[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6164423,"mediaKeyId","5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6","parentId",5428633,"title","ARB forwards revised garage plan at 2775 Powell to Board of Zoning and Planning with condition to return to ARB","audioSeconds",1929,"startMs",4642000,"endMs",6571000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6&start=4642&end=6571","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6/thumbnail_4642000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6164423/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/ARB-forwards-revised-garage-plan-at-2775-Powell-to-Board-of-Zoning-and-Planning-with-condition-to-return-to-ARB","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164423-3bbdfccec7e6a1e4218b45e8efec9d89/orig.mp4?Expires=1775340665&Signature=Ijp8fEIVMGdIhFgQqDG-2coP4Ik75jrQhA8bOH4oxKdbXA1Cusc~4X3gO1xPdjmo~UfuKc4EeVpFJYnrifha4xBPfJ6I2-h~vCjvz7PisD~Xiro7WGYrHqKcFtKYMNprhIkGq6ZYCXVMnX7eytLKYCB4AkIsLI8LL5hn~iKyA5ZcYvfQmEs9FyXT3883aWglnuI3kRZ2HKvj9wceQGSNrHUrZhlFvBBX6CIzkcYoHmMcVDVYSTnMn27~b1Kes6fFSxrY02FrR~VqO-iN3VhN8amtk8-dn3b48WFWZFsxkKhmup3J5p0ZA1gF-k9658nPrj4osUyn4h-BfGb93mmrIA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Bexley, OH ","date","2025-07-18T11:55:02Z","article","The Architecture Review Board on July 17 referred a revised plan for a new rear garage at 2775 Powell to the Board of Zoning and Planning for a special permit and required the applicant to return to ARB for final design approval. The applicant, Brian Larson, and owners Brian and Katie Shepherd presented changes intended to eliminate variances from an earlier design.

Staff summarized the project history and said recent redesigns reduced the footprint and addressed some prior variance triggers, but that the dormer and overall massing still required refinement. Karen explained that while the applicant eliminated the need for several variances, the plan still requires a special permit for a functional dormer under the zoning code. She noted that accessory structures are allowed close to lot lines under code but recommended ARB review the detailed design for compatibility with the primary Tudor‑style house.

Board members raised multiple design items: lowering the dormer and its eave to make the addition more subservient to the main house, simplifying or resizing window groupings to reduce a “busy” appearance, matching fenestration proportions front to back, and clarifying material transitions between stucco and any applied wood trim. One member suggested adding canopies over pedestrian doors and ensuring consistent sill heights. Another asked for clearer drawings and physical samples so the board can evaluate eave details and trim before final approval.

Because of the short posting timelines, staff told the applicant that if he could submit revised drawings quickly the BZAP agenda could be adjusted; otherwise, the ARB recommended the plan move to BZAP for the special permit and to return to ARB for final design review. The board then moved the application to BZAP with the condition that the applicant return to the ARB for final design review and approval.

Why it matters: the proposed garage is large for a rear accessory structure and sits near property lines; design decisions will affect neighbors’ views and the character of the immediate block. The board emphasized material consistency with the existing Tudor house and that the dormer be reduced in height and better integrated into the garage massing.

Next steps: the application will proceed to the Board of Zoning and Planning for a special permit consideration; following that action, the applicant is required to return to ARB for final design review and approval of details.

(Ending) The board’s recommendation preserves ARB oversight of final materials and trim while allowing the applicant to seek the zoning special permit needed to proceed with the project.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025-07-17 City of Bexley Architectural Review Board","oneSentenceSummary","The Architecture Review Board moved a revised garage proposal at 2775 Powell to the Board of Zoning and Planning for a special permit, with the condition that the applicant return to ARB for final design review after addressing massing and dormer height concerns.","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},6164427,"ARB approves exterior elevator shaft at 247 Parkview with condition to submit final shop drawings",1378,3112000,4490000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6&start=3112&end=4490","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6/thumbnail_3112000.jpg","/articles/6164427/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/ARB-approves-exterior-elevator-shaft-at-247-Parkview-with-condition-to-submit-final-shop-drawings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164427-53cd5fcd865f982faa7a74c2a0e6aa73/orig.mp4?Expires=1775340665&Signature=Eqs25Z5b2TN0glDjlx7TQG5y2zTeyK6MBs3rzKwhTWJ8HtYYkY5WtSk3gxiDagwFewMnK52b6DxwBA0VYEyg5oQypIMWiwMRYKgvA0Tsooov2LztXvdr5gb8kGLo9bJ-I1vRSPfuV-ZivwRaKoHQOz9FgXW~~wDNQU8vgUQEFa29oWIUE-z--45GqPSV6PiKRH5lM6W5YVifSfJgxjQ8~XHYMZsRZBVajyl8fGCtfEiWn~HXHqy222BMcU5AsoQ9ZeR-0TVCsARXOrIEqzYesExzsQ4khxWCW2Zb5tj52KLiUKJzLBiai1lY1L5yM6mhGWRhd9XLI1FvIBFjT7E4LA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Architecture Review Board on July 17 granted a certificate of appropriateness for a premanufactured exterior elevator shaft at 247 Parkview, approving the installation with a condition that final drawings be reviewed by the design consultant and shared with board members.

John Anderson presented the application, describing a modular premanufactured elevator (Civis 5000 in the applicant’s examples) that would be installed outside a rear service stair to provide wheelchair access between floors. He said the proposed solution was chosen after reviewing multiple vendors and that the modular shaft would be assembled on site; he also noted a lead time for procurement.

