February 11 - New Albany, Ohio

in
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2013
7:00 p.m.
New Albany Architectural Review Board met in regular session in the Council
Chambers of Village Hall, 99 W Main Street and was called to order by Architectural
Review Board Chair Mr. Bernie Costantino at 7:01 p.m.
Mr. Bernie Costantino, Chair
Ms. Shirli Billings
Mr. Alan Hinson, Vice Chair
Mr. Jonathan Iten
Mr. Brian Nebozuk
Ms. Kim Comisar
Mr. Sloan Spaulding
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Staff members present: Stephen Mayer, Planner; Adrienne Joly, Project Manager and
Pam Hickok, Clerk.
Moved by Mr. Iten, seconded by Mr. Nebozuk to approve the meeting minutes of
January 14, 2013. Upon roll call vote: Mr. Iten, yea; Mr. Hinson, yea; Mr. Costantino,
yea; Mr. Nebozuk, yea. Yea, 4; Nay, 0; Abstain, 0; Motion carried by a 4-0 vote.
Mr. Costantino asked for any changes or corrections to the agenda.
Mr. Mayer stated there were none.
In response to Mr. Costantino’s invitation to speak on non-agenda related items, there
were no questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Hinson moved to accept the staff reports and related documents into the record
(see appendix), seconded by Mr. Iten. Upon roll call vote: Mr. Iten, yea; Mr. Hinson,
yea; Mr. Costantino, yea; Mr. Nebozuk, yea. Yea, 4; Nay, 0; Abstain, 0; Motion carried
by a 4-0 vote.
Mr. Costantino swore to truth those wishing to speak before the Board.
ARB-10-12 Certificate of Appropriateness & Waiver to Allow a Concrete Driveway
Where Code Requires Asphalt, Brick, Stone, or Simulated Stone.
Certificate of Appropriateness and Waiver to New Albany Design Guidelines and
Requirements Section 5 to allow an asphalt driveway for a single-family home at 6883
Jersey Drive within the Wentworth subdivision. (PID: 222-004280)
Applicant: Boris Volovetz
Mr. Stephen Mayer presented the staff report.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 1 of 13

Mr. Iten asked if Ashton Green subdivision predated the Design Guideline &
Requirements.
Mr. Mayer stated yes the Design Guidelines were adopted in 2006.
Mr. Hinson stated that Ashton Green driveways all have a combination of brick
and concrete.
Mr. Mayer continued with the staff report.
Mr. Iten asked staff if C.O. section 1113.11 needed to meet all 4 items or just
one of the four items listed.
Ms. Adrienne Joly stated that we will research that question while the
presentation continues. She continued to say that variances have different
standards.
Mr. Boris Volovetz, applicant, stated that he was a resident of New Albany from
2000-2007 and currently lives in an apartment. He would like to move a larger
home because it was difficult to move from a large house to a small apartment. I
lived on Fenway, which was an all brick and asphalt driveways. I knew that
when I bought the house. No concrete was in the New Albany Country Club, we
had asphalt leisure trails instead of sidewalks. The pavers on the driveway are
not practical but they do look nice. This home is all brick. I want you to
understand that money is not the issue, if it was the home would be siding.
EMH&T approved a concrete sidewalk and the existing homes have a concrete
apron. The developer was surprised that concrete was not allowed. Asphalt is a
cheaper product. I have had some health issues and I have my wife and two
daughters. I want to leave them a nice durable house. If you go the New Albany
website it says that materials should be consistent. If you have a concrete apron
you should allow concrete drive. This subdivision only has two other builders
that include Rockford Homes and Tuckerman builders. He then asked Steve
Mayer to read an email he received from the Developer.
Mr. Mayer read the email which stated that the developer had no objection to
the concrete driveway.
Mr. Volovetz stated that the subdivision will take a long time to complete. This
house is the only house with brick, both Rockford and Tuckerman are using
siding. Concrete is an extra cost to me and I don't believe another waiver will
come in. I have a few additional points I would like to make:
1. Concrete is the continuation of the apron.
2. Sidewalks and aprons are concrete.
3. The life expentancy of concrete is better.
4. Concrete is more expensive.
5. Concrete will have less maintenance.
6. I will not be adding new materials.
7. It will look better with one material per the New Albany website.
8. This will not set a precedent due to cost.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 2 of 13

