[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6511696,"mediaKeyId","5213446-d2f4c7d7ab11ff35aa7e9a317bf95bd9","parentId",5213446,"title","Commission approves rear concrete paving but denies proposed front charcoal pavers; landscape plan advanced for 192 Thurman","audioSeconds",1751,"startMs",13169000,"endMs",14920000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5213446-d2f4c7d7ab11ff35aa7e9a317bf95bd9&start=13169&end=14920","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5213446-d2f4c7d7ab11ff35aa7e9a317bf95bd9/thumbnail_13169000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511696/Ohio/Commission-approves-rear-concrete-paving-but-denies-proposed-front-charcoal-pavers-landscape-plan-advanced-for-192-Thurman","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511696-d1006bf1068d1cda740659701c72bed9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770961970&Signature=NDTi-RAeOinP1Yv0v9hrxshbDJVQVST35tFphynA19qAvxAaDxQrKwoBkd7S~-0rSI~RCeyPvzCZP58pGN-Lbd-0Xj3NTQ7lFLs72XD9dwfl9WznaPCaa7JFYiiCjbqvHFpeiazQ3gTlUy1WiXjArZJWnSZBII5xjGluUsxMLtbSpoRA8IDgRPEm50usETdEr0tBZjEUZuqYg4cc6ddsIGFHI6uFWYKFbT6g8Ro57v-5RsNA1QWiTMkDd7brF9KZQTPaA7YOL7crkIrcGDxpA1mbUtYFhzFdSy8rvwnjlt70j5dpy7j6S582s5Y6fyAPhjEqeHG9cezWWkt2pX3BUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Columbus","date","2025-07-07T15:37:54Z","article","The German Village Commission on July 2 split and processed a comprehensive application for 192 Thurman Avenue that proposed new front‑yard paving and a low masonry retaining wall at the sidewalk, removal of an existing iron front fence, new rear‑yard paving and hardscape, and planting/landscaping changes.

Because the package mixed landscaping with hardscape and masonry details, the commission asked staff and the applicant to separate the material into three parts: (a) softscape (plantings, planting beds, lighting and small raised planters), (b) vertical elements (retaining wall and front fence), and (c) horizontal paving (front and rear walkways and driveway/parking surfaces). Commissioners voted on each part separately.

Part A — softscape and plantings: The commission approved the planting plan, raised planting beds and small decorative lighting as presented. The applicant had provided a sample of the proposed Unilock Sienna segmental wall and agreed to the planting palette and to preserve the large street tree in place; staff confirmed the wall blocks would be the three‑course (≈21 inch) units shown at the hearing. The approval includes minor staff review of final planting sizes and lighting fixtures.

Part B — vertical elements (wall and fence): Commissioners deferred final action and continued consideration of the proposed masonry retaining wall and removal of the historic iron fence to allow more time to examine alternatives. Several commissioners said they were open to a sensitively designed low masonry wall but wanted additional options that used softer materials or stone to better align with typical German Village treatments; others urged retention or restoration of the existing iron fence where feasible. The applicant agreed to return with additional details and additional masonry/stone options and to explore a design that minimized impacts to the large front yard street tree.

Part C — horizontal paving: The commission split horizontal paving into front (Part C‑a) and rear (Part C‑b) because public views differ and the board wanted separate votes. For the front yard (Part C‑a) the applicant had proposed 2.5‑in modular charcoal pavers (herringbone pattern) laid over a concrete base. Staff and several commissioners said the German Village guidelines emphasize traditional brick paving on public frontages and generally discourage exposed concrete or non‑brick facing materials on the front sidewalk. After discussion the commission voted to deny the front pavers as proposed, citing the guidelines’ preference for traditional brick patterns and sizes for front yards and public walkways.

For the rear yard and parking area behind the proposed fence (Part C‑b), the commission approved the proposed concrete/engineered pavers for the rear yard and driveway because those surfaces are not directly in the public sidewalk and are more commonly allowed in rear‑yard applications. The approval includes standard installation details and the requirement that staff approve final paver color and the edge restraint.

