Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hospital Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dublin commission approves amended plan for OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital tower
Summary
The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously approved an amended final development plan for a six‑story tower at OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital that will add up to 48 immediate inpatient beds (with 'shell plus' capacity for more), expand parking and require continued coordination with planning and engineering before permits.
The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission on a unanimous voice vote approved an amended final development plan for a six‑story tower and associated site changes at OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital.
Cherie Smith, who identified herself as “the president of Dublin Methodist Hospital,” told the commission the project responds to rapid population growth and rising demand among residents 65 and older. She said the hospital currently has 92 acute care beds and plans to add 48 new beds initially under a "shell plus" strategy that builds rooms and infrastructure ready for staffing and equipment when needed. "I'm Cherie Smith. I'm the president of Dublin Methodist Hospital," she told the commission during the applicant presentation.
Architect Christina Bertucci described the building as a six‑floor inpatient tower that references materials on the existing campus (orange brick, brown brick wrap and ribbon windows), hides the mechanical penthouse with raised parapet and wrapped masonry, and adds landscape and circulation improvements including roughly 124 new parking spaces. Bertucci said the project will use a white TPO reflective roof in keeping with OhioHealth policy for sustainability and infection control and that the helipad relocation work will begin in 2025 with construction hoped to start in early 2026 and substantial completion targeted in 2028. "I am an architect and the exterior designer on this project," Bertucci said.
Planning staff summarized the case history and said the application meets development standards for lot coverage, setbacks and parking after prior lot‑line adjustments and code text changes. Staff recommended approval of the amended final development plan with one condition: that the applicant continue to work with planning and engineering so permit‑stage comments are addressed.
Commissioners asked detailed questions before and during deliberation about roofing choices (white reflective versus green roofs), whether the penthouse could be moved or more fully concealed, streetscape and site circulation, and tree replacement. The applicant said moving the penthouse interior would be costly because of stair and elevator locations, confirmed the white roof as an infection‑control and energy‑efficiency decision, and said tree replacements would be spread across the campus and concentrated in new parking areas.
After discussion, Commissioner Wei moved to approve the amended final development plan with the staff‑proposed condition that the applicant continue to work with planning and engineering; Miss Harder seconded the motion. The roll call recorded seven yes votes (Miss Harder; Mr. Deschler; Mr. Alexander; Mr. Chenock; Miss Kahl; Mr. Wei; Mr. Garvin) and no dissent.
The commission’s approval is limited to the amended final development plan; the project still requires building permits and engineering review before construction. Staff and the applicant will address engineering and final permit‑stage comments as part of the next steps.
The commission thanked the applicant team and noted the application will move into the building permit process following the standard planning and engineering reviews.
