Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission tables Dublin Methodist tower review, approves minor PUD text changes

The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting reviewed OhioHealth’s amended final development plan (AFDP) for a six‑story expansion at Dublin Methodist Hospital, approved two minor development‑text modifications, and voted to table the AFDP so the applicant can work with staff on additional architectural and landscape revisions.

The project would add a new six‑story inpatient tower and approximately 96 beds to the 45‑acre Dublin Medical Campus, according to applicant Doug Scholl of OhioHealth. Scholl told the commission the expansion will include interior renovations to create more surgery, cath and imaging capacity, reconfigured parking to improve patient access and a temporary helipad to support construction operations. He said construction would begin once approvals are in place, with a target start in early 2026 and roughly a 24‑month construction period.

Staff recommended approval of two minor text modifications to the Dublin Medical Campus PUD (adjusting site acreage/parcel identifiers and parking standards for Sub‑Area 1) and recommended the AFDP be approved with conditions intended to refine architecture, landscape and engineering details. Taylor Mullenax, planning staff, said the items addressed in the staff report included a July administrative lot‑line transfer of 1.78 acres into the hospital site and that the proposed expansion would remain within the PUD’s overall building‑area cap.

One substantive change the commission approved involved parking: staff presented a parking study and a text modification that would reduce Sub‑Area 1’s required spaces from 2,155 to 1,455; the applicant’s plan would provide 1,553 spaces on‑site. Staff also noted the project would remove protected trees totaling 564 caliper‑inches, of which 381 caliper‑inches must be replaced; a landscape plan and tree‑replacement plan are required at building permitting.

Discussion centered on how the addition would integrate with the existing campus. Commissioners repeatedly asked the applicant and staff to reduce the perceived massing of a mechanical penthouse — several commissioners described the screened mechanical enclosure as a visually prominent element that needs better integration with the façade. Commissioner Chinock summarized that concern by noting the penthouse could be perceived as adding an additional story and urged solutions to mask or integrate that massing.

OhioHealth’s presenter, Doug Scholl, said the health system has moved away from installing living green roofs over patient care areas because of historic leaks and maintenance concerns. “We don't really love green roofs anymore…having biological materials that end up in a roof leak, that end up dripping on somebody is a risk,” Scholl said, but added the hospital would work with staff on alternatives, including a ballasted or textured roof or a decorative rooftop treatment that meets safety and maintenance requirements.

Christina Bertaki, the project architect, clarified floor plans and elevations for commissioners and staff, identifying the stepped lower roof near patient rooms (the location staff suggested for a green roof, textured material or rooftop sculpture) and confirming which roofs are over operating rooms and mechanical spaces.

Commissioners urged stronger architectural articulation — breaking up large, blank façades, tying materials to the existing campus, improving west‑side landscape and wayfinding, and minimizing the visible bulk of the penthouse. Several commissioners said they supported the project’s goals, particularly adding inpatient capacity, but sought clearer, more specific architectural revisions than were in the application packet.

On motions and outcomes, the commission approved the two minor text modifications as presented (roll call recorded affirmative votes). For the AFDP itself, the applicant asked for more time to work with staff and requested the commission table the item rather than vote; the commission voted to table the AFDP so the applicant can return with revisions addressing the commission’s architectural, penthouse screening, landscaping and wayfinding concerns. The applicant signaled willingness to return promptly after working with staff.

Next steps: the approved text modifications will be recorded per normal process; the AFDP will be brought back to the Planning & Zoning Commission after the applicant and staff revise plans to address the conditions and clarifications requested by the commission. The commission closed the meeting after routine communications and adjournment.