[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6709663,"mediaKeyId","5075270-e42208f251258749138079fc49143a79","parentId",5075270,"title","Board favors larger hyphen and preservation-minded approach for addition to 83 South Riverview Street","audioSeconds",5078,"startMs",2479000,"endMs",7557000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075270-e42208f251258749138079fc49143a79&start=2479&end=7557","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075270-e42208f251258749138079fc49143a79/thumbnail_2479000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6709663/Ohio/Board-favors-larger-hyphen-and-preservation-minded-approach-for-addition-to-83-South-Riverview-Street","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709663-39503daa49032a364370bf13310551d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770790062&Signature=JYJnlKX2V4CjxfYmEqcZZDuoBW6Qna2CkfXyZP8mrlnUlNdPA2L2eMuHKjpf89Lu10DxgjS9Nrx9k~LZkF24MGnUmqyYdBT4uCW31rN~lqA-PJiGdIdwvl5zJNRPdDLd-e~VcYTEowSNPF2-G7wsBG~ApUNnqa35Q7--DTIbAwVK~-fJ~eZ0iwN8AAkgjIXj7i3qTjG6do0hXrVMfn-3RP9oj6DuUOZGCdDwcFsOsMUlfF1simMKpnNGPao6LPEI2DiTvOxzRYSPuyqiMITngGJ-z~vRMYjVPgteskXxGfriqJQprJtjwbF3n~PapsAmgzdcaEKFG8hUD3tPoRw-cA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Dublin","date","2025-06-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Architectural Review Board provided nonbinding feedback on a proposed addition to 83 South Riverview Street, a landmark property in Dublin's historic residential district. Applicant Jeffrey Hamm presented two design options and staff and board members discussed roof pitch, dormer windows, hyphen length and materials to ensure the addition remains subordinate to the historic structure.

Jeffrey Hamm, representing the property, described the home's layered history — the main 1820s/1830s core, an early kitchen wing and a later 1930s concrete addition — and explained the family's objective to add a modest footprint with a first-floor primary suite and improved kitchen and accessibility. \"Our thinking on that has changed,\" Hamm said during his presentation, later explaining the goal is to \"have the smallest footprint addition that we can actually fit on the house that fits our needs.\" He told the board the family prefers minimizing backyard sprawl and retaining as much of the site's historic character as possible.

Staff summary and board priorities
Planning staff presented two illustrative options for massing and said both would require a waiver for structure coverage if the shed and other accessory structures are retained. Staff noted some surviving details of the former open porch on the 1930s addition (trim and notches consistent with an earlier porch) that could inform the design. Staff asked the board for guidance on roof pitches, dormer proportion, window orientation and materials.

Board members generally expressed a preference for the more articulated option that creates an L-shaped massing and a longer hyphen separating the new work from the historic core. Several members said a longer hyphen better preserves the perception of the original house and makes the addition feel subordinate. Concerns and guidance from the board included:
- Roof pitch and complexity: Board members asked the applicant to simplify roof forms where possible and to keep the historic porch roof as low as practical while ensuring proper water shedding and long-term performance. Staff noted some roofing types have minimum pitch requirements for watertight details.
- Dormer windows: The board urged the applicant to avoid strongly horizontal window configurations in dormers; vertical window proportions are preferred where feasible.
- Hyphen: A longer hyphen (option 1) was favored to create separation between old and new and maintain the original house's visual primacy.
- Materials: Staff recommended simpler siding treatments customary for historic additions (historically lap siding), although the applicant proposed combinations including shingles and board-and-batten to distinguish new construction. The board asked the applicant to simplify materials so the original stone facade remains the visual focal point.

Existing 1930s addition and demolition concerns
The applicant and his father explained why they plan to retain the concrete-block 1930s addition rather than demolish it immediately: removal would require excavation adjacent to the original stone foundation and likely underpinning or retaining-wall work that could be costly and risk the historic foundation's stability. The applicant said contractors are being engaged to price demolition and retaining-wall work, and demolition remains an eventual goal if safe and affordable. Board members asked staff to require specific temporary-cladding details to avoid the structure becoming an attractive nuisance if it remains in place during construction.

Next steps
Because this was an informal review, no vote was taken. Staff will work with the applicant on revised drawings that respond to board direction on roof simplification, dormer/window proportions, hyphen expression, and material choices. The board indicated it would be open to granting required waivers for coverage and roof pitch if the final design shows the addition is subordinate and preserves visible historic fabric.

