that vents and other utility elements be located on the rear façade of the building
and painted to match the color of the adjacent exterior cladding material;
4) That the optional roof terraces be prohibited from the front façade of the end units of any
building; and no two adjacent units, in any location, both have front terraces;
5) That the Juliet balconies, open porches and stoops comply with all dimensional requirements
for installation and size;
6) That the applicant work with staff to create a terminal vista along John Shields Parkway in the
area of the mid-block pedestrianway through the specification of Elevation Models that can
provide strong vertical architectural elements flanking the pedestrianway;
7) The applicant work with staff to develop a cohesive building to building variety concept that
provides more balance in she amount of diversity proposed within each building through the
measured repetition of elevation models and color schemes within each building;
8) That the applicant work with staff to resolve the discrepancies in proposed amount of open
space provided;
9) That the applicant provide supplemental information regarding the underground stormwater
management chambers to ensure no conflicts exist with the proposed landscape plans in these
areas, subject to staff approval and prior to submitting for building permits;
10) That planting plans for all areas of the site to receive landscaping be updated to include plant
specifications, locations and quantities, subject to Staff approval prior to submitting for building
permits;
11) That the applicant work with staff to preserve the maximum number of existing street trees
along Tuller Road/Village Parkway, utilizing similar tree protection methods employed during
the construction of Tuller Flats along Tuller Road to the west;
12) The applicant submit a final detail for space between vehicular driveways, not utilizing gravel
mulch between the driveways, subject to staff approval;
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021
Page 28 of 28
13) That the applicant work with staff to refine the planting plan and street wall details to screen
the vehicular use areas located within 20 feet of any right-of-way, as required by code;
14) That the applicant revise the layout of the proposed bollard lighting along the mid-block
pedestrianways to a staggered pattern, and provide photometric site data for the areas of the
proposed bollard lighting;
15) The applicant submit a final phasing, subject to staff approval, prior to submittal of the Final
Plat to City Council.
16) The applicant revise the landscape design details for the gateway corner in accordance with
the Commission discussion specifically to incorporate public art and to increase granite, brick,
and/or other accent materials, subject to staff approval.
Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox,
yes; Mr. Grimes, yes.
Mr. Grimes, moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Final Plat with 4 conditions:
1) The applicant remove all RBZ information from the Final Plat;
2) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council;
3) The applicant update the open space provisions to align with the Final Development Plan;
4) The applicant add public access easements in any areas where publicly accessible open space
is proposed.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak,
yes; Mr. Way, yes.
Ms. Call thanked the applicants for working with the Commission on this product -- 90% of which was
invested by the applicants.
Mr. Underhill responded that the process has resulted in a fantastic product. This is a good example of
how public-private partnerships can work.
COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission thanked staff for the joint training session on May 17. The goal is that the bodies
will continue to improve their team effort, which will be constructive for applicants, staff and
members.
Ms. Fox indicated that Council has begun discussion of “big ideas” for the 2035 Framework Plan.
Commissioners will be involved in the envisioning process, as it continues. She would provide
more details at the next meeting.
The next regular meeting of PZC is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Thursday, June 3, 2021.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Rebecca Call
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Judith K. Beal
Assistant Clerk of Council
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, December 10, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-159PDP-WR Preliminary Development Plan/Waiver Review
Proposal: Construction of a 155-unit, attached, single-family residential
development with buildings to include three to seven units per building on
an 11.61-acre site.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway wi th Village
Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Request: Review and review a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions
of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte and Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-159
MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to approve two Administrative Departures as
follows:
1. §153.060(C)(2)(a) — Maximum Block Size
Requirement: One side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length.
Request: 505-foot block length (Block 1) along John Shields Parkway.
2. §153.062(O)(2)(b) — Story Height
Requirement: 10 feet minimum – 12 feet maximum for each story.
Request: Minimum 9.5 feet measured floor to floor.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The two Administrative Departures were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Page 1 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-159PDP-WR Preliminary Development Plan/Waiver Review
MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to approve a Parking Plan as follows:
1. To permit four parking spaces per unit where 125% of the minimum of two spaces per unit is the
maximum; and
2. To permit parking and vehicular use areas within Required Build Zones where buildings are required to
be located.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Parking Plan was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
MOTION 3: Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to approve four Waivers as follows:
1. §153.062(O)(2)(a)(1) — Front Property Line Coverage
Requirement: Minimum 75% coverage.
