Resolution 66-23RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 30045
Resolution No. 66-23 Passed pal
ACCEPTING A FINAL PLAT FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF THE STATE BANK
DUBLIN PLAT, LOCATED WITHIN THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (CASE
#22-011FP)
WHEREAS, application for approval of the final plat for State Bank, 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, i of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the final plat for State
Bank, 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__Z>"_day of Se plem bey , 2023.
wer
Vice Mayor — Presiding Officer
ree (Mos
ATTEST:
j
Cle of Coypici Gist
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager
Date: September 19, 2023
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Taylor Mullinax, AICP, Planner I
Re: Resolution 66-23 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for the Resubdivision of the State
Bank Dublin Plat, located within the Bridge Street District (Case 22-011FP).
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final Plat (FP) to revise a plat previously approved FP by
City Council on July 1, 2014. The revised plat includes the subdivision of three existing lots into
two new lots, while another existing lot would remain the same. The plat also includes the
dedication of five access easements, and vacation of two existing easements. A Preliminary
Plat (PP) (Resolution 65-23) accompanies this resolution.
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
In June 2014, the Administrative Review Team (ART) reviewed and recommended approval of
the original State Bank PP and FP to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). In June 2014,
the PZC recommended approval of the PP and FPs to City Council. The PP and FP were
approved by City Council on July 1, 2014.
The PZC reviewed the revised PP and FP on April 20, 2023 and recommended approval to City
Council with four conditions. The existing single-family homes located on the future Lot 1A were
approved to be demolished by the ART in June 2023, and the applicant has since applied for
demolition permits.
Description
The re-plat was triggered by a request to incorporate two existing residential lots to at 4056-
4080 W. Dublin-Granville Rd into the plat. These lots will be combined with a portion of
existing Lot 1 to create a new lot (Lot 1A) for future development. An existing third lot to the
west (Lot 2) will remain the same. Additionally, five access easements will be dedicated and
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo – Resolution 66-23 – Final Plat – State Bank
September 19, 2023
Page 2 of 3
two existing easements will be vacated: half of a vehicular easement and a landscape
easement. Existing driveways and curb cuts will be removed on W. Dublin-Granville Road.
The 2.4-acre site (Lots 1 and 1A) is located northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville
Road and David Road, and is zoned Bridge Street District (BSD) – Office. The site is subject to
the Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 152 when PPs and FRs are brought forward or are re-
platted. There is one single-family dwelling on each of the existing residential lots, both have
frontage on W. Dublin-Granville Road. At this time, there is no development proposal for this
site. When future development is proposed, the site will be subject to the development
standards in the BSD Code.
The overall site is bounded by Neighborhood Streets to the north and east (Banker Drive and
David Road, respectively) each with a 60-foot right-of-way. W. Dublin-Granville Road is a
Corridor Connector Street with a varying right-of-way width and bounds the site to the south.
Shamrock Blvd bounds the site to the west and is a District Connector Street with a 100-foot
right-of-way. All streets are public streets and will remain unchanged with the proposed FP
application. Pedestrian facilities are provided along each of these roads. The future developers
of the new Lot 1A and the existing Lot 2 are responsible for providing pedestrian connections
between their site and existing Lot 1.
State Bank currently owns 0.101-acres of land immediately north of the two residential lots
which will be conveyed to Quiet Holdings, LLC, the current owner of those same lots. The
existing landscape easement within this acreage will be vacated and incorporated into new
Lot 1A. A portion of an existing cross access easement on Lot 1 will be vacated and cross
access will provided between Lots 1 and 1A further north. Additional new cross access
easements are provided between Lots 1, 1A, and 2 with the intent to obtain primary site
access from Banker Drive. State Bank provided a co-applicant letter agreeing to these
proposed plat modifications.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At the April 20, 2023 PZC meeting, the Commission recommended 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, subject to staff approval;
2) The applicant apply for a demolition application to the Administrative Review Team and a
demolition permit for the structures on 4056 and 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Rd prior to the
plats proceeding to City Council for acceptance;
3) The plats are recorded and existing structures are demolished within one year of City
Council approval; and
4) The future developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 construct pedestrian access between Lot 1 and
the adjacent properties Lot 1A and Lot 2.
Conditions 1 and 2 have since been met.
City Council Recommendation
Acceptance of Resolution 66-23 for the Final Plat with two conditions:
Memo – Resolution 66-23 – Final Plat – State Bank
September 19, 2023
Page 3 of 3
1) The plats are recorded and existing structures are demolished within one year of City
Council approval; and
2) The future developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 construct pedestrian access between Lot 1 and
the adjacent properties Lot 1A and Lot 2.
21Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, and in QuarterTownship 3, Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands, containing 2.438 acresof land, more or less, said 2.438 acres being comprised of part of that tract of landconveyed to QUIET HOLDINGS, LLC by deeds of record in Instrument Numbers202009250144841 and 202012150199670, all of those tracts of land conveyed to THESTATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY by deed of record in Instrument Number201403110029469, and Lot 1 of the subdivision entitled "State Bank Dublin Plat", ofrecord in Plat Book 118, Page 27, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio.The undersigned, QUIET HOLDINGS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, byTROY B. KEMELGOR, Member, and THE STATE BANK AND TRUSTCOMPANY, an Ohio corporation, by ROBERT EGGLETON, Vice President, owners ofthe lands platted herein, duly authorized in the premises, do hereby certify that this platcorrectly represents their "RESUBDIVISION OF STATE BANK DUBLIN PLAT LOT1", a subdivision containing Lot 1 and Lot 1A, do hereby accept this plat of same.Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plat as"Easement", "Access Easement" or "Sidewalk Easement". 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, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of service connections to alladjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within those areas designated"Access Easement", a non-exclusive easement is hereby reserved for ingress and egress bythe public between Lot 1 and Lot 1A as platted, and Lot 2 of the subdivision entitled "StateBank Dublin Plat", of record in Plat Book 118, Page 27. Within those areas designated"Sidewalk Easement", an additional easement is hereby reserved for the construction andmaintenance of a sidewalk for use by the public.The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the City ofDublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns taking titlefrom, under or through the undersigned.Approved 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__, wherein all ofResubdivision of State Bank Dublin Plat Lot 1 is accepted as such by the Council of theCity 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 ___________In Witness Whereof, TROY B. KEMELGOR, Member of QUIET HOLDINGS,LLC has hereunto set his hand this day of , 20__. Signed and Acknowledged QUIET HOLDINGS, LLC In the presence of:______________________________ By _____________________________ TROY B. KEMELGOR, Member______________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TROY B.KEMELGOR, Member of QUIET HOLDINGS, LLC, who acknowledged the signingof the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act anddeed of said QUIET 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 OhioSURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon arebased on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System, South Zoneper NAD83 (1986 Adjustment). Control for bearings was fromcoordinates of monuments Frank 73 & Frank 74, establishedby the Franklin County Engineering Department, giving abearing of North 86°41'23" West for a portion of the northerlyright-of-way line of Dublin-Granville Raod (S.R. 161).SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat are the records of theRecorder' Office, Franklin County, Ohio.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-inch long,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 be marked(punched) to record the actual location of the point.In Witness Whereof, ROBERT EGGLETON, Vice President, of THE STATEBANK AND TRUST COMPANY, has hereunto set his hand this day of ,20__. Signed and Acknowledged THE STATE BANK AND TRUST In the presence of: COMPANY______________________________ By _____________________________ ROBERT EGGLETON, Vice President,______________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERTEGGLETON, Vice President, of THE STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,who acknowledged the signing of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act anddeed and the voluntary act and deed of said THE STATE BANK AND TRUSTCOMPANY 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 OhioRESUBDIVISION OF STATE BANKDUBLIN PLAT LOT 1
22NOTE "A" : At the time of platting, all of the land herebybeing platted as Resubdivision of State Bank Dublin Plat Lot 1 isin Zone X (Areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annualchance flood plain) as designated and delineated on the FEMAFlood Insurance Map for Franklin County, Ohio, andIncorporated Areas, map number 39049C0151K with effectivedate of June 17, 2008.NOTE "B" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots inthe Resubdivision of State Bank Dublin Plat Lot 1 subdivisionare hereby notified that, at the time of platting, utility service toDavid Road Plat for electric power is provided by AmericanElectric Power and telephone service is provided by Ameritech.NOTE "C" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting,all of Resubdivision of State Bank Dublin Plat Lot 1 is in theCity of Dublin School District.NOTE "D" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Resubdivision ofState Bank Dublin Plat Lot 1 is comprised of all of thefollowing Franklin County Parcel Numbers:273-008304 0.550 Ac.273-008305 0.533 Ac.273-012615 1.355 Ac.NOTE "E" - RELEASE OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS: Allrights and easements granted to the City of Dublin, Ohio by thesubdivision plat entitled "State Bank Dublin Plat", of record inPlat Book 118, Page 27, in, over and under the areas indicatedhereon by hatching, are hereby released and rendered null andvoid.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 Resubdivision of State BankDublin Plat Lot 1 or any part thereof can be acquired by acompetent examination of the then current public records,including those in the Franklin County Recorder's Office.NOTE "G" - RELEASE OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS: Allrights and easements granted to the Abha Jinsal, their successorand assigns, by deed of record in Instrument Number201009170121167, in, over and under the areas indicatedhereon by hatching, are hereby released and rendered null andvoid.NOTE "H"-SIDEWALK EASEMENT EAST AND WEST:The width of any sidewalk connections between Lot 1A andLot 2 to Lot 1 shall match the minimum width of any existingsidewalks they connect to on Lot 1. The developer of Lot 1Aand Lot 2 shall be solely responsible for installation of suchsidewalks.RESUBDIVISION OF STATE BANK DUBLIN PLAT LOT 1
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 20, 2023 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2/3. State Bank at 4056-4080 W. Dublin Granville Road, 22-010PP, Preliminary Plat and
22-011FP, Final Plat
Proposal: Re-subdivision of three existing lots on a ±2.4-acre site into a 1.259-acre
lot and a 1.179-acre lot. The site is zoned Bridge Street District, Office.
Location: Northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road with David
Road.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
Applicants: Todd Cunningham, EMH&T; Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, LLC; and
Troy Kemelgor, Quiet Holdings, LLC
Planning Contact: Taylor Mullinax, Planner I
Contact Information: 614.410.4632, tmullinax@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-010 and
www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-011
MOTION 1: Mr. Way moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the Consent Agenda recommending City
Council approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats with the following four (4) conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council, subject to staff approval;
2) The applicant apply for a demolition application to the Administrative Review Team and a
demolition permit for the structures on 4056 and 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Road, prior to the plats
proceeding to City Council for acceptance;
3) The plats are recorded and existing structures are demolished within one year of Ci ty Council
approval; and
4) The future developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 construct pedestrian access between Lot 1 and the
adjacent properties Lot 1A and Lot 2.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Preliminary and Final Plats were recommended for approval and forwarded to City
Council.
RECORDED VOTES: STAFF CERTIFICATION
Lance Schneier Yes
Rebecca Call Absent
Mark Supelak Yes ____________________________________
Kim Way Yes Taylor Mullinax, Planner I
Warren Fishman Yes
Jamey Chinnock Yes
Kathy Harter Yes
City of Dublin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 20, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Supelak, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the
April 20, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that the meeting also could be
accessed at the City’s website. Public comments on the cases were welcome from meeting
attendees and from those viewing at the City’s website.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Supelak led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Jamey Chinnock, Warren Fishman, Lance Schneier, Kathy
Harter, Mark Supelak, Kim Way
Commission members absent: Rebecca Call
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Jesse Shamp, Taylor Mullinax, Zachary
Hounshell, Michael Hendershot, Heidi Rose
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Way seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and approval
of the 04-06-2023 meeting minutes.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes;
Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion approved 6-0. ]
Mr. Supelak stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council
when rezoning and platting of property are under consideration. In such cases, City Council will
receive recommendations from the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has the final
decision-making responsibility. Anyone who intends to address the Commission on administrative
cases must be sworn in. He swore in those present who intended to provide testimony.
Mr. Supelak stated that there are two cases eligible for the Consent Agenda, State Bank, 22-010PP,
Preliminary Plat and State Bank, 22-011FP, Final Plat. He asked if any Commission member wished
to move the cases to the regular agenda for discussion. No member requested the cases be moved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — April 20, 2023
Page 2 of 9
2. State Bank at 4056-4080 W. Dublin Granville Road, 22-010PP, Preliminary Plat
Re-subdivision of three existing lots on a £2.4-acre site into a 1.259-acre lot and a 1.179-acre lot.
The site is zoned Bridge Street District, Office and is located northwest of the intersection of W.
Dublin-Granville Road and David Road.
3. State Bank at 4056-4080 W. Dublin Granville Road, 22-011FP, Final Plat
Re-subdivision of three existing lots on a £2.4-acre site into a 1.259-acre lot and a 1.179-acre lot.
The site is zoned Bridge Street District, Office and is located northwest of the intersection of W.
Dublin-Granville Road and David Road.
Mr. Way moved, Mr. Fishman seconded approval of the Consent Agenda recommending City
Council approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats with the following four (4) conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council; and
2) The applicant apply for a demolition application to the Administrative Review Team and a
demolition permit for the structures on 4056 and 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Road, prior to
the plats proceeding to City Council for acceptance;
3) The plats are recorded and existing structures are demolished within one year of City
Council approval; and
4) The future developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 construct sedestrian access between Lot 1 and
the adjacent properties Lot 1A and Lot 2.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes;
Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion approved 6-0. |
NEW CASE
1. Fischer Homes at PID: 273-012992, 23-O030INF, Informal Review
New development consisting of 55 residential townhomes on a 3.73-acre site zoned Bridge Street
District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood. The site is located southwest of the intersection of John
Shields Parkway with Village Parkway.
Case Presentation
Mr. Hounshell that this is a proposal for a new residential development on a 3.7-acre site located
southwest of the intersection of Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway within the Bridge Street
District (BSD). The Informal Review is an optional first step in the development review process.
No determination will be made in this review step. Though the site is currently vacant, it was
previously the location of the Byers Dublin auto dealership in 2015. The dealership was demolished
and the site reconfigured to its existing state with the construction of John Shields Parkway. The
undeveloped site is lined by mature trees in a storm easement along the south periphery,
delineating the site from the City-owned open space with shared use path and the Greystone
Mews neighborhood further to the south. Tuller Flats is located to the west and Dublin Village
Center to the east and the recently approved Towns on the Parkway site to the north. A storm
easement is located at rear of the site. The Code provides a hierarchy of requirements for
establishing a gridded street network. The Street Network Map, part of the Thoroughfare Plan,
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
PLANNING REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 20, 2023
STATE BANK AT 4056-4080 W. DUBLIN-
GRANVILLE RD
22-010PP/22-011FP
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-010
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-011
Case Summary
Address
4056 - 4080 W. Dublin-Granville Rd.
Proposal Preliminary Plat (PP) and Final Plat (FP) to re-subdivide three existing lots (4056-
4080 W. Dublin Granville Rd) in the State Bank Dublin Plat on an approximately
2.4-acre site into a 1.259-acre lot and a 1.179-acre lot.
Request
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a PP and FP under
the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Zoning
BSD – O: Bridge Street District - Office
Planning
Recommendation
Recommendation of Approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat and Final
Plat with Conditions.
