Glendale Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Monday, February 6 th, Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Glendale Planning and Historic Preservation Commission Monday, February 6 th, 2012 Meeting Minutes Pursuant to notice the Glendale Planning & Historic Preservation Commission special public meeting at Christ Church 965 Forest Ave in the All Saints Chapel convened. In Attendance: Chairman Tom Breidenstein, Vice Chairman Tom Kerr, Secretary Scott Thurman and members Sam Allen, Bob Kooris, Rachel Schmid and Beth Sullebarger. Mayor Ralph Hoop, Village Administrator Loretta Rokey and Solicitor Don Lofty were also present. Chairman Tom Breidenstein called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m., declared a quorum present and noted that this special meeting was convened to review the materials list for the proposed addition. Agenda Items I. Christ Church Materials Review. The review started with Helen Sedwick, Senior Warden of Christ church, providing a brief narrative of the changes made to the design following the January review. Of note the change to the west façade, adding in setbacks to add dimension, changing the windows of the west façade to mimic the Olivia House better, moving the dumpster to the rear of the lot with a full enclosure, and changing the west entrance to include a stained glass motif symbolizing elements of the Church and a red entry door that is also symbolic of elements of the Church. She also indicates that the new design raises the costs, but they are happier with the overall result. Ms. Chantelle Noble of City Studio introduces the material samples for review in proximity of the existing church and offering that the attendees can review them closer as needed. She further elaborates that the primary material is a smooth cast stone with a rough ashlar cut stone to be used as part of the contrasting texture in addition to copper siding. The materials are of similar texture and color as the existing church, and also similar color gradient to mimic actual stone. The majority of the building will have the smooth cast stone with the ashlar cut being used as an accent around the chapel, at insets and the base of the west façade. The long west façade has also been bent with offsets similar to the chapel to add contrast and texture. An asphalt roof material will be used, but the design is that to mimic the existing slate roof. Mr. Allen inquired to the placement of the copper [green areas in the drawing] and asked if the mortar joints in the new building will mimic the existing lines [no, not as wide due to type of material. Mortar joints will be about half the size]. Ms. Schmid asked if the smooth cast stone will have different sizes similar to the drawing [yes, intent is to avoid the look of a concrete block façade]. Ms. Sullebarger asked to see the dumpster enclosure design and asked if Rumpke has reviewed it [yes, Rumpke has reviewed and will hold trash and recycling]. She asked if the masonry or glass in the Garber building would be reused [Bill Smith from HGC (Contractor) indicated that the stones were of varying depth and the work to remove the mortar for reuse was excessive; they may reuse part for interior accents or for the garden area; the glass color is black from the outside and is likely not tempered, so reuse is limited]. Ms. Noble indicated that most of the glass proposed will be clear with some tint to part of the glass and the copper materials would have a patina accelerant added to gain the green finish sooner than normal weathering. At this point, the meeting retired to the Chapel for a continued review of the revised design.

2 Following the visual review, Chairman Breidenstein asked if the revised footprint was different than that reviewed in January 2012 [same footprint except for the offsets on the west façade] and asked the status of the landscaping plan [visuals are very close to the final design, with final planting materials still being discussed]. Chairman Breidenstein followed up to ask if the landscape design is part of the formal application [yes]. It was asked if the trees being planned were for screening or ornamental in nature [ornamental]. Mr. Allen noted how the added recessed portion of the west façade improves the visual interest of the building. Vice Chairman Kerr asked if the windows of the south façade had been reworked [always 3 light windows, but size has been compressed]. Ms. Sullebarger asked if the classrooms all had egress points [yes, all have doors] and the material of the fascia will be over the west façade door [likely aluminum]. Mr. Kooris asked what color it would be [same as windows] and noted that it doesn t translate as such on the plans and followed up indicating that it should be assumed the aluminum and window trim will be the same color [yes]. Village Administrator Rokey asked that the slides be reviewed again with the street references included for audience members. Ms. Sullebarger noted that the dumpster and enclosure lined up with an existing shed on neighbor s lot, which was not included in visual. Chairman Breidenstein inquired if there would be ground lighting [possibly] and Ms. Schmid asked if the exterior would be lit [yes from Forest, but not from the back; the previously existing Victory window light will also be reinstalled]. Village Administrator Rokey asked if the new chapel was a similar size to the current All Saints Chapel [bigger, All Saints holds ~85 people vs. new chapel will hold 200]. Chairman Breidenstein asked when construction would begin and where main construction access will be [not before August, as design and permit work continues; 8 month minimum build time with more likely 12 months required but variable based on the weather. Primary access via Sharon with limited traffic on Erie based on material placement needs]. Chairman Breidenstein asked if the Erie frontage will be designated a no build zone as previously discussed [yes]. Chairman Breidenstein adjourned the special meeting at 5:15 to allow time to transition to the Town Hall location. Regular Meeting Pursuant to notice, the Glendale Planning and Historic Preservation Commission public meeting convened met at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, February 6 th, 2012 at 80 East Sharon Avenue in the second floor auditorium. In Attendance: Chairman Tom Breidenstein, Vice Chairman Tom Kerr, Secretary Scott Thurman and members Sam Allen, Bob Kooris, Rachel Schmid and Beth Sullebarger. Mayor Ralph Hoop, Village Administrator Loretta Rokey and Solicitor Don Lofty were also present. Chairman Tom Breidenstein called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present Agenda Items I. Review and approval of the January 9 th, 2012 meeting minutes. Ms. Sullebarger noted that the minutes distributed were not the final version, and that changes had been made and not reflected. Ms. Schmid moved to approve the minutes as revised. Mr. Kooris seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Allen inquired to the need to keep the prepared notes from the public, and Chairman Breidenstein noted that it would be best to keep the notes included as there was not recording of the meeting should reference be needed. III. Pending Business/Persons Addressing the GPHP Commission. Nobody wished to address the Commission. IV. Old Business A. Mr. Scott Thurman was sworn in by Mayor Hoop as the newly appointed GPHPC member.

