Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 116 East Columbus Patio Gazebo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables 116 East Columbus Street patio and 16×26 gazebo pending scaled plans
Summary
The Canal Winchester Landmarks Commission tabled an application for a 28×40 stamped patio and a 16×26 gazebo at 116 East Columbus Street, requesting an updated to-scale site survey, clearer rear-yard photos and verification of setbacks before reconsideration; resubmission due March 9.
The Canal Winchester Landmarks Commission on Feb. 23 tabled an application to replace rear hardscape with a stamped patio and to add a gazebo, citing insufficient site documentation and unclear relationship between the gazebo and existing porch and second-story deck.
Staff described CA-26-00004 as a proposal for a stamped patio approximately 28 by 40 feet and a 16-by-26-foot gazebo at 116 East Columbus Street, a property noted in the packet as listed on the Columbus Street National Register. The staff report referenced a 2023 variance from the Planning & Zoning Commission permitting a second detached accessory structure on the lot. The applicant (name not stated on the record) presented drawings the commission found difficult to interpret and acknowledged the drawing scale may be misleading.
Commissioners repeatedly pressed for clearer, dimensioned plans. Concerns centered on whether the gazebo footprint would meet the minimum separation from the house once the full rooflines and the second-story deck were accurately shown; a staff member said he needed an updated survey to verify distances. The applicant said the stamped patio will replace existing brush-finish concrete and that a portion close to the house would remain an unstamped sidewalk to provide a textured path for the resident, identified in discussion as John, who is vision-impaired.
The commission asked for: a to-scale site survey showing existing rooflines and the screened porch/second-story deck; rear-yard photographs; a dotted-line overlay showing the existing patio, removal area and new footprint; and a clear callout of the stamped vs. unstamped concrete break. Commissioners flagged that, as presented, the 28-foot projection appeared to encroach beyond the available space and recommended the applicant consider extending the patio depth only if needed to meet separation requirements.
A motion to table CA-26-00004 until the March meeting carried by roll call; staff set March 9 as the deadline for the applicant to submit revised materials. The commission indicated that with accurate scaled drawings and photos the application could be reconsidered at the March 23 meeting.
