Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board offers design feedback on proposed new house in Dublin historic district
Summary
At an informal review of case 24-161, staff and the applicant presented a proposed 1½-story house on a newly split 0.27-acre lot in Dublin's historic residential district. The board generally supported the massing but asked the applicant to simplify roof forms, add window mullions and provide color/material samples before waivers are considered.
Staff presented an informal review for case 24-161, a proposal for a new single-family house on a 0.27-acre lot in Dublin's historic residential district, and asked whether the board would support waivers for the sunroom roof pitch and certain materials.
Sarah (staff) said the design follows several guideline sections but flagged concerns about window mullions, the mix of materials and whether the sunroom roof pitch should be reduced or flattened. She noted the site sits above the Scioto River and showed floodplain limits.
The applicant said they chose a mix of shingled siding, board-and-batten and stone and that the standing-seam metal would be color-matched to the shingles. The applicant offered to pursue a waiver to lower the standing-seam pitch to 3:12 if the board preferred and said, "I would be happy to go to a 3 12" when asked about the pitch.
Board members pressed the applicant on several details: whether a hipped gable would cause water or snow buildup, whether paired windows need mullions to read as traditional fenestration and whether the variety of materials made the small façade appear visually 'busy.' Several members urged larger side windows to balance elevations, especially where the façade reads as a garage from some approaches.
Staff and multiple board members advised the applicant to submit color renderings and material samples at the next stage so the board can judge combinations and consider waivers more confidently. No public comment was recorded for this case.
The board did not take a formal vote on the proposal; instead staff and the applicant were directed to return with refined drawings, mullion details and color/material samples for further review.
