Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Residential Addition Porch topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ARB approves new front porch and rear shed at 85 Franklin Street with design conditions

5689772 · August 27, 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 Architectural Review Board approved a separate rear shed and approved a new seven‑foot‑deep front porch for a home at 85 Franklin Street after discussion about setback, roof material and column spacing; the shed was approved without conditions and the porch approval incorporated board preferences on columns and roof material.

The Dublin Architectural Review Board approved construction of a rear shed and a front porch addition at 85 Franklin Street in the Historic Residential district, adopting conditions and clarifications after extended discussion about setback consistency, porch depth, column spacing and roof material.

Staff presented the case and recommended disapproval of the porch as proposed but recommended approval of the rear shed with no conditions. The board and applicant negotiated design details during the public hearing. The homeowner, Aaron Frank, and architect Heidi Bolliard presented revised plans that reduced porch massing, added classical trim and proposed a seven‑foot porch depth with a 29‑foot, 10‑1/2‑inch width. Frank told the board the porch would mitigate solar heat gain on the front windows after the loss of a mature hackberry and support neighborhood interaction.

Neighbors, including Michael Strang (75 Franklin Street) and Alan Suter (80 Franklin Street), spoke in support, saying front porches increased walkability and neighbor engagement. Board members debated whether the porch would violate the guideline objective of maintaining a consistent building line in the background neighborhood; several members observed that setbacks on Franklin Street vary and that the proposed porch would remain substantially further from the street than many other homes.

The board discussed roof material for the porch (standing‑seam metal versus asphalt shingles) and whether to require four or six columns. Several board members said a standing‑seam roof was practical for the proposed low pitch, and others preferred a six‑column configuration for proportion. The applicant offered to add an additional pair of columns if the board preferred.

Motion and votes: The board voted to approve the rear shed as recommended by staff. For the porch, the ARB moved to approve the front porch addition as proposed in case 25‑071 MPR with the porch dimensions set at 7 feet deep by 29 feet, 10.5 inches wide and with the option of either four or six columns; the motion passed on the recorded board vote. The shed motion and the porch motion both carried by recorded yes votes from the members present.

Clarifying details captured at the hearing: the porch depth is 7 feet; the applicant reported the house’s northeast corner sits about 59 feet from the street and that, even with the porch, the porch would be about 53 feet from the street at the closest point; the applicant noted they had already reduced the porch pitch and inset the porch edges to avoid placing columns in front of windows. The applicant also provided physical paint and material samples at the meeting for staff review.

Staff will require the final construction drawings to show column details, window and trim specifications, mortar and cap details for the foundation water table, and consistent plan/narrative language before permit issuance.