Request: Block 2: McCune Avenue=58%; Block 3: Village Parkway=27%; and, Block 4: McCune
Avenue=52%
2. §153.062(O)(2)(a)(1) — Occupation of Corner Required
Requirement: Buildings are required to occupy corners of each block.
Request: To permit deviation from buildings occupying the corner.
3. §153.062(D)(2)(b) – Roof Type Requirements – Roof Pitch
Requirement: The principal roof shall have a pitch appropriate to the architectural style. Roofs shall
not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12, unless otherwise determined to be
architecturally appropriate.
Request: Decorative eaves with a 24:12 (2 percent) pitch.
4. §153.062(E)(1)(c) – Permitted Primary Materials
Requirement: Permitted primary materials are stone, manufactured stone, full depth brick, and
glass.
Request: Permit thin brick as a primary permitted material.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The four Waivers as written above were approved.
Page 2 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-159PDP-WR Preliminary Development Plan/Waiver Review
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
MOTION 4: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following Waiver:
1. Planning recommends approval of the following Waiver:
§153.062(D)(2)(c) – Roof Type Requirements – Parallel Ridge Line
Requirement: When the principal ridge line is parallel to the street: Gable ends, perpendicular ridge
lines, or dormers shall be incorporated to interrupt the mass of the roof.
Request: No architectural element to interrupt the parallel ridge line.
VOTE: 0 – 7.
RESULT: This Waiver was disapproved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox No
Warren Fishman No
Kristina Kennedy No
Mark Supelak No
Rebecca Call No
Leo Grimes No
Lance Schneier No
MOTION 5: Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Fox seconded approval of the following Waiver:
1. §153.064(G)(b) – Open Space Proportions
Requirement: All open Space Types (except the Greenway) shall be sized at a ratio of not more than
3:1, length to width.
Request: To not meet the minimum proportions for Pocket Plazas B, F, G H, and I.
VOTE: 0 – 7.
RESULT: This Waiver was disapproved.
Page 3 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-159PDP-WR Preliminary Development Plan/Waiver Review
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox No
Warren Fishman No
Kristina Kennedy No
Mark Supelak No
Rebecca Call No
Leo Grimes No
Lance Schneier No
MOTION 6: Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to approve a Preliminary Development Plan
with 14 conditions:
1) That the applicant update the plans to reflect 154 units;
2) That the applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including on -
street parking and tree lawn widths, prior to the Final Development Plan submittal;
3) That the applicant provide Washington Township Fire Department an auto-turn analysis with the
Final Development Plan, and locate/designate a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR);
4) That the applicant meet the provisions of 153.062(D)(2)(c) — Parallel Ridge Line, to provide
architectural details to break up the mass of the roofline with the Final Development Plan
submittal;
5) That the applicant provide a minimum 3-foot variability to the roof height between each unit,
unless an alternative design solution reaching the same result is approved by the PZC with the
Final Development Plan, as determined at its sole discretion;
6) That the applicant use corner-piece design to emulate full-depth brick, in the application of thin
brick;
7) That the applicant meet the required 80 percent coverage of primary building materials along
street-facing facades for all buildings with submittal of the Final Development Plan;
8) That the applicant works with staff on an appropriate location and screening of A/C units and
refuse containers, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan;
9) That all parking and vehicular use areas located within a Required Build Zone are screened with a
treatment that provides 100 percent opacity;
10) That the applicant work with Staff to provide a minimum 50 percent of the total required bicycle
parking spaces within open space areas;
11) That the applicant work with Staff to provide the total required amount of open space with the
Final Development Plan;
Page 4 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
4. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-159PDP-WR Preliminary Development Plan/Waiver Review
12) That the plans be revised to provide the required mid-block pedestrian way in Block 4 prior to
Final Development Plan submittal;
13) That the architectural style be revised to ensure that each unit appears as an individual attached
single-family home; and
14) That the applicant work with staff to ensure the front elevations provide traditional elements such
as stoops, porches, columns, awnings and brick walks.
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
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Page 5 of 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, December 10, 2020 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
5. Tuller Road Townhomes PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991
20-158PP Preliminary Plat
Proposal: Preliminary Plat of ±11.61 acres to create four lots and three public
rights-of-way to accommodate a residential development of 155 attached,
single-family units with buildings to include three to seven units per
building.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village
Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary
Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicant: Matt Callahan, Pulte and Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-158
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
Preliminary Plat with two conditions:
1) That the applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot; and
2) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat , prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The Preliminary Plat was conditionally recommended for approval and forwarded to City
Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Planner II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AE64110-F73C-4DA9-A246-E469F1B0D002
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 8 of 16
4. Tuller Road Townhomes at PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991, Preliminary Development
Plan, 20-159PDP
Construction of a 155-unit, attached, single-family residential development with buildings to include three to
seven units per building on an 11.61-acre site located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway
with Village Parkway and zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
5. Tuller Road Townhomes at PIDs: 273-008811 & 273-012991, Preliminary Plat, 20-158PP
A Preliminary Plat of ±11.61 acres to create four lots and three public rights-of-way to accommodate a
residential development of 155 attached, single-family units with buildings to include three to seven units per
building on a site located northwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway with Village Parkway and
zoned Bridge Street District Sawmill Center Neighborhood.
