[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6329953,"mediaKeyId","2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011","parentId",2315335,"title","Bexley ARB delays decision on covered walkway that would connect house and detached garage","audioSeconds",1651,"startMs",1089000,"endMs",2740000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011&start=1089&end=2740","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011/thumbnail_1089000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6329953/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/Bexley-ARB-delays-decision-on-covered-walkway-that-would-connect-house-and-detached-garage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329953-97a22be3b8304c3485cf3c3e16bc497e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130211&Signature=NO2XcqPCxsDfAI018bLNKIPes6J5JlxnSqWBMQr1Ukb0dDv9QsiMTN0BwqaYBnik0MN0es9ruAS0rdVQXXiX4VogqqrjEfeL8mzjvBkr8shzVFj6~AyXRolH8chIbbYK21SNJpF1Kz5ybYBy0cRY~I9F5uG6lV2PNaY70449VrBFVuTPv-cYu6UtenYrTSvm4mqCZOk1A1tsYWf1wloumJlR1Ga890BE1-k7iVIIityq0uH4uFdnG5rns2HfV7O4~XtGsvTyok0aQHxdfAY3RGRZ2HdNsAXy~wfXnAbOz0shPZSzbWXpHskoB9mh7UTu4ASG6~VGW2GKu23QlUhTTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Bexley OH","date","2025-02-14T13:55:38Z","article","The Bexley Architectural Review Board on Feb. 13 tabled an application for 811 South Roosevelt after extensive design discussion and staff advice that the proposed gabled covered walkway, as drawn, could be treated as a single primary structure and would likely need a variance from the Board of Zoning and Planning.

The applicant, identified in the record as Eric Kramer, said the homeowner’s goal was “to have a covered walkway from the home to the garage, so that when it’s raining, snowing, that she can get out to her car, and not slip and fall.” Kramer described a raised deck and a plan to align a new rectangular deck with the proposed walkway.

Karen, the city staff reviewer, told the board: “I as staff ... can’t recommend a covered gable roof that connects these two because it creates one big primary structure,” and said the connection would likely prompt a rear-yard setback variance. She recommended alternatives, including a covered deck that stops at the house, or a more permeable trellis between the two structures, and said zoning would be difficult to obtain for the proposed connection.

Board members critiqued the application’s site drawings and construction details and suggested design alternatives. Board member Scott said the plans did not reflect the actual elevations and asked for clearer elevations and construction details: “I think there’s plenty of options. I think the the other thing that I would would want to see more detail on is use your elevations and the details of your columns ... the drawings are fairly basic.” Other members recommended pulling the porch roof to the deck edge, building a freestanding pergola or trellis between the two structures, and revising the site plan so steps and door locations align.

The board voted to table the application to the March 13, 2025 ARB meeting so the applicant can revise the design and provide clearer site and elevation drawings. The motion to table was made and seconded; roll-call votes in the record show yes votes from members Hall, Calhoun, Scott, Hyer and Chairwoman Tony. No formal permit decision was made at the meeting.

The board’s guidance emphasized three points for the next submission: accurate site and elevation drawings showing jogs and grade differences, refined column and roof details that match the existing house, and exploration of nonattached solutions (pergola/trellis or separate small roofs) that avoid triggering a zoning variance.

If the applicant wishes to pursue an attached roof spanning both buildings despite staff caution, board members said staff can advise whether the proposal should proceed directly to the Board of Zoning and Planning for variance review. For now, the application remains tabled with instructions to revise and resubmit for the March meeting.

The board’s file identifies the application as ARB25-4, address 811 South Roosevelt; the owner is listed as Katie Sells.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025-02-13 City of Bexley Architectural Review Board","oneSentenceSummary","The Bexley Architectural Review Board on Feb. 13 tabled an application to build a gabled covered walkway between a house and a detached garage at 811 South Roosevelt after staff said an attached roof would likely be treated as a single primary structure and require a variance.","taxTitle","Bexley, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",72409,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6329934,"Votes at a glance: Bexley ARB, Feb. 13, 2025",228,774000,1002000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011&start=774&end=1002","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011/thumbnail_774000.jpg","/articles/6329934/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/Votes-at-a-glance-Bexley-ARB-Feb-13-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329934-326920072c77ba73df463e5f193c86a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130211&Signature=doxJoO6GYmWHS1IOLj1fzmXAagJZ0pBw8lyOJLcPI3D3SRsKjepXdMzh8XwWK~zErmoiVS9jaTS28mnkgA6I30qImEA6ZkziYl4WEXadM7coZGy5Umz33UulVPIpNkphJeLa~hVK-pibQY9I260LESbvls0u4nMGpAv9HxcdgGhLmh9O0PeSQARU~HOIqtXPXI~gTACYsDJELXPbWzirGc9QUs2CkewxJIJ6VGX0fMvG~jdfsfKs1UmAhwYsFf62RqkcKf7EpCrA3GIc46pEeTA46S7DrvvISbFbf4kldmp8x~aoRzvVV7jWgOTMz0s0BvBTSjSZ~9TeEfGQ7tjkxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bexley Architectural Review Board recorded the following formal actions during its Feb. 13, 2025 meeting.

