[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-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],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":73},"mediaId",6701969,"mediaKeyId","5035380-fb2b22678ce8697ec2226933ac697c70","parentId",5035380,"title","Developers present concept for six‑story Front Street apartments; neighbors raise traffic and scale concerns","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",7720000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5035380-fb2b22678ce8697ec2226933ac697c70&start=7720&end=7720","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5035380-fb2b22678ce8697ec2226933ac697c70/thumbnail_7720000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6701969/Ohio/Developers-present-concept-for-sixstory-Front-Street-apartments-neighbors-raise-traffic-and-scale-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6701969-292313a8b3ad1b133c6baeb9044445c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884465&Signature=gThf3aevFROee88luhOvrzaGU1ojphU1BBq1TpIGwibNjNx44T6sAELZjXhHKLYQ4AoQC7S~HhonYEdpg3T38ve2Zi5uFFnIPOxQ~7lJ-z5SnYsnBVB516FGuxZjvjFrmdSVlBE~ARSruqt1U62qjdU-ud4kop-FplHHZEqqMW-Pyr0gCBrh9R5xvR~0SFX43iGAA3nHdgesALUe~ZkIyouIg540pRUQhwAtAl9APjPLzO3RnqfeLdW6nzLfa02lZy0koxxfhdhThZ6AWdwihQVeG-Vqwb0YOjZLjMMOpsK3fMeq5gqnW8XmKX9gaot42hQYNucKfDdLGNp4x-YYCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Columbus","date","2025-06-20T21:47:11Z","article","Developers seeking to replace the existing “Swiss chalet” building at 1036 South Front Street presented a conceptual plan June 18 to the Historic Resources Commission for a six‑story apartment building with ground‑floor residential entries and a partly submerged parking garage. No formal demolition or construction approvals were requested or taken; staff and the commission treated the session as conceptual review to help the applicant refine designs.

The applicant’s legal counsel, Craig Moncrief, said the team had revised the design after early feedback: “the goal for tonight’s meeting is to hopefully finalize the discussion on the demolition” and to return with a full application for demolition and new construction. The design team told the commission it has filed variance requests for vision clearance, ground‑floor depth and a parking setback needed by the site layout, and that the project does not seek variances for height.

Neighbors and residents urged the commission to press for changes to the proposal before any demolition. Alyssa Evans, who lives across the street, said the scale of the plan and its parking proposal would harm nearby homes and green space: “The current proposal stands to destroy all of that,” Evans said, listing concerns about height, traffic and headlight glare into adjacent residences. Another resident, Tamla Cole, said the building as shown felt like a “monstrosity” and asked the commission to demand design changes that respect the district’s character.

Commission members and staff focused their discussion on massing, relationships to adjacent contributing buildings, and the package of supporting materials they expect to see in a future formal submission. Commissioners asked for clearer sections showing how the partly submerged garage and its ventilation/garage openings would relate to the grade change between Front Street and the rear alley, and asked the team to show finished elevations and landscaping along West Deshler and Red Bud Alley.

Several commissioners said the current Front Street façade had improved since earlier iterations because the design brings active entries and more glazing to the public face, but many asked the applicant to break down the long blank facades on the north and south elevations and to test options that reduce perceived bulk from neighboring properties. Commissioners also repeated that, for demolition review, they expect a complete plan describing the proposed replacement, financing assurances and a construction timeline.

No vote was held. Staff confirmed the meeting was conceptual and advised the applicant to return with revised drawings (floor‑to‑floor sections, detailed elevations, garage sections, and a streetscape/landscaping plan) and with the outstanding variance filings and any coordination notes from city traffic and site compliance reviews.