3 B. Christ Church; 965 Forest Ave removal of old addition and new addition proposed.. Reverend Foote and City Studio Architects were present to represent the application. This is a continuation from the 4:30 special meeting discussion. Chairman Breidenstein asked if there were further comments from the applicants and there were none. At this point, he opened the floor to others and Mr. Phil Bauer, 46 Erie Ave noted the previous discussion about the size of the addition and his opposition to the size. He believe the size has not been addressed in the revisions and asked if there was additional perspective from the Commission regarding (C)(5). Chairman Breidenstein noted that Ms. Sedwick and the Church have indicated that current and future needs of the church cannot be confined to the existing footprint, but they have made façade changes to improve the visuals and privacy aspects. He also noted that if any budgetary constraints arose, the size would have to be kept in mind. He further elaborated that the code was not a check the box but required interpretation and that the Commission believes the code in general has been correctly interpreted in the design. Chairman Breidenstein noted that the appeals option remains open to anyone that believes an issue remains. Chairman Breidenstein then polled the Commission members for their opinions and point of view: Ms. Sullebarger noted that in her opinion, the applicant has worked to meet the requirements of the code in regard to size/mass and compatibility. The design meets or exceeds set back and yard requirements and noted that if a house were built on the same lot, it could be only 40 back and 35 high, which is larger than the existing design. She stated that the materials are a good match and the architectural features used to reflect the existing buildings are done well. Finally, she agrees that the change to the west façade were a big improvement. Ms. Schmid agreed that the applicants have responded to the design issues and concerns and agreed that the current building is a better and appropriate design and she supports the application. Mr. Kooris concurred that the design changes is improved and is in support of the application. Mr. Allen noted that the original designs appeared more like a Motel 6 and the west façade originally was inappropriate. The setbacks in the new design are much improved and he is supportive of the application. Vice Chairman Kerr stated that he takes a much more conservative approach to the code interpretation and doesn t feel the addition meets the massing and compatibility intent. However, he does agree that the design change removes the Motel 6 view issues. Mr. Thurman noted that he was in the first presentation in 2011 and commented that he generally agrees the conditions have been met. However, he also doesn t believe the massing is appropriate or compliant with the code intent and believes the building should not exceed its current footprint or the orientation should be changed to be less intrusive on the neighbors. Chairman Breidenstein noted that any motions made at this point need to include conditions and stipulations. Ms. Schmid moves to approve the application as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The materials reviewed in the 4:30pm meeting are set as final 2. Landscaping plan as represented is incorporated 3. Outdoor lighting plans must be submitted 4. No build zone on Erie must be in place 5. Parking approved as previously submitted to the Village Administrator 6. Occupancy cannot exceed 244 between the new and existing chapels 7. Mechanicals placement and sound barriers be reviewed at a later date

4 Ms. Sullebarger seconded the motion. The motion passes with Chairman Breidenstein, Ms. Schmid, Ms. Sullebarger, Mr. Allen and Mr. Kooris voting in favor. Vice Chairman Kerr and Mr. Thurman vote against. V. Appropriateness Review of Official Applications: A. Copeland, James, 94 Washington Avenue, room removal/new addition. Mr. Copeland was present to represent the application, indicating that the existing addition was damaged and the intent is to bring it up to code on the existing footprint. Ms. Sullebarger indicated that she is concerned about the proportion of the addition and the pitch of the roof, and Ms. Schmid asked if the roof pitch was dictated by the 2 nd story doors and if they would remain doors or be changed to windows [intent is to keep the doors and make the roof a deck/walk out area]. Ms. Sullebarger inquired if that functionality would require a railing and Village Administrator Rokey indicated that if it is to be a deck, it needs to have a deck permit. Mr. Kooris strongly suggested if that is the roof intent, that the builder needed to know to factor that into the plans to ensure proper structural support is designed. Ms. Schmid noted that the application was for the first floor addition and does not include changes to the second floor doors, the discussed deck or the railing and also noted that