Approval of prior meeting minutes
- Motion: Approve minutes from the prior meeting. Outcome: Approved. Roll-call: Mister Scott — yes; Mister Hall — yes; Mister Calhoun — yes; Mister Hyer — yes; Chairman (abstention recorded for member who was absent last month). (Abstain noted in the record; majority approved.)

Consent agenda
- Motion: Approve five consent‑agenda applications (addresses read into record: 218 North Parkview — ARB25-2; 2540 Maryland Avenue — ARB25-3; 2527–2529 East Main Street — BZAP25-3; 755 Vernon — ARB205-503; 2415 South Havenwood — ARB25-56). Outcome: Approved. Roll-call recorded as affirmative by board members; no public speakers objected.

Tabled/applications moved to next ARB meeting (March 13, 2025)
- BZAP24-37 (2775 Powell) — tabled to March 13, 2025 (owner/applicant: Brian Shepherd). Motion to table approved.
- ARB24-51 (653 Euclair) — tabled to March 13, 2025 (applicant/owner: David Lipp). Motion to table approved.
- ARB25-4 (811 South Roosevelt) — applicant Eric Kramer; tabled to March 13, 2025 to allow revised site/elevation drawings and design alternatives.
- BZAP25-2 (405 North Cassingham) — applicant Blake Floyd; tabled to March 13, 2025 to allow redesign and staff/planner consultation (note: one dissent recorded on the tabling vote).
- BZAP24-409 (2300 Livingston) — tabled to March 13, 2025 for refined elevations, wall sections and neighbor-safety measures.
- BZAP24-50 (420 North Cassidy) — tabled to March 13, 2025 for final wall‑section and base/material clarifications.

How to read the roll-call information
- The minutes record roll‑call votes for motions; when the transcript omits a mover’s name in the spoken record, the roll‑call is recorded. Where the transcript gave a specific roll‑call, the article lists the outcome as recorded in the meeting.","Summary of formal actions recorded at the Feb. 13 Bexley Architectural Review Board meeting: approval of prior minutes, consent‑agenda approvals, and tabled applications with their next hearing dates.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6329939,"Design refinements praised, ARB tables mixed‑use proposal at 420 North Cassidy to allow final material details",641,7020000,7661000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011&start=7020&end=7661","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011/thumbnail_7020000.jpg","/articles/6329939/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/Design-refinements-praised-ARB-tables-mixeduse-proposal-at-420-North-Cassidy-to-allow-final-material-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329939-253bc740e5d809859b61ff4da88e5f4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130211&Signature=mTAnWMNYHmFZJ1Xlgf2kGppqwEX1txdtQ3UYEdlB04hZkfwxz7~4-9i2XnEUSAQ0lOAi72SnkD03dp26u1Ja1-iAt4f~ZApFwcGnr5vt~6cSCdb~cyApRj-BUAvaHhz1cxtO2t9g4xxMXkDB3Xv~bWQGAv26V-BfvGicXeUrkw7-m164~CsqM9apo2lqNlRCCQakQflzQGuQQUdASMtVoTQEo8RmilYEiq3esCxMMmQ5O0WXmM3bR5EYs5eBW1eNQcm~29bT9F0Q6F4vTcXyW2KSPmvoxFq-qQQjoyTMKYU~Qd~APtFrDwd24dsTcpaPwdMqgZK1gXBx~dYl2Llk1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Feb. 13 the Architectural Review Board reviewed a revised mixed‑use, three‑story application for 420 North Cassidy and found that the design team incorporated many of the board’s earlier comments—particularly on storefront details and the soldier‑course belt—but asked the applicant for additional clarity on base materials, belt course execution and minor brick/stone details before final approval.

The applicant (project team represented by Bill Downing and design consultant RDL) described changes carried forward from the earlier submittal: extending the storefront belt course, revising awning and pergola details and simplifying some secondary trims. The team noted the renderings shown had not yet been updated for the newest refinements, but that the two‑dimensional elevations and wall sections in the packet had been revised.

