Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and ARB split over 3-foot roof raise for 821 Grandin addition; board requests streetscape and dormer revisions
Summary
Taylor Summers presented a proposal to add living space and raise the roof by 3 feet at 821 Grandin; commissioners said the change could dominate adjacent houses and directed the applicant to return with streetscape drawings and smaller dormer options.
Taylor Summers, the architect for a project at 821 Grandin, presented plans on June 12 to add a two‑and‑a‑half‑story rear addition, raise the existing roof by 3 feet to gain attic space, add a second‑floor deck and replace a one‑car garage with a two‑car garage.
Why it matters: The project substantially changes roof height and massing on a street of mostly 1‑ to 1½‑story houses in South Bexley; commissioners said changes could alter the block’s character and set a precedent for similar roof raises.
Board members broadly agreed the basic program—additional living space and garage replacement—was understandable but differed on architectural approach. Commissioner Hyer said he had seen several “raising roofs” projects in South Bexley that he considered unsuccessful and warned that the proposed gables could "dominate" adjacent houses, changing neighborhood scale: "I don't think this is the South Bexley way to do it, to be honest." Another commissioner urged the applicant to reduce dormer size and break up a large blank wall: "I'd love to see a little bit more detail on the back porch" and suggested adding windows or panels to avoid a blank facade.
Several commissioners recommended steps to reduce visual impact: reducing dormer scale, studying alternative roof shapes or partial hip treatments, and submitting a streetscape elevation showing neighboring house heights and gaps. One member recommended modeled 3‑D renderings so the board can better assess massing "because we do experience these houses in 3‑D," and asked for elevations showing adjacent properties across the street and behind the lot.
The applicant said interior constraints limited some options—for example, the attic floor has low headroom and cannot practically be served by the house elevator—but said they were exploring smaller dormers and different roof treatments.
Outcome: The board voted to table the application to July 17 and requested the applicant submit: (1) a streetscape elevation showing adjacent houses and relative heights; (2) revised dormer studies with smaller dormers and roof-shape alternatives; and (3) clearer dimensioned elevations including ridge and eave heights. Staff said the applicant could be considered for the consent agenda if revisions arrive in time.
Context: The matter drew particularly strong comments on neighborhood character from commissioners who live in South Bexley and want additions to be visually "subservient" to original houses. Commissioners suggested materials, window patterns, and eave details are all important to reducing perceived scale.
