Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 27, 2014

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fritz at 6:38pm.

PRESENT AT ROLL CALL: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
ABSENT: Ms. Corcoran, Mayor Renda

Others Present: Dave Strichko, Building Inspector, Aimee Lane, Assistant Law Director, Jeff Filarski, Village Engineer, Sherri Arrietta, Clerk of Council

Mr. Fritz stated that since there is not a quorum to approve the minutes from the September 22, 2014 meeting, he is going to defer approval until next month.

Lombardy Residence
15 Park Lane
Porch Addition

Mr. Matt Howells, with Your Carpenter Inc., was present at the meeting. He stated that after the homeowners received approval and built their garage/carriage house structure, they had a desire to put a porch on the south elevation (facing Miles Road) of their home. The architect modified the plans and submitted a revision to the design to add a porch. The porch roof pitch matches the gable end of the structure which is 10:12 and it tucks in under the rafter. The columns will be 6 x 6 which match the columns for the porch on the back of the house. Mr. Howells stated that the homeowner did not want them too large so as to take away from the front of the house. There were no notes from the Village Architect. Mrs. Cooper commented on what a great job was done with the garage addition. Mr. Howells stated that the comments that Mr. Bolek had made about cutting the dormers back and shrinking them really made a difference and the homeowners are very pleased with it.

Mrs. Cooper made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the porch addition located at 15 Park Lane.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Laisure Residence
30 East Juniper Lane
Patio

Mr. Chris Brown with H&M Landscaping was present at the meeting. Mr. Fritz informed the members that there were notes from the Village architect; a 4 ft. fence would be required around the pool and also galvanized construction details for the pool are needed. Mr. Brown stated they are proposing a backyard landscape patio as well as a swim spa. He provided the dimensions for the swim spa to the board at this time.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Mrs. Cooper to approve the patio and swim spa located at 30 East Juniper Lane, contingent upon the submittal and approval of the drawings for the 4 ft. fence and the data for the swim spa.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Chylik Residence
5 Cotswold Lane
Addition/Renovation

Mr. Mike Caito, architect, was present at the meeting. He stated that they are proposing to remove the existing rear deck and rebuild it. They will also be extending the kitchen out 6’ 8” to be in alignment with the family room and completely renovating it. Mr. Caito stated that they are also proposing to build a screened porch on the back of the house and informed the members that on the plan it is indicated as a “sun room” but it was changed to a screened porch. He stated that a first floor laundry room will be added as well. All materials and roof pitches will match existing; the homeowners will be repainting the house gray and they will be replacing the roof. Mr. Fritz stated that there were some notes from the Village Architect; fire retardant drywall is required between the house and the garage and the crawl space under the kitchen requires insulation into the joist space.

Mrs. Cooper made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the addition and renovation located at 5 Cotswold Lane, contingent upon adherence to the Village Architect’s notes.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Vaughan Residence
12 Cotswold Lane
Garage Addition

Mr. Michael Fant, architect, was present at the meeting. He stated that currently there is a two-car garage and they are proposing to add a new structure to the garage which will extend the garage by one more bay. He stated that because of the way the driveway is laid out, they cocked it by 45 degrees and added a single bay and will be removing a portion of the wall between the two structures so that it appears as one structure. The grade slightly rises, so the height of the new bay is 6 inches higher than the existing garage, and they will be connecting the elevation of the new garage with the elevation of the existing stoop that wraps around the back of the existing garage. Mr. Fant stated that he maintained the existing roof pitch and all the detailing of the existing house. He stated that the new garage is as high as the gable that can be seen in the back, therefore it “bookends” the existing garage. The Village Architect had a note requiring the submittal of structural detail drawings.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Mrs. Cooper to approve the garage addition located at 12 Cotswold Lane, contingent upon the submittal and approval of structural detail drawings.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Swamy Residence
60 Falls Creek Trail
Driveway Bridge