Board members praised the triple soldier‑course belt and the revised surrounds at window openings. One board member asked the team not to project soldier headers over windows but to keep them flush with the veneer. Another raised a long‑term maintenance concern about a planned precast concrete base: the member recommended a light-colored oversized utility brick instead of precast concrete because precast/stone bases often weather poorly when not executed consistently by contractors.

Other comments asked for continued attention to the pedestrian experience: ensuring drip details are resolved so water does not stain brickwork, confirming awning materials and mounting details, and ensuring the base material will age well in the pedestrian zone. The board also suggested that the side elevations’ articulation will become less prominent as additional development occurs along North Cassidy.

After discussion the board tabled the application to March 13 so the design team can supply final wall sections, clarify the base material and address small proportions and cornice alignment noted in the meeting. Multiple board members said they support the project pending these refinements; staff will continue to work with the applicant to finalize details.

The application appears in the ARB record as BZAP24-50, owner 420 North Cassidy Ave LLC.","The ARB reviewed revisions for 420 North Cassidy and welcomed material and storefront detail improvements but requested refinements to base materials and belt‑course details; the board tabled the application to March 13 for final wall‑section and material decisions.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6329943,"Board tables plan for three‑story multiunit building at 2300 Livingston after design and safety questions",2620,4390000,7010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011&start=4390&end=7010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011/thumbnail_4390000.jpg","/articles/6329943/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/Board-tables-plan-for-threestory-multiunit-building-at-2300-Livingston-after-design-and-safety-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329943-c7a17f9c996acb3690293ede77e3708b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130211&Signature=kPVAVSyAtlyD9uA1N5PLm~jkgYDsic5avTSlWnHKgOGp82EeavEVB7ZXOpkERGVQ9D4RAP6pGmPY6CAw9owx1tJVYzzgqDREq0jQnCb9KxRXTrv9qoY9ITrHj8ttUoxhTQ~piTa0G05gAHqJEyZqRkHWX-vUhpXIUNL8Q9MVQsRr9AedKX8v511bO6SSilOBv80qcc4GZDz4c8OEmi5QeU1XGKgtrfKoOSrjqS7keaUeA4PJbYHSPU1fhK~2Btu8cMc7kXpraHiSuw~HZZwXTf3tPHrp0PdO57qB-z4IWBopkwkm2MqtuuD8mbfc45dPlg3O6CtgDtVb~gkwDJyxeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An applicant presented design revisions on Feb. 13 for a proposed three‑story multifamily building at 2300 Livingston Avenue; the Architectural Review Board praised several improvements but asked for further refinements to elevations, roof forms and neighbor-safety details and tabled the case to March 13 to allow the design team to respond.

George Tenet, representing the Community Builders, and the project design team described changes made since the last hearing: the corner townhouse unit was pulled back and widened to improve proportion, a pergola/trellis was added along the Livingston streetscape, the central façade bay was relieved with different window patterns and Juliet balconies were introduced on the upper floors. Tenet noted the design team has been working with consultant planners and that the Board of Zoning and Planning had voted in favor of conditional-use consideration at its recent meeting.

Stephanie Bosco, secretary of the Bexley CIC, spoke in support of the project and said the Community Improvement Corporation selected Community Builders as part of a housing strategy: “We’re thrilled to have this design,” she said, noting the development aligns with the city’s 2012 comprehensive plan goals. Resident Leah Turner raised a neighbor concern about vehicle movements and the shared grade near the rear property line: “I want to know my family’s gonna be safe,” she said, asking whether fencing or other protective measures could be provided where parking faces her property.

Board members acknowledged meaningful improvements but asked the applicant to resolve several outstanding items: the massing and roof juncture at the Francis Avenue corner needs more refinement; the connector element between the taller block and the townhouse wing should be simplified or lowered; facade openings should relate more consistently across the building (one board member recommended pairing some windows to improve rhythm); and materials/brick-sill details should be clarified in wall sections.

The board also raised a neighborhood safety concern adjacent to on-site parking and recommended the design team explore physical barriers, curbing, fence reinforcement or other mitigation to protect the neighboring yard. The applicant’s team replied that the project will include a 6-inch curb at the pavement edge and an 8-foot fence in some areas and agreed to evaluate additional protective measures.

After discussion the board voted to table the project to March 13 so the team can address the material details, roof/junction resolution and neighbor-safety measures. Members emphasized the design is improved from the previous submittal and encouraged the applicant to return with a clearer set of elevations and wall-section details that illustrate how brick, sills and belt courses will be built and how the project will meet the Livingston streetscape guidance.

