MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF GLENDALE. June 4, 2001

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF GLENDALE June 4, 2001 Pursuant to notice, the Commission met on Monday, June 4, 2001, 5:30 p.m., at the Town Hall, 80 East Sharon Avenue, Glendale, Ohio. The meeting was the called to order by Chairman Sam Allen. Other members present were Mayor Tom Todd, Vice Chairman Tom Carruthers, Tim Kilgore, Tom Kerr and Tom Breidenstein. Members Jack Howard and Robert Frantz were absent. In addition, Walter Cordes, Village Administrator, was present. I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: Review and approval of May 7, 2001, and April 30, 2001, Minutes Tom Kerr commented that the minutes from the May 7, 2001, meeting should reflect that he abstained from the vote on the application of the Harry Whiting Brown Foundation because he did not think the Planning Commission had the authority to take the action called for. With this correction, Mr. Carruthers moved to approve the minutes. Mayor Todd seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Chairman called for a vote on the minutes of the Special Meeting of April 30, The Mayor moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Carruthers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. II. PERSONS ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: a. Councilwoman Grueninger; Building Permit time limitation proposal Councilwoman Grueninger addressed the Commission and asked for its assistance and advice in drafting an amendment to the zoning regulations that would impose a time limit on zoning approvals. She submitted a memorandum, dated May 31, 2001, which gave three suggestions from the Laws Committee of Council. Mr. Carruthers stated that a one year time limit would be too short, especially for new home construction. Mr. Kilgore stated that he will do research to determine how other communities deal with this issue, especially in terms of their building permits. Mrs. Grueninger stated that the Laws Committee met on this issue following Mr. Carruther s comments earlier in the year. Mr. Carruthers stated that he is most concerned with construction that goes on for three, four, or five years. Chairman Allen favored a performance bond or a letter of credit suitable to the administrator. III. APPLICATIONS: 1. Vickers, Dan & Lisa; 85 E. Fountain Ave.; stone entry & side yard fence. -- Mr. Vickers appeared on behalf of his application. They want to fence in their yard for a - 1 -

2 dog. They also want to preserve the wrought iron fence in front of the house; there is a chain link fence in one side yard now. They also need a fence along the top of a retaining wall, for safety reasons. The fence on the retaining wall will be the same as the side yard fence. They also propose stone pillars on either side of their driveway, approximately 15 feet apart. Their intent is to match the existing stonework on the house. Chairman Allen asked if they had considered wrought iron pillars such as their neighbor. Mr. Vickers answered that they had, but did not consider them seriously for budgetary reasons. Chairman Allen questioned the appropriateness of a wrought iron fence between lots because the Vickers house appears too close to 95 E. Fountain, and a fence of this type may tend to give the appearance of bringing the houses closer together. A hidden and landscaped fence may be more appropriate. Also, the fence is next of a pivotal structure. Mr. Vickers explained that the existing fence is six to twelve feet on his property. Chief Latta commented that he would prefer an entry wider than 15 feet. Mr. Vickers stated that he would be agreeable to widening the opening to 18 feet. Mr. Kilgore stated that stone pillars may not be appropriate for a house this close to the street. He also noted that need for more details on the pillars. Finally, he stated that iron pillars would be more appropriate. Mr. Vickers stated the their fence is a continuation of the Buchanan fence. If the stone pillars are denied, they will probably use end posts as pillars in the interim. Mr. Carruthers moved to approve the application, but without the pillars. Mr. Breidenstein seconded the motion, which then carried five to one, with the Chairman voting no. Mr. Kerr asked if the motion and second included a condition that the opening for the driveway be at least 18 feet. Mayor Todd and Mr. Breidenstein answered that this was part of the motion. 2. Kelly, James & Dana; 1050 Willow Ave., Wood stockade fence, 6 H, rear (to be installed in conjunction with the 1060 Willow Ave. fence application) Chairman Allen stated that he would consider this item along with the next item. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly, and Mr. Curtis appeared for their applications. They explained that there currently is not fence along their rear property lines. At one time, the neighbor behind the Kellys had a six foot high stockade fence, but it recently fell. Chairman Allen noted that the zoning code allows this fence. Mr. Carruthers moved to approve both applications. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 3. Curtis, Chris; 1060 Willow Ave., Wood stockade fence, 6 H, rear (to be installed in conjunction with the 1060 Willow Ave. fence application) See discussion above regarding approval of this item. 4. Besl, Michael; 160 E. Fountain Ave.; kitchen / furnace room renovation (a window becomes an exterior door and required appropriateness review). Mrs. Besl appeared on behalf of this application. They want to convert their storage room to a dining area for the kitchen, and want a door from this area to their patio. Mayor Todd moved to approve the application. Mr. Kilgore complemented Mrs. Besl for the completeness of her application. He asked if the lintel over the new door would be stone or pre-cast. Mrs