Mr. Terry Ries, landscape architect, was present at the meeting. He stated that they are proposing to install decorative entry walls at the street. Mr. Ries stated that because of the condition of the drainage of the front yard, a swale connected to a culvert under the driveway is required; therefore the homeowners have requested to enhance that with a “bridge. This “bridge” will get the water from one side of the driveway to the other while also making an aesthetic statement when you enter the traffic circle from the driveway. The “bridge” is essentially a glorified culvert. He clarified that there are two structures being proposed; one at the street and one at the entrance to the circle. They will be made of stone and stucco which will match the house. Mr. Ries stated that the columns will be capped with limestone which will mimic the roof structure as far as the pitch. He stated that Village Code requires a 4ft height for the pillars and they are proposing 4’6” plus the cap which makes them about 6’. Mr. Strichko clarified that the pillars are not restricted in height per Code, only the fence needs to be 4 feet; it does not restrict the height of the pillars. Mr. Ries stated that the “bridge” will be 2’6” for the wall portion and with the iron work, it will be a total of 4 feet high and it will be 12 feet long off the driveway (the driveway is 16 feet wide). The total access distance for the driveway is 22 feet.

Mr. Bolek made a motion seconded by Mrs. Cooper to approve the driveway bridge located at 60 Falls Creek Trail contingent upon the submittal of the detail drawings including the culvert pipe size.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Dickenson Residence
220 Glen Road
New Dwelling

Mr. David Krebs with AODK Architects, Mr. Pat Llinas and Ms. Amy Dickenson, homeowners, were present at the meeting. Mr. Fritz stated that the footprint of the house was approved last month and this month they are seeking approval for the actual house. Mr. Krebs stated that the house is a contemporary style home on 2 acres which will be placed 20 feet above the cul-de-sac level. The materials of the house will be natural in order to match the character of the woods; natural stone materials mixed in with wood materials with dark trim and siding. Mr. Krebs showed a sample of the siding material, which is a new material from Canada called Longboard, made of aluminum but has the appearance of wood.

Mr. Fritz recapped the discussion last month for Mr. Bolek since he was not in attendance. He stated that the north portion looks out into Falls Creek, however, it is quite a distance away and is separated by a sizable ravine. Mr. Fritz asked Mr. Krebs if they are going to be able to save the large Oak Tree. Mr. Krebs stated that they are still working on it but he is hopeful that the driveway could be placed so as not to disturb the tree.

Mr. Fritz stated that there were some notes from the Village Architect regarding egress for bedrooms and the requirement of fire retardant drywall in the garage. Mr. Filarski stated that there is a hillside issue with the one portion (bedroom) extending into it. He stated that he will need a geotechnical engineering report. Mr. Filarski stated that he will also require a landscape plan for that area as well.

Mr. Bolek made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the new dwelling located at 220 Glen Road, contingent upon the adherence to the Village Architect’s notes, the submittal of the geotechnical engineering report for the bedroom that encroaches into the hillside, and the submittal of the landscape plan.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Hurwitz Residence
55 Lochspur Lane
Remodeling & Addition

Mr. Charles Fazio, architect, and Mr. Mark Mazzurco with H&M Landscaping were present at the meeting. Mr. Fazio stated that they are proposing an addition of a master suite on the east end and also adding a garage to the north with storage space and an outdoor fireplace. On the second floor they are proposing to add a playroom above the garage, with the possibility of adding bedrooms in the future. The homeowners are also thinking of adding a larger family room in the future. There were no notes from the Village Architect. Mr. Fazio stated that they will need to remove some trees. Mr. Strichko stated that almost all of the trees needing to be removed do not meet the ordinance requirements; they are under the 24” diameter requirement and are mostly all dead, which could just result in killing more of the live trees if not removed. Mr. Fritz stated that they still have a considerable amount of trees as a buffer around the perimeter of the property.

