Developers present Emerald Parkway mixed‑use concept; commission flags height, tree preservation and drive‑thrus

Vantrust Real Estate on Thursday asked the Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission for nonbinding feedback on a 16‑acre concept plan for a mixed‑use development at the northeast corner of Emerald Parkway and Warner Temple Road.

Phil Racy, executive vice president of Vantrust, opened the presentation and introduced Anna Brown, the project’s lead developer. Brown described a plan that breaks the site into residential and commercial areas, includes roughly 35 townhomes and about 210 multifamily units spread across three four‑story buildings, and preserves a large open space in the project’s northern portion intended as a public park or privately held amenity. She said the developer’s market study targets monthly rents averaging about $2,000, ranging from roughly $1,300 to $3,000 depending on unit size.

The city planner reminded the commission that the concept plan step is advisory and that staff and the applicant are looking for guidance on three main issues: massing along Emerald Parkway, the open‑space framework, and whether drive‑through commercial uses are appropriate at the Warner Temple gateway.

Commissioners repeatedly raised the edge conditions along Emerald Parkway, asking whether three‑story townhomes on that frontage — which the applicant calls three stories but said may read taller because of roof pitch — are compatible with the area’s Special Area Plan, which generally recommends one‑ to two‑story frontage there. “I think a height/step study would really help us understand how those townhomes and the 4‑story multifamily relate to the buildings across Emerald Parkway,” one commissioner said.

Several commissioners pressed the applicant on a mid‑site tree row that appears in the community plan. Brown said the team is conducting a tree study and committed to a tree‑replacement program if preservation proves infeasible because of grading. Staff and commissioners encouraged maximally preserving mature trees and integrating open spaces so they are visible and surveilled by adjoining buildings.

Parking and connectivity also drew scrutiny. The developer proposed parking ratios that yield just under 350 residential spaces and parallel parking on an internal drive; commissioners suggested the team explore shared‑parking strategies and stronger pedestrian linkages to adjacent office areas. Commissioners also questioned the commercial layout and whether placing drive‑throughs at the key intersection would undermine the corridor’s long‑term pedestrian and streetscape goals.

The commission’s feedback was procedural and nonbinding. Commissioners said they appreciated the design intent and material choices but asked the applicant to return with a height study, a clearer tree‑preservation plan, alternatives to drive‑throughs, and revisions that better integrate open spaces and pedestrian connections with surrounding office uses. The applicant said it would incorporate the feedback and bring revised materials to the next step in the Planned Unit Development process.

The commission did not take any formal votes on the application; the discussion produced direction and a list of specific issues staff and the applicant will address in the next submittal.