3 Besl stated that it would, to match the existing house. Mr. Kilgore seconded the motion with the condition that the lintel would be stone or pre-cast. The Mayor agreed with this condition, and the motion carried unanimously 5. Archdiocese of Cincinnati; St. Gabriel School; Thermal window replacement w/ like and same (Mr. Jim Dean, 9501 Union Cemetery Rd., Loveland, OH 45140) Mr. Dean appeared for the applicant. They will replace all windows on the school except the arched windows on the front elevation. These windows will be painted to match the trim of the new windows. They will not replace five windows in the boiler room. Discussion followed regarding windows in the west wing of the school. Mr. Kilgore encouraged the applicant to have three equal sections in the windows to match the older building. Mr. Kilgore moved to approve the application. Mr. Carruthers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 6. Werner, David & Peggy; 795 Greenville Ave.; new driveway and existing garage remodeling (door reversal) -- Mr. David Werner appeared on behalf of his application. Chairman Allen stated that many people have always enjoyed this section of the Village. He commented that a driveway from Greenville may not be appropriate. He also questioned the appropriateness of turnaround and parking areas so near to a pivotal structure. Mr. Werner explained that he wants access to the front of his house. Discussion followed as to whether there was enough room to create a turnaround area in the Werners side or rear yards. Mr. Werner stated that he could eliminate the turnaround. Mr. Kilgore stated that the private lane that currently provides the only access to this site is contrary to the safety code, and thus creates a fire safety issue. Chief Latta stated that a fire at the middle house would create a hazard to the Werner s house, and that a driveway off of Greenville would help fire safety for all houses on Rat Row. Mr. Dave Schmid, the owner of the pivotal structure next to the Werners house, spoke and submitted his written position statement. He and his wife, Rachel Schmid, are most concerned with the potential impact this new construction will have on their mature trees. They asked that a tree expert assess the potential damage before the Commission votes on the application. They also questioned snow removal, and commented that snow will be plowed onto their property. They also questioned the Werners lack of landscaping plan, and commented that there is no room for the Werners to plant a screen. Chairman Allen asked Mr. Werner if he could bring up the driveway on the other side of the lot, furthest away from the Schmids line. Mr. Werner stated that he asked his neighbor to the south to split the cost of a new driveway that could be build on their line, but the neighbor refused. Discussion followed about moving the driveway away from the Schmids property line. Mr. Breidenstein stated that he struggled with the appropriateness of this driveway, and with the Commission s authority to review driveways. He read certain criteria for appropriateness from the historic district text of the zoning code, and expressed an opinion that a new driveway on this lot may not be appropriate. This house and the two other sister houses have always existed without separate driveways, and with a shared driveway known as Rat Row. This arrangement, although unusual by today s standards, and not permitted under today s code, is part of the charm and - 3 -

4 character of the community. Discussion followed regarding whether the garage could be moved, to which Mr. Werner stated that it could not be. Discussion followed regarding rear and side yard setbacks. Mr. Werner stated that excavating for a new garage would have more of an impact on the tree roots than would excavating for a new driveway. Mr. Schmid stated that the Village has an arborist on retainer who can comment on the impact of any construction on these trees. Mayor Todd moved to table the issue so that the arborist could review the proposal and so that the applicant and the Commission could review alternate garage locations. Mr. Breidenstein seconded the motion. Mayor Todd, Mr. Breidenstein, and Chairman Allen voted to approve the motion. Mr. Kerr, Mr. Kilgore, and Mr. Carruthers voted against the motion. Mrs. Schmid stated that the zoning code at (B) addresses screening of parking areas. She asked if Mr. Werner would be willing to plant an eight foot high landscaping screen. Mr. Kerr moved to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carruthers seconded the motion. Mr. Kerr, Mr. Kilgore, and Mr. Carruthers voted for the motion. Mayor Todd, Mr. Breidenstein, and Chairman Allen voted against the motion. Discussion followed regarding the driveway surface. Mr. Kilgore moved to approve the application with the condition that the parking apron be gravel. This motion was then withdrawn. Chairman Allen stated that a condition of approval could be that there be asphalt from the street up to the end of the turnaround, and gravel or crushed limestone from there to (and including) the apron parking area. Mr. Kilgore moved to approve the application with this condition, plus allowing the applicant the option of using gravel or crushed limestone for the entire length of the driveway. Mr. Cordes commented that any part of the driveway between the sidewalk and the street must be paved, and that the sandstone sidewalk cannot be disturbed. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion. Mr. Kilgore, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Carruthers, and Chairman Allen voted to approve the motion. Mayor Todd and Mr. Breidenstein voted against the motion. Discussion followed regarding whether the motion and vote included the proposed garage door realignment. Those involved in the motion and the vote agreed that it was included, and that the motion and vote did not include any requirement for screening. 7. Hall, Joe & Fran; 885 Congress Ave.; Revisions to previously approved plan Mrs. Hall appeared on behalf of her application. Mayor Todd moved to approve the request. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 8. Kerr, Tom & Lisa; 369 E. Sharon Ave.; Revisions to previously approved plan Mr. Kerr excused himself from the discussion, and noted his abstention on this vote. Mayor Todd moved to approve the request. Mr. Kerr seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (Mr. Kerr abstaining). 9. Nicholas, James & Tina; 36 E. Sharon Ave.; Fence (front) 4 H / 50% Mr. Nicholas appeared on behalf of his application. Mr. Kilgore moved to approve the application. Mr. Carruthers seconded the motion, which carried unanimously

5 II. Old Business / New Business: 1. Mr. Carruthers stated that he was expecting a report at this meeting from the Harry Whiting Brown Foundation regarding its plans for fire safety relative to access for fire equipment. Chief Latta stated that he had not had a chance to confer with a representative of PermaTurf. Chairman Allen stated that this item will be on next month s agenda. 2. It was reported that Mr. Al Zimmerman wants to move / relocate a house on lot 3, Matthews Court. The Commission reviewed a revised site plan. Mayor Todd moved to approve the application. Mr. Kilgore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. V. Adjournment. Since there was no other business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. The next scheduled monthly meeting will be Monday, July 2, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., at the Town Hall, unless otherwise notified. Respectfully submitted, Date of Decisions: June 4, 2001 Date of Minutes: June 4, 2001 Thomas W. Breidenstein, Secretary - 5 -