Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architectural Review Board gives preliminary feedback on Fisher Residence informal review
Summary
The Dublin Architectural Review Board provided nonbinding feedback on a proposed single-family home (case 25-033) in the Historic Residential District, focusing discussion on massing, roof pitches, materials and porch screening; no formal action was required or taken.
The Dublin Architectural Review Board considered an informal review of case 25-033, the proposed Fisher Residence, a new single-family home on a newly split lot in the Historic Residential District, and offered nonbinding comments on massing, roof pitch waivers and materials.
Board staff member Sarah introduced the site and said it is zoned Historic Residential and affected by floodplain constraints. Sarah described the proposal as a 1½-story house with a projecting L for a front porch, a side-load two-car garage and a recessed single-car garage, and said staff would request waivers for rear height and for a front shed roof pitch at a later minor-project submittal. Sarah noted proposed materials including stone at the foundation and horizontal and vertical siding treatments and requested board input on whether the materials and the screened upper deck would read as a solid mass from the river side.
The board and applicant discussed the driveway, turnaround and how the foundation stone should wrap around visually. Jeff Memmer, builder with Memmer Homes, said the project team could adjust the stone to better “balance between the two” and confirmed board-and-batten vertical siding will be used consistently. Memmer said the upper center deck is proposed to be screened and that the team will select a low-visibility screening product "to keep that feeling more open." He added the team could change the front shed roof from a 3:12 to a 4:12 pitch to align with common approvals.
Board members generally supported the front and rear massing as appropriate for the lot’s slope toward the Scioto River and asked the applicant to return with material samples, a clarified driveway width and screening details during the minor-project review. No formal vote or waivers were taken at this informal stage.
The board moved on to the next agenda item after the applicant and staff confirmed they had no outstanding questions.
Looking ahead, staff indicated the project will need a minor-project review submittal with final material samples, confirmation of driveway dimensions and any formal waiver requests.
