Architectural Board of Review

Village of Chagrin Falls Architectural Board of Review March 19, 2024 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: Bill Childs, George Clemens, Steve King, Phil Koepf, Wendy Naylor Also Present: Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion Passed. Attached is the letter Steve King read to the council at their March 11, 2024, meeting and read at the ABR meeting. Set-up: Expanding the voting members of ABR to 5 instead of 3, with the 2 additional appointed by the council, will give our decisions a broader base. It may crowd us, as we have a lot of architectural plans, but it is not a big hurdle. I believe several points should be better understood. Our law director has placed the village in a much sounder legal standing. I applaud his efforts; he is a good shepherd. His revamping of the code, in many ways, has strengthened what Chagrin is and how to protect it. ABR is included, and it has tweaked our handling in many situations. We are not allowed to read letters of support as we cannot ask them questions. Also, ABR members cannot attend Zoning Appeals meetings to explain our decisions. What sometimes happens is our decisions are overturned. We have architects; we spend hours on plans and site visits. Zoning Appeals: Sees minutes, maybe a rendering. The couple seems nice, and we are overturned. I believe, and the code believes that ABRs goal is to protect our special feel, vibe, ambiance, and architectural comfort. We have something special. The code protects this. ABR's goal is to follow the code to protect the village. It’s not as subjective as perceived. We have architects who are really the best. Believe me, I know we see bad architecture presented all the time. This scenario is very common; in 1997, a couple visited and fell in love with Chagrin Falls and were then transferred to California but returned in 2019. We just love old houses, and now I would like to present the plans to make a family of 4 fit into a 2-bedroom house. The plans remove any semblance of an old house from the property. I like you, answer a lot of questions in Heinen’s and the hardware store. Why did you let them build that? What were you thinking? It’s just not right. There are many, many, factors in our decisions. A few are personal property rights, rights of the builder/owner, rights of the neighbor and the village, and architectural common sense, suitable for the specific situation. All this is guided by our code and building guidelines, not magazine clippings and Pinterest. No builder or most architects read the village guidelines, and it costs us time and the homeowner's money to redo WALK-INS is great. I would like a council member to be on or at least shadow ABR. Your council-appointed members are a move in that direction; it will create understanding. These new members will learn the rules and codes that govern us. They, too, will face questions like, “ I don’t like the new apartments across from the post office, “and “What’s with the 4 houses crammed in by the eagles on South Main.” My answer is the village assigned R-60 zoning on the south main, so we have 4 houses being built on a cliff. My answer to apartments is, “Show me a design of a multifamily apartment building that really fits in our village.” The units on Orange next to M Italian were dropped in our lap with four approved variances to ensure they were built. Different times, different administrations. I want to take a moment now to thank Mayor Tomko and you, the council, for the support you give us. Please remember, every presentation is unique in its own location and neighborhood; they did it, is not relevant. I would add here we were not asked, nor did my board know of this charter amendment until it was done. I would ask for more transparency so that we can be consulted about who is added to our board. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I would welcome any questions now and any time going forward. 1. Delfs 164 North Street Demolition-Final William Delfs (Homeowner) presented these plans. He said he came in as a walk-in to discuss demolishing the existing deteriorated garage and replacing it with a retaining wall. The Board had no objection to demolishing the garage and adding the retaining wall. A public meeting was called with no comment. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve the plans to demolish garage and replace with a retaining wall. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 2. Benedetti 52 South Main New Dwelling-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house at 52 South Main 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 alter the appearance of 52 South Main Street and does not follow the Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04 (d) (1-3) “guidelines” for “preservation of features,” “replacement of features,” and of the adjacent, contiguous, and neighboring period buildings. Change # 1-Demoliton: This change removes the historic building and historic materials from the site. Tony Majc (Architect) and Brad Camposo (Premier Builders) presented these plans. Tony explained that this was a continuing conversation from a previous presentation. He said their clients looked at doing renovations for the foundation, electrical and plumbing on this home. He said that they originally talked about jacking the house up and replacing the foundation underneath. He said that at one point there was a garage that was built separately and that the garage foundation is failing and pushing into the house. He said that the original sandstone foundation that was put on the house when it was moved to this site is falling apart. He said that Brad started pricing things out and found that it would be a costly endeavor. He said they looked at the cost difference for repairing and rebuilding this home. He said they are proposing removing the house and replacing it with a new structure. He said that the money it would cost for repairs outweighs the value of the house. Childs and Clemens said the proposed design for the house is fine. Tony said that the lot is not wide, and they are proposing a single level home with a two-car