This lot 50 is located at the end of the area (shown on map) and have
apartments to the north, commerical to the west and the subdivision continuing
to the east.
The existing homes this is not part of the restrictions. It is not in the deed
restrictions but the DGR's. I checked with the restrictions and it's not there, the
developer didn't know. I don't think it would hurt anyone. I would also like to
install a heating system under the driveway so we don't need to shovel.
Mr. Constantino asked if he would consider either asphalt over a concrete base
or thicker asphalt to help with durability.
Mr. Volovetz stated that asphalt is flexible and cracks and falls apart. Over time
salt from the roads will get on the drive and damage the top course. With
concrete you will have 3-4 times the duration.
Mr. Costantino stated that asphalt is more forgiving.
Mr. Volovetz responded.
Mr. Hinson stated that asphalt doesn't show staining and doesn't pit. Would you
consider concrete with brick.
Mr. Volovetz stated that he would do brick inset into the concrete three feet
wide.
Mr. Hinson asked if the two curb cuts were approved.
Mr. Volovetz stated that it was approved, no restrictions on number of curb
cuts.
Mr. Iten stated that Council passed the DGR's. Council sets policy and you have
a good argument for a policy change. He continued by stating that he believes
that all four standards need to be met. The standard that I have a problem
meeting is for it to be necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site
specific constraints.
Mr. Volovetz stated that the criteria says no concrete so why can the selectivly
apply that to what you like. The sidewalk and aprons are concrete. It is a
continuation of the concrete. None of the homes should have concrete.
Ms. Joly stated that the design guidelines only apply to private property. The
sidewalk and aprons are in the right of way.
Mr. Volovetz stated that what is good for the city should be good for the
residents.
Mr. Costantino stated that if strength is the issued then putting asphalt on top of
the concrete may work.
Mr. Volovetz stated that the top course will not survive.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 3 of 13

Mr. Costantino stated that we will need to vote tonight and then you can talk to
staff about your next steps.
Ms. Joly stated that staff will need to speak with legal to determine the next step
for an appeal and we will contact the applicant with the information.
Mr. Iten moved to approve the waiver for application ARB-10-12, seconded by Mr.
Costantino. Upon roll call vote: Mr. Iten, nay; Mr. Hinson, nay; Mr. Costantino, nay;
Mr. Nebozuk, nay. Yea, 0; Nay, 4; Abstain, 0; Motion failed by a 0-4 vote.
ARB-01-13 Certificate of Appropriateness & Waivers to Allow a Wall Sign and Two
Sign Types Where Code Does Not Permit Wall Signs and Allows One Sign Type.
Certificate of Appropriateness and Waivers to Codified Ordinance Chapter 1169 for
construction of a new wall sign at 108 N. High St. for AllState. (PID: 222-000133)
Applicant: Donahey Financial Group
Mr. Stephen Mayer presented the staff report.
Mr. Iten asked if a wall sign is allowed in core residential district.
Mr. Mayer stated that a wall sign is allowed.
Mr. Iten asked how the zoning sub district could be changed.
Mr. Mayer stated that a code amendment would need to be done.
Mr. Hinson stated that the wall sign would need to be a different scale.
Mr. Costantino asked for the core residential wall sign standards.
(the standards were shown on the overhead projector) He stated that he believes
the two post sign is adequate.
Mr. Al Donahey, Allstate business owner, stated that he is a resident of New
Albany and when he saw the Allstate business available for sale he purchased it.
He is trying to make it a successful business which requires proper signage. He
was under the impression that signage would not be an issue. He is just looking
for a solution to provide adequate signage for my business.
Mr. Costantino stated that the old house at Main & High wanted a sign on both
sides that we denied and it looks good. We don't want a city of signs. We don't
need more than one sign per business.
Mr. Donahey stated that the one sign is removed from the building and does
not represent me well.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 4 of 13

