[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",6477997,"mediaKeyId","5711013-75932fda252d488fe509ba73e33ccae3","parentId",5711013,"title","German Village Commission: votes and outcomes from Sept. 3 hearing","audioSeconds",12378,"startMs",7500000,"endMs",19878000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5711013-75932fda252d488fe509ba73e33ccae3&start=7500&end=19878","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5711013-75932fda252d488fe509ba73e33ccae3/thumbnail_7500000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6477997/Ohio/German-Village-Commission-votes-and-outcomes-from-Sept-3-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477997-aee1887340bbf5b08d25f756c17926c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489179&Signature=XUg-ng5UbHgaOsYPzWTuAdYTTfz2uoXYWlX~SoYt1O6mAtRdJHMqKgQGrouEbTdMNWGT9Py~o3SEFZyNpzOl31X3a7FRCkVAj5ymjOCF64DVaHhMLXV3FBcdR-5DgPZUONf-7HO~qB0CbFzNSHsTIdD8DelYJc3XC7Dos~31MAzBRFQyJ6ic9oeei0e166fpZSfpdXR5C4x2KZgmMmnAwhmxy-FMyq~Ba25A38EQpLuMszas3g8f~UHvJRba8yfK6d1JeacbEUMvdw8rP8heLSD0~XqQW58NwXJ8UYzXWInK~EcYNi34OMJx1dKKk09m71pUeQC2d3oocuvhx1XnAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Columbus","date","2025-09-04T01:57:48Z","article","The German Village Commission on Sept. 3 moved several routine and contested Certificate of Appropriateness items to approval or continuation after staff presentations and public comment.

At the meeting the commission approved routine business including ratification of staff approvals and the minutes of the Aug. 6 meeting.

Several COAs were approved after applicants amended proposals to incorporate commissioner feedback or staff conditions. Notable approvals and outcomes recorded in the meeting minutes and on the record:

- 1038 Yeager Street (COA 25008941038): Commission approved the application for new construction and alterations, following discussion of previously granted conceptual approvals. Outcome: approved.

- Thurman Avenue (COA 2500746181): The commission approved the application as amended by the applicant; conditions required replacement of the Bluestone front walk with brick, deletion of a far‑east fence panel substituted by vegetative screening, and that fence tops be modified to not have dog‑ear picket profiles. Outcome: approved (amended/conditions).

- 1123 South Broad Street (COA 2500769): Commissioners approved the driveway gate and fence configuration with staff verification of final materials and product submittals; staff was authorized to issue the COA on receipt of acceptable product data. Outcome: approved (staff to verify final materials).

- City Park Avenue gutters (COA 2500863551): The commission approved removal of later added fascia and restoration of original half‑round gutters, with restoration of rafter tail details where feasible. Outcome: approved.

- City Park Avenue windows (COA 2500864551): Commissioners split this item into Part A (replacement of 11 windows with Marvin Ultimate and retaining/restoring one original window) and Part B (replacement/alteration of a fourth‑floor opening); Part A was approved with conditions to retain/restore the one original sash where feasible, and Part B was continued. Outcome: Part A approved; Part B continued.

- Hickory Street landscaping (COA 2500814724): The application was split; the commission continued Part A (front steps and associated retaining issues) for further study and approved Part B (other landscaping and walk changes) with removal of raised planters that extended onto adjacent property. Outcome: Part B approved; Part A continued.

- Jackson Street (COA 2500859191): Application for exterior alterations, landscaping and demolition of a deck was approved with customary staff conditions, including submittal of final drawings and building‑code compliance for new stairs. Outcome: approved.

- South Fort Street garage addition (COA 2500919554): The commission approved the request as amended but required final flashing, window product data and that a small subcommittee of commissioners review details of the proposed cap and flashing. Outcome: approved with subcommittee review and staff conditions.

Other items:

- 555 City Park Avenue / Garage door proposal (COA 250087955): The applicant seeking large garage door openings on a former trolley barn (West elevation) was asked to supply dimensioned architectural drawings showing existing interior headers, gas meter locations and vehicle clearances; commissioners tabled the item to allow the team to return with clearer documentation of how two 9x12‑foot doors would function in the existing building envelope. Outcome: tabled/continued.

- 251 East Livingston (COA 2500915247): The proposed four‑story mixed‑use development was presented conceptually and drew extended public comment. Commissioners requested substantial supplemental materials (scaled elevations, per‑floor lot coverage numbers, and product data) and did not take a final vote. Outcome: conceptual review – no action taken; applicant to return with a complete packet.

Meeting procedure and next steps: For approvals that required product or material clarifications, staff was authorized to issue COAs on receipt of final, compliant documentation. Items continued were scheduled for resubmission with the specific clarifications requested by the commission.

Record of actions (summary): the commission recorded motions and votes on multiple COAs at the Sept. 3 meeting; several applications were approved with conditions requiring staff verification of final materials, while several larger or more complex projects were continued to allow the applicant to supply missing drawings and specifications.