garage. Naylor said that according to the code it states that in order to demolish a historically significant house they must prove there is not an economically feasible path for rehabilitation. She said that they have shown comparable houses in Chagrin Falls being sold and a breakdown of cost per square footage. She said the Board looks at the comparable market value of other homes in the Village. Naylor said that the engineering report shows the foundation is in terrible shape and she said that there are some historic materials in the house but that this is a very tough case. Clemens said that there is some benefit to keeping the existing house. Koepf said there is some question about how much usable space there is in this existing house and what are they looking to end up with, with a new structure. King said with the one level house the front elevation is 60 % garage and they should look at a single garage door. Clemens said they need to study the topography of the lot. If they want to demolish the house, they need to have final drawings and wait 30 days after that. Brad said to renovate they’d have to demolish the garage. He said the home is not sound structurally and with all the renovations needed there would be nothing left of the old house. Tony said that they just want to know if they are moving in the right direction with the plans. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to table this discussion for the following reasons: Need to show detail of the proposed new design: Include topography map; Single garage door at façade; and Study side elevation and maintaining scale of single-story appearance. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 3. Trueblood 84 East Washington Exterior Alteration-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said because the house is more than 100 years old the subject property meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property”. The proposed changes #1-10 have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house as the changes occur to areas of the house dating to outside the period of significance, and the changes are minimally viewed from the street. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Becky Pantuso (Architect) presented these plans. She said that the goals are to add a first-floor mudroom and move the kitchen. She said they need to renovate the two bathrooms and make a new hallway. Clemens thought the massive kitchen didn’t have direct access to that side of the kitchen. He said to work on that west side elevation. Childs and Clemens said to work on centering the door. Naylor thought the second floor looked good. Childs said they just need to tweak some stuff, but everything looks good. Clemens said that the addition was nice and recommended making it a flat or low roof. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans as presented: Need to restudy the flat roof over the kitchen eaves and window head height; and Restudy side porch area to better incorporate it into the composition. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 4. Smith/Ward 155 South Main Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Tony Majc (Architect), Jordan Smith (Homeowner) and Robert Shlepper (Conscientious Observer) presented these plans. Tony said they looked at the HSR report and their opinions of the historic significance of the house and the massing. He said the main objection was the proposed addition and how it’s connected to the existing home and that the existing home is negatively impacted by the addition. He said they are taking the existing bump out, restoring the massing back to its original and connecting the addition in a way that keeps the shape and form of the existing home intact. He said they incorporated the side entry into the addition. Childs said the massing and composition look good. He said that the entry doesn’t line up with any of the eave lines and needs to be resolved. He also said to make it a shed roof instead of a hip roof. Clemens said that now you get the feel of the old house with a moderately scaled garage element behind the house. He said he appreciates that they left the house very distinguishable and added a vocal point at the long space that looks right. Naylor said that she liked how they redesigned it. Childs said to move the entablature over and the door down. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans as presented: Need to adjust the entablature on side elevation; Gutter boards and final approval of garage doors; Consideration of hipped roof on rear left master bath. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. King-yea. Walk-In Peppertree Capital 67 East Washington Roberto Vega-Peralta and Conway Pedron (Architects) presented these plans. Roberto said they took the suggestions from the previous meeting about that their contemporary approach to the building was not characteristic to the existing neighborhood. He said that they took some of the rhythm of the existing architecture and the rhythm of the windows. He said that they added a strong stone base, brick, rhythm of the windows and an Italianate portico. Childs and Clemens said to bring in double hung windows and to add an arch. The Board said that the new plans looked great and to bring in the details when they come in to present. Conway said they have two variations one pulling it forward and pulling it back. The Board liked the building pulled forward. Walk-In 345 North Main Street Justin Davies (Architect) and Doug Bauer (Homeowner) presented these plans. Justin said they took the suggestions from the previous meeting and wanted to show their revisions. They said it is an existing 1940’s split level home with a two-car garage that is unusable. He said the intent is to add a three-car garage with covered access to the garage and interior space. They worked on grading, scaling and the form. He said that they scaled it all back. The Board thought it looked good and that the covered patio connects nicely to the house. Childs said to line the rear fascia boards on the garage. Meeting Adjourned at 10:14 A.M. 4-2-24 _______________________________________ Steve King, Chairman Date