Ending: The commission concluded the planting and rear paving pieces can move forward but asked the applicant to return with alternative front‑yard paving options (brick in traditional size, a darker brick paver option, or other materials that match the sidewalk context) and additional masonry/stone wall options for the front yard. The wall/fence item will return with alternative proposals.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting: German Village Commission (07/02/25)","oneSentenceSummary","The German Village Commission split a multi‑part COA for 192 Thurman Avenue into three items — planting (approved), vertical wall/fence (continued), and horizontal paving (front denied; rear approved).","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},6511700,"Neighbors, commissioners press developer to shrink scale in East Livingston redevelopment concept",1205,16477000,17682000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5213446-d2f4c7d7ab11ff35aa7e9a317bf95bd9&start=16477&end=17682","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5213446-d2f4c7d7ab11ff35aa7e9a317bf95bd9/thumbnail_16477000.jpg","/articles/6511700/Ohio/Neighbors-commissioners-press-developer-to-shrink-scale-in-East-Livingston-redevelopment-concept","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511700-4450103667270c6deb39581e5e61abed/orig.mp4?Expires=1770961970&Signature=frrRLwiaO7IdCL0h7GR08oGgQnMV2Y-iQQf8QVKQJCqhanuLmdAvHTs08Tcxblwg15p-Idt9g8Js9qUTKLTbp8jF64IqYK6P8c~ifkGN17HirQId9n~Yuy~RAE-F8r7p34biYjL0BBjIIG~V4Q2sDKa2nnkfEov4x01p63JzFPK1m2xOLY6kwry2Wwbf~ZjsruwrtNa35PpxJZEJnUvi4a60-QsXQ1lbEgNZrtsaPBEe5t~jIXm9dwf5bdHx8NW8rWmx7uVQr4MK0xCNMDf-L1fo~QtuM0GD6uZ8LGXNfkdtOMw3skwXYhFCHa~UYWb-vxo4ikpRB~Ss6Kx7D3zzyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers returned to the German Village Commission on July 2 with a substantially redesigned concept to replace the existing commercial building at 251 East Livingston with a multi‑building residential project. The latest submission reduces unit count from the earlier proposal, breaks the massing into smaller street‑facing pieces and adds alleyside activation, but commissioners and residents said the project remains too large and too tall for the neighborhood.

The applicants — represented by developer Vershad Development with architects from MBBJ and local project team members — described months of additional design work since a March conceptual review. The team said it had walked the surrounding blocks, documented local building rhythms (stoops, narrow parcels, gabled roofs and narrow alleys) and reworked the massing so the Livingston frontage reads as smaller elements stepping back, with lower scaled facades facing the alleys. The revised plan shows multiple linked volumes with a reduced unit count, 35 off‑street parking spaces and upper‑level amenity terraces. The team said the intent is for a contemporary interpretation that reads as residential on multiple frontages while preserving alley activity.

Commissioners and dozens of public commenters said the new look is an improvement over the earlier submission, but they repeatedly pressed the applicants on three core issues: height, lot coverage, and impacts on narrow alleys. Multiple speakers, including the German Village Society’s preservation manager and longtime residents, urged the commission to apply the district’s pattern of “narrow, deep” lots and modest building heights when evaluating the concept.

“German Village’s character is the variety of 1‑ to 2‑story cottages, Italianates and occasional three‑story commercial buildings,” one resident said. “This design still reads as a four‑story mass in many views and will dominate the block and the alleys.” Another commenter who rides and walks the alleys daily said the narrow rights‑of‑way already receive heavy deliveries and shuttle traffic; he warned the proposed density would increase conflicts and repeated backing maneuvers on blocks that are effectively single‑lane.

Commissioners asked the applicants for more rigorous visual studies showing how the proposal would be seen from multiple public vantage points (including Grant Avenue and the German Village approaches). Several commissioners said that even if the designers use setbacks and material changes, a four‑story elevation that is visible from key approaches will be difficult to reconcile with the guidelines’ instruction that new construction should fall at or below the average height of surrounding structures. Others asked for more information about the relationship to the nine underlying parcels on the block and how the proposal would preserve readable parcel rhythm, not just mimic it in façade elements.

On technical points, commissioners requested: clearer elevations for every façade, more detailed sections showing distances to property lines and the alley, clarification of where garage and loading access will occur, and examples of cladding and window types. Several commissioners suggested the design could be improved by stronger shadow lines (deeper eaves/overhangs), more recesses and material changes that create small‑scale “moments” visible at pedestrian level rather than large, flat planes.

Applicants said they would return with additional renderings, a set of elevation studies from primary public viewpoints, and refinement of the alleyside plan. They emphasized that the redesign already reduced unit counts and reorganized massing to respond to comments received in March.

The commission took the presentation as a conceptual review and did not vote on a COA. Commissioners advised the applicants to focus next on: (1) demonstrating how the fourth floor will be visually subordinate from public approaches, (2) breaking the mass into clearly readable parcel‑scale elements, (3) showing landscaping and tree planting sufficient to soften alleys and public views and (4) providing a complete material palette for early staff review. Several commissioners reiterated that a formal COA application must include complete material samples and full elevation studies before formal action.

The developer team and commission agreed to return with the requested materials at a subsequent meeting.

Ending: The commission’s comments made clear that while the new concept is a step toward a more contextual design, the board will require stronger evidence that the building’s height, massing and coverage can be reconciled with German Village’s historic patterns before any permit‑level approvals will be considered.","Developers returned to the German Village Commission on July 2 with a substantially redesigned concept to replace the existing commercial building at 251 East Livingston with a multi‑building residential project.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves rear concrete paving but denies proposed front charcoal pavers; landscape plan advanced for 192 Thurman

Neighbors, commissioners press developer to shrink scale in East Livingston redevelopment concept