Case Presentation
Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and review
and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat. The development will be comprised of
155 attached single-family townhomes homes on 0.7 acres of open space and 3 public streets on a ±11 acre
site located within the Bridge Street District (BSD). This differs from a Planned Unit Development (PUD), as
no rezoning is required. The zoning standards within the Bridge Street District are already established, and
the uses are permitted. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Village Parkway and John Shields
Parkway. The site is comprised of two parcels and a tree line bisects the site. It is necessary to consider
projects within the context of the Bridge Street District (BSD) Special Area Plan, which was adopted by City
Council in 2010 and is included in the Community Plan. The BSD Special Area Plan provides recommendations
for land use and character. This site is zoned BSD-SCN, Sawmill Center Neighborhood District. The intent of
the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, as outlined in the BSD Code, is to provide an active mixed-use environment
through unique shopping, service and entertainment uses with supporting residential and office uses.
Townhomes and multifamily buildings are recommended. A gateway is identified at the intersection of Village
Parkway and John Shields Parkway. Neighborhood districts allow for special attention to be given to location
and character of streets, buildings and open spaces with an emphasis on a coordinated mix of uses. The BSD
Code is built upon a Street Network Framework map, which calls for a ‘T’ intersection at Village Parkway and
Tuller Road. That intersection is located beyond this particular site, and the associated right-of-way is within
the City’s jurisdiction. As proposed in March 2020, the applicant had planned to incorporate that intersection
improvement in this project in partnership with the City. In subsequent conversations, the City has decided
that the intersection improvements in that area will be deferred; therefore, the applicant has re-designed the
plan within the boundaries of the site. This is a Preliminary Development Plan, and similar to a Planned District,
a subsequent Final Development Plan will permit a final review of all details associated with the project. In
the Preliminary Development stage, the uses are evaluated. A townhome dwelling is a permitted use on this
site. Both the Sawmill Neighborhood standards and the Street Network Map are applicable. The lots and blocks
are established with the Preliminary Development, establishing the framework for the development. Building
layout, form and height are confirmed in this stage, as well as the amount and location of open space. Parking
is the final element of the Preliminary Development Plan. The Final Development Plan provides building type
requirements, including materials, architectural details and finishes; the design of the open space; and
landscaping and lighting of the public realm.
Proposal
The proposal is for 154 attached single-family units distributed across 30 buildings varying in size from 4 units
to 7 units and 0.7 acres of open space. The proposal also includes the extension of McCune Avenue and two
new public streets (Grafton Street and Hobbs Landing Drive West), which will provide access to interior private
drives accessing private two-car garages for each unit. Compliance with the Street Network Map results in the
creation of a proposal that establishes four blocks. The Code includes standards for maximum block
dimensions. In the Sawmill Center Neighborhood, any one side of a block may not exceed 500 feet in length,
and the cumulative total of the perimeter of all sides of block may not exceed 1,750 feet in length. All the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 9 of 16
block lengths are compliant with the exception of the southern length of Block 1, which has a length of 505
feet along John Shields Parkway. The block length is a direct result of the curvature of John Shields Parkway.
Staff is supportive of an Administrative Departure to deviate from the numeric standard by 5 feet.
In reviewing the building layout, it is important to consider the Code constraints on the building placements.
The build zone for a single-family, attached building type requires a minimum 5-foot setback, but the building
must be located within 20 feet of the property line. The proposal meets this requirement in all locations. Front
property coverage is also required, which is the percentage of the required build zone occupied by a structure.
In several locations, the proposal is deficient in front property line coverage, therefore, a waiver is requested.
The deficiency is due to street connections along McCune Avenue, as well as the open space provided at the
intersection of John Shields and Village Parkway. In addition, buildings are required to be sited at the corner
or occupy the corner. In several instances, buildings are not sufficiently occupying the corner. In all cases, it
is due to a desire to provide open spaces at corners and key gateway locations or to permit preservation of
mature trees. The final lot coverage will be provided with the Final Development Plan. The maximum
impervious lot coverage permitted in this district is 70 percent.