Next Steps
City Council is the final reviewing body for the PP and FP. Upon
recommendation of approval to City Council (CC) from the Planning and Zoning
Commission (PZC) for the PP and FP, the application will be eligible for review
by Council for acceptance.
Applicant
Todd Cunningham, EMH&T
Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, LLC
Troy Kemelgor, Quiet Holdings, LLC
Case Manager
Taylor Mullinax, Planner I
(614) 410-4632
tmullinax@dublin.oh.us
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-010PP/22-011FP | State Bank Dublin Plats
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Page 2 of 5
Site Location Map
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
4
Existing tree stand
Existing single-family homes
Existing shared use path or
sidewalk
Existing Lot 2, not affected
by plat
4
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-010PP/22-011FP | State Bank Dublin Plats
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Page 3 of 5
1. Background
Site Summary
The 2.4-acre site is located northwest of the intersection of W. Dublin-Granville Road and David
Road. There is one single-family dwelling on each of the existing residential lots, each with
frontage on W. Dublin-Granville Road. The dwelling on 4056 W. Dublin-Granville Road was built
in 1964 and the dwelling on 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Road was built in 1956. There are trees
and vegetation to the north of both lots, with a tree line between the residential lots. This site is
bounded by Neighborhood Streets including Banker Drive to the north, and David Road to the
east. W. Dublin-Granville Road is a Corridor Connector Street and bounds the site to the south.
Shamrock Blvd bounds the site to the west and is a District Connector Street.
Development History
July 2014
CC approved a PP and FP for State Bank.
June 2014
PZC approved a BSD Site Plan with four conditions, and a Master Sign Plan (MSP) with two
approved Waivers and two disapproved Waivers. The PZC recommended approval of the PP and
FP to CC.
June 2014
The Administrative Review Team (ART) reviewed an application for State Bank and made a
recommendation of approval to the PZC for a BSD Site Plan Review, MSP, and a PP and FP.
May 2014
ART reviewed a BSD Site Plan Review, PP and FP as an introduction. The applications came
back to ART a week later in May to make a recommendation to the PZC for this application.
February 2014
PZC approved a Basic Plan Review, Conditional Use, and Parking Plan for State Bank with two
Waivers and conditions.
January 2014
ART reviewed and recommended approval to the PZC for a Basic Plan Review, Conditional Use,
and Parking Plan for State Bank.
Process
PZC is the recommending body for both PPs and FPs. The PP establishes public streets,
easements, and blocks in accordance with the PDP and applicable Code requirements. The FP
further refines this information and includes items such as public access easements.
2. BSD Code & Subdivision Code
The BSD Code provides a hierarchy of requirements for establishing a gridded street network
which provides the framework for development. Existing District Connector Streets, Corridor
Connector Streets, and Neighborhood Streets will remain unchanged with the proposed PP and
FP applications. At this time, there is no development proposed for this site. When future
development is proposed, the site will be subject to the development standards in the BSD
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-010PP/22-011FP | State Bank Dublin Plats
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Page 4 of 5
Code. When a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is brought forward for development,
proposed modifications will be reviewed in detail by the PZC at the appropriate time.
The site is zoned BSD – Office and subject to the Subdivision Regulations in Chapter 152 when
PP and FPs are brought forward or are re-platted. Since the existing plat is to be replatted, the
proposed PP and FPs are required to document revisions including modified acreage, lot line
adjustments, easements to be vacated, and new easements.
In the BSD Code, the Office District is intended “to allow a mix of offices and retail support
uses” and “provide significant additional development capacity and redevelopment opportunities
that foster office uses with a walkable design along signature streets, and provide increased
accessibility and an improved roadway network to ease traffic pressure along major roadways.”
The site is not located within a Neighborhood District in the BSD and therefore neighborhood
standards do not apply.
3. Project
Project Summary
This is a combined request for a PP and FP for the re-subdivision of three existing lots into two
new lots, where the third lot to the west will remain the same. The plats propose to dedicate
five access easements and vacate two existing easements which include: half of an existing
vehicular easement and a landscape easement. The proposed acreage breakdown includes the
following:
• Lot 1 acreage: ±1.259-acres
• Lot 1A acreage: ±1.179-acres
• Total acreage: ±2.4-acres
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Details
The proposed re-plat was triggered by the request to combine the two existing residential lots
to establish a new lot (Lot 1A) for future development. The existing homes will be demolished
through a separate approval process with a future application to the Administrative Review
Team. Existing driveways and curb cuts will be removed on W. Dublin-Granville Rd. Conditions
of approval are recommended regarding the timing of plat recordation and the demolition of the
homes.
All streets are public streets. W. Dublin-Granville Rd has a varying right-of-way width, Banker
Drive and David Road have 60-foot right-of-way, and Shamrock Blvd has a 100-foot right-of-
way. Pedestrian facilities are provided along each of these roads. The future developers of the
new Lot 1A and the existing Lot 2 are responsible for providing pedestrian connections between
their site and existing Lot 1.
State Bank currently owns 0.101-acres of land immediately north of the two residential lots
which will be conveyed to Quiet Holdings, LLC, the current owner of those same lots. The
existing landscape easement within this acreage will be vacated and incorporated into new Lot
1A. A portion of an existing cross access easement on Lot 1 will be vacated and cross access
will provided between Lots 1 and 1A further north. Additional new cross access easements are
provided between Lots 1, 1A, and 2 with the intent to obtain primary site access from Banker
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-010PP/22-011FP | State Bank Dublin Plats
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Page 5 of 5
Drive. State Bank provided a co-applicant letter agreeing to these proposed plat modifications,
attached.
4. Plan Review
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: This proposal is consistent with the
lot, street, sidewalk, and bike path standards of the
Subdivision Regulations and BSD Code. The future
developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 are required to
provide pedestrian access between their respective
lots and Lot 1.
3. Utilities Criteria Met: The existing utility easements are
shown on the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat.
4. Open Space Requirements Not Applicable: Open space requirements will be
determined, according to the BSD Code, at the time
of the PDP, which PZC will review and approve at a
future date. Development is not proposed at this
time for Lot 1A.
5. Recommendation
Planning Recommendation: Approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plats prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council, subject to staff approval;
2) The applicant apply for a demolition application to the Administrative Review Team and
a demolition permit for the structures on 4056 and 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Rd prior to
the plats proceeding to City Council for acceptance;
3) The plats are recorded and existing structures are demolished within one year of City
Council approval; and
4) The future developer of Lot 1A and Lot 2 construct pedestrian access between Lot 1 and
the adjacent properties Lot 1A and Lot 2.
Minutes of DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC .. £_ORM NO 10148
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council
July 1, 2014 ___ Mee.ting_ ----Held _________________________ 20 ___ _ CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Keenan called the Tuesday, July 1, 2014 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council
to order at 6 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Keenan moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss land acquisition and legal matters. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner,
yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Keenan. The meeting was reconvened at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Mayor Keenan, Vice Mayor Gerber, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr.
Peterson, Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner. Ms. Salay was absent (excused) due to an
unanticipated travel delay.
Staff members present were Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Ms. Readier, Mr. Hartmann, Mr.
McDaniel, Mr. Foegler, Ms. Mumma, Ms. O'Callaghan, Chief von Eckartsberg, Mr.
Wagner, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Gunderman, Mr. James, Ms. LeRoy, and Mr. Kridler.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Gerber led the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
David Guion. Executive Director. Dublin Arts Council addressed Council regarding an
opportunity to reach those who work, live and visit Dublin with images that tell the
story of the Vietnam War. They are seeking the City's support of this opportunity. •He presented images from photojournalist Eddie Adams who covered 13 wars,beginning with a stint as a Marine Corps combat photographer in Korea in the
early 1950s and ending in Kuwait in 1991. He did three tours of Vietnam withthe Associated Press and won the Pulitzer Prize for photography.•In his more than five decades as a working photographer, Adams receivedmore than 500 awards honoring his work. He remains one of the most
published photographers in the U.S. with a portfolio that includes one-on-one
sessions with over seven U.S. presidents and 60 heads of state.•What is most important about his work is that the photos have moved and
inspired people to do good and have led to important changes in policy and inpeople's lives.•He was very proud of his 1979 photo, "Boat of No Smiles" -depicting SOVietnamese people on a 30-foot fishing boat, fleeing their homeland. It wasAdams' photo of these boat people that ultimately led Congress and President
Carter to open the doors to the U.S. to more than 200,000 Vietnamese
refugees.•Eddie Adams died in 2004 at the age of 71, a victim of Lou Gehrig's disease.•Mr. Guion noted that he and Ms. Puskarcik have been working directly withAlyssa Adams, Eddie Adams' widow since February of 2014 to bring this
important collection of 50 of his photos of Vietnam to the Dublin Arts Council in2015.•This will also be the year of the 50th Vietnam War commemoration. DAC has
applied to the USA Vietnam Commemoration Partner Program for this museumquality exhibition, which is rare and has only been seen in a small number of
locations.
Minutes of
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 1014
11 i
RECORD O R CFEDINGSDubinityounce
Held
July 1, 2014
Meeting_
Page 2 of 20
20
As part of Dublin's 2015 Memorial Day activities and events, the exhibition will
open May 25 and will be on view through September 11. The exhibition will
honor veterans in Dublin, Central Ohio and beyond — providing aesthetic,
emotional and educational experiences. It will include lectures and community
workshops conducted by Alyssa Adams and close friend, Hal Buell, who ran the
Associated Press photo service for 25 years. Mr. Buell will provide a personal
walk- through of the exhibition for City Council and other VIPs.
The exhibition will include the video documentary, "An Unlikely Weapon: the
Eddie Adams Story" by Morgan Cooper. With Dublin Arts Council's addition of a
video feedback booth, they will collect stories from visitors — veterans, their
families and others who experience the exhibition. DAC will fully document and
fully evaluate — similar to other exhibitions that have focused on art as a
catalyst for social awareness and change.
The full project budget was submitted to Council on June 18. To recap, the
DAC anticipates it will require $56,400 to realize the project. In addition to
grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, foundation sponsorships and
other sources of revenue outlined in the income portion of the budget, Dublin
Arts Council respectfully submits a special request for hotel -motel tax grant
funds in the amount of $12,000 to support the exhibition. This request will
cover exhibition fees, shipping, community education, printing and a stipend to
bring Ms. Adams and Mr. Buell to Dublin.
He offered to respond to any questions.
Mayor Keenan asked if this special request would be reviewed by the Finance
Committee.
Ms. Grigsby responded affirmatively.
Mr. Guion added that he wanted to share the images with Council, as they speak
louder than a grant application.
Mayor Keenan stated that he returned from a trip to Vietnam recently, and is looking
forward to the exhibition.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments from citizens.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items proposed for the Consent Agenda are acted upon by a single motion and vote
of Council. However, upon request of a Council Member, any proposed consent
agenda item may be removed from the consent agenda for further
discussion /consideration under the regular order of business.)
There were no requests to remove items from the consent agenda.
Vice Mayor Gerber moved approval of the actions for the eight items listed on the
consent agenda.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson; yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes.
Approval of Minutes of June 23, 2014 Regular Council meeting
Notice to Legislative Authority from Ohio Division of Liquor Control re. Change
of LLC Membership Interests for Piada Sawmill LLC dba Piada, 6495 Sawmill
Road (D2, D2X, D6 permits)
Notice to Legislative Authority from Ohio Division of Liquor Control re. Change
of LLC Membership Interests for Piada Avery Road LLC dba Piada, 6335
Perimeter Drive (D1, D2, D6 permits)
Minutes of RECORD Of:=' PROCE EDINGS Dublin City Council _____ Meeting __ -----,D�AYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC .. FORM NO. 10148 -July 1, 2014 Page 3of20Held _________________________ 20 ___ _ •Approval of Preliminary and Final Plats -State Bank (Case 14-047BSC
SP /MSP /PP /FP)
•Ordinance 73-14 (Introduction/first reading)
Authorizing the City Manager to execute necessary conveyance documents to
acquire a 0.382 acre, more or less, fee simple interest from St. John's Lutheran
Church, for the property located at 6177 Rings Road for the Avery Road
widening -Rings Road East through Woerner Temple Road Phase 2 Project,
and declaring an emergency. (Second reading/public hearing August 11 Council
meeting)
•Resolution 57-14 (Introduction/vote)
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Dublin Community Recreation Center
Partial Roof Replacement.
•Resolution 59-14 (Introduction/vote)
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the 2014 Sidewalk Maintenance
Program. (14-002.0-CIP)
•Resolution 60-14 (Introduction/vote)
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Reimbursement Agreement for the
Resurfacing of Sawmill Road within the City of Dublin.
SECOND READING/PUBUC HEARING -ORDINANCES
Ordinance 52-14
Authorizing the Execution of Conveyance Documents to Acquire a 0.008
Acre, More or Less, Temporary Easement from Scioto Family Partnership, for
the Property Located at the southeast Corner of Dublin Road and East
Waterview Drive for the Construction of Improvements at the Intersection
of Dublin Road and Glick Road, and Declaring an Emergency.
Mr. Hammersmith noted that this acquisition and the ones that follow on tonight's
agenda relate to the improvements of the Dublin and Glick Roads intersection.
With Ordinance 52-14, the City is acquiring the temporary easement for the project for
$525.00. Staff recommends approval by emergency action.
Vice Mayor Gerber moved for emergency passage.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes;
Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor Keenan, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 53-14
Authorizing the Execution of Conveyance Documents to Acquire a 0.006
Acre, More or Less, Fee Simple Interest; and a 0.074 Acre, More or Less,
Temporary Easement from Scioto Family Partnership, for the Property
Located on the North Side of Glick Road between East Osage Drive, Benmar
Drive, and Shawnee Trail, for the Construction of Improvements at the
Intersection of Dublin Road and Glick Road, and Declaring an Emergency.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that the City is acquiring this permanent right-of-way and
temporary easement along the north side of Glick Road. The total compensation to be
paid to the owner is $7,400. Staff recommends approval by emergency action.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved for emergency passage.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2014
4. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin-Granville Road
14-047BSC-SP/MSP/PP/FP Site Plan Review/Master Sign Plan
Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the application for an 11,500-square-foot Loft building for State Bank
with a retail banking facility, a drive-through kiosk and all associated site improvements. She said the
proposal includes a wall sign that is to be located more than 14 inches from a wall and also includes the
subdividing of one 2.8-acre lot into two lots.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said this requires the Commission to vote on the requested Waivers, Master Sign
Plan, Site Plan, and a recommendation vote to City Council for Preliminary and Final Plats. She swore in
anyone intending on addressing the Commission in regards to this application.
Gary Gunderman presented the application, described the site and noted that this is a relatively open site
at the present time but this area is developing in the Bridge Street District (BSD). He presented the
Bridge Street Area Plan for this location and pointed out the block where this site is located. He showed
the proposed building and mentioned that there is room for an additional building on the adjacent lot,
which would help frame up more of an urban feel. He indicated several actions were needed this evening,
the first being for three Waivers:
1) A request to waive the structural soil requirement in trenches along Banker Drive.
2) A request to waive the requirement to install structural soil in and around the parking lot islands.
3) A request to waive the building siting outside of the Required Building Zone (approximately 16-19
feet from the right-of-way, where 0 -15 is required).
He said the second action is for approval of a Master Sign Plan allowing the building-mounted (wall) sign
on the south elevation facing SR161 to be located more than 14 inches from the nearest wall; the third
action would be approval of the Site Plan as dictated by the BSD Code; and the fourth item would be a
recommendation of approval to City Council of the Preliminary and Final Plats.