Mr. Robert Schorer, DaNite Signs, stated that we would change the wall sign to
a 2x8 sign (16sf). The two post sign only has 17.5" of space and with required
branding you can't see the sign. Allstate requires the layout shown.
Mr. Costantino asked if you can make the log and Allstate larger and remove
the name and number since you can't read them anyway.
Mr. Schorer stated that it wouldn't meet Allstate branding requirements.
Mr. Donahey stated that the sign should not be divided so that one tenant gets
3/4 of the sign and we get 17".
Mr. Iten stated that would be a landlord issue.
Mr. Schorer stated that the wall sign would then be a 2x8 (16sf), nonilluminated
sign.
Mr. Iten asked if they were in the Village Core could they have one wall sign.
Ms. Joly stated that they would need to follow a text amendment process to
change the zoning.
Mr. Donahey asked if they could use just a wall sign.
Ms. Joly responded that only one sign type is allowed, therefore the ground sign
must be utilized.
Mr. Donahey stated that the property has two units and the sign is in the far
northwest corner of the lot, too far from the building.
Mr. Costantino asked if they could relocate the ground sign.
Mr. Mayer stated that the ground sign could not be moved because it is an
existing non-conforming sign. If they replaced the sign they would not be able
to put a dual post sign back in.
Mr. Donahey stated that some compromise should be considered because I
would think the City would want to be pro-business.
Mr. Iten stated that he should talk to his landlord.
Mr. Costantino moved to approve ARB-01-13 certificate of appropriateness and waivers
to allow a wall sign and two sign types where code does not permit wall signs and allows
one sign type. Certificate of appropriateness and waivers to Codified Ordinance
Chapter 1169 for construction of a new wall sign at 108 N. High Street for Allstate. ,
seconded by Mr. Nebozuk. Upon roll call vote: Mr. Iten, nay; Mr. Hinson, nay; Mr.
Costantino, nay; Mr. Nebozuk, nay. Yea, 0; Nay, 4; Abstain, 0; Motion failed by a 0-4
vote.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 5 of 13

Discussion at dais regarding Allstate signage including the option to remove name &
phone and make logo and Allstate larger.
Mr. Iten moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Costantino. Upon roll call
vote: Mr. Iten, yea; Mr. Hinson, yea; Mr. Costantino, yea; Mr. Nebozuk, yea. Yea, 4;
Nay, 0; Abstain, 0; Motion carried by a 4-0 vote.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 6 of 13

APPENDIX
Architectural Review Board Staff Report
February 11, 2013 Meeting
6883 JERSEY DRIVE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL WAIVER
LOCATION: 6883 Jersey Drive within the Wentworth Crossing subdivision
(222-004280)
APPLICANT: Boris Volovetz
REQUEST: Waiver
ZONING: C-PUD (Comprehensive Planned Unit Development) 1998
NACO PUD Zoning Text, subarea 7e (Yerke East Residential)
STRATEGIC PLAN: Town Residential
APPLICATION: ARB-10-12
Review based on: Application materials received December 20 & 27, 2012
Staff report prepared by Stephen Mayer, Community Development Planner.
I. REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a waiver from New Albany Design Guidelines and
Requirements Section 5 (I)(1) to allow a concrete driveway where code requires asphalt,
brick, stone, or simulated stone driveway pavers for driveways.
Per Section 1157.12 any person or entity having an interest in property that seeks to
obtain a waiver from the requirements of the New Albany Design Guidelines and
Requirements shall follow the procedures set forth in C.O. Chapter 1113. C.O.
Chapter 1113.09 defines that a waiver to standards may be approved by the
Architectural Review Board as part of a Certificate of Appropriateness application. In
considering this request for a waiver, the Architectural Review Board is directed to
evaluate the application based on criteria in Chapter 1113.11. Unlike other zoning
texts, the zoning text does not specify an alternative process for waivers/variances, thus
the waiver process in Chapter 1113 applies.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION & USE
The property is zoned C-PUD (Comprehensive Planned Unit Development) under the
1998 NACO PUD Zoning Text, subarea 7e (Yerke East Residential). The site is current
undeveloped and the applicant plans to construct a detached single family home. A
final development for the subdivision was approved in 2004 to allow the 30.32 acre site
to have 68 dwelling units. The subdivision is located on the north side of Central
College Road, east of New Albany Condit (SR 605), south of the Souder East tracts and
west of the New Albany Links golf course.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 7 of 13