Open Space and Parking
The proposal provides 10 open space areas, including pocket plazas, a square, and several mid-block
pedestrian ways. The total open space requirement in the Bridge Street District is calculated differently than
that in a Planned Unit Development. The Bridge Street District requires 200 square feet of open space per
dwelling unit. Although .71 acres of open space is required, the proposal provides only .64 acres of open
space. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to identify ways in which to provide the
additional open space and to pursue opportunities to enhance the mid-block pedestrian ways, which could
include water features, art and lighting. The applicant is seeking a waiver for the proportion of open spaces.
The proportion is required to be at a ratio of 3:1. The intent is to provide square, not linear open spaces.
Linear open spaces provide connectivity, while activated open spaces are typically square. Staff is supportive
of that waiver. A parking plan is requested with this application. The Bridge Street District parking requirement
for townhomes is 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is providing 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 2
additional driveway spaces. This results in 308 parking spaces across the site, which exceeds the 161 required.
In some cases, the parking spaces occupy the required build zone. In these cases, the parking should be
screened at 100% opacity, to be detailed with the Final Development Plan.
Architecture
The Code provides Building Type requirements, which are highly prescriptive, providing parameters to ensure
high quality development. The Single-Family Attached Building Type permits buildings that are 1.5 to 4 stories
in height. This application is proposed at 3 stories in height. The proposed Building Materials are brick, stone
and glass. The applicant is seeking a waiver to be permitted to use thin brick. In previous cases, the
Commission has been supportive of the substitution of thin brick for full-depth brick. The Code also provides
minimum story height requirements. Although the requirement is 10-12 feet in height, the applicant is
proposing a story height of 9.5 feet. Because the request is within 10% of the requirement, it is an
Administrative Departure, not a Waiver. The form of the building is an important consideration of the
Preliminary Development Plan. The form is largely attributed to the roof. At the Concept Plan for this project,
the Commission requested that a more traditional roofline be provided, and the plan has been revised to a
pitched roof and traditional materials. Details are provided along the roofline to mimic a flat roof, providing a
transition between Greystone Mews and Tuller Flats. The flat details also require a Waiver, of which staff is
supportive. However, staff is not supportive of a Waiver to permit an uninterrupted ridge line. As proposed,
the ridge line is consistent with no architectural features. More variation is necessary in the height and form
of the roofline, distinguishing each unit as a “for sale” townhome versus an apartment building. The elevations
provided with this proposal differ from those provided with the earlier Concept Plan. Significantly warmer
tones for the Primary Building Materials are proposed, such as brick. The side elevations will wrap the corners
with brick. The applicant is requesting Commission feedback tonight on the architecture and the proposed
color scheme, in advance of submitting the architecture and color palettes with the Final Development Plan.
With the intent of providing a diversity of Building Types, proposed Building Types have been provided.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 10 of 16
Conceptual landscape character and features within the public realm and at the gateway of Village Parkway
and John Shields Parkway also are provided for consideration. Finally, the applicant is requesting a
recommendation of approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat.
Applicant Presentation
Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, Ohio stated that much work has been
invested in this proposed development to date. This is a challenging site; there is much occurring around it,
and a very detailed Code is associated with it. The Concept Plan for this development was reviewed and
approved by the Commission in March 2020. At that time, due to the proposed T-intersection as required by
the Bridge Street District plan, a development agreement approved by City Council was necessary, which
would have involved a land swap and TIF funding. Since then, it has been determined that it would be
advisable to work with only this site, and the project has been redesigned without the T intersection. The
Commission’s comments with the Concept Plan review were considered carefully, and the proposal has been
revised accordingly. Due to the three existing public street rights-of-way, the development to the west, and
the Code, the “box” for this development was restrictive. Previously, the Commission stated that the
architecture for this development should be differentiated from the Tuller Flats development to be less
monolithic. This is a “for sale” product with individual, self-parked units. The architecture has been revised to
a more traditional design, including pitched roofs and roof terraces on the fronts of the buildings. They believe
they have been able to address the Commission’s concerns, and if the Commission approves the requested
Waivers, the project can proceed to the next step. They welcome the Commission’s feedback tonight, as they
move to the final design stage. The rest of their team members also present will be happy to respond to
questions.
Commission Questions
Mr. Supelak stated that there are four dead-end streets in this development. Is there a reason they are not
being connected to the major thoroughfares?