Mr. Gunderman said the Site Plan Review criterion is outlined in the Staff Report in terms of compliance.
He said the proposed site layout is similar to what was submitted for the Basic Plan. He said that includes
the drive-through location that was approved as a conditional use; the pocket plaza area is in the same
location; the dumpster location moved to be adjacent to some of the other equipment; the 11,530-
square-foot building was moved back; and the HVAC units were relocated off the ground and onto the
rooftop. He said the proposed elevations are more refined than what was presented in the previous
meeting.
Mr. Gunderman said the Landscape Plan has been part of the discussion and the request for Waivers for
structural soils is based on removing a substantial amount of soil in the area and replacing it with a
higher quality top-soil mix. He said since the opportunity was here to have an improved soil base for the
trees to be planted, it did not appear that structural soil was the best solution for these two locations. He
presented the illustration of the pocket plaza that includes a wall.
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.Dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 12
Mr. Gunderman presented the (wall) sign that is mounted 14 inches from the wall on the south elevation
facing SR161 that is the subject of the Master Sign Plan. He indicated the other two signs comply with
Code. He asked the Commission how to best proceed for multiple actions required this evening.
The Chair recommended reviewing the Waivers first, followed by the remaining site issues.
Mr. Gunderman asked the Commission if there were any questions or comments with the two soil
Waivers.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the intent of structural soil is to provide a broader root zone for trees to
provide increased available water and nutrients to the trees. She does not disagree that today, this looks
more like a suburban application, but her hope is the sidewalk and all spaces along Banker Drive will
carry foot traffic someday that would impede or compact soils along those roadways. She said this
roadway grid system was shown and asked where the line would be drawn with the ART if not at this
location.
Mr. Gunderman said the ART felt the typical street frontage with buildings brought up to the street into
the normal required building zone would probably be the place where we would not want to consider
changing the structural soil standard.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the ART considered the inherent stress on the trees being in these seas of
asphalt. She explained with our other more suburban models, there are large setbacks on buildings and
much more green space to provide a reprieve of heat for the trees and their hope is this will be built out
into a more urban setting, not suburban. She said she was not sure she was willing to start giving up
those because it is partially what the trees roots system can grow into. She stated the quick uptake of
water is critical for urban trees and she is not inclined to give reprieve on the structural soil but would like
to hear other thoughts.
Victoria Newell admitted she did not have Ms. Amorose Groomes expertise to make a judgment call on
this.
Richard Taylor agreed tentatively to those two Waivers but had not thought ahead to what happens to
this site if more developed to be more urban with a lot more hardscape.
Mr. Gunderman said that was a little bit of the ART’s logic. He said in our most optimistic moments,
Banker Drive frontage would get rebuilt and if so, that would provide us another opportunity to deal with
structural soils.
Mr. Taylor asked if that would entail the removal of the trees and Mr. Gunderman replied potentially.
Amy Kramb clarified the Waiver is not for the street but for the islands in the parking lot and the area
adjacent to Banker Drive.
John Hardt said everything makes sense for the parking lot but questioned it along Banker Drive. He
referred back to streetscape designs and work from Council, they are all vastly different than what exists
today on Banker Drive and wonders if somewhere down the road the whole streetscape along Banker
does not get rebuilt. Ms. Kramb said she was not so concerned with Banker Drive because the drive into
Lowe’s is a private street and not a through street.
Mr. Hardt noted it is not uncommon for big box retailers to start giving up chunks of their parking lots for
out lots and allowing other retail development out in front of their stores as this is good revenue as
parking lots are bigger than they need to be.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is not ready to give up and could make the argument that someday, this
might be something different on virtually every piece of property that comes before us.
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, said that staff, some being from Parks and Open Space questioned
putting trees in structural soil. He said every tree around here is in regular dirt and growing great. He
said it is not a cost issue, it is growing issue. He said a lot of times you have tree grates that do not allow
the flow of water into these trees because of the entire sidewalk. He said here there are hundreds of feet
of continuous grass that will allow the water to flow and they are proposing larger islands in their parking
lot than what is required of the big box retailer and one is actually a retention pond. He indicated staff
struggled with this too and the applicant talked to staff, their City Forrester, and Parks and Open Space
questioned why this was even in the Code. He said he agreed structural soil is appropriate in urban
conditions or on Bridge/High but does not recall anyone from the City objecting to this request for a
Waiver and would be very disappointed if the Commission does not support the recommendation from
the ART.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the applicant for his thoughts and asked if there were other thoughts
from fellow Commissioners. [There were none.]
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she has installed thousands of cubic yards of structural soil done in
courtyards of buildings where there is no asphalt within 300 feet. She said if we are going to create an
urban environment we need consistency and have to demand that Code be met. She said with struggling
trees in parking lot islands all over, the City needs to make a concerted effort to provide in the midst of
this very urban area, which we hope someday, will be what the trees require, as has been reported from
all of our consultants when the Code was written.
Ms. Newell asked if she was talking about providing structural soils for all of the trees.
Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that she was. She said the interior islands are the most crucial. She said
hopefully, the other side of Banker Drive will be a sea of hard surfaces and beautiful buildings.
Mr. Hardt said the Bridge Street Code requires structural soils in both locations and there are two
different Waivers that address those issues.
Ms. Kramb confirmed it was two separate Waivers.
Ms. Newell wanted to clarify if Ms. Amorose Groomes had a different opinion between one location or the
other because she would agree from her observation that there are a lot of struggling trees in parking
lots.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said updating the entire Code in the Landscape area is needed.
Mr. Hardt asked if the Waivers would be discussed first and save the votes to the end. Ms. Amorose
Groomes stated the Commission would work their way through them, saving the votes until the end. She
encouraged staff to consider where they are going to be twenty years from now in order to obtain the
goal of mature trees in that area and the urban impacts these trees will be experiencing.
Ms. Newell asked staff why they felt so strongly that the trees would survive better without structural
soils as she did not know the difference between structural soils and those for regular planting.
Mr. Gunderman responded this was a consensus amongst the staff group that they consulted with. He
said he understood the point Ms. Groomes was making about how the plants tend to grow over the
longer haul and that is probably a fair point generally but they felt that the amount of area they were
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 12
requiring to be replaced was so much larger than what typically would be the case that it should be
preferred.
Joe Budde said he supports staff's recommendation.
Mr. Gunderman said the third Waiver would be for the front building setback (RBZ). He said a suggestion
was made at the Basic Plan Review to move the building back a little and normally that would have been
up to about 15 feet but in this case, there is a gas utility easement that goes back 16 feet. He said the
major building plane would start there and other planes that are recessed would go back to 19 feet so
they felt this was a fairly easy recommendation.
Ms. Kramb said she was okay with this setback.
Mr. Hardt said if it was too far back, it changes the style of the development and Mr. Taylor agreed.
Mr. Gunderman clarified, instead of a suburban type 25-foot setback, it is a 16-foot setback.
Mr. Gunderman said in the Master Sign Plan, they are talking about the letters over the front entryway on
the south elevation. He said it was decided that they will consistently label signs that do not comply with
the regular standards to be the Master Sign Plan. He explained that if there are signs like in this case
where two of them do meet the Code, those will not be included in the Master Sign Plan. He said this
action is just for the one sign allowing the building-mounted (wall) sign on the south elevation facing
SR161 to be located more than 14 inches from the nearest wall.
Ms. Kramb asked about the Master Sign Plan and thought it was done when there was a deviation but
included every single sign on the site and Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed.
Claudia Husak clarified the request and the nomenclature happens to be the Master Sign Plan and should
probably be cleaned up eventually and Ms. Kramb agreed because it should be a Waiver.
Mr. Gunderman said the Code deals with a specific section that includes deviation of signs. He said it
happens to be titled “Master Sign Plan” but in staff’s view, that should keep them out of the Waiver
discussion.
Ms. Kramb thought the intent was that all the signs be brought forward under one plan.
Ms. Husak said that was an option in the Code, which means that all the signs that come in meeting that
Master Sign Plan that the Commission has approved, would not have to go through ART; they could go
straight to permitting.
Mr. Hardt said he asked the applicant for patience as this is a procedural discussion to be worked
through. He said he does not have a problem with what is being proposed. He thought everyone was
saying the same thing but slightly different. He understood this from going through the Code evolutio n
where there were regulations for signs and if a developer wanted to comply with those regulations but if
wanting to deviate, then a Master Sign Plan is created for an entire site and shows the Commission what
they want to do and have an opportunity to get it approved. He said a sign that is wildly outside of Code
might be okay if it is the only sign on the site but not okay if they have six other signs. Mr. Gunderman
agreed with that philosophy and certainly has the expectation that somebody can easily include all of the
signs.
Mr. Hardt said he would lobby for every sign be included in the Master Sign Plan when requesting a
deviation on one or more of the signs.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 12
Mr. Gunderman said where that relationship is defined, between big sign and small sign, they would
agree with what Mr. Hardt is saying. He said he did not believe that was the case here.
Ms. Kramb asked for clarification of what was in compliance and what was deviating from Code.
Mr. Hardt said this amounts to a more creative approach to the sign. He asked how that sign is
illuminated.
Mark Ford, Ford and Associates Architects, said the sign will have LED lights inside of it to be internally
illuminated.
Mr. Hardt requested to see the illustrations again.
Mr. Taylor asked if they were essentially channel letters and Mr. Ford confirmed.
Mr. Hardt asked if they were mounted at the bottom of each letter and Mr. Ford confirmed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the back of the letters was metal and not a tube of plastic and Mr. Ford
confirmed.
Ms. Newell asked about the color of the letters. Mr. Ford answered white.
Mr. Hardt inquired about the Administrative Departures that the ART acted on. He questioned the one
about the light fixture. He said he read the dialogue from the ART Minutes about interpretation of the
Bridge Street Code, lumens vs wattage, and fairly well understood the intent. He said if you take the BSD
Code aside, the Administrative Departures aside, the underlying Zoning Code for the whole City requires
that the bulbs be shielded and not directly in view. He referred to Code Sections 153.149 and read aloud
a couple of the paragraphs where lights should be fully shielded and directed downward to prevent si te
glare, not limited to doorways, architectural accent, etc. shall be total cut-off type and not allow glare. He
concluded this does not comply with City Code.
Mr. Gunderman said in the BSD Code, it says decorative wall lighting shall not require shielding and may
be used to provide up-lighting access for buildings in all BSC districts.
Mr. Hardt said the specific cut sheet they were provided seems to indicate that fixture has an option for a
cut-off shield but is not what is being proposed and asked if the applicant would consider that option.
Mr. Ford said the fixture proposed has been used before. He explained it is 27-watt fluorescent fixture for
the doorway and the Code permits a fixture near a doorway such as this. He referenced some buildings
where he has used this fixture before. He said they could use the shield but have not seen it installed
with the shield.
Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Ford but said the argument begins to fray since there is no guarantee the
maintenance guy who will replace this bulb at some time in the future with the right lamp and he has
seen this in carriage type lights on older looking buildings and on modern buildings where when the bulb
burns out, they are replaced with whatever is on hand or seen first in the hardware store, then you have
the 40 watt fluorescent tube where there used to be a 28 watt tube.
Mr. Ford said that is why the City has Code Enforcement. He said he would prefer to see the actual
fixture with the shield before committing to that feature as he is not certain what kind of lighting effect it
would create.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 12
Mr. Hardt just asked that the applicant work with staff to investigate and asked staff to keep their eyes
on that as details develop.
Mr. Taylor said it was stated in the ART Minutes that the Code does not address the wattage of wall
fixtures but lumens are addressed specifically, and asked how the 28-watt lamp equates to lumens and
does it meet the Code, which is 9.7 lumens per square foot.
Mr. Ford said he did not know the answer.
Mr. Hardt clarified that the lumens come from the lamp and not the fixture, which was not included.
Mr. Ford said they had considered an LED lamp with this fixture and it had a higher wattage.
Mr. Taylor asked staff to look at that lamp that is proposed and make sure it meets the Code
requirement.
Ms. Kramb asked about another Waiver, about the façade.
Mr. Gunderman said the applicant was able to modify the building and bring those both into compliance
so that dropped the number of Waivers from four to three.
Mr. Hardt asked if that modification was reflected in their packets.
Mr. Gunderman said it is not reflected in any of the drawings; it came up after the packets were
delivered.
Mr. Taylor told the applicant if he wanted to leave it the way it was, it is fine. His primary concern was
the street façade and making sure there was not a building 100 plus feet long that did not have a vertical
break. He said it never occurred to him, in all the discussions that they would be talking about sides of
buildings in this regard so he was fully prepared to grant the Waiver tonight. He said he will reference
that discussion again as it relates to the relationship of this building and even with the building next door.
Mr. Hardt said he had the same conclusion but a different take. He said when the Code was put together,
he expressed a lot of concern about trying to regulate architecture with text and this is a perfect example
of why he was afraid of that. He said this building is thoughtfully designed and detailed with nice
proportions on it, the windows are exactly where you would want them to be, and because of the Code
text, we are making an issue out of eight inches. He would have been happy to grant the Waiver. He said
if the applicant believes the architecture got worse by trying to get around that issue, then, feel free to
put it back the way it was as he would have supported the Waiver in a heartbeat. He said it has little to
do with street frontage but more with the design intent of the building and breaking up the façade to
avoid blank facades and that has been accomplished with what was submitted. He said an eight-inch
differential on a 40-foot façade is something that is absolutely appropriate for Waivers when the building
is otherwise, very nicely done.
Mr. Ford said Steve Langworthy had asked him if making the modification would make the building worse
and Mr. Ford said they could make that mathematical adjustment and they did so and the change did not
make it any better or worse.
Mr. Hardt restated that Waivers are not a four-letter word.
Mr. Taylor confirmed that a well-designed building that does not meet Code is exactly what Waivers are
for and has been stated in previous discussions.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 12
Mr. Gunderman said once the Waivers and Master Sign Plan have been disposed of, they can take action
on the Site Plan, itself, with four conditions:
1) That the drive-through stacking lanes are delineated, and the stacking spaces modified to
measure a minimum of 20 feet;
2) That the applicant provide Sterling Silver Linden street trees 40 feet on center along Banker Drive
between the site and David Road, subject to approval by the City Forester;
3) That the applicant site the ground sign in a manner that meets the required 8-foot setback from
the right-of-way with a minimum of 3 feet of landscaping around the base, subject to Planning
approval; and
4) That the applicant addresses the other Planning and Engineering comments contained in the
Planning Report, and based on the Commission’s comments on the parking lot de sign, subject to
Planning approval.
Mr. Gunderman said once the Site Plan has been acted upon, the Preliminary and Final Plats are left for
action and these comply with Code with two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and other adjustments as noted
in this report are made prior to City Council submittal; and
2) That the utility easements be labeled as private on the final plat.
Mr. Taylor thanked the applicant for the revisions that included moving the HVAC units to the rooftop,
moving the building back, relocating the dumpster, moving the pedestrian walkway, and dealing with the
site landscaping. However, he said he was still concerned the building is located too far to the east
towards Sawmill Road. He said in terms of what they are trying to accomplish in the BSD, the ideal
situation would be an unbroken façade down the street. He said right now they are 33 feet from the
property line, which means if the building next door were built with a zero lot line, it would cause a big
gap. He said the proposed 50 feet for a gap is way beyond what they are trying to accomplish. He said
the comments about the side facades are irrelevant as buildings in an urban setting should be so close
together that it is an alley. He said he is not crazy about the pocket park and they are supposed to be a
result of buildings that are close together. He said in a perfect world, those buildings need to be much
closer together to help create urbanization. He said he could support the distance between the buildings
if that were a lot between the two buildings and there might be someone coming in the future to infill
that area for real urbanism.