III.
EVALUATION
A. Waiver Request
The ARB’s review is pursuant to C.O. Section 1113.11 Action by the Architectural
Review Board for Waivers, within thirty (30) days after the public meeting, the ARB
shall either approve, approve with supplementary conditions, or disapprove the
request for a waiver. The ARB shall only approve a waiver or approve a waiver with
supplementary conditions if the ARB finds that the waiver, if granted, would:
1. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the ARB may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader
vicinity to determine if the waiver is warranted.
2. Substantially meet the intent of the standard that the applicant is attempting to seek a
waiver from, and fit within the goals of the Village Center Strategic Plan, Land Use
Strategic Plan and the Design Guidelines and Requirements.
3. Be necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site specific constraints.
4. Not detrimentally affect the public health, safety or general welfare.
The applicant is requesting waivers to the following code requirements:
A. The New Albany Design Guidelines and Requirements Section 5 (I)(A)(1) –
Residential Outside Village Center - states that asphalt, brick, stone, or
simulated stone driveway pavers are appropriate surfaces for driveways and
parking areas.
The following should be considered in the board’s decision:
1. The 1998 NACO PUD Zoning Text, subarea 7e (Yerke East Residential) is silent
on driveway materials, therefore the New Albany Design Guidelines and
Requirements apply.
2. The proposed site plan shows a “U”-shaped driveway requiring two curb cuts
for the driveway along Jersey Drive. The applicant is proposing a concrete
driveway in addition to the concrete sidewalk and driveway apron. Concrete
sidewalks and driveway aprons are the norm (see attached photos).
3. Staff visited the subdivision on January 31, 2013 and observed that all the
existing driveways (comprising a total of 5 homes, the majority of the lots are
vacant) are asphalt with concrete sidewalks and driveway aprons. There a
couple homes outside of the Wentworth subdivision with curb cuts along
Central College that have concrete driveways.
4. The applicant has indicated he wishes to install concrete because it is a stronger
material and has a longer life expectancy that asphalt.
5. Staff’s historical research for similar requests resulted in no cases being found.
It appears this is the first request to deviate from this requirement of the DGRs.
However, there are a few instances of homes in specific sections of the New
Albany Country Club with concrete driveways. All these sections were
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 8 of 13

constructed prior to the adoptions of the DGRs and they mainly have a
combination of brick and concrete in a decorative pattern.
6. There appears to be no unusual site specific constraints warranting a concrete
driveway.
7. It does not appear that the proposed waiver would detrimentally affect the
public health, safety or general welfare.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The ARB could consider placing a condition of approval requiring brick pavers.
Concrete driveways in other subdivisions always appear to be in combination with brick
pavers. Adding this requirement is a way to make this driveway more consistent with
other areas of the City. The DGRS outline appropriate materials for driveways in order
to achieve consistency within subdivisions and throughout the community. Concrete
has been used in combination with brick in other subdivisions where multiple houses
have the same materials and decorative pattern. The majority of the subdivision isn’t
built, and the approval of this waiver could establish a precedent.
V. ACTION
Should the Architectural Review Board find sufficient basis for approval the following
motions would be appropriate. Conditions of approval may be added.
Move to approve the waiver for application ARB-10-12 to the New Albany Design
Guidelines and Requirements Section 5 (I)(1) to allow a concrete driveway at 6883
Jersey Drive.
Source: Franklin County Auditor
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 9 of 13