Ms. Martin responded that staff had encouraged the applicant to disconnect those streets. The Bridge Street
District must maintain a fine balance. In addition to connectivity, one of the other principles of this District is
to have uninterrupted street frontages that allow for pedestrian circulation in a safe manner. Instead of
prioritizing vehicular circulation, which is more than adequate on this site due to the other connections, the
attempt here was to prioritize pedestrian circulation and safety.
Ms. Kennedy requested staff to re-state the items that staff does not support.
Ms. Martin responded that staff is not supportive of the Waiver to permit the consistent roofline. Staff believes
it is important to differentiate the single-family units and provide more diversity across the development. In
addition, a condition is recommended that the required open space be provided. Through creative site design,
that should be possible. Staff has also conditioned that the final architectural details and materials on street-
facing facades meet the intent of the Bridge Street District. That is very important at the gateway intersection
with Village Parkway. Other minor conditions are recommended to ensure clear direction is given to the
applicant for the Final Development Plan.
Ms. Fox stated that she was unable to be present for the earlier Concept Plan review. Although she has
reviewed those records online, it would be helpful for staff to summarize the primary recommendations that
were offered by the Commission.
Ms. Martin responded that for the Concept Plan, the applicant provided two architectural concepts as Option
A and Option B. One option was more modern and provided some of the forms reflected elsewhere in the
District, such as in Tuller Flats. The other was significantly more traditional. A pitched roof was the
Commission’s preferred solution, and the applicant has blended Option A and Option B into a cohesive design.
The Commission also encouraged that the street-facing façades be activated. Initially, the rooftop terraces
were provided at the rear of the units facing the auto-oriented area; now the rooftop terraces are provided
facing the principal frontage streets, with select units having the option to have them rear facing instead. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 11 of 16
applicant was also encouraged to refine the design to ensure the auto-oriented areas were minimized from
view.
Ms. Fox inquired about the previous discussion regarding the open space.
Ms. Martin responded that the discussion focused on the development of the gateway location at the
intersection with John Shields Parkway.
Ms. Fox inquired if the previous design met the open space requirement.
Ms. Martin responded that it did meet the requirement, but the site area was .6 acres larger, which allowed a
second pocket park. Now, due to the curvature of the street, that is no longer possible.
Ms. Call stated that there is a 3:1 open space requirement. What are the open spaces included in the requested
waiver? One of the main features in the previous Option 1 was the very nice mailbox enclosure. There also
was discussion about the addition of amenities and activation of that space.
Ms. Martin responded that the open spaces that meet the required proportion include the large open space
square, the gateway location and the open space at the intersection of Hobbs Landing and John Shields
Parkway. The open spaces that do not meet this provision are the linear open spaces – the mid-block
pedestrian ways. A condition has been recommended that the applicant provide additional enhancements in
those areas to counteract the linear form. To provide additional amenities, staff is supportive of a waiver to
modify the shape.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if thin brick has been used in the surrounding areas.
Ms. Martin responded that most of the buildings within Bridge Park area use thin brick. Due to the height of
the buildings, full depth brick would become very heavy. In some instances, Tuller Flats also uses thin brick.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Supelak stated that he believes it is problematic to have dead-end streets here, although he understands
the desire for a more pedestrian environment. However, the entire Bridge Street area is a more quasi-urban
area, and this is a townhome development. He does not believe there would be an issue with having a couple
more connected streets; otherwise, a vehicular circulation issue is created on this site. In the Concept Plan,
there were some corner issues; those have been improved, but there is need for further improvement. The
architectural renderings provided with the Concept Plan were more compelling than those provided with this
proposal. The corners of the buildings present opportunities for improvement. He recognizes that a finite
number of variations to the units are practical, but the two end units near the pocket park at John Shields
Parkway and Village Parkway should not have the standard “end” architecture. Something additional is
needed, such as a two-story extension that might address the corner condition differently. There are a few
obvious places for such variations to be added. He agrees with staff regarding the need for variation in the
roof ridge line. That is the only variation that could also be experienced on the back façade. A ridge line
variation will be important.