Mr. Bolek made a motion seconded by Mrs. Cooper to approve the remodeling and addition located at 55 Lochspur Lane.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Discussion
Mrs. Lane stated that she and Mayor Renda met with David Hart, who helped re-write our Zoning Code in 2012, regarding proposed new revisions to the Code. She stated that they discussed an issue that the Mayor brought up several months ago. There was a very contemporary home that the Planning Commission approved; however, afterward several members voiced their apprehension about that approval. The Planning Commission discussed the ability for them to look into and apply design criteria. Mrs. Lane stated that she believes the Mayor mentioned, at that meeting, that she believed there was a provision in the Code where the Planning Commission could refer a plan back to the Village Architect who then could convene a panel of three architects to do further review. She stated that after she and Mrs. Cannon thoroughly reviewed our Code, they could not find anything referring to this three-person panel. Mrs. Lane stated that when she brought this up to Mr. Hart, his recollection was that prior to 2012, the way the Code was set up so was that the Village Architect made those decisions and he essentially had the final say. She stated that in talking with Mr. Kawalek, Village Architect, today, he was a little apprehensive with being the only one with the say as it relates to aesthetics. Mrs. Lane stated that Mr. Hart said that the 2012 Zoning Code was designed to put the Village Architect in more of a recommending role. The Code clearly defines a section for criteria for review by the architectural reviewer which talks about exterior appearance, exterior materials, colors, textures, compatibility, fitting in with the character, and also being sure that the architect does not promote a single type of style for the community. She stated that it also clearly talks about the Village Architect making a recommendation on all points, not just the Code requirements. Mrs. Lane stated that our Code was rewritten to provide for the Village Architect to take those criteria, and put them into a recommendation for this body, and then this body will actually have the final say. She stated that in her conversation with Mr. Kawalek, he stated that he would be comfortable formulating a process to provide a written recommendation to the Planning Commission; however she is unsure when this process will actually start.

Mr. Fritz asked if this can be implemented now without any further Code revisions. Mrs. Lane said that was correct. She stated that she just wanted to inform the Planning Commission that there is already a mechanism in place that allows them to be the final decision maker. She stated that she would caution, though, that if the Village Architect has some pretty definitive recommendation on a project and the Planning Commission were to take exception to those, there would need to be good reasons stated on record.

Mr. Bolek asked if this now means that the Planning Commission has a little more ability to get into detail about design. Mrs. Lane stated that they do. Mr. Bolek stated that he does not think there is anything wrong with the Planning Commission strongly enforcing an issue (odd detail, style of home, etc.) and have the applicant come back, however, if they come back two or three times and are adamant about it, then that could cross the line about what legally this body can make a homeowner do. He stated that sometimes homeowners do not even realize something that could be an issue unless it is pointed out to them; therefore constructive criticism can be helpful but it could border on being abusive if someone is made to come back numerous times. Mr. Bolek stated that he is encouraged that this board can start identifying design details, but he does not want to go to the point where this board becomes seen to be a group of arrogant people trying to enforce their own will. Mr. Fritz expressed concern about what would be considered crossing the line. He stated that while Mr. Bolek’s suggestions are helpful, he worries about whether they can be enforced or not. Mr. Bolek stated that he is just trying to be helpful but he will never strictly reinforce what his opinion is. He stated that personally, he feels that this body should be one that can help identify an “odd” condition and let the applicant think about it a little more, but if they come back and say that they do not want to change it, then this board is at its limit.

Mr. Fritz asked if this board could take action on an issue that they raise, which was not raised/recommended by Mr. Kawalek. Mrs. Lane stated that the way the Code reads is that the Planning Commission is supposed to consider the comments and recommendations of the staff and consultants and make a determination as to whether or not the project being proposed complies with all aspects of applicable regulations, which is under the criteria for reviewing development plans. She stated that if this board receives a plan that the Village Architect has not flagged something that you feel is important, then an exception can be made. Mrs. Cooper stated that the key word that Mrs. Lane stated was that this board “considers” what the staff/consultants have to say but that it does not preclude that this board could come up with our own recommendations.

Mrs. Lane stated that the way the Code is written, this board is also serving as an Architectural Review Board, in a way, however members should still be cautious in how that authority is used. She stated that a homeowner could fight a conditional approval.

Councilman Sherck brought up that Orange Village has an Architectural Review Board included in their Charter. He suggested that could be something to look into further. Mrs. Lane stated that she believes that in previous discussion about that, most everyone was in agreement not to add an “extra step” to the process.

A discussion ensued.

Mr. Fritz made a motion seconded by Mrs. Cooper to go into executive session to discuss legal issues and imminent court action with the Commission’s legal counsel at 8:00pm.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Mrs. Cooper made a motion seconded by Mr. Bolek to come out of executive session and adjourn the meeting at 8:33pm.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Fritz, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Respectfully Submitted,
Sherri Arrietta, Clerk of Council