Plain City Council is considering an appeal for the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Design Review Board that would allow property owners to build an external elevator shaft on the north side of the McCune Building. A portion of the addition, depicted on the far left of the architectural drawing above, would be visible from West Main Street.
(Graphic submitted)
—
The plans for one Uptown Plain City development are hinging on an appeal by another developer.
Plain City Council heard on Monday an appeal filed by Tim Dawson regarding a decision by the village’s Design Review Board to approve plans to build an external elevator shaft on the north side of 114 W. Main St.
In a memo to council, Village Planner Taylor Brill explained that the elevator shaft addition, which will be built with board and batten fiber cement siding, “would require the removal of the one-story lean-to structure” at the rear of the three-story building.
The property, which is commonly known as the McCune Building, is owned by Rayce Robinson, Chris Miller and Chris Kerr.
According to previous applications filed with the village, the group intends to restore the building’s “existing storefronts, apartments and commercial space.”
Dawson, who owns The Grainery, located adjacent to the property in question, sits on the Design Review Board but did not vote on the matter.
Council member John Rucker, who also sits on DRB, abstained from participating in the hearing Monday although he was absent from the meeting in which the certificate was considered and did not cast a vote.
Council heard testimony from witnesses, questioning by lawyers from both parties and comments from the public, but will not render a decision until its Nov. 2 work session.
Karl Walters, the structural engineer who has developed plans for 114 W. Main St., said he believes the building is too structurally compromised to add an elevator to its interior.
He noted that the south wall on Main Street is “bulging outward,” creating three- to four-inch gaps from the joist. Additionally, he said the floors have been displaced because the shallow foundation is on loose-lay stones.
Constructing an elevator shaft on the north side of the building where the lean-to currently stands would preserve the building’s integrity, Walters said.
Adding an elevator to the interior of the building would require opening an existing wall to allow for large equipment to enter the structure, he explained. Beyond that, Walters said they would need to dig next to existing footings to ensure the elevator shaft met the required depth.
“There is a high probability you could have a collapse” if the walls were removed or footings disturbed, Walters said.
Bryan S. Hunt, the attorney representing Dawson, called a witness with a different opinion.
Bill Pizzino, a civil engineer who worked on the reconstruction of Pioneer Pizza, a building located nearby at 132 N. Chillicothe St. and also owned by Dawson, said he feels the floor plan could be rearranged or another type of elevator could be considered.
“It’s just what your budget is, but there’s always more than one way,” Pizzino said.
Hunt argued that allowing for the creation of an exterior elevator shaft violates the code DRB must abide by because the expanded footprint will substantially change the building and historic materials will be removed.
“Once you demolish the old brick structure that’s there, it can never be replaced. It’s gone,” Dawson said while being questioned by Hunt.
Council member Jim Eudaily, though, said he could “guarantee” that the lean-to was not an original part of the building but was added later on.
Kerr, one of the owners of the property, added that records are unclear when the lean-to was constructed but it is certain it was later than the original McCune Building. He emphasized that bricks from the lean-to will be preserved and used to “fortify” other areas of the structure.
Dawson also raised concerns that the proposed elevator shaft addition would impede use of the alley, which was vacated to the property owners (prior to Robinson’s purchase of the building) at their request in 2020.
Hunt noted that the exterior elevator shaft “would not have been an option” prior to the easement.
Dawson said encroachment into the alley will prevent his business from hosting weddings and there will no longer be room for food trucks.
In a cross-examination by Alicia Zambelli, attorney for Robinson, Miller and Kerr, Dawson agreed that there is not an easement or written agreement in existence that allows him to use his neighbors’ half of the alley.
Debate also centered around the existence of – or lack thereof – utility easements in the alley.
While Zambelli said there are no written utility easements that preclude construction, Hunt argued that law dictates when any alley is vacated, an easement of the utilities located there is automatically created.
Zambelli said she is unfamiliar with any such law but felt the discussion was irrelevant because there is “no evidence” that the utilities located under the addition would be inaccessible.
Aside from the cases presented by the applicant and appellant, two community members spoke during the hearing, both in favor of siding with DRB’s unanimous decision.
Eric Medici, a U.S. 42 resident who also owns an Uptown property across the street from 114 W. Main St., encouraged council to rely on DRB members as “the experts.”
He said he feels board members “bent over backwards” to investigate other options for the location of the elevator and “unanimously said this is a good project.”
“I am ecstatic that this building is being saved,” Medici said.
Shepper Avenue resident Michelle Ferguson agreed, adding that she is particularly pleased that the developers are considering accessibility for those with disabilities, such as her grandmother.
“I think they’re preserving an extremely beautiful building,” she said.
Council closed the hearing without commenting, as Lafayette said members will review exhibits and testimony, and deliberate until delivering a public decision.