Mr. Fishman stated that it is important that the buildings look like individual single-family homes, not
apartments. The intent is that this not be another Tuller Flats development. He also would like to see more
greenspace. Currently, the area is very dense. The original intent with the Bridge Park development was that
pocket parks and open space would minimize the density. Therefore, in addition to making these buildings
appear more residential, it is essential to achieve as much greenspace as possible.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the information submitted by the applicant states, “The Pulte Group submits this plan
in furtherance of the goal of providing a unique product type.... The buildings will create vibrancy along the
public streets and be additive to the visual character of the area.” Unfortunately, those comments are in
conflict with some of the waivers being requested tonight. She is not supportive of the Roofline Waiver or the
Open Space Waiver, as those waivers do not create vibrancy nor add to the visual character of the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 12 of 16
Ms. Fox stated that this is her first review of the proposed development. As always, she is interested in the
streetscape provided. In her view, the first concept was more traditional than this concept. The previous
concept had a greater mixture of façade materials and more negative versus positive spaces. The Commission
is requesting a different look than what already exists in Bridge Park. On principal frontage streets, any
terminal vistas and gateways should have an interesting look. Simply providing a greenspace is not sufficient
in a gateway area. She believes the architecture should be unique, unlike anything seen elsewhere in the
District. She understands the desire to keep the units at the mid-$300s price point, and there is a need for
such a product. It is important, however, that the development still have a look of high quality. The proposed
facades do not have a timeless look of a development that would last 30-40 years. Although the Commission
previously suggested a more traditional architecture, she believes it needs to be much more traditional. To
help the applicant understand what she is looking for, she has forwarded to Ms. Martin some streetscape
photos to share.
[Slide images shown.]
Ms. Fox pointed out that all of the photos show ways in which to achieve a more traditional front door look.
There is an invitation to come to those front doors. The front facades have detail and movement; they are
not flat. The buildings are large with linear units. In some of the building examples, there is a variation
between levels in the units. In other building examples, there is significant difference in the detailing; some
have columns and stoops, where one could sit and have a cup of coffee. In all the examples, the individual
units look uniquely individual and extremely inviting, and provide a traditional look that currently does not
exist in Bridge Park. She believes these type of units would not be overly expensive to achieve and would be
extremely marketable. In regard to open spaces – she preferred those proposed in the previous plan, where
the buildings faced the open spaces. In this revised plan, the open space seems to have been added wherever
there was room.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if these front-door design ideas would have been more achievable at the Concept Plan
review stage. At this point, the plans may be too solidified to revise significantly.
Mr. Schneier stated that this is an attempt to put a development in what probably is not the best location in
the City or Bridge Park. John Shields Parkway may eventually lead to an abandoned AMC Theater. Perhaps
we are unfairly expecting the applicant to improve what exists here. Regardless, it is essential the site be
developed per the character of the Bridge Park neighborhood. While he agrees with Ms. Fox’s perspective, is
this development too advanced to permit such modifications? If not, would the applicant be agreeable to such
modifications, which could change the character somewhat? This development will be a great asset and
improvement to the area. He is unsure how much more should be expected of the proposed development in
view of the fact that it is probably not in the best area of Bridge Park.
Mr. Underhill stated that he believes adding the variation in the roof ridge line could present some design
difficulties, but they could be overcome. Some of the project photos provided by Ms. Fox were quite beautiful,
and some of the elements could be incorporated into the design, which would activate the streetscape. In this
stage of the development, it is very appropriate to offer suggestions for the final design that will be presented.
He invited Mr. Filipkowski, the architect for the project, to respond to the suggestions.
Keith Filipkowski, Director of Construction Operations, PulteGroup, 475 S. Metro Place, Dublin, 43017, stated
that he is the architect for this project. He is very open-minded to the suggestions shared. The design is not
too far advanced for some of the suggestions. They also are amenable to adjusting the roofline. The best way
in which to achieve that is yet to be determined. However, they understand the concept, and the reason it is
requested. They agree that it would help to break up the scale of the building, With the Final Development
Plan, they will be adding the finer details, including more focus on the front entryways and additional
architectural details. Similar to the Juliette balconies that have been added to side elevations, perhaps there
are other accents or projections that could be added to the fro nt elevations. The comments and photos shared
tonight have provided some good ideas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 13 of 16
Ms. Martin responded that the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is the opportunity for the Planning
Commission to impose any conditions or provide final direction to the applicant to incorporate elements into
the design. If the Commission is looking for specific traditional elements or materials, now is the appropriate
time to add that condition. Similarly, if there are architectural details the Commission does not consider
appropriate, it is appropriate to provide direction that those be refined, as well.