Karen, the staff member, summarized the application and described the location chosen to minimize interior penetrations: \"the location was determined because that was the place where you could punch through at all the different floor levels without having to change locations for elevators.\" Board members discussed the product’s modularity and materials. Several members asked for more consistent panel rhythm and elevation details; others suggested making the tower more transparent and aligning colors to the house’s existing metals or gutters rather than leaving a bare aluminum finish.

After discussion, the board adopted findings and moved to approve the application with the condition that \"the final drawings be reviewed by the design consultant and shared with the board members.\" The motion to approve with that condition passed.

Why it matters: the approved exterior elevator addresses accessibility needs for a resident who uses a wheelchair and represents a case in which a modern prefabricated component will be added to a historic or traditional house. The board conditioned its approval on additional detail work to ensure the assembly’s rhythm and materials are compatible with the main structure.

Next steps: the applicant will submit final shop drawings and panel/glass choices to the design consultant and the ARB; staff will circulate those documents to board members for review prior to installation.

(Ending) The board’s conditional approval allows procurement and further shop drawing development to proceed while preserving an opportunity for final design oversight.","The Architecture Review Board granted a certificate of appropriateness to install a premanufactured exterior elevator shaft at 247 Parkview, subject to design consultant review and final shop drawings being shared with board members.",{"_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},6164432,"Architectural Review Board tables proposed addition at 237 N. Stanwood for redesign",902,1104000,2006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6&start=1104&end=2006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5428633-e7ea105ce5494b05602c84fea184ffd6/thumbnail_1104000.jpg","/articles/6164432/Bexley/Franklin-County/Ohio/Architectural-Review-Board-tables-proposed-addition-at-237-N-Stanwood-for-redesign","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164432-8fc790f5b99970e614dd23a18bc34aa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775340665&Signature=lXxQUiDvpJIet2Qpwz-pKdRW4545W-1th0qyCwRL59WrznlWRB93v6~M2Wb6q4iCb4DzJgszRpxyumLddseMbpJ5vHhjxMQM0K11z4vgFZ3JcUjIgYO-ikT3JvOXdmr3wceU6rYSgthnDO~1PlFVJFC~hKUATWaqqIXfDLR-zUCAKOQNSt8RXSvCvtoGl6uAqOfIJJtCGKXpMRzD0u~w2R7M119bWActZXl81cryHef00LDW2u60FfSKcdOnCvZaheq8NMaM4j-qnm76-xXifR4BLfZ1zBwfIdZEE8PNd7AfSmzWqClntYuNujCxL153TDBapgov0csbCfQAXXqtUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Architecture Review Board on July 17 tabled a proposal to add a 390‑square‑foot second‑floor addition atop a one‑story portion of the house at 237 North Stanwood and asked the applicant to return to the board with refined drawings at the Aug. 14 meeting. The applicant, Joshua Tomey, and the property owner, Alberto Largas, presented the project to the board and staff recommended more work on rooflines and windows before approval.

Karen, a staff member who presented the application, told the board she thought the addition’s placement and massing were viable but that \"the devil is in the details,\" and recommended that the applicant return with a revision that makes the new volume \"a little subservient to the original house.\" The board’s comments focused on lowering or clipping the new roof ridge, improving the pitch where the new roof meets the existing gambrel, and adding or reconfiguring windows on the south elevation to avoid a blank wall.

Board members echoed staff. One member said dropping the new roof eave and creating a clipped or tray ceiling within the addition would preserve interior volume while changing the exterior massing. Another asked the applicant to add architectural detail on the proposed rear pergola so it reads as an intentional element rather than an add‑on. Multiple members suggested pulling the new ridgeline down several inches and exploring dormers or other roof treatments to reduce the apparent scale from the rear.

Tomey described technical constraints, including the limitations of asphalt‑shingle pitch warranties, and said he and staff had discussed options such as a small flat portion at the ridge, using dormers for interior height, or adjusting the siding and trim to read as a sympathetic addition. He agreed to return with sketches addressing the board’s concerns.

Action taken: the board voted to table the application to the Aug. 14 meeting so the applicant can submit refined drawings. The formal motion to table passed; the transcript records the board calling for a date‑certain tabling to Aug. 14 and the motion being approved.

Why it matters: the board framed its direction around preserving the visual primacy of the original front elevation while allowing rear additions. The changes requested—roof setback, pitch adjustments, and additional windows—are the specific items staff and the board said must be resolved before the board can recommend a certificate of appropriateness.

Next steps: the applicant will consult with staff and return with revised plans for the Aug. 14 meeting. The board asked that the applicant coordinate with Karen for pre‑submission feedback.

(Ending) The application remains on the board’s active docket and will be reconsidered only after the applicant submits revised drawings addressing the board’s concerns.","The Architecture Review Board voted to table a proposal for a 390 sq. ft. second‑floor addition at 237 North Stanwood and asked the applicant to return with revised drawings reflecting changes to roof pitch, ridgeline setbacks and fenestration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ARB forwards revised garage plan at 2775 Powell to Board of Zoning and Planning with condition to return to ARB

ARB approves exterior elevator shaft at 247 Parkview with condition to submit final shop drawings

Architectural Review Board tables proposed addition at 237 N. Stanwood for redesign