the Safety Department would likely require action on the second storey doors for safety. Village Administrator Rokey indicated that any changes would need to come back for additional reviews. Mr. Allen moved to approve the application as submitted with the amendment that the second story doors need to be secured for safety purposes. Mr. Kooris seconded and the motion passed unanimously. B. Buse, Helene, 335 E. Sharon Ave, replacement of garage doors. Ms. Buse was present to represent the application indicating that the garage is detached and faces the alley and they are not visible from the street. The left door is broken and the right door is worn and the new doors are similar to what exists. Mr. Kooris inquired to the purpose of insulated doors on a detached structure [doors are south facing and get a lot of sun, so insulation is to mitigate the heat] and if the plan is for a square window with no arch [yes]. Mr. Kooris moved to accept the proposal as submitted and Ms. Sullebarger seconded. The motion passed unanimously. V. Other Business/Preliminary Reviews A. Curtis, Chris & Allisha, 1060 Willow Ave. 2 story addition and new driveway (scheduled for Board of Appeals 16 February 2012 requiring Variance. Ms. Allisha Curtis was present to represent the application and noted that this is also being discussed for a zoning variance due to the existing set backs. Mr. Thurman is the contractor and recused himself from the discussion. Ms. Schmid asked if there was any intent to build a garage [not currently] and also noted that there is a 5 setback required for new driveways. Mr. Allen noted the north façade needing to include more symmetrical window placement and the 2 small windows are inappropriate [second floor is a bedroom and want smaller windows for privacy, the first floor windows are dictated by cabinet/appliance placement]. Ms. Schmid asked if the windows could be tall narrow windows vs. the shorter variety [will review] and Mr. Kooris suggested considering plantation shutters for privacy. Chairman Breidenstein asked if there was any public comment, and Ms. Carol Beaird, 1070 Willow Ave, was present and indicated that she had similar concerns regarding the driveway and garage placement that Ms. Schmid previously discussed. She prefers that cars are not that close to her property as that is where her patio is placed. Ms. Schmid noted that the current drawing shows a driveway extension, which would require a variance [old drawing, the driveway change has been eliminated]. Village Administrator Rokey indicated that any driveway extension would indeed require a variance if it did not meet the 5 setback. Ms. Sullebarger suggested that the pitch of the roof of the addition match the main roof [will review design].

5 B. GPHPC Rules of Procedure: Village Administrator Rokey passed out the latest rules of procedure and Glendale Committee rosters for review. C. Code Review topics. Ms. Sullebarger noted that several items had been previously discussed to be addressed by codes, but no action taken. The topics previously discussed include: wood burning furnaces, wind turbines, vinyl siding, windows, driveways, various precedents set. She also suggested that some streets be considered for removal from the Historic District due to alterations since historic designation. Ms. Schmid noted that the Historic Guidelines and Village Code should be better aligned to reduce confusion, as the code trumps the guidelines. Mayor Hoop suggested a special session to have discussion on these subjects as well as the expectations Council has of the Commission. Mr. Thurman also noted that discussion was needed to reconcile modern theories of preservation vs. current code and Guidelines verbiage. Vice Chairman Kerr indicated concern about adhering to the more stringent Glendale guidelines vs. the broader National standards, as changes were made as part of the Christ Church application. There needs to be a consistent basis for logical interpretation and application of the guidelines to submissions. There also needs to be a discussion of the long term Village plan vs. the tactical discussions. Mr. Kooris also indicated that modern building techniques need to be considered in the review. Chairman Breidenstein acknowledged the need for a special session that is open to the public for discussion. Village Administrator Rokey also noted that some of the discussion and code changes have had broader implications than originally intended, particularly as they relate to smaller lots vs. Pivotal structures. Four dates were given as options for the special meeting: 6, 12, 19 and 20 March and Village Administrator Rokey will coordinate scheduling the meeting. Submit specific agenda items not included here to Chairman Breidenstein or Mayor Hoop.. At 7:00, Mayor Hoop moved to adjourn, Mr. Kooris seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The next meeting will be held Monday March 5 th, Submitted by Scott Thurman Prepared by Rebecca Fenner Terrell