Mr. Grimes stated that he likes the revised plan, including the pedestrian pass-through areas. He is in
agreement with staff’s recommendations regarding the waivers, including the one for disapproval. He agrees
that the roof ridge line should be broken up. The view of this development from the AMC Theater should be
that of variation. If the AMC Theater site were to be redeveloped at some point in the future, the view of this
site will be important. In considering Mr. Supelak’s concern about the dead-end streets, he wonders if there
will be sufficient room to back up or turn around within the neighborhood. However, the pedestrian circulation
is consistent with what is desired. The corner parks on John Shields Parkway should be inviting signature
sites. In particular, the gateway open space on Village Parkway should be made interesting.
Mr. Fishman stated that he agrees with Ms. Fox’s suggestions. It is essential to improve these front elevations.
That can be accomplished with brick walks, columns and deviations in the façade. The current residential
development in this area appears so dense; it resembles office or commercial space. There is an opportunity
with this Pulte development to achieve a residential community that is unique and rich looking. Adding the
suggested architectural elements would be a significant improvement. The photos shown by Ms. Fox are
exactly what it is needed. Adding such amenities would make the individual units look like attached single-
family homes.
Mr. Supelak suggested adding vertical landscaping to create distinct separation between the units.
Mr. Underhill thanked him for the suggestion. Those elements would not pose a significant cost addition.
Ms. Fox stated that as they work on adding some of these suggestions to the design, her hope is that these
buildings will not look like those on every other block in Bridge Park -- rectangular facades exist throughout
the district. A variation in design, style and shape is needed. Adding trim detail to the windows is important.
The buyers of these units do not want their units to look exactly like the others. Separate them out and add
detail that makes each appear to be a separate unit. Add traditional elements to the front doorway that are
warm and inviting. That will break up the monotony of the contemporary, urban look that exists throughout
Bridge Park. If they could reduce the depth by four feet, perhaps there would be more opportunity to create
an entranceway with a front stoop. The balconies are a nice feature, but she would recommend adding an
overhead cover, if possible. Could the positions of the balconies on the elevations be staggered, so that the
height variation would offer a level of privacy? This would be preferable to having all the balconies on the
same flat plane. Awnings are traditional elements that could soften the view along the street. The gateway
location and the terminal vista are very important. She preferred the pocket park, walk-through spaces in the
first plan, which provided more space. The spaces proposed in this plan are tiny and uninviting; she would
encourage creation of spaces in which people can comfortably stop awhile. In her view, this plan is not yet
where it needs to be.
Ms. Call stated that she appreciates the changes made – the addition of brick, improvements to the side
elevations, and the additional parking spaces. The Commission is concerned about density and intensity, and
while what is proposed is a good use of density, it is a little too intense. She is supportive of pulling back the
front façade somewhat to add a more warm and inviting front door. She is supportive of staggering the
roofline. She is not supportive of adding plantings on either side of a required walkway and calling it usable
open space, nor of a waiver of the 3:1 required ratio of open space. She believes the verandas are a positive
addition to the units, but adding an overhead cover would make them usable more months of the year. She
is supportive of the requirement for 80% primary materials. Similar to the vertical landscape element that Mr.
Supelak suggested, she would suggest similar elements be added to the streets that terminate but do not
connect to other roads. If those are being used as a pedestrian thoroughfare, adding vertical greenery at the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 14 of 16
terminus would be inviting. Although not a complete screen, they would eliminate the straight views into the
driveways, and create a sense of privacy and seclusion for the neighborhood.
Mr. Underhill stated that if some of the waivers are not approved, they would be required to meet those
particular Code requirements. However, they will do their best to do so. They have no objection to the
conditions recommended in staff’s report, nor would they object to the addition of a condition to clarify the
Commission’s direction regarding the front doorways.
Ms. Call stated that the vote would be taken first on the Administrative Departures and Parking Plan, followed
by clarification of the revisions and then the vote on the Waivers, Preliminary Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded approval of the following 2 Administrative Departures:
1) Administrative Departure to permit a 505-foot block length for Block 1 along John Shields Parkway
where 500 feet is required.
2) Administrative Departure to permit a minimum story height 9.5 feet where 10-12 feet is required.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the proposed Parking Plan:
1) To permit four parking spaces per unit where 125% of the minimum of two spaces per unit is the
maximum;
2) To permit parking and vehicular use areas within Required Build Zones where buildings are required
to be located.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes; Ms. Call, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
Per Mr. Grimes’ inquiry regarding the open space waiver request, Ms. Martin clarified that open spaces should
be square or rectangular. The mid-block pedestrian ways are narrow and linear. Due to their shape, some
members have stated that they are not supportive of counting them as open space. Disapproval of that Waiver
would mean those areas are not eligible to be counted as open space.