The application is recorded in the meeting packet as BZAP24-409, owner Bexley Apartments LLC.","The ARB reviewed a Community Builders proposal to replace 2300 Livingston’s existing building with a three‑story multifamily structure and tabled the application to March 13 after requests for more refined elevations, material details and neighbor safety mitigations for parking/loading areas.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6329949,"ARB urges redesign, tables front-porch plan at 405 North Cassingham over right-of-way concerns",1705,2670000,4375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011&start=2670&end=4375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315335-63d6809e70d8ca8050b71ca998756011/thumbnail_2670000.jpg","/articles/6329949/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/ARB-urges-redesign-tables-front-porch-plan-at-405-North-Cassingham-over-right-of-way-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329949-0dd4e7739ed607b80f492c0261f5eb6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771130211&Signature=BYgAIBd~Ch6zowDnU-A1CBn7eJiaISrKOcLm8zriNMn1OXdnaOAHt5BOWrmx118vNFhNkI8zphUm4I-II6rsN1gvFAln-s0FqWRYgFIkGEkyLA5Ocu3-STZIol2ae0W6hdinpu9W5ajBfbXtAXsMnzIcoYXm8t3Dx6Vz3eH9wJNF3Wyu7S5Br7wZjtuImMjLq-J3-z-a2hTwzcNPGx0g5R66O8tMqz9FtElnXn1Js436Y0FDoyhcmycEJTpVoycLqOKaW9QQtGgualtCCtMY7GEgouV5-wlZiLR33FhMzp9vZyVw1TE~2XCOPYtP5tnh9mfeaxtAaqakfmgLUdKJtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bexley Architectural Review Board on Feb. 13 reviewed an application to add a front porch at 405 North Cassingham and tabled the matter to March 13 after detailed review of design, foundation and right-of-way issues.

Applicant Blake Floyd said the proposal would add a covered porch to the front of a corner lot house. Staff explained the project has two regulatory complications: the porch would extend into the public right-of-way and therefore would require a hold-harmless/consent agreement from city council, and the project will need a zoning review and, potentially, variances if the porch is built in the right-of-way.

Floyd described a change to the submitted drawings intended to keep one of the supporting posts in private property while allowing a cantilevered deck edge over the right-of-way. He told the board he had coordinated with city planner Matt and adjusted the corner post location to reduce the amount of work in the right-of-way.

Board members gave detailed architectural feedback. Mister Scott said the drawings read like a deck rather than a front porch and urged a higher-quality treatment that fits Bexley: “If this was a back deck like the last application, I wouldn’t be as critical ... but this is the front porch. Correct. The way it’s been detailed in these drawings is not for a front porch.” Several members said columns, piers and trim should be strengthened, the elevations should accurately reflect jogs and bay windows, and the foundation/cantilever detail needed structural review. Mister Hall urged involving a structural engineer and noted that cantilevering will complicate foundation design.

Several members also told the applicant that building in the right-of-way carries real risk. Mister Scott advised the applicant that structures in the right-of-way remain at the property owner’s risk because the city may later need to alter the right-of-way for utilities or sidewalks. One board member summarized the board’s view: they preferred the project be redesigned to avoid in-ground work in the city right-of-way.

When the applicant asked whether the proposed two-column, partially cantilevered porch should still pursue council consent, board members said the design team should first revise drawings to try to avoid work in the right-of-way and confirm options with planner Matt. The applicant agreed to discuss design revisions with the homeowner and the project’s architect and return for the March hearing.

On the tabling motion to March 13, 2025, the roll-call vote recorded a majority in favor; the transcript records Chairwoman Tony and most board members voting yes and Mister Hyer voting no.

The board offered three practical next steps: provide accurate site and elevation drawings showing setbacks and door locations; engage a structural engineer if the proposal relies on cantilevered support; and consult planning staff (Matt) before returning to avoid repeated design iterations that would require BZAP or council approval if elements extend into the public right-of-way.","An applicant seeking to add an 8-foot front porch at 405 North Cassingham was told by Bexley staff and board members that work in the public right-of-way is difficult and that the detailed drawings do not reflect the house’s character; the board tabled the application to March 13.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bexley ARB delays decision on covered walkway that would connect house and detached garage

Votes at a glance: Bexley ARB, Feb. 13, 2025

Design refinements praised, ARB tables mixed‑use proposal at 420 North Cassidy to allow final material details

Board tables plan for three‑story multiunit building at 2300 Livingston after design and safety questions

ARB urges redesign, tables front-porch plan at 405 North Cassingham over right-of-way concerns