Architectural Review Board Staff Report
February 11, 2013 Meeting
108 N. HIGH ST. - ALLSTATE SIGNAGE
LOCATION: 108 North High Street (PID: 222-000133 and 222-000467)
APPLICANT: Donahey Financial Group
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness and Waivers for new signage
ZONING:
UC (Urban Center District) Historic Center sub-district
APPLICATION: ARB-01-13
Review based on: Application materials received January 11, 2013
Staff report prepared by Stephen Mayer, Community Development Planner.
VI. REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness and approval of waivers
from Codified Ordinance Chapter 1169.14(b) to allow two sign types where codes allow
one sign type and Codified Ordinance Chapter 1169.16(d) to allow a wall sign where
codes does not permit wall signs to be constructed in the Village Residential subdistrict.
The applicant is proposing to install a new wall sign to the existing building at
108 N. High Street.
The applicant also proposes to add Allstate graphics to the existing dual-post ground
sign’s board. The existing sign board and frame will be utilized, and just the sign copy
(the area of a sign to which the lettering and graphics are applied), will be replaced.
According to the Sign Code Section 1169.07(c)(1) the copy may be changed provided
the size and structural shape of the sign face is not altered. Therefore the ground sign’s
changes are allowed and can be approved by staff.
Per Section 1157.07(b) any major environmental change to a property located within
the Village Center requires a certificate of appropriateness issued by the Architectural
Review Board. In considering this request for new signage in the Village Center, the
Architectural Review Board is directed to evaluate the application based on criteria in
Chapter 1157 and Chapter 1169.
VII. SITE DESCRIPTION & USE
The property is zoned UC (Urban Center District) Historic Center sub-district. The
site contains a multi-tenant building that currently is occupied by New Albany Cleaning
Services Inc. The Donahey Financial Group will also occupy the building and is
seeking approval of new signage specifically for their business. According to the
Franklin County Auditor the building was constructed in 1946.
VIII. EVALUATION
A. Certificate of Appropriateness
The ARB’s review is pursuant to C.O. Section 1157.06. No environmental change shall
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 10 of 13

e made to any property within the Village of New Albany until a Certificate of
Appropriateness has been properly applied for and issued by staff or the Board. Per
Section 1157.07 Design Appropriateness, the modifications to the building and site
should be evaluated on these criteria:
1. The compliance of the application with the Design Guidelines and Requirements and
Codified Ordinances.
• The proposed sign will provide signage for Allstate. The sign type is not
permitted and the applicant is requesting waivers. See the waivers section
below for additional details.
• The City’s Sign Code categorizes this parcel as Village Residential. The
property is zoned UC (Urban Center District) Historic Center sub-district.
• This sign is a horizontally-oriented rectangular wall sign is made of 0.09 inch
thick aluminum sign board. It will project 1.75 inches away from the
storefront face.
• This sign is 25.0 square feet in area (120” x 30”). Its lettering says “Allstate”
with a sub-header reading “Al Donahey” and a phone number listed to the
right. The Allstate logo is proposed to be located on the left side of the sign
face.
• When evaluated against the Historic Core sub-district sign standards, the
sign meets all the requirements. However, the ARB should evaluate the
appropriateness of the sign’s scale against the building.
• C.O. Section 1169.12(a)(1) states that signs must integrate with the
building/site in scale, design, and intensity, and gives an example that large
signs are best suited for buildings with larger massing. As proposed, the sign
appears to be inappropriately over-scaled in relation to the general size of
the building, and as such, may look awkward and uncoordinated with the
building.
2. The visual and functional components of the building and its site, including but not
limited to landscape design and plant materials, lighting, vehicular and pedestrian
circulation, and signage.
• The wall sign is not permitted on this site. Wall signs were not envisioned to
be used on this site during the creation of the sign code. The ARB should
evaluate the visual and functional components of the building against the
proposed wall sign.
3. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site and/or its
environment shall not be destroyed.
• This sign is positioned in a suitable location as this building contains a
defined space for the mounting of signage. The proposed sign fits
completely within the defined area and does not block any architectural
features.
4. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.
• The building is a product of its own time and as such should utilize signs
appropriate to its scale and style, while considering its surroundings. The
wall sign is not permitted on this site. Wall signs were not envisioned to be
used on this site during the creation of the sign code. The ARB should
evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed wall sign for this site.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 11 of 13