Provenance: Discussion began with the applicant's presentation of the property's history and two options, and the conversation concluded with board members expressing preferences and directing staff/applicant to refine roof pitches, dormers, hyphen length and materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Dublin - Architectural Review Board - Jun 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At an informal review the Architectural Review Board discussed two design options for an addition to the landmark house at 83 South Riverview Street, generally favoring the more articulated, two-level option while asking the applicant to refine roof lines, dormer windows and materials.","taxTitle","Dublin City Council, Dublin, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",72672,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6709668,"Architectural Review Board approves Teriyaki Madness at 16 North High Street with conditions",1991,461000,2452000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075270-e42208f251258749138079fc49143a79&start=461&end=2452","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075270-e42208f251258749138079fc49143a79/thumbnail_461000.jpg","/articles/6709668/Ohio/Architectural-Review-Board-approves-Teriyaki-Madness-at-16-North-High-Street-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709668-34ec75f16c0a3df95c25a6aca02a4f97/orig.mp4?Expires=1770790062&Signature=fAuPhsm5vOUCTlMa0hPv1igrbPg1P6tLnqbk7YTs4t7xnOQFvrN4FzXOEAAxjc0J-vixlcLDcwiLysQn~JxoeeLS6clAAFvvvnRlJCi-ptLaWxh5o7HJ7w5a5FM8jHv3GZk1MsFM1pim4R8TP543FakgjOCT5SnIerWAgy1feDDZGTwVuKwW4yb-dS1Ea~RpyAg3GE2fzKC5CdTx2KFbExucLkDwJxk-mJKlfAyehrcrN8Uy1hS417lcigQPf2HU-lJHvlJblHFPm2j8qw9-4JSOHL7n1yCl15DIahfEb8wnhd2JorzMtkQ7IQ9-BvRAqIuLcMvMQ7x6hJBXcJSffQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dublin Architectural Review Board voted to approve a Minor Project Review for Teriyaki Madness at 16 North High Street, a property individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with conditions addressing exterior alterations, mechanical screening, parking, and site restoration.

The board's approval covers building and site modifications to a 0.26-acre parcel in the Historic Core District that will adapt a vacant landmark structure for restaurant use. The vote to approve the application as amended was recorded as unanimous by board members present: Pat McDaniel (yes), Dr. Stecksheldy (yes), Ms. Damiser (yes), Mr. Cotter (yes) and Ms. Cooper (yes). The motion approved the staff-recommended conditions of approval.

Staff said the project aims to restore pedestrian connections and remove prior unauthorized alterations while accommodating on- and off-site parking for a new restaurant use. \"Staff recommends approval of the minor project review with following conditions,\" planning staff Rati told the board, listing required removals and drawing revisions that must be completed before building permits are issued.

Key conditions and technical requirements imposed by the board and staff:
- Historic fabric and removals: The applicant must remove unapproved HVAC equipment on the north elevation and the two unapproved storm doors on the front façade and provide restoration details for any penetrations into the historic stone façade.
- Pathway and paving: Gravel shown between 16 North and 22 North may not remain; the applicant agreed to replace it with brick pavers and must submit material and detail drawings prior to building permit.
- Dumpster and screening: The dumpster will be relocated behind 22 North; staff had earlier recommended additional screening or relocation. A previously-proposed 6-foot privacy fence on the south side is to be removed and may require a separate minor project review if proposed in the future.
- Roof-mounted equipment: Code requires roof-mounted mechanical equipment to be screened from all ground-level angles. The applicant proposes a roughly 16-by-10-foot, approximately 7-foot-tall screen around the Type 2 kitchen exhaust; screening details must be provided so the device is not visible from principal viewing angles.
- Parking and bike parking: Based on indoor and outdoor seating, staff calculated a requirement of 20 parking spaces including one ADA space. The applicant proposes three on-site spaces and intends to rely on nearby parking structures within 600 feet for the balance; bike parking (ratio 1 per 10 parking spaces when six or more spaces are required) is shown as two bike racks and must be detailed on the plan.
- Lighting, signage and furnishings: The applicant must provide fixture height and wattage details for an exterior light associated with an administratively reviewed wall sign, and must submit umbrella base and pole details; staff added a condition that furniture bases and poles be black with a red umbrella, and that furniture be stored off-site during the off-season.
- Site restoration: The gravel area in front of the outbuilding must be seeded or restored if removed from parking use to allow flexibility for future streetscape work (noted in connection with the Riverview Village project).

Applicant and public comments
Applicant representatives attended the hearing and described the outbuilding as deteriorated but said demolition remains the owner's long-term intention if costs and retaining-wall issues can be resolved. \"The good news is we are actively engaging different contractors to give us the pricing on, you know, how much does it cost to take down that, in our building,\" one applicant representative said, adding the owner prefers to proceed with site and interior work first and will return to demolition if feasible.

Board members pressed the applicant on the outbuilding's condition and the potential for the property to become an attractant if the structure is only boarded. Several members asked staff to require more detail for any temporary cladding, including periodic inspection access so trapped moisture can be checked. Staff confirmed a condition will require hardware so the outbuilding cladding can be opened and inspected periodically.

Next steps
The board's approval is conditioned on the applicant providing the listed drawings and details prior to building permit. If the applicant later proposes a fence or other changes beyond the approved plans, a separate minor project review will be required.

Provenance: First mention of the Teriyaki Madness application appears with the staff case introduction and site description (transcript excerpt: \"So case number 1, 25049, MPR, Teriyaki Madness Minor Project Review. Request for approval of a minor project review for building and site modification. The 0.26 acre site is zone HDHC... located at Sixteenth North High Street.\") and the discussion concludes with the motion and roll-call vote to approve the minor project with conditions (transcript excerpt: \"Then I will move to approve the minor project with the conditions, stated... I'll second the motion to approve with the conditions as stated. And amended. And amended at the hearing tonight.\").","The Dublin Architectural Review Board approved a minor project review for a Teriyaki Madness restaurant at 16 North High Street, imposing conditions aimed at protecting the historic building and improving site circulation, dumpster screening and rooftop equipment screening.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board favors larger hyphen and preservation-minded approach for addition to 83 South Riverview Street

Architectural Review Board approves Teriyaki Madness at 16 North High Street with conditions