The commission’s minutes show the panel continuing work on its interpretation of the German Village Guidelines for larger, mixed‑use projects and requiring applicants to demonstrate how design changes reduce perceived bulk on public ways before final approvals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting: German Village Commission (09/03/25)","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved multiple Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) and continued several items after staff presentations. Key approvals included COAs for properties on Yeager Street, Thurman Avenue, South Broad and City Park Avenue; other larger projects were continued for further detail.","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":46,"_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":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6478001,"German Village commissioners and residents spar over proposed four‑story mixed‑use building at 251 East Livingston",7485,12393000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5711013-75932fda252d488fe509ba73e33ccae3&start=12393&end=19878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5711013-75932fda252d488fe509ba73e33ccae3/thumbnail_12393000.jpg","/articles/6478001/Ohio/German-Village-commissioners-and-residents-spar-over-proposed-fourstory-mixeduse-building-at-251-East-Livingston","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478001-3ad5ebd95b4a1d2c8feb9452286f2c6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489179&Signature=UtpPnF7EzsmRYBu67scZfoypTO2hOAMwYn0ij5DLb0UcfMdgYc3Go1HxjyuCy9wvBBzFWj3KvQCG7rD~fMTpybM-gD1beqYbQ1RHHoN31MBzi4xNrJYserfnKwLgxws-3OX0ib68xiMqc8N~-fjM9SCA1ucxjzf6qvwj-781UjAikSwf8NeoWVYAUmrh-EBVoB-auBLptSQhFTZ8wggLmknkgePPRhaxd9whKRRZlPTeXCbTqsZcl2Ec0H5fE3D-TaTfMrnOpUWmVt-pKIYjTActC-kGSU5jv-M8EsqPIPDnsc8tF1xBrcDzzeNR2dRFqxeVIy-cXPS6Jotn2ui20g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A developer’s conceptual plan for a four‑story, mixed‑use building at 251 East Livingston drew strong criticism from residents and detailed procedural questions from the German Village Commission at the commission’s Sept. 3 hearing.

The project team presented a revised design that trims parts of the top floor and converts some ground‑floor residential units into retail, describing the changes as responses to earlier commission feedback. “We converted substantial amount of the residential on the first floor and made that retail opportunity,” the applicant’s lead presenter, identified in the record as Dan (applicant), said during the presentation.

Commissioners and many residents pressed the team on the project’s massing and lot coverage — two central issues in the commission’s review. Residents said the proposal’s overall height and the amount of building surface proposed for the site would overwhelm the block’s historic scale. “German Village has been and is a gem for the city of Columbus,” said Patrick Bowers, a longtime resident. “Any new construction or changes to existing property needs to complement the existing buildings as to massing, material and detail.”

Public commenters described the proposal as too tall and too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. Several speakers cited the development’s height in feet and compared it to nearby historic buildings. “The proposal is 12 feet taller than surrounding historic buildings,” resident Maya (commenter) said; other commenters said the tallest proposed elevation was about 44 feet while nearby historic heights were in the low 30s. Residents also warned of alleyway conflicts where garage openings are proposed close to existing stoops and steps used by neighbors.

Staff said the submission was conceptual and incomplete for a final vote. Nick (HPO staff) walked commissioners through the packet and reminded the panel that the German Village Guidelines and City Code Title 31 govern new construction in the district and that the commission’s role is to judge compatibility with those standards. “New construction needs to be evaluated based on massing, material and details,” he said, summarizing the guidance that staff and the applicant were using to update the design.

Commissioners asked the applicant to provide clearer, dimensioned plans for the alleys and garage entries, a clearer breakdown of per‑floor lot coverage, and specification sheets for proposed windows, roofing and storefront systems. Several commissioners said the applicant’s recent changes — notably removal of part of a fourth floor and additional facade setbacks — moved the project toward the kind of broken massing the guidelines envision, but that core concerns remained.

“I appreciate the effort to break the long facade into smaller elements,” Commissioner Rachel Schultz said. “But massing, lot coverage and the relationship to the alleys remain unresolved.”

Commissioners also discussed materials and details: several asked for samples of proposed brick, metal and siding palettes and expressed concern about the use of full‑width garage openings and large, vertical window proportions on alley facades. The commission and staff discouraged Juliet balconies and recommended carefully proportioned windows and traditional cornice/trim details for any elevations intended to read as ‘‘residential’’ rather than ‘‘commercial.’’

The applicant did not request a final vote and the commission took no formal action on the project at the Sept. 3 meeting. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with a complete materials packet, scaled, dimensioned elevations and clearer diagrams showing where the fourth floor would be visible from public ways, and with alternatives that reduce perceived bulk on the alleys.

The commission set expectations that, before a decision, it must be able to compare the submission to the German Village Guidelines and to site‑specific historic precedents in the immediate blocks. Commissioners and speakers repeatedly emphasized that while guidelines allow some variation for new construction, they expect a new building to be readable as ‘‘new’’ while remaining compatible in massing, scale and rhythm with the surrounding historic fabric.

The applicant said the team would revise plans and return; no hearing date was set during the meeting. The commission repeatedly urged the applicant to supply full, clear documentation of the proposal’s vertical dimensions, floor‑by‑floor lot coverage, alley clearance and the exact products and samples for windows, cladding and roofing that staff can review prior to the next hearing.

The meeting record shows the item was discussed at length but not approved. The commission’s request for a complete materials and dimensioned packet is the explicit list of follow‑ups the applicant must provide before the panel will take a final vote.","A developer’s plan for a four‑story, 68‑unit mixed‑use building at 251 East Livingston drew extended public comment and detailed design questions from the German Village Commission on Sept. 3. Commissioners sought clarity on massing, lot coverage, alley setbacks and materials before any formal vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

German Village Commission: votes and outcomes from Sept. 3 hearing

German Village commissioners and residents spar over proposed four‑story mixed‑use building at 251 East Livingston