Architectural Review Board approves 20 North Street renovations and master sign plan for North High properties, imposes lighting and material conditions

The Dublin Architectural Review Board on Monday approved renovations to 20 North Street and a master sign plan covering 72 & 84 North High Street and 20 North Street, both in the Historic District, while imposing conditions related to sign materials and lighting.

Staff presented case 25-118 (20 North Street), describing changes that include converting two stacked windows on the south elevation to one oversized double-hung window, adding a pedestrian man door and sidelight to increase street access, and minor north-elevation window adjustments. Staff said the proposed materials match previously approved aluminum windows and storefront systems and recommended approval of the minor project review with no additional conditions. A board motion to approve the minor project review carried.

The board then considered case 25-121, a master sign plan and minor project review covering the three-building site at 72 & 84 North High Street and 20 North Street. Staff described three sign types (address signs required by code, building marker signs for wayfinding, and tenant signs) and the proposed use of 2-inch high-density urethane for sign elements. Staff recommended approval of the master sign plan with one condition: prior to submitting a building permit the applicant must provide a sample of the proposed lettering material for staff approval or propose a material that is regularly accepted in the historic district.

Staff also presented the lighting portion of the application and flagged multiple shortcomings: incomplete photometric documentation, nonconforming fixtures and lamp levels in some locations, and uncertainty whether background lighting and in-ground up-lighting met code. Staff cited Section 153.173 and guidelines (lighting guideline 6.7) and recommended a condition that, before any lighting is installed, the applicant supply complete, approvable lighting information that meets code and guideline requirements. Staff proposed that final lighting approval be handled administratively if the documentation meets code; the board reserved the right to require a return to the board if applicants seek waivers or if staff and the applicant cannot resolve outstanding issues.

Applicants (who identified themselves as Bruce Summerfeld and Tim Bass) and their representatives told the board an electrical engineer will work with staff on photometrics and that they would accept the material-sample condition for sign lettering. During questioning board members asked for clearer, readable photometric plans and for lighting levels to be corrected where staff noted exceedances (staff noted, by way of example, that code allows up to 3 foot-candles in certain areas while some plan points showed much higher numbers). Applicants agreed to provide the detailed plans and engineering support.

The board voted to approve the master sign plan with the material-sample condition and to approve the accompanying minor project review for lighting subject to the condition that the applicant supply complete and approvable lighting information meeting code 153.173(j) and guideline 6.7; staff will administratively approve the lighting if the submission meets those requirements, with escalation back to the board if a waiver or board review is needed.

The approvals preserve the previously granted approach to aluminum windows and storefront systems for the site but ensure the board retains oversight on materials and lighting impacts through required pre-permit submissions and staff review.

The next procedural step is for the applicant to submit the requested material samples and a complete photometric/lighting submittal prior to building-permit issuance; staff confirmed it will review those materials administratively and notify the board if an unresolved waiver or inconsistency requires a return to the board.