Mr. Ford explained they cannot move the building due to the 25-foot sanitary easement on the west. He
said they moved it as far west as they could.
Tom Warner, Advanced Civil Design, 422 Beecher Road, Gahanna, said he was the civil consultant on this
project. He said there is a sanitary line that exists that comes across Dublin-Granville Road and heads
west. He said staff engineers have stated they want to keep that line active so they are vacating all but
the areas that have no sanitary lines. He said they are keeping the sanitary easement where there is an
existing sanitary sewer and have to maintain that area. He referred to the Final Plat page 2 of 2 that
shows 29.74 feet east of the property line.
Mr. Taylor asked how they get buildings closer together. He realizes this is separate from the application
and sees the limitations.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the easements in the district have been identified that will be problematic.
Mr. Gunderman concluded his presentation and was prepared for votes on all the issues.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any outstanding issues.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 12
Ms. Kramb asked for confirmation that all the other signs met Code.
Mr. Hardt complimented the applicant on the building, the imaginative signs, the move of the HVAC units
to the roof, and the improved renderings. He stated he was in favor of the Basic Plan and supported it.
He said that he did so with some regret and very specific comments about the Site Plan, this is very
suburban in its character. He explained that the intent of BSC in general, singular parking areas that are
shared by businesses on a block. He believes his comments on the Basic Plan were not addressed
adequately where there are separate parking lots; for that reason he is not sure he can support this plan.
He respectfully disagrees with staff; this Site Plan does not meet the intent of the BSD Code.
Mr. Gunderman said they are in a position to judge compliance with the Code. He said he fully
understands Mr. Hardt’s comments about parking and agrees with his basic philosophy but they do not
have that really reflected in any very specific things in the Code and nothing that he could apply against
this particular site.
Mr. Hardt said he agreed other than the fundamental principles that are in the goal statements. He said
that the Plat that is proposed this evening, defines a property line, and that property line is five feet or so
off the western edge of the pavement so that a green strip with trees planted in it is always going to be
there regardless of what happens in the adjacent site, because of the way it is configured and dimensions
proposed, there will always be two separate parking lots. He said there is a great deal of commentary
and language in the Code that talks about encouraging shared parking and flexible parking
arrangements.
Mr. Gunderman agreed in terms of that issue and perhaps should have reminded them during some of
the discussion that we do have on the Final Plat, a connecting easement that would at least allow the
parking lots to move traffic around but it does not say it is open parking for both on the site.
Mr. Hardt said that is what concerns him. He said even with the cross over connector, it is the exact
model Avery Road was built with; the antithesis of what we are trying to accomplish in this area.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked why the parking is held off five feet from the property line. Mr. Gunderman
answered because of the five-foot setback.
Mr. Hardt said that setback only applies because we are choosing to divide the parcel. He said he would
be supportive of a Waiver if it came to that.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they could agree on the five-foot Waiver of the setback in the parking
area that would remove that to make it permissible for the next guy.
Mr. Hardt said he would like to go one step further and require the next parking lot to go to the edge.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said they cannot require that until they come forward and not tonight but they
could begin taking steps to unify this parking lot.
Ms. Kramb said the applicant would need to request it.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said he may have not known he could ask for that but can now, which we would
approve, if that was his pleasure.
Mr. Ford said their preference would be not to change the Plat and to slide the parking five feet to the
west.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thought that would accomplish their goal.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Hardt said he was concerned about the next project to come along, whatever it is, may not be an
office building; it could be a restaurant with their parking. He said they could set themselves up for a
development pattern that heads in a direction that the Code intended.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said they have a solution whereas when the next applicant comes in, if it is
appropriate, we can accomplish those goals. She asked the applicant if that would be something he
would like to entertain.
Mr. Ford asked for clarification.
Mr. Gunderman said getting the pavement over to the proposed property line would be the primary
benefit. He said exactly how the dimensions are worked out is not important and could be done two or
three different ways.
Mr. Hardt said ultimately when the block gets built out into whatever configuration, the result is less
asphalt because there is a unified parking field that all the businesses on that block can share without
unnecessary curbs and green space in between rows of parking where nothing is going to grow.
Ms. Kramb asked if five feet was being recommended just for the west side.
Mr. Taylor said the proposal would encourage parking on the block for visiting multiple businesses instead
of just one business.
Mr. Hardt said this would ultimately be to the applicant’s benefit. He explained, hypothetically, the next
building that comes along is something that the bulk of its business is on the evenings or weekends, you
have a more easily sharable parking field and that means the other building can get bigger, which from a
development standpoint, is always a good thing.
Mr. Gunderman asked if there was a consensus that we would like to shift the parking to the west up to
the property line.
Mr. Ford asked if the trees would go away. Ms. Newell said she could live with it either way and she was
comfortable with the way the applicant initially submitted it.
Mr. Hardt said the question they need to hear, if they develop this request, are they going to lose
anybody’s vote. Ms. Kramb said she could go either way and Ms. Newell said the same and they would
not lose her vote.
Mr. Gunderman asked if there was a preference as to where that five feet is made up and a plan was
suggested by input from several members to replace the 5 feet between the drive-through and the rest
of the parking lot.
Mr. Hardt said to be fair and somewhat apologetic to the applicant, one of the things that really struck
him in the Planning Report – “The proposal is the first significant step towards the development of the
block between Shamrock Boulevard and David Road. Given its prominent location along SR161, this new
Loft office building will set the tone for future adjacent development.” He could not agree with that
statement, more. He said if it is not right the first time, future applicants will just build their own buildings
with their own parking lots and keep going.
Mr. Ford said they were ready for a recommendation.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they had gotten to the bottom of this or was there more.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 12
Mr. Budde asked if it was a requirement or an option. The consensus was the applicant would have to
ask for a Waiver and the Commission would have to approve the Waiver.
Mr. Gunderman said they are agreed that the Commission can take action on an additional Waiver this
evening.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if this was being recommended by the ART.
Ms. Readler explained that since the Commission has the final authority on the Waiver, it is not necessary
to get ART’s recommendation.
Mr. Gunderman stated this will be reported back to the ART. Ms. Readler said all the Waivers will be
voted on, individually, which brings it up to four.
Mr. Hardt asked if the applicant wanted to put the elevations back to the way they were, they would
need the Waiver that is not currently on the screen.
Mr. Ford said they have already set sail on making that change.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was list of items that needed votes.
Ms. Readler confirmed that each Waiver should be separated out.
Ms. Amorose Groomes concluded there would be seven votes instead of four.
Mr. Gunderman said the first Waiver would be for structural soils in the trenches along Banker Drive.
Mr. Sanford said they have gone above and beyond what the Code requires for tree planting and agreed
per the City Forrester and Parks and Open Space staff that they would be building a top soil and hummus
mix of soil that is three-foot deep that is seven by seven for each street tree around Banker Drive and all
the islands in the parking lots so they are not using the soil that is there, they are using a mix staff has
recommended.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for a motion.
Ms. Readler recommended making the motions in the affirmative and then if the Commission disagrees,
they vote no, to be consistent.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to recommend approval of the Waiver for the structural soil
requirement in trenches along Banker Drive. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, no; Mr.
Hardt, no; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Newell, no; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Disapproved 3 – 3)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Budde seconded, to recommend approval of the Waiver for the requirement to
install structural soil in and around the parking lot islands. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, no; Ms.
Newell, no; Ms. Amorose Groomes, no; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, no; and Mr. Taylor, no. (Disapproved
1 – 5)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to recommend approval of the Waiver for the Siting the building
outside of the Required Building Zone (approximately 16-19 feet from the right-of-way, where 0-15 is
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 12
required). The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms.
Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 6 - 0)
Ms. Readler recommended asking the applicant if they wanted to request this waiver to have on record.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said there has been an additional Waiver proposed with respect to the parking
setback. She asked the applicant if that was something they would like to pursue. Mr. Ford indicated that
they would like to request such a Waiver.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved, Mr. Budde seconded, to recommend approval of the Waiver for the elimination of the
five-foot setback on the west property line. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr.
Taylor, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Hardt seconded, to recommend approval of the Master Sign Plan allowing the
building-mounted (wall) sign on the south elevation facing SR161 to be located more than 14 inches from
the nearest wall. The vote was as follows: Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes;
Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Newell seconded, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review with four
conditions:
1) That the drive-through stacking lanes are delineated, and the stacking spaces modified to
measure a minimum of 20 feet;
2) That the applicant provide Sterling Silver Linden street trees 40 feet on center along Banker Drive
between the site and David Road, subject to approval by the City Forester;
3) That the applicant site the ground sign in a manner that meets the required 8-foot setback from
the right-of-way with a minimum of 3 feet of landscaping around the base, subject to Planning
approval; and
4) That the applicant addresses the other Planning and Engineering comments contained in the
Planning Report, and based on the Commission’s comments on the parking lot design, subject to
Planning approval.
Ross Sanford agreed to the above four conditions as modified this evening.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes;
Ms. Newell, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats with
two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and other adjustments as noted
in this report are made prior to City Council submittal; and
2) That the utility easements be labeled as private on the Final Plat.
Ross Sanford agreed to the above two conditions.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes;
Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 19, 2014 –Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the applicant for enduring this process with the Commission members
and promises to be better next time.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2014
ART Members and Designees: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director; Gary Gunderman, Planning
Manager; Dave Marshall, Review Services Analyst; Fred Hahn, Director of Parks and Open Space; Barb
Cox, Engineering Manager; Jeff Tyler, Building Standards Director; and Michael Clarey, Economic
Development Administrator.
Other Staff: Rachel Ray, Planner II; Jennifer Rauch, Senior Planner; Claudia Husak, Planner II; Joanne
Shelly, Urban Designer and Landscape Architect; Devayani Puranik, Planner II; Marie Downie, Planner I;
Katie Ashbaugh, Planning Assistant; Jonathan Staker, Planning Assistant; Andrew Crozier, Planning
Assistant; Logan Stang, Planning Assistant; Nicole Martin, Planning Assistant; and Laurie Wright, Staff
Assistant.
Applicants: Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Mark Ford and Gayle Zimmerman of Ford & Associates
Architects; Dan Magly, Faris Design & Planning; and Matt Booms, State Bank (Case 1); Larra Thomas, U
Crew Holdings, LLC (Case 2); and Bruce Sommerfelt, Signcom, Inc. and Chad Morgan, Coldwell Banker
(Case 3).
Steve Langworthy called the meeting to order. He asked if there were any amendments to the June 5,
2014, meeting minutes. Jeff Tyler reported that he had sent his edits to Ms. Wright prior to the ART
meeting. The minutes were accepted into the record as amended.
DETERMINATIONS
1. BSC Office District – State Bank Shamrock Boulevard & West Dublin-Granville Road
14-047BSC-SP/MSP/PP/FP
Site Plan Review/Master Sign Plan/Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Gary Gunderman said this is a request for an 11,500-square-foot loft building for State Bank with a retail
banking facility, a drive-through kiosk and all associated site improvements. He said this proposal also
includes the subdivision of one 2.8-acre lot into two lots. He said this is a request for review and
recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan
Review and Master Sign Plan Review with requests for Waivers under the provisions of Zoning Code
Section 153.066. He said this is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council
for a preliminary and final plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Gunderman announced that the applicant had submitted revised plans to address some of the ART’s
comments prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s review. He presented the revised plans and
asked if there were any questions. [There were none].
Mr. Gunderman referred to the ART Report and explained that he had a presentation summarizing the
recommendations and discussion items. He stated that the first set of recommendations related to the
proposed Waivers:
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Page 2 of 6
1) Code Section 153.065(D)(3)(c) – A request to waive the structural soil requirement in
trenches along Banker Drive.
2) Code Section 153.065(D)(5)(c)2.A – A request to waive the requirement to install structural
soil in and around the parking lot islands.
Mr. Gunderman said this area is not highly compacted, and the applicant is proposing an alternative
method that Staff finds acceptable. He presented the third Waiver:
3) Code Section 153.062(O)(4)(a) – Siting the building outside of the Required Building Zone
(approximately 16-19 feet from the right-of-way, where 0-15 is required).
Mr. Gunderman concluded that approval of the building siting Waiver is recommended due to the existing
natural gas easement. He explained the fourth Waiver:
4) Code Section 153.062(O)(4)(d)4 – Vertical façade divisions exceeding 40 feet on two
elevations (east and west).
Mr. Gunderman presented the two building elevations in question. He said the overall, the architecture is
very good and all of the other requirements have been met. He stated that Zoning Code Section
153.062(N)(4)(b)1 and 153.062(O)(4)(d)4 for the Loft building type require a vertical façade division a
maximum of every 40 feet “to divide the surface of the façade into pedestrian -scaled increments
appropriate to the architectural character of the building ty pe.” He pointed out that the Code provides
two examples of architectural elements – such as recesses or projections a minimum of 18 inches, or
architectural elements a minimum of three inches in depth – to meet the requirement.
Mr. Gunderman explained that the east elevation has a 40-foot, eight-inch span before the wall plane
changes by a depth of two feet, eight inches. He summarized that for the east elevation, the requirement
is exceeded by eight inches. He referred to the west elevation, which is 49 feet, four inches wide, with an
eight-inch change in the plane of the elevation toward the center of the building adjacent to the stairwell.
He explained that the requirement would be met if the change in plane was a minimum of 18 inches
instead of just eight inches.
Mr. Gunderman stated that it was Planning’s opinion that there are no exceptional circumstances present
to grant the Waiver to meet all of the criteria, and therefore disapproval of the requested Waiver is
recommended. He indicated that the applicant feels very strongly that they do meet the criteria given the
features inside the building. He asked the applicant to explain their position on the request.
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, said he believes there are two separate issues in question, on each of
the elevations. He said he agreed with Planning’s analysis about the east elevation, but that the same
interpretation should not be applied to the west elevation. He referred to the eight-inch change in plane
along the west elevation, which he considered being a “building step,” and not a “recess,” which are
found on the north and south sides of the building. He referenced the Code Section 153.062(N)(4)(b)1,
which states, “architectural elements or forms shall be used to divide the surface of the façade into
pedestrian-scaled increments appropriate to the architectural character of the building type. Acceptable
divisions include, but are not limited to…” He said he considered the eight-inch change in plane to be an
“architectural element,” even if it was not one of the two examples listed. He said since the provision
states that they are “not limited to” those two elements, the ART should consider this as an alternative
means of meeting the requirement. He said he was concerned that this issue had not been discussed
previously, and neither had it been brought up at the Basic Plan Review. He said he was concerned how
the request would be received by the Planning and Zoning Commission without a recommendation of
approval from the ART.
Rachel Ray confirmed with Mr. Sanford that he interpreted the change in wall plane to be an
“architectural element.”
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Sanford said yes, and it also related to the interpretation of what should be considered a “recess” or
“projection.”
Ms. Ray said she was not sure she agreed with Mr. Sanford’s interpretation, because if the Code
specifically lists two other types of features, one of which requires an 18-inch recess or projection,
applicants could always opt for a smaller change in wall plane instead.
Jeff Tyler said Mr. Sanford’s interpretation is reasonable; however, he referred to the specific purpose
and intent of this Code section, which he believed to be the creation of dimension and shadow lines. He
said that being the case, he thought the eight inch change in wall plane would help, but it wouldn’t
create the same degree of depth intended by the Code.