The commission advised the applicant to continue engaging with immediate neighbors while preparing materials for the next submission; several commissioners said they are open to a reduced or reworked massing that preserves some contextual scale on the north and south sides while still meeting the city’s urban infill standards.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting: Historic Resources Commission (06/18/25)","oneSentenceSummary","At a June 18 Historic Resources Commission meeting, developers presented a conceptual plan to demolish the existing \"Swiss chalet\" building at 1036 South Front Street and build a six‑story apartment building. Commissioners and neighbors asked for more detail on massing, garage access and landscaping; no demolition vote was taken.","taxTitle","Columbus City Council, Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",75950,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":42,"_43":78,"_45":78,"_46":79,"_48":80,"_50":81,"_52":82,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6701965,"Historic Resources Commission approves multiple COAs, advances signage cases andContinues murals and hoop‑house items",146000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5035380-fb2b22678ce8697ec2226933ac697c70&start=146&end=146","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5035380-fb2b22678ce8697ec2226933ac697c70/thumbnail_146000.jpg","/articles/6701965/Ohio/Historic-Resources-Commission-approves-multiple-COAs-advances-signage-cases-andContinues-murals-and-hoophouse-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6701965-ef3bd56ae7cacd29ea07da863282ddf7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770884465&Signature=M3jM6CA25EsoHUdq4zHyVf0jI5hWcSz484mZkG5Fee39TQuHtrReR3tuBrffa3ujFKCNNTjaLYG2HiMvA1TdbYAn6nnHTweBkM2Ver9dzuzbpzrOret03cGzZ1IjJsp34vtZvUoPI~ziJ4wjcXqQItK5fG7zwz3KjJ3HGOxlBqVl9IZ0U-1cWEmmC3DbO6OXDT1ovS24RT~lGx9oHzmNZMY5-IkUermXtuq~0K63O4ymjIyDxjmO9z5pN5J3M3Vt4HWJ6YoaHn2dYyAfIEgcR-iySz1JUTghOWHldKz0ikSsfpVPmobo1Am6dlcvbgSo6JztraKZMJnXjh9XNdhHmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Resources Commission took votes June 18 on a slate of certificates of appropriateness and related applications, approving most staff recommendations with conditions, continuing several items for more detail, and asking staff and applicants to supply final materials for administrative review.

Votes at a glance

- 427 Cleveland Avenue (COA CUA2500091): Commission recommended approval of variances and approved the new pool‑house design with conditions. Staff had recommended an affirmative recommendation for variances and approval of the non‑variance portion provided final details (trim dimensions, paint color, light fixture cut sheets and final wall sections) are submitted to HPF staff before certificate issuance.

- 479 North High Street (COA 250091463 to 479 N. High St., North Market Historic District): After discussion the commission approved option D (a painted, clad frame wood paneling approach) and required final cut sheets, colors and material samples be submitted to staff for final approval.

- 652 Linwood Avenue (hoop house): Continued. Staff recommended a seasonal or temporary timeline unless the applicant revised the proposal to meet building code and guidelines for outbuildings; commissioners asked for elevations, sections and manufacturer cut sheets and encouraged the applicant to work with staff and to consider alternative removable or more permanent designs.

- 517 Park Street (COA 2500545, AC Hotel / 507 Park Street, North Market Historic District): The commission approved refacing of existing signs in kind (one larger cabinet will be replaced with the same dimensions and illumination type) and required final clarifications to staff prior to certificate issuance.

- 585 South High Street (COA 250012): The commission approved most proposed sign changes and the revised sign package but split the item. The commission approved in‑kind replacements and alterations to several signs (south and north elevations, blade sign refacing and address numerals) while continuing the proposal to add block lettering on the fascia (the commission asked the applicant to return in July with historical or contextual examples supporting that lettering). Applicants were allowed to proceed with the in‑kind elements while the fascia lettering was deferred for further documentation.

- 1551 Brighton/Bridal Road (COA 2500557): Commissioners supported the pollinator garden and asked staff to handle that portion administratively; the commission continued the mural proposal because the guidelines prohibit painting unpainted masonry and the commission prefers removable murals or application to non‑masonry panels. Staff and commissioners suggested alternatives (heat‑applied wraps, painted removable panels, or freestanding painted fiber‑cement panels) and asked the applicant to explore options and/or renegotiate grant funds if necessary.

- 1091 South High Street (COA 2500554): The commission approved signage and exterior updates with conditions. Staff asked that deteriorated thin‑brick veneer on the primary elevation be replaced with unpainted thin brick (cut sheet to staff) and that signage illumination and sizes meet guidelines. The commission approved the main wall sign with a reduced 25‑square‑foot limit and approved other items while continuing review of lettering proposed for the eyebrow/fascia (that lettering will be considered with a related signage application in July).

- 617/619 Oakwood Avenue (COA 2500244): The commission approved reconstruction of a collapsed porch based on submitted historic photographs and revised drawings, with the condition that new porch elements be set into existing mortar joints where feasible to avoid damaging masonry.

What the commission asked applicants to supply

Commissioners repeatedly asked applicants to: submit final cut sheets and color/match samples; provide sections that show how new work interacts with existing masonry and grades; clarify whether new features will be removable; and supply manufacturer cut sheets for nonstandard materials or for items such as garage grilles and lighting. For items continued (hoop house, murals, rooftop/fascia lettering), the commission requested alternatives that avoid painting unpainted masonry or that use removable panel systems.","At its June 18 meeting the Historic Resources Commission approved certificates of appropriateness for several projects — including a pool house at 427 Cleveland Ave., refuse enclosures at 479 N. High St., several sign refacing projects and a porch reconstruction — and continued or deferred several items for additional materials.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developers present concept for six‑story Front Street apartments; neighbors raise traffic and scale concerns

Historic Resources Commission approves multiple COAs, advances signage cases andContinues murals and hoop‑house items