[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",[32,76,88],{"_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":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6604905,"mediaKeyId","3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a","parentId",3043051,"title","Commission holds extended conceptual review of proposed 6‑story redevelopment at 136 South Front Street; no action taken","audioSeconds",4102,"startMs",2848000,"endMs",6950000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a&start=2848&end=6950","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a/thumbnail_2848000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6604905/Ohio/Commission-holds-extended-conceptual-review-of-proposed-6story-redevelopment-at-136-South-Front-Street-no-action-taken","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604905-00c78fa0b4ee9bbe9eb9e89405f08416/orig.mp4?Expires=1771099708&Signature=IbA10NqLoty01auEs3NHzH80TNZ29O2JwD1pNO2KDDQ6L7ql6Z5721~7izU6a8mLQRrEDOwXYBMmI6ShoteX-FgdJpc4tJ70dddMOcWASgToImQRqnocieSpY2RN0~O4r1pC71tJEee6do7oiDSuvurFLc~LHVE9mRiewoSeVm3PR0g7GVl89H0jEwRWCl~VXq1sKjSyR5ac~TibHZoUvWLJ1dvBMpjmqmeloVCocp4fPBok00IQeedINXmUEIM2fQ00iP3sHVPrFBmZ~xfyoS-cKxat9mq3Ex10aZSeH1J4CFRywqbj9VR~PbVwzDt37cCq4DiNWaFpHn0kCVi1sg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Columbus","date","2025-04-17T21:57:39.557Z","article","The Historic Resources Commission conducted a broad conceptual review on April 17 of a proposed demolition and replacement at 136 South Front Street that would remove the existing midcentury building and build a six‑story apartment building with a ground‑level garage. Staff and commissioners discussed whether the existing structure should be considered a contributing resource to the Brewery District and what level of documentation and alternatives the commission should require before considering demolition.

A public comment submitted in writing and read into the record urged the commission to reject the proposal on multiple grounds. The commenter, who signed her message as Alyssa Evans, wrote that a six‑story building would be incompatible with the two‑ and three‑story context of nearby residences, would remove green space and mature trees, and would not provide adequate parking for the number of proposed units.

The project team — attorney Craig Moncrief and architect David Malecca — said the proposal responds to the city’s new Title 34 zoning rules that encourage infill and higher‑density housing on surface parking lots. Moncrief said the applicant had sought upfront feedback because the team concluded the existing building could not be reasonably incorporated into a viable redevelopment. \"We filed that is because we've looked at every option and there is no way to incorporate this existing building into this development,\" Moncrief said.

Architect David Malecca, who described himself as a classical architect with experience on local restoration projects, told commissioners he judged the existing building to be a poor example of the style it imitates and said interior fabric had been removed and original construction altered; he described structural and code complications that the applicant said would make adaptive reuse financially and technically infeasible.

Staff advised the commission that, under the city’s land‑use and preservation framework, the Historic Resources Commission retains authority to review demolition and new construction in the Brewery District. Staff cited the zoning update (Title 34) and related Title 31 design and preservation provisions and asked the commission to weigh whether a demolition would be supported at a later hearing once more detailed construction documents were submitted. Staff recommended the commission treat the current filing as conceptual design feedback and not take an action on demolition at the meeting.

Commissioners were divided. Several commissioners said the building meets the local definition of a contributing building because it is older than 40 years and reflects a phase of local development, and argued the commission must apply demolition standards carefully. Other commissioners said the building’s historic fabric had been substantially altered, the interior was gutted before the applicant’s ownership, and the site — currently containing a commercial building and large surface parking — presented an opportunity for higher‑density infill if sensitively designed. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide more detailed documentation of existing construction, photos and a measured existing‑conditions plan, pedestrian‑level perspectives showing neighborhood context, and a landscaping/tree‑preservation plan that addresses the trees on site.

Property owner Rayna Malai described the building’s condition and her financial constraints. Malai said she bought the property around 2010, had attempted repairs and maintenance but could not afford major rehabilitation, and said parts of the building are failing. \"I am literally on the verge of bankruptcy… I cannot maintain that property,\" Malai said.

After extended discussion, the commission did not vote to approve demolition. Instead, commissioners offered substantive feedback and asked the applicant to return with additional documentation and design work that responds to the commission’s questions about massing, pedestrian scale, tree preservation and whether portions of the building could be incorporated. Staff will work with the applicant on a follow‑up filing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting: Historic Resources Commission (04/17/25)","oneSentenceSummary","The Historic Resources Commission held a conceptual review of a proposed demolition and six‑story replacement at 136 South Front Street and did not approve demolition; commissioners asked for more documentation, pedestrian‑scale views and tree preservation information.","taxTitle","Columbus City Council, Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",75950,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6604910,"Commission asks for alternatives and samples for rooftop railing at 47642 South Front Street; continues application",1601,1170000,2771000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a&start=1170&end=2771","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a/thumbnail_1170000.jpg","/articles/6604910/Ohio/Commission-asks-for-alternatives-and-samples-for-rooftop-railing-at-47642-South-Front-Street-continues-application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604910-62e7234ace8c5fcae10277d8d7af5c8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771099708&Signature=n7Jgt53kNGPbpDxGe5T3bM3oEKt8I78bflHh0jmyzepn66HaWbEpkWEHvb4mSbZovt3v517H~AuXLz1-eJ2yGEm1MsVcVFMZ3OQRzXNFX2PJ0SDWZtrDhF~b0djAr8-lGYxwi-Sd1OxXWOS8NU31yUMoC1WRgKqmTZXEbnIFUO2JNMtpKuOBxuPidRE0EOUgaDrYaeUitxR4Ermnf5ln8gdm9kddkuL73wSLZqS0XQ~zHHVcNGQsKux3b5GpZb3-42x1Ph3ZMGmyxjsIQy0gSgd0aX2UXmxHrM~Zu7~mHg7VH2cXOlIC7kaS1GxX0qFx6OGzBEvQSw~hz7xFLymAdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Resources Commission continued review of application CUA 2400133 for alterations and a rooftop addition at 47642 South Front Street after commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed perforated-metal parapet and the visibility of rooftop mechanical equipment.

