Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: Bill Childs, George Clemens, Phil Koepf, Wendy Naylor, Steve King (Absent) Also Present: Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2022 meeting. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 1. Butler 363 East Washington Street Exterior Alterations-Addition-Preliminary Childs read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house at 363 East Washington Street does meet the standards of a Historically Significant Property as defined in Codified Ordinance Section 1146.03(C)(2): the structure is presumed to be an Historically Significant Property because it is more than 100 years old. The proposed exterior HSR Changes #1-4 alter the appearance and do not follow the Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04 (d) (1-3) “guidelines” for “preservation of features,” “replacement of features,” and “compatibility,” and in that regard have an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house. Change #1: The two-story addition to the rear of the house changes the overall massing of the structure and removes historic materials (including, on the north elevation, wood siding and windows at the second floor). It appears that the addition will be able to be viewed from the sidewalk: Steps have been taken to mitigate the adverse effect by setting the addition’s roof line lower than the existing roof. To further mitigate adverse effect, align the east wall of the garage with the new mudroom wall rather than aligning the east wall with the existing house. This will lessen the impact of the addition. Change #2: Please note the comments on the materials. The asphalt shingle roofing should match existing. The texture and color of the new siding should match existing. Change #3: The mudroom door is set back from the existing east wall and will not easily be seen from the street, no adverse effect. The steps leading up to the door will match the front steps in detailing and material and have no adverse effect. Change #4: The sunroom addition is on the rear of the house and will have no adverse effect. Consider matching the asphalt shingle roof to existing roof. The proposed exterior Changes #1-4 alter the appearance of 363 East Washington Street, and do not follow the Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04(d) (1-3) guidelines for “preservation of features,” “replacement of features,” and “compatibility,” and in that regard have an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the adjacent, contiguous and neighboring period buildings. Motion by Childs, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Brian Kuck (Architect) and Laurie and John Butler (Homeowners) presented the plans. Brian stated that they are removing the single story one-car garage and replacing it with a two-car attached garage. He said they are adding a master suite above the garage. He said they want to change the existing porch into a sunroom. He said that they are keeping the massing consistent and aligning the new addition with the existing house. He said the roof line on the addition is lower and that everything they are doing is in the back of the house. He said that all the materials will match. He said they are putting in wood aluminum clad windows and doors. He said they are using an architectural grade shingle on the entire house. He said that the materials will all match and doesn’t think it will have an adverse effect. He said they are putting in masonry brick steps that will match the front. He said they want to replace the existing screen porch with a three-season sunroom. He said he doesn’t think it has an adverse effect on the house once they match all the materials. He said that they are not keen on pushing the addition back because the more they push it back they keep eating away at the views from the new sunroom. Clemens said that the windows don’t seem successful and that they don’t relate to each other. He thinks the roof lines are too close to each other and they need to connect. Childs said he thinks the windows seem top heavy at the rear elevation gable. He said to try and organize the composition and break up the elevation. Clemens said to change the triple windows to pairs of windows and to connect the two roofs. Childs said to get rid of the bump out and pull the form out to line with the garage add a shed roof and some columns. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for preliminary approval of plans as presented with the following adjustments at the rear gable end: organize the window and door fenestration, connect the rear roofline toward the west elevation, and restudy of gable form on the rear elevation. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed. 2. Mitchell 136 West Summit Street Exterior Alterations-Addition-Preliminary Childs read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house at 136 W. Summit Street does meet the standards of a Historically Significant Property as defined in Codified Ordinance Section 1146.03 (C) (2): the structure is presumed to be an Historically Significant Property because it is more than 100 years old. The proposed exterior Changes #1-7 alter the appearance of 136 W. Summit Street and do not follow the Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04 (d) (1-3) “guidelines” for “preservation of features,” “replacement of features,” and “compatibility,” and in that regard have an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house. The following changes alter the historic features: Change #1: The two-story addition to the side (east) of the house changes the overall massing of the structure by wrapping the first floor of the east elevation at the historic north end, and removes historic materials including first floor window. Steps have been taken to offset the large addition by making the roof peak on the addition lower than the existing roof peak and the new gable end is smaller in scale than the existing to the south. To further mitigate adverse effect, align the new east wall second floor with the new first floor mudroom wall rather than having it extend past that point. Materials of the addition are not specified. New siding should match the existing in material, color, texture, bevel profile, and exposure. Vinyl windows are an inappropriate solution to replace windows in a historically significant structure. This is based on the National Park Service Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Standard #6. As stated in Standard #6, when a historic feature is missing or is too deteriorated to repair, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.” Wood or aluminum clad wood are historically appropriate because of the ability to match historic profiles, and these windows are also more durable with a longer estimated service life. Further, install windows that fill the entire window opening to maximize the daylight opening, and, in order to match the existing non-divided life windows, do not add grids (“muntins”). Porch materials should be wood in order to be compatible with the house. Change #2: Material for windows is not specified. Vinyl windows are an inappropriate solution to replace windows in a historically significant structure. This is based on the National Park Service Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, Standard #6. As stated in Standard 6, when a historic feature is missing or is too deteriorated to repair, “the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and, where possible, materials,” Wood or aluminum clad wood are historically appropriate because of the ability to match historic profiles, and these windows are also more durable with a longer estimated service life. Further, install windows that fill the entire window opening to maximize the daylight opening, and, in order to match the existing non-divided lite windows, do not add grids (muntins”). Change #3 and Change #4: See #2. Change #5: This change is not easily visible from the street and will have no adverse effect. Change #6: These windows are wood and are some of the few wood windows remaining on the house. See #2. Change #7: See #2. The proposed exterior Changes #1-7 alter the appearance of 136 W. Summit Street and do not follow the Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04 (d) (1-3) guidelines for “preservation of features,” “replacement of features,” and “compatibility,” and in that regard have an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the adjacent, contiguous and neighboring period buildings. Motion by Childs, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Becky Pantuso (Architect) presented these plans. She said one of the objections was that the second gable form that they are creating is coming forward from the existing addition. She said they are wrapping the sunroom and embracing the existing house. She said the windows are going to be aluminum clad and the siding will be Hardie. Childs and Clemens said that she should tuck the mudroom back. Becky said that they designed it this way because the Homeowners want to keep the one window that she thinks is weird and doesn’t match the existing windows in the house and they are trying to get rid of the door underneath it. She said it’s an opportunity for them to have a porch that they can sit on. Clemens thought that two small facing gables would be more successful and that wrapping the porch around doesn’t seem necessary. Becky said that they want a porch for the views in the back of the house. Koepf said to preserve the original architecture it would help if she took it off and changed it to a hip, which gets rid of the objectionable shed roof and do everything from the back off the original house. The Board thought that the porch is overwhelming the architecture of the existing historic house, suggesting that the homeowners keep your existing screen porch and to leave the shed ends alone. Becky said that the reason for the new sunroom is that the homeowners want an enclosed room that they won’t walk thru to the mudroom. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs to table this discussion for the following reasons: The Board is requesting a site plan; restudy the design to not overwhelm the historic house, trim it back; suggested changing porch roof to a shed roof; shrink porch on south side; remove wrap around to the rear; keep the addition behind the rear plane of the original house; side elevation gutter needs to be resolved more logically. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 3. Franz 111 Hall Street Exterior Alterations-Addition-Final Brian Franz (Homeowner) presented plans based on the recommendations from the Board. He said the materials they are using are in violation of the Historic Report but are what is currently on the home. He said they plan to continue to improve the integrity and not compromise it. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. Meeting Adjourned at 9:20 A.M. __________________________________________________ Bill Childs, Acting Chairperson Date