Mr. Sanford said Section 1 had to do with pedestrian scale increments in the architectural character of
the building type. He noted there is no pedestrian walkway on the east side of the building, and the
pocket plaza is on the west side of the building. He thought this section was more applicable for buildings
and elevations in areas with greater pedestrian activity.
Mr. Tyler said he disagreed with Mr. Sanford’s interpretation. He said “pedestrian scale” refers to the
intent to provide shadow lines and dimension, and not just apply to elevations along sidewalks. Mr. Tyler
said he agreed with Mr. Sanford’s interpretation about recesses and projections but he was not sure if
this proposal accomplishes the intent to provide visual relief and scale down the building.
Ms. Ray said the “architectural element protruding from or recessed into the façade” implies something
that projects from the building, but then has a distinct return. She said she understood Mr. Sanford’s
interpretation and that the architecture could be interpreted to meet the intent of the requirement.
However, she said there still does not appear to be a specific reason why the requirement cannot be met,
and therefore staff prefers to err on the side of requiring the architecture to be modified to meet the
requirement. She reiterated that the Planning and Zoning Commission, however, may disagree and feel
that the elevations as shown are appropriate. She said the Commission had indicated that they would
entertain Waiver requests as long as there was a reason to depart from the Code requirement –
principally that the result would be better building than if the Code provision were strictly followed. She
asked the applicant if they believed that the Waiver would result in a better building than if they were
required to modify the building to meet the requirement, or conversely, if the modification would leave
the building worse off.
Mark Ford, Ford & Associates Architects, said his concern with changing the architecture to meet the
requirement was twofold, and mainly for the west elevation. He said if the wall plane projected further to
be about 20 inches, that would impact the spacing between the windows on the south and west
elevations. He said it was a matter of recalculating the spacing, and it could probably work, but he was
not sure. He pointed out the detail of the windows, indicating the same dimension on all sides of the
building. He also indicated the west elevation was the place to have an offset as that is the stair on the
interior. He said if he slid the wall plane over to meet the 40-foot dimension, it would produce a weird
condition inside on the stairwell. He asked what the degree of the offset should be.
Ms. Ray asked if the wall plane could be moved out by at least 10 inches. Mr. Ford said if they pull the
plane forward, they need to move it 12 inches to keep a consistent brick module. He said the south
elevation would grow one foot.
He said his secondary concern was that the degree of “non-transparent” façade would thereby increase
on the south elevation, which he did not would be an issue in terms of meeting the transparency
requirement on the south elevation, but he was not sure. He said they would evaluate the impact on the
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Page 4 of 6
building further prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He was concerned that trying to
solve one problem would create another.
Ms. Ray suggested they justify their reasons why the building either can or cannot be changed to meet
the requirement when they present to the Commission.
Mr. Sanford said he was frustrated with Staff’s position, but he was willing to ask the Commission for
their consideration of the Waiver.
Steve Langworthy confirmed that the ART was recommending approval of the first thee Waivers but the
fourth was the issue before the ART, as the present recommendation is to deny the fourth Waiver.
Ms. Ray pointed out that with respect to the east elevation, the length is off by 8 inches, but the depth of
the change in wall place is acceptable at two feet, eight inches, but disapproval is still recommended.
Mr. Langworthy asked that the ART review the Waiver criteria. Mr. Gunderman read the Code
requirements and restated this was a typical site, and not a unique circumstance. Mr. Ford agreed.
Mr. Langworthy asked if all the criteria had to be met.
Ms. Ray responded that all of the criteria did not need to be met, but considered. She asked if the
proposal will bring a higher quality with the Waiver. Mr. Ford said he needed to work the math out. Ms.
Ray restated her question. She asked if not approving the Waiver would result in a worse building than
by trying to meet Code. Mr. Ford replied that it likely would not be a worse building.
Mr. Langworthy stipulated that the ART’s interpretation requires both elevations to be included in one
Waiver. Mr. Ford said they could revise the west elevation to meet Code but not the east elevation. He
said trying to find 8 inches would be problematic.
Fred Hahn asked if the argument degraded the quality on the east elevation and Mr. Ford answered yes
that it would lower the quality of the building.
Barb Cox asked if moving the face of building on the west side out one foot farther to west, if it would
cause a ripple effect.
Mr. Ford said it would likely cause a ripple effect on the spacing of the windows and the percentage of
glass/opacity. He said it would only affect the south elevation by maybe one percent but the east
elevation is problematic. He did not know where to take the eight inches from. He restated he could likely
accommodate the west, but not the east.
Joanne Shelly asked if the difference would even be noticeable to pedestrian traffic, since buildings are
not often viewed head-on as they are in elevation renderings. Mr. Ford said he hoped that the average
pedestrian would notice. More discussion ensued over the interpretations of the Code.
Ms. Ray confirmed recommendation of disapproval for the vertical façade division Waiver applicable to
both elevations. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the ART members agreed with the recommendation of
disapproval, requiring the applicant to meet the vertical façade division requirement on both the east and
west elevations. [There was consensus].
Mr. Gunderman presented the two Administrative Departures described in the report, for which approval
is recommended:
1) 153.065(B)(6) – Driveway curb cut width – allowing 24-foot driveway curb cuts at Banker
Drive where 22 feet is required, due to existing conditions; and
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Page 5 of 6
2) 153.065(D)(5) – Parking lot screening – to ensure a continuous landscape treatment, the
same landscape character and screening is recommended along all portions of the parking
area since a street wall would only be required for a small portion of the parking area due to
the curve in Banker Drive.
Mr. Gunderman stated that a request for a third Administrative Departure had been identified since the
report was distributed, related to the proposed wall lighting fixtures. He described the proposed
decorative fluorescent wall light fixtures proposed adjacent to the building entrances on the north, south
and west elevations. He said the exterior lighting requirements in Code Section 153.065(F)(9)(a) allows
decorative wall lighting, provided it does not exceed a specific wattage. He said the requirement refers to
LED and incandescent fixtures, but does not address fluorescent fixtures. He explained that 28 watt
fluorescent lights are proposed, which exceeds the requirement for LED lights, but not incandescent
lights.
Mr. Sanford asked if the requirement was intended to address lighting levels or energy efficiency.
Ms. Ray stated that the Code requirement had been written primarily to restrict fixtures that are too
bright.
Mr. Sanford said they could provide a shorter fixture to get the fixture under 20 watts, but he didn’t think
that would look right on the building.
Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the ART found the two Administrative Departures listed in the report and
the proposed Administrative Departure related to lighting to be acceptable:
3) 153.065(F)(9)(a) – Decorative wall lighting – Allowing a decorative 28 watt fluorescent light
fixture, since the regulations only address LED and incandescent fixtures.
Mr. Gunderman presented the recommendation of approval for the Site Plan Review, with the following
four conditions:
1) That the drive-through stacking lanes are delineated, and the stacking spaces modified to
measure a minimum of 20 feet;
2) That the applicant provide Sterling Silver Linden street trees 40 feet on center along Banker
Drive between the site and David Road, subject to approval by the City Forester;
3) That the applicant site the ground sign in a manner that meets the required 8-foot setback
from the right-of-way with a minimum of 3 feet of landscaping around the base, subject to
Planning approval; and
4) That the applicant address the other Planning and Engineering comments contained in this
report.
Mr. Langworthy asked the applicant if he understood the conditions and agreed to them. Mr. Sanford
agreed to the four conditions. Mr. Langworthy confirmed ART’s recommended approval to the Planning
and Zoning Commission with four conditions.
Mr. Gunderman presented the request for a Master Sign Plan, which was recommended for approval to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the Master Sign Plan allows for the building-mounted (wall)
sign on the south elevation facing SR161 to be located more than 14 inches from the nearest wall. He
described the proposed sign, which included lettering installed on the awning above the entrance.
Mr. Langworthy said this type of sign has been approved by the Commission before, with a nice outcome.
He said this might prompt a change in the Code, since this type of sign is likely to be requested by
others. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any issues with this proposed Master Sign Plan. [There were
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Page 6 of 6
none.] He confirmed the ART’s recommendation of approval of the Master Sign Plan.
Mr. Gunderman presented the ART’s recommendations for the Preliminary and Final Plats with the
following conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and other adjustments as
noted in this report are made prior to City Council submittal; and
2) That the utility easements be labeled as private on the final plat.
Mr. Langworthy confirmed that the ART members had no further comments on this application. He stated
this application will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission with recommendations of
approval.
Mr. Langworthy thanked the applicant for their cooperation and stated this request would be forwarded
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for determination next Thursday, June 19.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM
MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 5, 2014
ART Members and Designees: Steve Langworthy, Planning Director; Gary Gunderman, Planning
Manager; Alan Perkins, Fire Marshal; Fred Hahn, Director of Parks and Open Space; Barb Cox,
Engineering Manager; Jeff Tyler, Building Standards Director; and Colleen Gilger, Economic Development
Director.
Other Staff: Rachel Ray, Planner II; Claudia Husak, Planner II; Joanne Shelly, Urban Designer and
Landscape Architect; Marie Downie, Planner I; Katie Ashbaugh, Planning Assistant; Jonathan Staker,
Planning Assistant; and Laurie Wright, Staff Assistant.
Applicants: Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Gayle Zimmerman, Ford & Associates Architects; Todd
Faris, Faris Design & Planning; and Matt Booms, State Bank (Case 2).
Steve Langworthy called the meeting to order. He asked if there were any amendments to the May 29,
2014, meeting minutes. [There were none.] The minutes were accepted into the record as presented.
CASE REVIEW
1. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin-Granville Road
14-047BSC-SP/PP/FP Site Plan Review/Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Gary Gunderman said this is a request for an 11,500-square-foot loft building for State Bank with a retail
banking facility, a drive-through kiosk and associated site improvements. He said this proposal includes
the subdivision of one 2.8-acre lot into two lots. He said this is a request for review and recommendation
of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan Review under
the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. He said this is also a request for review and
recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council for a preliminary
and final plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Gunderman said minor comments were received from Engineering and the proposal is in pretty good
shape overall. He commented on a few specific items on the plans: 1) the Code requires that the ATM
lanes need to be striped, and the drive-through stacking spaces should measure 20 feet long; 2) the
exterior lighting does not comply with Code in terms of the locations of the light fixtures; and 3) the sign
on the south side of the building does not comply with Code as it is situated too far from the wall on the
canopy over the main entrance to be considered a wall sign. He said a Master Sign Plan would be needed
for approval of that wall sign.
Gayle Zimmerman, Ford & Associates Architects, noted the illustrations of the signs on Banker Drive are
needed and almost ready. She said the sign on SR 161 is on the plans. Mr. Gunderman questioned the
exact distance the sign is set off of the wall as it was not indicated. Ms. Zimmerman said she would send
the dimensions via email and will also provide the total area or square footage of the sign as well as the
dimensions of the setback.
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Page 2 of 4
Steve Langworthy said the Master Sign Plan only needs to include any signs that are not compliant with
Code.
Mr. Gunderman said three Waivers will be requested:
1. Structural soils on Banker Drive;
2. Structural soils on the parking lot islands; and
3. Building sited outside of the Required Building Zone.
Mr. Langworthy suggested that the third Waiver noted could potentially be an Administrative Departure,
since the setback distance is within the Departure requirements, and the siting of the building was due to
the presence of the gas easement that is beyond the control of the applicant.
Mr. Gunderman said with respect to the structural soils, he had received a report from Todd Faris, Faris
Design & Planning, which indicated that there was no advantage to structural soils for this site, but it also
made the assumption that the soil is in good shape. He said that history shows that these areas do not
necessarily include good planting soil. Mr. Gunderman said it was recommended that the applicant dig
down three feet in all the planting areas in the parking lot to mix in good top soil. Mr. Faris stated in the
report that this would be a more useful product than structural soil would have been.
Mr. Langworthy asked how this justification might help going forward.
Mr. Gunderman explained that really urban settings with lots of pavement and buildings located very
close to the planting zones require structural soils, and Banker Drive does not fit that description. Rachel
Ray suggested that structural soils would be needed for areas that are already compacted or for smaller
tree lawns.
Mr. Gunderman stated two Administrative Departures are required: 1) building facades exceed the 40-
foot vertical façade division requirement - one exceeds Code only by eight inches and other is arguably
over; and 2) breaks are supposed to be 18” in depth, which is not met. Mr. Langworthy suggested this
might need to be a Waiver.
Ms. Zimmerman noted the 8-inch return on the west elevation and referred to plan exhibit CA11. Ms. Ray
noted the south elevation is technically at 49 feet, 8 inches before a vertical façade division appears.
Mr. Gunderman said additional analysis on the elevations would be necessary, and the recommendations
would be summarized in the report for next week’s ART meeting.
Mr. Gunderman said driveway width at 24 feet was recommended as Code limits driveways to 22 feet. He
said the 24-foot driveway curb cuts are existing.
Mr. Langworthy asked how the applicant would justify the urban nature of the proposed site plan, given
the Planning and Zoning Commission’s previous concerns that the plan seemed too suburban.
Ross Sanford said it is going to be an increasingly urban area, and the site is designed to coordinate with
the adjacent properties when they redevelop.
Claudia Husak said this site is being constructed during a transitional period. Mr. Gunderman said a
bigger impact would be to have buildings on either side of this property as the same size with the
buildings right up to the street with the parking behind. Mr. Stanford said SR 161 is still not an urban
street at 45 mph; it is going to take a while before this area feels urban, with a grid and many buildings
and sites developed in an urban manner, but this is a step in the right direction.
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Zimmerman asked what was involved for a Master Sign Plan. Mr. Gunderman confirmed staff has the
plans in question. Mr. Langworthy said a description of what is required by Code vs. what the applicant is
requesting is part of the Master Sign Plan. Mr. Langworthy indicated it a similar process as a Waiver, just
evaluated under different review criteria.
Mr. Sanford said he was not comfortable giving the easement on the lower access now.
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Ms. Cox said access and how the sites are developed had not been discussed. Mr. Langworthy suggested
care be taken with the condition for an access easement. Ms. Cox said the easement goes from property
line to property line and if it is on the plat already, they might be okay. Mr. Gunderman asked what
language Mr. Sanford was uncomfortable with. Mr. Sanford explained they own the other property to the
west and that was appropriate for the northern connection but they do not own the property to the east
and should not be asked simply give the access away immediately. Mr. Gunderman said that the City
needs something that can be counted on but understood the applicant’s concerns. Mr. Gunderman
suggested that the central parking lot easement be conditioned upon the provision of a similar cross
access easement to the State Bank property in order to make this access effective. Mr. Gunderman said
the properties to the east need another access point. Mr. Sanford agreed to the easement from the
property line. Mr. Sanford indicated that nothing would be concluded on any access for the properties to
the east relative to the access at the north end of the property.
Ms. Ray said the revised plans go out in the packets next Friday and will need the revisions by next
Tuesday. She also stipulated that 4 large, 10 small paper copies were needed and an updated electronic
set for both ART and PZC.
Mr. Langworthy asked if all the Waivers were clear. Mr. Sanford said he understood. Mr. Langworthy said
staff will clarify the Waivers and Administrative Departures.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 29, 2014
ART Members and Designees: Rachel Ray, Planner II; Ray Harpham, Commercial Plans Examiner;
Alan Perkins, Fire Marshal; Laura Ball, Landscape Architect; Barb Cox, Engineering Manager; Dave
Marshall, Review Services Analyst; Colleen Gilger, Economic Development Director; and Jeff Tyler,
Building Standards Director.