At the April meeting staff summarized prior feedback: commissioners had questioned whether the originally proposed perforated-metal railing would read as a solid mass from the street and asked if glass or a more open railing might better match the building’s context. Staff noted the applicant revised materials to add a trellis with vines on the rooftop and to change the mechanical railing finish to a black custom color. Staff recommended continuing the application so the applicant could submit revised materials that address the commission’s comments.

Jake Bugo and Jennifer Ruffner, who identified themselves as architects working on the project, told commissioners the project team considered glass but rejected it for cost reasons and because they believed a more enclosed railing would provide users with a greater sense of enclosure on the narrow roof. \"It is more expensive to go that route,\" the applicant said, adding that a more enclosed rail would also help screen rooftop furniture from the street. The applicant also confirmed the mechanical rail had been revised to a dark finish and that the rooftop railing would be set back from the parapet as much as the mechanical layout allows.

Commissioners urged the applicant to provide additional product alternatives, samples and scaled elevations and asked to see how the rail would look from pedestrian viewpoints. One commissioner asked the applicant to provide “lighter” perforated options or other open railing systems and requested the applicant work with a small group of commissioners and staff to review samples. The commission also asked for clearer 2-D drawings that match the renderings and for pedestrian-scale perspectives that show the building in the context of adjacent facades.

A motion to continue CUA 2400133 carried. The applicant and staff agreed to reconvene with a subcommittee of commissioners to review railing samples and refined drawings before the application returns to the full commission.","The Historic Resources Commission continued review of a rooftop addition and railing system at 47642 South Front Street, asking the applicant for lighter, more transparent railing options or samples and routing further coordination to a small subcommittee and staff.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6604913,"Historic Resources Commission continues porch application at 617619 Dokid Avenue, requests clearer drawings and match of materials",996,144000,1140000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a&start=144&end=1140","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3043051-3aff27aff40a167cd7124433cd7ae29a/thumbnail_144000.jpg","/articles/6604913/Ohio/Historic-Resources-Commission-continues-porch-application-at-617619-Dokid-Avenue-requests-clearer-drawings-and-match-of-materials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604913-b4b50db47f34e6260207623a9eeee84f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771099708&Signature=hmGz8cSrVvgM-UU-jGZfI8iByhcahc6-N0UvmgQiVYcvOGFQ2YrUARX5YS9jlX-mlXrY3Phj78HgNghP7iDbTCKjcJRn-nz1dck-nwKsxGcwNTaRL2WMNlWzphJU8th1GQwLpXMZX1Ut6HKf-6JulVuyz8aAz1xmC3c6vvJG23fCLzLtCAlUuyGtHWauko1QJgtnyIBGh1FwkdI9vuCBIGTJea2VmlN2Wi4fkybUDZaqh5TqACYWcHK~f6fQouW8PZGLorCzwkXn3HJP6oz~rq9ZTeHxD6o2be38arvJ93bYeDXDm1MKDcmzQ64FK8~thE5OHrCaLiz3zpWsNHZuOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Resources Commission on April 17 continued consideration of Certificate of Appropriateness application for a front porch at 617619 Dokid Avenue, citing inconsistent drawings and missing construction details.

Commission staff told the panel that the revised submission addressed several earlier concerns but still contained inconsistencies. Staff said the submitted drawings removed a previously proposed metal pole, added a section view and set the railing height on the drawings to 38 inches, but recommended the plans show the same dimensions on the materials list and clarify how the new porch will be attached to the building. Staff cited city code standards for alteration in support of the recommendation.

Brent Ottson, who identified himself as production manager for River Valley Restoration and the contractor on the project, said his architecture firm had told him the revisions met the requirements communicated in prior emails. Ottson said he would return with a corrected section drawing and clarified dimensions after consulting the architect and carpenters. \"I went back to the architecture firm, and they have confirmed that they definitely feel that they've met all the requirements, per the emails that we've got,\" Ottson said.

Commissioners and others on the dais pressed for a more explicit, to-scale section and clearer coordination between elevation views and section details. One commissioner said the section drawing did not match the elevation and left unclear how the proposed built detail would be constructed. Another commissioner noted the drawings were missing lines showing how posts and the floor tie into the existing wall and asked for a hand-drawn, to-scale section if necessary. Staff also pointed out a discrepancy in the porch flooring callout and asked that the materials list and drawing dimensions match.

The commission voted to continue the application so the applicant can supply corrected, to-scale details, consistent materials listings, and information about how the porch will be fixed to the masonry. The motion to continue carried; the commission recorded no dissent on the record.

The applicant said he would provide the requested sketches and revised technical drawings to staff and work directly with staff to meet the next filing deadline. The application will return to the commission after staff confirms the updated drawings are complete.","The Historic Resources Commission continued a certificate-of-appropriateness application for a severely deteriorated porch at 617619 Dokid Avenue after commissioners and staff found the submitted drawings inconsistent and lacking key details; the applicant will submit revised, to-scale sections and confirm material and attachment details.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission holds extended conceptual review of proposed 6‑story redevelopment at 136 South Front Street; no action taken

Commission asks for alternatives and samples for rooftop railing at 47642 South Front Street; continues application

Historic Resources Commission continues porch application at 617619 Dokid Avenue, requests clearer drawings and match of materials