March 8, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Meeting Archive

Regular meeting: March 8, 2010

A meeting of the Village of Riverlea Planning Commission was held March 8, 2010 at 5830 Falmouth Court. Members present were Michael Jones (Planning Commissioner), Lisa J. Morris, and Bryce E. Jacob. Jo Ann Bierman and Robert Patrella were absent. Also present were Paul and Suzanne Butler, Mike Blanchard, Kent Anders, Sheila Bagley, Steve Brown, Andy Parsons, Janet Brown, Steve Proctor and Rita Britz. Pamela M. Colwell served as Clerk. The Planning Commissioner called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

1. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2010 were not read since each member had received a copy. Jacob moved and Morris seconded a motion that the minutes be approved as submitted by the Clerk-Treasurer. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Jacob, Morris and Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 3-0.
2. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Paul and Suzanne Butler at 156 West Riverglen Drive to install a concrete driveway, a 48” high wood fence and a 72” high wood fence. The both fences will be shadowbox style with a sealed natural finish. The 72” high fence will run 25’ west from the northeast corner along the north (rear) property line. The 48” high fence will run south 65’ along the property line between 142 W. Riverglen and 156 W. Riverglen from the north (rear) property line to the edge of the new driveway. The driveway will be exposed aggregate concrete to match the existing walkway. The side edge of the driveway will be 1’ from the property line. The apron will be constructed at the same time as 142 W. Riverglen, which as already been approved by the Planning Commission and it will comply with the Village’s ordinances and City of Columbus standards. Morris moved and Jacob seconded a motion to approve the fences and driveway as submitted with changes and clarifications discussed above. Steve Proctor asked to see the fence and driveway details and the Commission obliged. There were no further comments. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Jacob, Morris and Jones: Nay, None. The motion carried 3-0.
3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by MIG Properties at 142 West Riverglen Drive to add a 6’ wood fence and to change the original Certificate of Appropriateness by replacing the siding on the front of the new addition to all brick and to delete copper standing seam roof material (approved as part of the original COA) from turret and install dimensional shingles to match the house. Mike Blanchard and Kent Anders made the presentation. The 6’ high wood fence will run along the north (rear) property line and the 4’ high wood fence will run south on both sides of the property from the north property line. The fence on the west side of the property will not extend past the northwest corner of the new addition and the fence on the east side of the property will not extend past the northeast corner of the existing house. All fences will be shadowbox style with a sealed natural finish. A pin survey will be done before installation. The request to change the design of the original Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is due to the unanticipated circumstances that they were able to reclaim more brick and, due to the Commission’s desire at the previous COA meeting for more brick on the front, they decided they could replace the siding on the front with all brick; however, they would have to add 10% new brick with the reclaimed brick. This change created an additional cost, so to meet budget, the copper standing seam on the turret will need to be changed to dimensional shingles to match the house since copper is very expensive. The original material on the turret was asphalt shingles with aluminum gutters. With the change in the copper turret roof, the copper gutters will change to aluminum. The new brick is from the same manufacturer that will match the color of the old brick. It is ¼” shorter in length but the difference is made up in mortar and cannot be noticed. The old brick has 80 years of age on it but the structure will be power washed upon completion and everything will look blended together.

   Morris reported that she had stopped by to view the construction progress. She questioned the use of new brick without prior approval and whether they were currently in compliance with their Certificate of Appropriateness. She felt they were putting the Commission in a bind by starting with the new brick, thus exceeding what was approved on the original COA. Blanchard responded that they had emailed the Commissioner for approval and were told it sounded great but it needed to be approved by the Commission. So, on the assumption that it would be approved and it was what the Commission wanted in the first place, they took advantage of the better weather and started on it. Morris also asked why they are enclosing the entire back yard since it changes the nature of it. Blanchard responded that they had a buyer who requested it.

   Jacob moved and Morris seconded the motion to approve the application as submitted with the clarifications stated above. Steve Proctor was disappointed that the copper would not be used since he would be looking at the house everyday. Blanchard responded that everyone really wanted a brick front, so it was a trade off because of the expense. Anders said the windows will now match the existing windows. Proctor also asked if the brick would match. Blanchard responded that the majority of the brick is from the side and back of the house. The new brick is from the same manufacturer who had the formula for the old brick. The new brick will be mixed in with the old and you will not be able to tell difference. There were no further comments. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 2; Jacob and Jones: Nay, 1; Morris. The motion failed 2-1. Morris wanted the record to show that she was uncomfortable approving something that was already out of compliance and, in addition, is an incomplete application. She thinks the Commission should have seen the new product before installing instead of having to look at it from the street. No sample was provided to the Commission at the time of application or hearing. Morris noted that the original COA for was for the use of reclaimed brick only, no new brick. She said it is on the front of the house, very visible, and that’s the reason we have this Commission.

   The Commissioner explained that the motion failed because there needed to be a majority of three votes to pass. He informed the applicants that they can reapply or appeal the decision. Blanchard expressed his disappointment that two members of the Commission were absent.

4. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Sheila Bagley at 5812 Olentangy Boulevard to enlarge the second floor bathroom, add a window to the second floor, and move the overhead garage door from the east side to the west side of the detached garage. Sheila Bagley, Steve Brown and Andy Parsons gave the presentation. On the east side of the house, there will be an addition with windows on the second floor to enlarge the bathroom. This addition will not be visible from the front of the house. All materials and colors will match existing, including the roof shingles. The detached garage has a rear door that is blocked by the fence and property behind their house. It is off a vacated alley. They will remove the old garage door and frame it in. A new garage door will be installed on the front (west) side of the garage. It will be wood and the color will be white. The new garage door will not match the garage door on the attached garage. The attached garage door is not very visible from the street but the door on the detached garage will be easily seen. They wanted a carriage house look to the detached garage and picked a different door to help illustrate this. Morris moved and Jacob seconded the motion to approve the application as submitted. There were no further comments. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Jacob, Morris and Jones: Nay, None. The motion carried 3-0.
5. The Commission took no additional action. Jacob moved and Morris seconded a motion to adjourn. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Jacob, Morris and Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm

The Commission took no additional action. Morris moved and Jones seconded a motion to adjourn. The following vote was recorded on the motion: Yea, 3; Jacob, Morris and Jones: Nay, None. The Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.