Following clarification, Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the following Waivers:
1) Waiver to permit reduced front property line coverage along Block 2: McCune Avenue (58%), Block
3: Village Parkway (27%), and Block 4: McCune Avenue (52%) where a minimum 75% is required.
2) Waiver to permit deviation from buildings occupying the corner where occupying the corner is
required.
3) Waiver to permit a reduced roof pitch of 24:12 for decorative eaves where a roof pitch of 6:12 to
12:12 is required.
5) Waiver to permit thin brick as a permitted primary building material where full depth brick is
required.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes;
Ms. Kennedy, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
Mr. Boggs recommended that the remaining two waivers receive separate motions and votes.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the following Waiver:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 15 of 16
4) Waiver to permit an uninterrupted ridge line parallel to the street that does not include architectural
details where architectural details are required.
Vote: Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Schneier, no; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Call, no; Mr. Supelak, no; Mr. Grimes, no; Ms.
Kennedy, no.
[Motion failed 0-7]
Matt Callahan, VP of Land Acquisition, PulteGroup, 475 Metro Place S., Dublin, 43017, stated that in regard
to the following Waiver concerning open space, staff had recommended approval with certain conditions. They
would be willing to work on the conditions with staff and present a solution with the Final Development Plan
to address the concerns raised tonight.
Ms. Martin responded that if that is acceptable with the Commission, the applicant could rescind the Waiver
request tonight. This item would be before the Commission again with the Final Development Plan.
Ms. Call stated that her concern is that at the Final Development Plan stage, the footprints of the buildings
have been finalized. If there were any requirement at that time to incorporate additional open space, it could
not occur on the site; it would need to be added off-site. That solution would involve a Fee in Lieu of. Although
the Commission has no issue with the density, it does have an issue with the intensity.
Commission consensus was that the open space issue not be deferred to the Final Development Plan stage
and to proceed with a vote on the Waiver.
Mr. Grimes moved, Ms. Fox seconded approval of the following Waiver:
6) Waiver to permit open space proportions to exceed the maximum 3:1 (length:width) proportions
Vote: Ms. Call, no; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Fox, no; Ms. Kennedy, no; Mr. Schneier, no; Mr. Supelak, no; Mr.
Grimes, no.
[Motion failed 0-7]
Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the following
14 conditions:
1) The applicant update the plans to reflect 154 units;
2) The applicant work with the City Engineer to finalize the public street sections, including on-street
parking and tree lawn widths, prior to the Final Development Plan submittal;
3) The applicant provide Washington Township Fire Department an auto-turn analysis with the Final
Development Plan, and locate/designate a Fire Apparatus Road (FAR);
4) The applicant meet the provisions of 153.062(D)(2)(c) — Parallel Ridge Line, to provide architectural
details to break up the mass of the roofline with the Final Development Plan submittal;
5) The applicant provide a minimum 3-foot variability to the roof height between each unit, unless an
alternative design solution reaching the same result is approved by the PZC with the FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, as determined at its sole discretion;
6) In the application of thin brick, the applicant use corner pieces designed to emulate full-depth brick;
7) The applicant meet the required 80 percent coverage of primary building materials along street-facing
facades for all buildings with submittal of the Final Development Plan;
8) The applicant should work with staff on appropriate location and screening of A/C units and refuse
containers prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan;
9) All parking and vehicular use areas located within a Required Build Zone are screened with a treatment
that provides 100 percent opacity;
10) The applicant work with staff to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total required bicycle parking
space within open space areas;
11) The applicant work with staff to provide the total required amount of open space with the Final
Development Plan;
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2020
Page 16 of 16
12) The plans be revised to provide the required mid-block pedestrian way in Block 4 prior to Final
Development Plan submittal;
13) The architectural style be revised to ensure that each unit appears as an individual attached single-
family home;
14) The applicant work with staff to ensure the front elevations provide traditional elements such as
stoops, porches, columns, awnings and brick walks.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes;
Ms. Kennedy, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following 2 conditions:
1) The applicant update the Preliminary Plat to provide specific acreage of each lot;
2) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for acceptance to
City Council.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes;
Mr. Grimes, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
OTHER ACTIONS
Proposed 2021 PZC Meeting Dates
Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the 2021 proposed meeting dates.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0]
COMMUNICATIONS
A joint meeting of Council/PZC/ARB/BZA is scheduled for December 14 to provide an update re.
policies, challenges and issues. In advance of that meeting, Commissioners should forward desired
discussion topics to the Chair.
The next regularly scheduled PZC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 6:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Rebecca Call
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Judith K. Beal
Deputy Clerk of Council