Other Staff: Claudia Husak, Planner II; Andrew Crozier, Planning Assistant; Logan Stang, Planning
Assistant; Katie Ashbaugh, Planning Assistant; Jonathan Staker, Planning Assistant; and Laurie Wright,
Staff Assistant.
Applicants: Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Gayle Zimmerman, Ford & Associates Architects; Todd
Faris, Faris Design & Planning; Tom Warner, Advanced Civil Design; and Matt Booms, State Bank (Case
3).
Rachel Ray called the meeting to order. She asked if there were any amendments to the May 22, 2014,
meeting minutes. [There were none.] The minutes were accepted into the record as presented.
CASE REVIEWS
3. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin-Granville Road
14-047BSC-SP/PP/FP Site Plan Review/Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Rachel Ray said this is a request for an 11,500-square-foot Loft building for State Bank with a retail
banking facility, a drive-through kiosk and all associated site improvements. She said this proposal also
includes the subdivision of one 2.8-acre lot into two lots. She said this is a request for review and
recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan
Review under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. She said this is also a request for review
and recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary and final plat under the provisions of
the Subdivision Regulations.
Ms. Ray stated that Gary Gunderman introduced this case last week. She said Gary was out of town but
had provided a preliminary analysis of the proposal. Ms. Ray said a recommendation of approval to
forward the case on to the PZC is anticipated at the June 5th ART meeting.
Ms. Ray inquired about the height dimensions of the parapet from the roof deck.
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, said they would provide the actual distance from the top of the roof
deck this week. Ray Harpham noted the two-foot minimum requirement. Ms. Ray said the parapet had
been modified to provide screening of the HVAC units that had been moved to the rooftop since the Basic
Plan Review. Mr. Sanford said a mechanical screen wall was added in the center of building,
approximately 3 feet, 5 inches tall.
Ms. Ray asked if the trim and downspouts would be painted, and if so, what color. Gayle Zimmerman,
Ford & Associates Architects answered the downspouts are a prefinished metal. Ms. Ray requested that
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Page 2 of 4
she provide a confirmed color, to which Ms. Zimmerman agreed.
Ms. Ray stated that Code requires masonry windows to have appropriate sills and lintels, and asked the
applicant if they believed their windows were designed to be architecturally appropriate. Ms. Zimmerman
stated that a stone sill was proposed originally but they have since eliminated the detail. Ms. Ray said
they still need to show the detail or explain the architectural appropriateness so a determination can be
made.
Ms. Ray inquired about the degree of reflectivity from the windows. Ms. Zimmerman said the glazing is
clear with a light tint but would provide the detail.
Ms. Ray said the location of the building on the site will require a waiver. She explained that due to the
location of a 15-foot gas easement along the front of the property, which coincides with the 0-15-foot
Required Building Zone, prevents the building from being sited in the RBZ. She noted that PZC had
already had concerns with the building being positioned so close to State Route 161, leaving little space
for future patio areas or other activity along the front of the building.
Mr. Sanford said the building was originally about six feet behind the front property line, but is now 16
feet back, due to the easement. Ms. Ray said there is a fairly wide tree lawn too, so staff is comfortable
with the revised building placement due to the circumstances.
Ms. Ray said the vertical façade division requirement was off just a little bit from Code, which requires a
vertical façade division to help break up the building’s façade. She said the requirement was a division
not more than every 40 feet, however on the east elevation, the plans show a 40-foot, 8-inch span. Ms.
Ray suggested an Administrative Departure for the eight inches.
Ms. Ray inquired about gas meters, or other elements on the building façade. Ms. Zimmerman stated
they did not have a gas meter shown on the plans at this time but anticipated that one would likely be
installed on the east elevation.
Ms. Ray asked if the ground sign was intended to be part of this submission. She said the ART could
review it for approval as part of the Site Plan Review, or it could be filed separately as a Minor Project
Review. Mr. Sanford said he would check on the ground sign.
Ms. Ray said Brian Martin, Zoning Inspector, reviewed the landscape plan and provided some comments.
He noted the extensive use of liriope and suggested more variety and diversity of plant materials. Mr.
Sanford said they could provide different plant materials.
Ms. Ray said Mr. Martin noted that other banks in the city have had security concerns when shrubs were
planted next to entrances, making good hiding places.
Todd Faris, Faris Design & Planning, said the junipers adjacent to the doorway on the west entrance
were to add some height next to the door on a somewhat blank wall space. Mr. Sanford said that door
was an emergency exit and did not believe the plantings would be an issue for security. Ms. Ray said the
recommendation was made so the applicant could be made aware of possible security issues but they
were not obligated to change the plant material.
Ms. Ray asked if Catmint or another similar ground cover could be added by the dumpster. The applicant
replied yes.
Ms. Ray noted that there were a few conflicts between the trees and parking lot light fixtures. She
reported that Mr. Martin had recommended that the trees be centered in some of the islands, since not
all of them were necessary to meet the interior landscape requirement.
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Ray referred to the evergreen hedge along the east property line, and explained that Mr. Martin had
suggested the addition of several different types of junipers to provide more diversity.
Laura Ball said she would respectfully disagree with that recommendation. She said one type of plant
material spaced that close together acts more like one unit and provides a clean line, rather than one
with multiple interruptions. Ms. Ray confirmed with the applicant and the other ART members that the
landscape screen could remain as shown on the plans.
Mr. Faris asked about Code requirements for the area currently shown as concrete under the drive-
through canopy. He asked if the City preferred gravel or some other material, since landscaping was not
likely to survive in that location. He asked if river rock would be appropriate.
Ms. Ball agreed that river rock could work, although placing landscape fabric down under the rocks to
prevent weeds would last approximately two years.
Ms. Ball questioned the perennials on the plant list for the basins. She said if the basin is wet, several of
the perennials will be lost, like the day lily, and recommended more water tolerant plants. Mr. Faris was
agreeable. Ms. Ball said the Karl Forrester and the liriope, were now considered evasive and suggested
using an alternative.
Ms. Ray referenced the proposed plat and stated that Planning had agreed that the “flag” portion of the
lot should remain part of Lot One. She said that Mr. Gunderman planned to meet with Engineering to
determine if there were other comments specific to the plat.
Fire Marshal Alan Perkins commented that the plans were very similar to the first submittal and confirmed
no sprinklers were needed under the canopy, which had been discussed at the previous ART meeting that
he had not been able to attend.
Ms. Ray inquired about the sanitary sewer easement and manhole shown in the pocket plaza area, and
asked if Engineering was okay with the encroachment.
Barb Cox requested information from the applicant that she could review, but said she believed it to be
acceptable.
Mr. Harpham asked if the layout of the stacking lanes associated with the drive-through had been
addressed following the Commission’s comments. Mr. Sanford said they have relocated the dumpster,
giving them enough room so there is enough space for a bypass lane.
Ms. Ball referred to the pocket plaza easement on the plat and noted that there was no reference to
maintenance responsibilities. She stated that the City would not want to be responsible for the plaza’s
maintenance. Mr. Sanford and Mr. Warner agreed to look at the language shown on the preliminary and
final plat documents.
Ms. Ray asked if there were any other questions or comments from the applicant.
Mr. Sanford asked if the two requested Waivers specific to the use of structural soil were understood. He
explained the first is intended to eliminate the need to trench beneath the sidewalk to install structural
soils up to the bank site for the street trees, since the material below the existing sidewalk is not highly
compacted so the proposed tree roots will grow freely under the existing pavement, and because it would
be cost prohibitive to remove and replace the existing sidewalk in order to install the trench, in addition
to the fact that there is no need for structural soils since the tree lawn is turf and not paved. He
explained the second request is to eliminate the structural soils in the parking islands as actual soil and
organic media would be better to promote tree growth using the native mixture currently on the site. He
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Page 4 of 4
said the structural soils required by Code are typically used in urban planting areas and tree wells in very
narrow areas between streets, sidewalks, and buildings.
Ms. Ball said she understood the request and would review the material submitted by the applicant. She
agreed that the tree lawn would be sufficient without requiring the need for trenching.
Mr. Faris asked about the tree plantings at 40-feet on center. Ms. Ray said staff will review. Mr. Sanford
asked if trees needed to be added to the flag portion of the property. Ms. Ray said they were necessary
for the length of Banker Drive.
Ms. Ray confirmed that there were no further items for discussion, and noted that a recommendation to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for this application is planned for next week’s ART meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM
MEETING MINUTES
MAY 22, 2014
ART Members and Designees: Steve Langworthy, Director of Planning; Gary Gunderman, Planning
Manager; Ray Harpham, Commercial Plans Examiner; Alec O’Connell, Fire Chief; Fred Hahn, Director of
Parks and Open Space; Aaron Stanford, Civil Engineer; and Dave Marshall, Review Services Analyst.
Other Staff: Rachel Ray, Planner II; Claudia Husak, Planner II; Logan Stang, Planning Assistant; Katie
Ashbaugh, Planning Assistant; and Laurie Wright, Staff Assistant.
Applicants: John Gavin, Custom Sign Center (Case 1); Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Gayle
Zimmerman, Ford & Associates Architects; Todd Faris, Faris Design & Planning; and Tom Warner,
Advanced Civil Design (Case 4).
Steve Langworthy called the meeting to order. He asked if there were any amendments to the May 15,
2014, meeting minutes. [There were none.] The minutes were accepted into the record as presented.
INTRODUCTIONS
4. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin-Granville Road
14-047BSC-SP/PP/FP Site Plan Review/Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Gary Gunderman said this is a request for an 11,500-square-foot Loft building for State Bank with a retail
banking facility, a drive-through kiosk and all associated site improvements. He said this proposal also
includes the subdivision of one 2.8-acre lot into two lots. He said this is a request for review and
recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan
Review under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. He said this is also a request for review
and recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary and final plat under the provisions of
the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Gunderman reported that this proposal had been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
for their Basic Site Plan Review in February 2014. Mr. Gunderman provided an overview of the comments
made by the Commission and how the applicant had addressed the comments. He pointed out that the
applicant had relocated all of the previously ground-mounted HVAC units to the roof. He noted that the
Commission had concerns with the mid-block pedestrianway and the pocket plaza, and suggested that
they be added when the adjacent property was developed to ensure that they are appropriately designed
for the two sites.
Mr. Gunderman pointed out that the Code requires developments to provide their required open space,
and therefore the applicant has provided the pocket plaza open space at the southwest corner as
originally presented, and explained that the applicant had provided a conceptual site plan showing how
the plaza space could be expanded with conceptual future development. He said with the exception of a
few site details, the Site Plan is very similar to the Basic Plan. Mr. Gunderman said the applicant will need
ART’s recommendation to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a determination at their
meeting on June 19.
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Page 2 of 3
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, added that the building had also been pushed farther back from the
SR 161 right-of-way to allow for future development flexibility, which was another of the Commission’s
concerns. He explained that there are also easements in this area that they are trying to avoid with the
building. He said that as a result, the proposed building is one foot behind the maximum Required
Building Zone, which will require a Waiver. He said another Waiver would be needed for the use of
structural soils.
Todd Faris, Faris Design & Planning, clarified that the use of structural soil for the street trees on Banker
Drive would require that they extend the trench into the tree lawn and beyond the existing sidewalk that
runs along Banker Drive, which he did not believe to be practical.
Mr. Gunderman confirmed that likely would be fine between the curb and the sidewalk, given the existing
conditions, but would discuss further with staff.
Mr. Faris said with respect to the trees in the parking lot, he also believed that structural soils are not the
best thing for this environment. He suggested the use of amended soil, which would be ideal as it is more
organic. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that this would require a Waiver as well, and would review with staff.
Steve Langworthy asked the applicant to submit the justifications for the proposed Waivers in writing.
Mr. Gunderman presented the landscape plan and noted that most of the existing trees are on the
adjacent lot.
Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any other questions or comments from the applicant.
Mr. Faris explained that the required bicycle parking had been distributed throughout the site, between
the front and parking lot entrances to the building, and some spaces in the pocket plaza.
Mr. Sanford presented a conceptual layout for the adjacent site showing a potential building to
demonstrate the flow from that lot to State Bank’s site with a pocket plaza that could expand in the
future.
Ms. Ray asked if the drawing shows the building sitting outside of the sanitary sewer easement.
Tom Warner, Advanced Civil Design, said the building will need to shift to the north to avoid the existing
easements, which will not allow it to be sited within the Required Building Zone. He said there are
electrical, gas, and sanitary sewer easements, all in this area. He said there is no sanitary sewer line in
the easement in front of the proposed State Bank building, and the City is willing to vacate that portion of
the easement, but will be different for the adjacent property. He said State Bank cannot move the gas
line and the main power line located in the 10-foot easement. He explained they will shift the building 10
feet to the north to accommodate the sewer easement.
Mr. Sanford pointed out the new dumpster location, which had moved since it had been reviewed by the
Commission, and noted that both the dumpster and a transformer will be contained within an enclosure.
He explained how Rumpke would remove the trash.
Aaron Stanford asked if the plaza would be dedicated as public use. Mr. Gunderman said it would be, and
the easement language would be noted on the plat. Mr. Stanford said he would review the sanitary sewer
line.
Mr. Langworthy asked Chief Alec O’Connell if he saw any issues.
Chief O’Connell said Mr. Perkins met with him briefly just prior to this meeting and said he would pass on
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Page 3 of 3
his comments at the upcoming meeting. Mr. Sanford pointed out that they are adding a hydrant on
Banker Drive.
Mr. Langworthy thanked the applicant for the Site Plan introduction and invited them back to next week’s
ART meeting for further review.
Ms. Ray asked Mr. Stanford if he had any comments on the lot configuration noted on the plat. She
explained that Planning was concerned with the strip of land extending east to David Road being included
as part of State Bank’s lot.
Mr. Gunderman noted that making it an outlot had been considered.
Mr. Sanford said that would not be a problem.
Gayle Zimmerman, Ford & Associates Architects, said not much had changed from the Basic Plan to the
Site Plan with respect to the building’s architecture.
Mr. Sanford said he would provide material samples at the next ART meeting.
Mr. Langworthy concluded that there were no further questions or comments on the application at this
time, and noted that further discussion would occur at the next ART meeting on Thursday, May 29.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 20, 2014
AGENDA
1. Bremlee Estates 7250 Coffman Road
13-115Z/PP Standard District Rezoning/Preliminary Plat
2. Engineering Presentation: Bridge Street District – Transportation Network Overview
3. State Bank Shamrock Boulevard and West Dublin-Granville Road
14-002BPR/CU Basic Plan Review/Conditional Use
Chris Amorose Groomes called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m. due to technical difficulties and led the
Pledge of Allegiance. Other Commission members present were Richard Taylor, Warren Fishman, Amy
Kramb, John Hardt, and Joe Budde. Victoria Newell was absent. City representatives present were Steve
Langworthy, Claudia Husak, Jennifer Readler, Gary Gunderman, Yazan Ashrawi, Rachel Ray, Justin
Goodwin, Tina Wawszkiewicz, Jeannie Willis, Andrew Crozier, Barb Cox, Alan Perkins, Dana McDaniel,
Paul Hammersmith, Brad Conway, Aaron Stanford, Megan O’Callaghan, and Laurie Wright.
Administrative Business
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved, Mr. Taylor seconded, to accept the documents into the record as presented. The vote
was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr.
