Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Design topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ARB sends Livingston Avenue proposal to BZAP without recommendation, asks for return to ARB

2101629 · January 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The ARB voted to forward the proposed development at 23100 Livingston (BZAP 2449) to the Board of Zoning and Planning without an ARB recommendation and requested the project return to ARB for final design review; board members cited massing, roof lines and residential-commercial transitions as issues to address.

The ARB on Jan. 9 voted to move the proposed development at 23100 Livingston (BZAP 2449) to the Board of Zoning and Planning without making either a positive or negative recommendation. The board also requested that BZAP remand the project back to ARB for final design review.

Board members and staff said the design has improved since earlier reviews but expressed continuing concern about how the proposal transitions from the Livingston commercial corridor to the adjacent single‑family neighborhood. Key issues the board asked the design team to address before a final approval include massing and roof-line proportions on the Francis Avenue (residential) elevation, the large flat wall plane on the Livingston elevation (where additional vertical relief or brick articulation was suggested), and the pedestrian scale of the first-floor treatment along Livingston.

The ARB specifically asked for a clearer street‑section context showing planned Livingston improvements (10-foot shared use path, planting strip and medians in the joint Bexley–Columbus plan), a diagram of distance to nearby parks/recreation, and refined first-floor masonry, storefront and awning details that will read at pedestrian scale. With those items unresolved, the ARB moved the application to BZAP without recommendation and required the project to return to ARB for final details.