5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a
building, structure or site shall be created with sensitivity.
• Not Applicable
6. The surface cleaning of masonry structures shall be undertaken with methods designed to
minimize damage to historic building materials.
• Not Applicable
7. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a
manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired.
• Not Applicable
B. Waiver Request
The ARB’s review is pursuant to C.O. Section 1113.11 Action by the Architectural
Review Board for Waivers, within thirty (30) days after the public meeting, the ARB
shall either approve, approve with supplementary conditions, or disapprove the
request for a waiver. The ARB shall only approve a waiver or approve a waiver with
supplementary conditions if the ARB finds that the waiver, if granted, would:
1. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the ARB may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader
vicinity to determine if the waiver is warranted.
2. Substantially meet the intent of the standard that the applicant is attempting to seek a
waiver from, and fit within the goals of the Village Center Strategic Plan, Land Use
Strategic Plan and the Design Guidelines and Requirements.
3. Be necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site specific constraints.
5. Not detrimentally affect the public health, safety or general welfare.
The applicant is requesting waivers to the following code requirements:
B. Codified Ordinance Chapter 1169.14(b) to allow two sign types where codes
permits one sign type in the Village Residential sub-district.
The following should be considered in the board’s decision:
8. The site is unique in that is located within a transition area from the historic
downtown to residential areas to the north.
9. The transition area is envisioned to have less signage in an attempt to blend into
the residential properties but still have commercial uses.
10. The New Albany Sign Code allows only one sign type on this property. There is
an existing, non-conforming dual-post ground sign that is utilizing the one
allowable sign type.
11. The New Albany Cleaning Services Inc. business has been operating at the site
without a wall sign. Currently, it appears there is only a ground sign to
advertise its location.
12. It does not appear that the proposed sign waiver would detrimentally affect the
public health, safety or general welfare.
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 12 of 13

C. Codified Ordinance Chapter 1169.16(d) to allow a wall sign where codes does not
permit wall signs to be constructed in the Village Residential sub-district.
The following should be considered in the board’s decision:
1. The property is located within the New Albany Sign Code’s Village Center subdistrict,
but is zoned within the Urban Center District’s Historic Core subdistrict.
2. The New Albany Sign Code does not permit any type of wall sign to be installed
on a building within the Village Residential sub-district. A limited number of
ground signs are permitted which include single post and post top sign types.
3. It does not appear that the proposed sign waiver would detrimentally affect the
public health, safety or general welfare.
IX. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the certificate of appropriateness application and waiver
requests, provided that the ARB finds the proposal meets sufficient basis for denial.
The site is unique in that is located within a transition area from the historic downtown
to residential areas to the north. Wall signs were not envisioned to be used on this site
during the creation of the sign code. There is adequate signage provided at the site via
the ground sign. Additionally, the sign appears too large for the size of the building.
X. ACTION
Should the Architectural Review Board find sufficient basis for approval the following
motion would be appropriate. Conditions of approval may be added.
Move to approve Certificate of Appropriateness and waivers to Codified Ordinance
Chapter 1169.14(b) and 1169.16(d) for application ARB-01-13 to allow the proposed
Allstate wall sign.
Source: Franklin County Auditor
13 0211 ARB Minutes Page 13 of 13