Hardt, yes; and Mr. Budde, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated there were two sets of minutes to approve and asked if there were any
corrections to the first set dated January 9, 2014.
Amy Kramb responded that she had a correction: Page 17, paragraph in the middle of the page
attributed to her starts out with Ms. Kramb, and she requested the first sentence endafter the word
“version”. Ms. Kramb requested a change to Page 23, 4th paragraph from the bottom attributed to her,
2nd sentence, she said the content should reflect basically how she wanted to know more about the patio
space and she thought some words were missing.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had a correction on page 24, 2nd paragraph from the top attributed to
her, “ponds” should be changed to “puddles”.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved, Mr. Taylor seconded, to accept the January 9, 2014, meeting minutes as amended. The
vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr.
Hardt, yes; and Mr. Budde, yes. (Approved 6-0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt moved, Mr. Budde seconded, to accept the January 23, 2014, meeting minutes as presented.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Fishman, abstain; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes,
yes; Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Hardt. (Approved 5-0-1)
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 19
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment with respect to what was presented on transportation.
Scott Haring approached the podium but Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that the comments she was
inviting was for the Engineering presentation and not the State Bank case yet. [Hearing no request for
comment from the public.]
3.State Bank Shamrock Boulevard and West Dublin-Granville Road
14-002BPR/CU Basic Plan Review/Conditional Use
Chris Amorose Groomes introduced the application for an 11,530-square-foot office building (“Loft”
building type) to be constructed on a ±1.25-acre site that is currently part of an overall 2.85-acre parcel
located at the northeast corner of Shamrock Boulevard and West Dublin-Granville Road that includes a
retail banking and mortgage services facility and conditional use for a drive-through.
Ms. Amorose Groomes swore in those who intended to address the Commission in regards to this case
including Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Mark Ford, Ford & Associates Architects; Matt Booms, State
Bank; Jason Hockstock, Advanced Civil Design; Todd Faris, Faris Design & Planning; and City
representatives.
Gary Gunderman presented this request for Basic Site Plan Review in anticipation of a future request for
Site Plan Review. He presented an overview of the proposed site plan and explained the development is
only taking place on the eastern portion of the parcel. He said the applicant plans to subdivide the
development site from the overall parcel. Mr. Gunderman said that part of this is necessary to limit the
front property line coverage requirement, which could not otherwise be met, but also because the
applicant does not plan to develop the rest of the site themselves. Mr. Gunderman said one of the
proposed conditions would require the plat to be completed before this project moves forward. He stated
that a Development Plan Review is not required for this proposal.
Mr. Gunderman said as part of the Basic Site Plan Review, the Administrative Review Team (ART)
recommends five actions by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC):
1)Basic Site Plan Review, based on the review criteria of section 153.066(F)(3);
2)Required reviewing body determination for the subsequent Site Plan Review;
3)Approval of two Waivers;
4)Approval of a Parking Plan; and
5)Approval of a Conditional Use for the bank drive-through.
Mr. Gunderman said the next step will be the submission of an application for Site Plan Review. He said
that the Commission will need to determine whether the ART or the PZC will have final review authority.
He said the subsequent preliminary and final plat will return to the PZC, who will then forward
recommendations on the plans to City Council. He said at that point, the applicant would be in a position
to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Gunderman said the building is at the southern end of the property, and the northern edge has
existing curb cuts onto Banker Drive. He pointed out the 48-space parking lot, which exceeds the
maximum number of parking spaces permitted by the Zoning Code. He said the applicant will comment
on their need for the additional parking.
Mr. Gunderman said comments from the City’s architectural consultant for this project had been included
in the Planning Report. He pointed out that the applicant had made a good deal of refinement on the
architecture since the consultant’s initial review, and the critical issues appear to have been addressed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 19
He said the proposed building materials include stone, brick, glass, and in the recesses, some copper
siding. He reported that the applicant brought material samples.
Mr. Gunderman presented the rear building elevation and the canopy for the drive-through. He explained
that there were a few inconsistencies with the Code requirements that required action by the
Commission. He stated that the ART recommends a Waiver for number of required entrances, since only
one door is provided on the front (south) and rear (north) façades of the building, where two each are
required by Code. Mr. Gunderman explained that the limited entrances are consistent with this type of
business operation for security purposes.
Mr. Gunderman reported a drive-through is part of the proposal. He said that in the Bridge Street District,
drive-throughs are permitted only for banks. He said the drive-through has been revised considerably
since the ART’s review to include more stacking spaces to address some of the ART’s initial concerns. He
said the ART had a fairly extended discussion about the drive-through configuration, but noted that this
bank operates differently than many other banks, with very limited drive-through activity anticipated for
this branch.
Mr. Gunderman referred to the pocket plaza in the southwest corner of the site and said that it currently
exceeds the Code requirement for open space for this development.
Mr. Gunderman said the applicant had agreed to extend a pedestrianway through the block, providing a
pedestrian connection between the pocket plaza on West Dublin-Granville Road to Banker Drive.
Mr. Gunderman reported the other requested Waiver is for a reduction in side yard setbacks for the drive-
through speakers from 25 feet to approximately 10 feet. He asked the Commission to note the six-foot
planting barrier that is incorporated along the east property line, which is required by Code to help screen
the drive-through activity from the adjacent residence.
Mr. Gunderman provided a summary of the ART’s comments. He pointed out that the applicant had
provided a revised site plan showing the reconfigured drive-through stacking area with the number of
parking spaces reduced to 45 spaces.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Gunderman for the presentation and invited the applicant to come
forward.
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, 4790 Shuster Road, thanked the ART and Planning staff for their time
and effort on this application. He said Mr. Gunderman had provided a good overview, and said his whole
team was available to answer questions.
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment.
Scott Haring, 3280 Lilly-Mar Court, said he walked past this property many times, and is in favor of the
concept. He inquired about the sign on Banker Drive, at the corner of the Lowes lot, which states that
Banker Drive is “Not a through street”. He asked if it was going away and if it would be addressed this
evening.
Barb Cox said small sections of Banker Drive that run through the Lowe's property is private, not a public
right-of-way.
Amy Kramb asked if the intention was to make Banker Drive a public street to connect to the adjacent
public street segments. She said at one point, the road appears to be about one foot from the Lowes
building.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 19
Ms. Cox responded in its current configuration, it could not meet the public street standards.
Ms. Kramb asked if this should be addressed in light of the desire to establish the grid network.
Ms. Cox said she was not sure whether this was something that the City would consider pursuing until
the Lowes site redevelops.
Mr. Haring inquired about the trees on the site and asked if any trees would be lost as part of the
development proposal.
Mr. Sanford said they had conducted a tree survey and worked with staff to evaluate the conditions. He
said they determined there were 750 caliper inches of trees, most of which were invasive species and
trees that were not in good condition. He said they understood there were some trees that would need to
be replaced, and assured Mr. Haring they will save as much as possible.
Mr. Haring asked if the residential property to the east of the site was occupied. He said he lives in a
home with a similar footprint and setback and was surprised to hear this commercial building could sit so
close to an existing residence, which did not seem to fit the character of other developments in Dublin.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the requirements are specific for the Bridge Street District, which do not
apply to the rest of the City of Dublin. She explained this area was rezoned and a new set of regulations
apply to the Bridge Street District. She said it was her belief that there are very few areas where this
condition would be present.
Ms. Kramb noted the closest point of the building is approximately 18 feet from the property line, and the
line they could build to was five feet from the side property line.
Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that in the Bridge Street District, redevelopment is expected to look
significantly different from what exists today.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak with respect to this
application. [There were none.]
Mr. Gunderman asked the applicant to comment on the anticipated drive-through operations.
Mr. Sanford remarked that the drive-through speakers were probably closer to 15 feet from the property
line instead of 10 feet, and their plan is to have a six-foot evergreen hedge. He said the bank branch’s
primary business will be mortgages so they expect more customers by appointment than walk-ins. He
said because State Bank is however a bank, they have to have a drive-through to appropriately serve
their customers. He noted that if they were a traditional bank, he agreed they would need to provide
more room for stacking in the drive-through.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked the applicant for the clarification and asked the Commission members to
comment on the proposal.
Joe Budde said he was excited about the proposal and the building’s position on West Dublin-Granville
Road. He has had experience in the banking industry and he understands the challenges. He said he did
not have a problem with the number of requested parking spaces. He said he liked the architecture and
the attractive copper features.
Warren Fishman said the drive-through layout could be a problem if this was a normal bank, and
although this applicant may not be concerned with having additional stacking spaces, if this bank were to
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 19
turn over to a different bank, then there might be a problem. He said he wanted to make sure that the
drive-through could handle the traffic of a traditional bank.
Mr. Sanford said informal surveys were done at other banks, and even other banks do not have the same
drive-through volumes they did when they were built 10, 15 or 20 years ago, as the banking industry has
evolved to conduct most business electronically. He reported that State Bank does not expect any more
than six vehicles at a time in the drive-through, even if it did turnover at rates similar to a traditional
bank. He said the building is not even large enough to hold a typical retail bank branch.
Mr. Fishman asked how the drive-through would be addressed if a new bank took the place of State
Bank. He asked if the drive-through would be able to accommodate other banks with higher drive-
through use rates.
Ms. Kramb said she banks close by at Fifth Third on a daily basis and has never been more than the third
or fourth car in the ATM line. She said she has witnessed at most two cars in the teller line. Ms. Kramb
said she supported both of the Waivers and the Conditional Use for the drive-through, as well as the
parking plan request. She said in terms of the final reviewing body for the Site Plan Review, she thought
the proposal needed to return to the Commission in lieu of the ART. She said the drive-through stacking
and spacing seemed adequate. She said she did not think the drive-through canopy was very attractive,
but she could get used to it. She said she did not care for the yellow painted bollards, and requested a
more subtle color.
Ms. Kramb asked the applicant if it was their intent for customers exiting the drive-through to drive in
front of the building. She thought it might cause circulation problems if these east/west drive aisles
connect to the adjacent parcels. She said since the dimensions of the future buildings to the east and
west are unknown, the drive aisle may need to curve north to accommodate a deeper building. She
suggested an east west connection farther north on the property. She said she was concerned about
potentially limiting adjacent development with this configuration.
Mr. Sanford said they had conducted capacity studies for a future building to the west to ensure that
adequate parking and circulation could be provided. He pointed out that as a result of the front property
line coverage requirements of the Code, a deep, narrow building was unlikely.
Ms. Kramb stated that the architecture was very plain and vertical, and questioned whether it was
mischaracterized by the CAD drawings instead of the color renderings. She said she was most concerned
with the amount of brick and glass with a little bit of cedar over the entrance.
Ms. Kramb asked about the street wall noted in the Planning Report but not shown in the renderings. She
confirmed with Mr. Gunderman that the street wall was shown adjacent to the pocket plaza. She said she
thought this area was most likely to be used as a break area for employees rather than a space intended
to be used by the public.
John Hardt said his concern with the drive-through is not related to the applicant’s use of the facility, but
what will happen to it in the long-term.
Ms. Kramb pointed out that the conditional use for drive-throughs applies only to banks.
Mr. Hardt said his concern is what becomes of the site if the bank ever goes away. He said his
fundamental issue is that this is a suburban site, with Bridge Street Code requirements. He said he did
not mind the number of parking spaces, but he did want to see a parking lot designed to be shared. He
said he preferred the whole block to develop cohesively. He referred to the figure on page 15 of the
Bridge Street Code, showing blocks with building footprints and vehicular access and circulation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 19
Mr. Hardt stated that he was concerned with the dumpster positioned on Banker Drive. He commented
on the location of the sanitary easement and said he was in favor of pushing the building back from the
street a little bit due to the possibility of the streetscape and frontage changing over time. He asked if the
building were located at the nearest portion of the required building zone.
Mr. Gunderman said the building was located within a foot or two of the nearest required building zone
limit.
Mr. Hardt concluded that there is still quite a bit of work to be done with respect to this proposal. He
deferred to Mr. Taylor on further comments on the architecture. He commented that the suggestions
made by the City's architectural consultant should have been given more weight by the applicant and
staff, since there were a number of legitimate comments, such as better expressing the parapet lines. He
said the new renderings lack detail and the level of refinement that the Commission is seeking for
projects in the Bridge Street District. He said he supported the Waiver requested for the number of
required doors. He noted that the renderings appear to show a block at the base of the building and
asked what kind of success the applicant has had with that material, particularly right up against
sidewalks and whether it would be damaged by salt.
Mark Ford, Ford and Associates Architects, 1500 West First Avenue, said that salt has been a problem
right up against the sidewalk but they have a space between the sidewalk and the base of the building
where the majority of the salt would end up. He said the recessed portions of the building have patina
copper panels.
Mr. Hardt said he was concerned with the patina copper as he has seen it used in other projects and it
does not look as good after five years or so. He reiterated that the building seems very dark, and it was
not clear to him whether that was a result of the renderings or the building’s design.
Mr. Ford said they plan to use a modular brick, shown on the sample board. He said the intent was not to
design a typical building that has been done before. He said the applicant intentionally selected simple,
nice materials, working within the Code requirements for vertical elements, frontage requirements, and
offsets to the facade. He explained that they used this as an opportunity to create different patterns so it
did not read like a text book from end to end. He thanked the Commission for their comments and stated
he believed the building could serve multiple purposes, long-term, for a variety of different users. He said
the interior is set up to allow for multiple tenants. He said the comments about the east/west drive aisle
make sense.
Mr. Hardt said he would rather grant numerous Waivers for a fantastic project than see architects forced
into a box trying to design only to the Code regulations. He said the massing of the building and the brick
work is good, but the detailing seems like it is simply an attempt to meet the letter of the Code. He said
there is an opportunity to use materials that will give the building a little more character and pop.
Mr. Ford explained that he tried to accomplish this through the tan brick, off-white limestone, and cedar
over both entranceways. He said they plan to use a fish scale pattern almost with the copper and by
carving into the building by changing the materiality of the entranceway, certainly draws attention to the
one door to make it clear where the building entrance is located.
Mr. Fishman asked where the air conditioner units would be located.
Mr. Ford responded that the condensing units would be on the ground. He noted the transformer on the
ground that will need to be screened. He reported three small condensing units on the east and four on
the west. He explained that their location on the ground was due to a desire for maintenance
accessibility, and also due to the floor height requirements for a loft style building. He noted the parapet
is less than two feet, which would not be enough to screen rooftop units.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 19
Mr. Hardt asked if a roof screen could be used instead of raising the parapet.
Mr. Ford said they could, but it is cost prohibitive.
Mr. Fishman said he did not want to see a new building with noisy condenser units on the ground. Ms.
Amorose Groomes and Mr. Hardt agreed with Mr. Fishman.
Mr. Gunderman reiterated that if the Commission is inclined to require that this project return to the
Commission for Site Plan Review, these and the other site details could be addressed at that time;
however, a decision on the Basic Plan Review is required this evening.
Richard Taylor said he was glad to see Mr. Haring attending tonight’s meeting and wished the
Commission received more public comment, especially on projects in the Bridge Street District. He stated
that the building is generally an appropriate size and scale for the Bridge Street District. He asked if State
Bank planned to move out of the Historic District, and if so, what the plans are for their existing building.
Matt Booms, State Bank, 109 South High Street, said there are no definitive plans for the current
building, although there has been a lot of interest. Mr. Taylor said he was pleased to hear State Bank is
expanding and growing.
Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Ford about the existing curb cuts on Banker Drive, and what impact they had on the
site plan.
Mr. Ford said they had designed the parking lot to match up with them. He said the drive-through
configuration was a challenge, as well as the depth of the lot.
Mr. Taylor suggested working with Engineering to move one or both of the curb cuts if it would make the
site more efficient. He said that Mr. Hardt covered most of his comments on the drive-through, and
agreed with concerns about future tenants.
Mr. Taylor requested clarification on the different dumpster locations. Mr. Ford said the dumpster had
been moved several times as the drive-through had been reconfigured.
Mr. Taylor referred to the mid-block pedestrianway and said he believed it will be used more in the
future, but not much now. He said it needs to be more than just a five-foot concrete walkway.
Mr. Taylor said the location of the building on the site is a big issue for him. He said moving away from
suburban sprawl to a walkable urban model is one of the goals of the Bridge Street District, and one of
the biggest ways to move in the right direction is to move buildings closer to the sidewalk to create a
sense of space. He noted, however, that the uncertain future plans for West Dublin-Granville Road make
the proposed building location concerning. He said from his experience with the buildings on Bridge
Street being so close to the roadway, he wanted to know about the future plans for State Route 161
before the building location is settled. He noted that, by setting the building back a bit farther it would
allow future tenants to have more space to work with. He said the pocket plaza seems like an
afterthought and does not envision the public using it, and was not sure if the Code required it at this
time. He asked that the applicant not be so rigid in the site design to be unable to adapt to future
development.
Mr. Taylor said that, upon reviewing the principles of walkable urbanism, he thought Mr. Meleca’s review
of the architecture was spot on, if maybe a little too far, although he acknowledged that it was a reaction
to the original drawing. He commented that the building now seems to be somewhere in between, and
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 19
said his only comment was that he did not need to see window sills on the windows, which he confirmed
would have clear glass.
Ms. Kramb said now that better renderings had been presented, her concerns with the architecture had
greatly diminished.
Mr. Taylor agreed that the condenser units should be placed on the roof, which will also make it easier
for pedestrians to be able to walk around all sides of the building. He reiterated his concern that the
building is too close to the street, which would make the sidewalk unsafe. He recommended landscaping
around the building’s foundation, instead of just turf grass.
Mr. Taylor confirmed that the applicant currently controls both development sites and suggested that the
extra parking could be placed on the adjacent lot for now. Mr. Gunderman confirmed that the Code
allows off-site parking to facilitate shared parking arrangements.
Mr. Taylor referenced the principles of walkable urbanism and stated that, with respect to the request for
a Waiver for the number of entrances, he is okay without requiring a second entrance now because
additional doors could easily be added in the future. He expressed his concern with the speaker setback
as part of the second Waiver, but he did not believe that the existing adjacent residence will remain. Mr.
Taylor confirmed with Mr. Gunderman that there is a noise ordinance in place to address speaker volume.
Mr. Taylor said he was fine with the conditional use for the drive-through but agreed with the other
Commissioners’ comments on the work still to be done on the site design. He concluded that, with this
level of review and the comments discussed this evening, this is exactly what he had hoped the
Commission would be doing when reviewing projects in the Bridge Street District.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that, for any building in the Bridge Street District where the façade does
not directly engage the sidewalk, there needs to be foundation plantings. She appreciated the applicant’s
efforts in adhering to the Code requirements, but commented that applicants should not hesitate to
design great buildings and bring them to the Commission to review, regardless of how well they meet the
Code. She said engaging the street is the goal, regardless of how the Code is written.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she was not sure she liked the idea of the pocket plaza being built in
the location it’s shown right now, because it seems like a whole lot of nothing. Instead, she
recommended waiting until the balance of the property comes forward for development, and planning the
open spaces at that time.
Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated the Commission’s desire for well-designed buildings and sites. She said
she was not sure she supported a lot split for this site, since she preferred that this block develop
cohesively.
Mr. Sanford stated that the lot split was a necessity, since State Bank is not a developer and will need to
be able to split the parcel to be able to sell it to someone else to develop.
Mr. Ford thanked the Commission for their comments. He acknowledged that the Code requires staff and
the ART to evaluate projects generally based on a checklist, which they followed as best as they could,
and said he would look at where deviations from the Code may be appropriate.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she hoped the applicant understood how challenging it is to create Code that
applies to every piece of property in the Bridge Street District, and there is no way to foresee how the
Code requirements will apply to every project. She said she believed the applicant might have followed
the letter of the Code, while the Commission would like for them to achieve the intent of the Code. She
said this project is not that far off from where it needs to be.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 19
Mr. Ford said the applicant agrees with the intent of the Code, so now it is just a matter of process. He
said that as part of working with the ART, they tried to be in a position of coming to the Commission with
as few Waivers as possible to demonstrate their desire to meet the Code.
Ms. Amorose Groomes urged the applicant to not be afraid of Waivers if the product will be better as a
result.
Mr. Langworthy pointed out that the intent of the Basic Plan Review is to determine if the building is
generally sited on the correct part of the lot, and not necessarily to nail down all the details. He
understood there may be additional Waivers as this project moves forward.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she appreciated the applicant’s efforts on this project to this point.
Motion and Vote
MOTION #1: Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to approve the following two Waivers:
1) Code Section 153.059(C)(4)(C)6 – A reduction in side yard setback for the drive-through
speakers from 25 feet to approximately 10 feet.
2) Code Section 153.062(O)(4)(d)3 – Only one door on the front (south) and rear (north) facades
of the building, where two each are required.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes;
Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
MOTION #2: Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Budde seconded, to approve the conditional use for a bank
drive-through with one condition:
1) That the applicant modifies the drive-through ATM stacking spaces to ensure appropriate
circulation.
*Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, agreed to the above condition.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes;
Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
MOTION #3: Mr. Budde moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to approve the Parking Plan with one
condition:
1) That the applicant provides a summary of their parking needs, including number of employees
and anticipated customer parking needs.
*Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, agreed to the above condition.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes;
Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Fishman, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
MOTION #4: Mr. Taylor moved, Ms. Kramb seconded, to approve the Basic Plan Review (Site Plan
Review) with six conditions:
1) That, as part of the Site Plan Review, the applicant address the Commission’s comments and
provide additional details for:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 – Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 19
a. The mid-block pedestrianway;
b. The pocket plaza open space area;
c. The perimeter buffer landscaping along the east property line adjacent to the drive-through;
d. The street wall, showing a relationship to the principal building; and
e. Other architectural, landscaping, and site development details noted in this report.
2) That the applicant subdivides the existing 2.85-acre parcel prior to building permitting, or seeks
approval of a Waiver from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the front property line
coverage requirement;
3) That the applicant provide cross-access easements for future vehicular use areas to the east and
west of the site as part of the subdivision of this lot prior to building permitting;
4) That the applicant provide a legal description and exhibit for a portion of the sanitary sewer
easement to be vacated, and that the easement is vacated prior to building permitting;
5) That the stacking lanes associated with the drive-through are modified subject to Planning
approval to accommodate appropriate stacking, ensuring that banking teller drive-through traffic
does not block ATM traffic; and
6) That the applicant addresses Engineering’s comments in this report.
*Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, agreed to the six conditions.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes;
Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Motion #5: Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to require Site Plan Review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Budde, no; Mr. Fishman, yes;
Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 5 – 1)
Communications
Steve Langworthy said Riviera Club is on the schedule for March 13, 2014, and the City will be streaming
it live over the web and an overflow out into the hallway as they are expecting a larger than normal
crowd. He said if a media inquiry is received, to handle any way they wished but the Commission has the
option to send to Sue Burness; most will know who she is and you will not need to provide contact
information. He said if any written communications are received and not addressed to the City, to please
forward to us to ensure they reach City Council. Mr. Langworthy said we are keeping associations
informed about this and creating a webpage to include most of the application information, maps, site
plan, concept plan, etc. He said we are going above and beyond for communication due to the relevant
amount of attention this case is getting. He said the conference brochure for March 20, 2014, in
Birmingham, Michigan was placed in the drop box late today and asked if anyone was interested, to
please contact him as soon as possible.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not able to attend but was very interested in the two-day tack on to
the EPA Conference in Savanah, Georgia. She said it is an opportunity to walk a very upscale urban area,
hosted by the Planning Director to answer detailed questions. Mr. Langworthy suggested she inform him
of things like this and he would make arrangements.
Mr. Langworthy said Libby Farley had retired and a party is planned for next Tuesday at 5800 Building
from 2 pm – 4 pm.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was open to suggestions for commemorating Mr. Fishman’s last meeting
on March 13, 2014. She said the meeting on March 5th might be better.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM
MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2014
ART Members and Designees: Gary Gunderman, Planning Manager; Alan Perkins, Fire
Marshal; Ray Harpham, Commercial Plans Examiner; Aaron Stanford, Civil Engineer; Fred Hahn,
Director of Parks and Open Space; Colleen Gilger, Economic Development Administrator; Jeff
Tyler, Building Standards Director; and Dave Marshall, Review Services Analyst.
Other Staff: Rachel Ray, Planner II; Jennifer Rauch, Planner II; Justin Goodwin, Planner II;
and Laurie Wright, Staff Assistant.
Applicant: Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction; Mark Ford, Ford & Associates Architects; David
Homoelle, State Bank; Jason Hockstock, Advanced Civil Design; Todd Faris, Faris Design &
Planning; and John Behal, Behal Sampson Dietz Architects.
Gary Gunderman called the meeting to order. He asked if there were any amendments to the
January 14, 2014, meeting minutes. [There were none.] The minutes were accepted into the
record as presented. He asked if there were any amendments to the January 16, 2014, meeting
minutes. [There were none.] The minutes were accepted into the record as presented.
CASE REVIEWS
1. 14-002BPR/CU – BSC Office District – State Bank – Shamrock Boulevard and
West Dublin-Granville Road
Gary Gunderman said this is a request for review of a 10,754-square-foot office building (“Loft”
building type) to be constructed on a ±1.25-acre site that is currently part of an overall 2.85-
acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Shamrock Boulevard and West Dublin-Granville
Road. He said the proposal includes a retail banking and mortgage services facility and a
request for conditional use review for a d rive-through. He said this Basic Site Plan Review
application is proposed in accordance with Zoning Code Section 153.066(D), and this
conditional use review application is proposed in accordance with Zoning Code Section 153.236.
Mr. Gunderman said he was reviewing comments received today on the proposed drive-through
and architecture. He said, with respect to the drive-through configuration, most drivers expect
to pull into drive-throughs from the left, whereas this alignment is the opposite, with a
clockwise movement. He said that drivers typically do not like looking over their car hoods and
may misjudge the right turn. He asked if it was possible to expand the area or if the drive-
through could be moved to the other side of the site to allow traditional counter-clockwise flow.
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohiousa.gov
____________________
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Gunderman stated that there was also some concern that customers waiting in line for the
teller or ATM machine would stack through the drive-through lane and out into the drive aisle
off of Banker Drive, potentially blocking the curb cut and stacking out onto the public street. He
noted the limited number of stacking spaces.
Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction asked if there was a Code requirement for stacking.
Rachel Ray said there was no specific number of required stacking spaces, but the ART would
factor in the operations for the facility and their documented needs for stacking spaces.
Mark Ford, Ford & Associates Architects, said the drive-through was placed on the east side of
the site to avoid bisecting the lot with a drive-through right down the middle. He suggested that
if the drive-through were rotated 90 d egrees, vehicles would approach the kiosks from the
north and leave to the west.
Mr. Sanford noted the potential for a future cross-access drive to a new parking lot on the
undeveloped portion of the parcel to the west.
Justin Goodwin asked if a revised parking lot/drive-through configuration would make it
awkward for the handicap spaces to potentially back into the drive-through area.
Ms. Ray asked David Homoelle, State Bank, if he had examples of drive-through patterns from
State Bank’s other branches. Mr. Homoelle said he did not. He said that not a lot of emphasis
was placed on the drive-throughs for tellers or ATMs because of the small market they are in.
He said that most of the time, these stations are incorporated onto the building, next to the
branch, where this is different as it is totally detached.
Dave Marshall remarked on the short queuing lane for the drive-through, noting a similar but
different situation. He said Tim Hortons backs up on Hospital Drive.
Ms. Ray asked what the expected stacking was for the bank. Mr. Homoelle explained that
getting customers to enter a bank has become challenging with so many customers conducting
business online. He said that only four to six customers enter per hour.
Mr. Gunderman asked if he knew the numbers of customers that frequent the outside kiosks.
Mr. Homoelle said he did not. He remarked that he has never seen anyone stacked at the
Huntington Bank on Village Parkway, where he also banks, and it is a much larger bank. He
said State Bank would be different as they were offering mortgage services, which would attract
customers coming inside the building.
Mr. Gunderman suggested considering the change to the site layout.
Aaron Stanford said the geometry of driveway needed to be tweaked to allow for better turning
movements. He said the east side radius needed to be opened per the water service on Banker
Drive. He said the small stormwater facility on the west side of the building had condensers in
the same area, and he cautioned the applicant to be careful with grading in that area. He asked
if the sanitary services on the west side of the building would conflict with the new storm line.
He asked if service could be run closer to State Route 161. He inquired about the western
driveway and if it was intended for shared access as the lot line splits the driveway in half.
Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Goodwin confirmed that there was enough room left on the undeveloped portion of the site
to expand the parking lot to the east for a new user.
Gary asked each of the ART members if they had further comments or questions. [There were
none.]
Ms. Ray invited Mark Ford to present the overall concept of the architectural design.
Mr. Ford presented the four-sided building that had two “fronts,” facing West Dublin-Granville
Road and Banker Drive/the parking lot. He said that the majority of customers would enter the
building from the north side. He explained that there were different functions in the building
and that it is not an even 50/50 split. He said the retail portion would occupy less than 1,500
square feet. He pointed out that the footprint of the building presents a bowtie effect with two-
thirds on one side and one-third on the other. He presented a model of the flat roof building,
which showed the architectural relief as required by Code. He explained the proposed materials
to be used and the patterning of the windows. He said brick would be used on the larger
sections, copper shingles on recessed area at the entrances, and limestone on the columns and
canopy. He said the walkway canopy on the north side of the building has a cedar strip edge.
Mr. Ford explained that the vertical spacing of the columns reflects the same proportions of the
windows. Mr. Ford said the overall concept was a more urban type of architecture, with simple,
clean details, which was a departure to many of his projects.
Ms. Ray asked if an expression line could be incorporated into the top of the building,
suggesting a scoring pattern. Mr. Ford said they were considering brick patterning at the top so
that section would not appear bigger than the middle band.
Jeff Tyler asked if the copper panels would patina and how they planned to handle the runoff.
Mr. Ford replied yes, they would patina over time, and said they were taking great care as to
how it would be attached. Mr. Tyler commented that the copper would turn a greenish color.
Mr. Sanford said based on other projects he has seen, it would be brown for a long time. Mr.
Ford said they expect it to age like real copper would.
Mr. Gunderman asked if there were any other questions or comments. [There were none.] He
said the ART had another week to review and would welcome everyone back next week. He
reiterated that the target recommendation date from the ART to the Planning and Zoning
Commission is February 6.
Mr. Ross asked if staff could meet to discuss the revised site layout in terms of the drive-
through configuration. Ms. Ray said that would be fine, and recommended that the applicant
sketch out their ideas before getting too far along with the design. She also suggested they
take another look at the pocket plaza layout. She offered to share a design suggested recently
for a project utilizing a similar small pocket plaza.