Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW AUGUST 6, 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 Naylor, seconded by Childs to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Child-yea, King-abstain. Motion passed. 1. Stern 68 Ridgewood New Dwelling-Demolition King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the structure does not meet the standards of a “Historically Significant Property.” The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house because it is not historically significant. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, King-yea, Childs-yea. Michael Caito (Architect) said that they are proposing a new home and took the recommendations of the Board and made some changes to their plans. He said they made the dormer smaller but could not change the window because it is an egress window. He said they pulled the roof down; the windowpanes are the same and they simplified the shutters. King said he does not understand the shutters. Clemens and Childs said to add mullions to be more consistent. Childs also said to add a mullion to the middle of the window and said to use shutter panels. He said they need an architrave over the garage and to restudy the hood, bring down the eave and to add an architrave above the lentil of the garage. Bill said to add mullions on the lower part. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for preliminary approval of plans as presented with the following comments. They need to add mullions at the front elevation windows. Suggested using paneled shutters. Restudy garage to add architrave at the hood and bring down the eave. Roll Call: King-Abstain, Naylor-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for final approval of plans to demolish the existing home. Roll Call: King-abstain, Naylor-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed. 2. 97 Williams LLC 43 West Cottage New Dwelling-Demolition Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari said that they need a 21’ variance for a front yard setback and the location of the garage which is not behind the house. George Clemens (Architect) said that the house will be a partially brick and shingled house with a cleaner appearance than the prior submission. He said that the massing is not large. He said it is tall on the downside and they tried to break it up vertically. Childs said he did a nice job on the massing and composition. He stated that the gutter is close to the window and that he should pull it down, so it feels like a nice element. He stated to not have as much tension on the forms, add brackets and tie into the rest of the composition. Clemens said he added a kick plate to the front door. Childs said to try to break up the rear façade. He also said to bring down the windows on the front and rear elevation. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for preliminary approval of plans with the following comments. Need to pull the 2nd floor east window down. Restudy rear elevation to relieve tension of hanging bay window and work with flanking windows and add brackets. Need to complete gable form on rear elevation. The ABR Board recommends approval of the front yard and detached garage variance. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 3. Brooks 218 North Main Exterior Alteration-Final Don Walters presented this project for the homeowner. Childs said the left side needs to be equal composition on the house. He said they need to pull the hood down on the left side to match both sides. They need to eliminate the wainscot. Don said they added a dormer above and a dormer above the front door. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for final approval of plans with adjustment to drawings. They need to remove wainscot on right side of garage and pull the hood in on the left side. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 4. Trueblood 84 East Washington Field Change Becky Pantuso presented these plans. She said that they moved the window back to center at the east elevation 1-story gable. Naylor asked if they had considered matching the single east living room window to match the dimensions of the west living room window instead of matching the narrower rear elevation windows. Becky said they preferred not having any window there. Childs said to add a transom to the window below. He said that the door looks foreign to the composition. Clemens thought it looked okay and Koepf thought it looked better than before. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for final approval of the field change. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 5. Prince 217 Willow Lane Exterior Alteration-Final Scott Prince (Homeowner) presented these plans. He said that they are adding a new bi-fold window on the back of the house. He said that they were enlarging the area to add more light to the room. He said it matches the window and door frame. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 6. Blech 168 Greenbrier Exterior Alteration-Final King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the structure does not meet the standards of a “Historically Significant Property.” The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house because it is not historically significant. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Madelyn Bishop (Renewal by Andersen) presented these plans. Madelyn said that they are keeping the likeness of all the windows. She said that currently the homeowner has a mix of windows. Madelyn said they are replacing all the windows with the Renewal by Andersen Composite and the front window will be the Fibrex triple gliding window. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 7. Brown 118 Church Street Exterior Alteration-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property” because it is more than 100 years old. The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house as the proposed does not remove historic fabric from the existing one-story portion. The addition will be set back roughly 9’ from the front face of the c1990 garage addition and will not be easily visible while looking north on Hall Street. Motion by Naylor, seconded by King to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari said that they need to get a variance for alteration to a non-conforming and rear yard setback. Rick Siegfried (Architect) presented these plans. Rick said they were using the same footprint, raising the roof and adding percale to the deck. Childs said to use a flat hip roof and raise the railing to break up the elevation. Rick said they were using a metal roof as an accent. Clemens said to add a hip roof over the window. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans with the following suggestions to restudy the roof configuration. The ABR Board recommends the approval of the variances. Roll Call: Childs-nay, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 8. Currier 445 Bell Street Exterior Alteration-Final King read Historical Significance Report and said the house meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property” because it is more than 100 years old. The proposed changes #1-2 have an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house. Vinyl windows are an inappropriate solution to replace windows in a historically significant structure. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Frank Dimora (Home Depot) said that they are replacing 3 windows on the 3rd floor of the house with two windows at the façade and one is on the side. He said that they are removing the storm window that is over the existing vinyl windows. He said they are replacing the three windows with similar vinyl windows that are wrapped. Naylor said she would not recommend putting vinyl windows on the front elevation of a historic house because it appears that there are historic windows at the first and second floors. Frank said that the historic windows have been replaced. Koepf said that there are historic sashes in the windows. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to approve plans as presented. King-nay for the following reason: Replacing a non-historical vinyl window in a historic house is not approved as historic material. Naylor-nay for the following reason: The vinyl windows are not compatible with the existing historic materials. Childs-nay for the following reason: The vinyl windows are not compatible with the existing historic materials. Motion failed. Frank asked if he put in a 100 series Andersen Composite window that would suffice? Koepf said that it would depend on how far they went to get to the size of the window that was originally there. He said they would have to take everything off to get to frame of the existing historic sash which appears to be still there, pull the sash and remove the sash weights and then install a replacement window that is designed as a replacement window to be pushed in from the inside to the outside. They need to have existing measurements from the historic window. Dominic told the applicant that he has 10 days to appeal the ABR decision. 9. Sines 55 Carriage Stone Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Heather Davies (Architect) and Roger Sines (Homeowner) presented these plans. Heather said they are proposing a 1 story addition on the back of the house with a cover. She said that they are matching the existing casement windows. Childs said to pull in the side elevation so there will not be any tension and to make the architrave bigger for hierarchy. Heather said they could make the covered porch smaller which would help with the volume. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to table this submission for the following reasons: Need to restudy massing and form. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. ABR Board Discussion about 106 Church Street King said that they have a difficult situation that was brought to the Boards’s attention when they found out that approximately 60% of the house was gone. He said they are considering a stop order. Becky Pantuso the architect for this project said that she would be happy if the Board walked over and told her what to do. She said she was shocked to see how much of the house was gone and not sure what to do about the basement. She thought with the foundation that the crew pulled off the old speed tile and peeled out the basement foundation material to salvage it and put in a proper foundation. She said it’s not sitting on anything and is caving in. King said the foundation stone isn’t as old as the house. Naylor said the house was moved and she doesn’t recall when that was, so the foundation isn’t as old as the house. She said what remains is a portion of the Greek Revival house that was moved there. Naylor asked how this happened. Becky said the left wall is what they all thought was staying and is not there. She said the whole peak is still there. King said that everything behind the front porch is gone. Naylor said the Board will have to consult with the Law Director because this is new territory. Becky stated that the contractor on this project was not following the demolition plan that was presented. Becky said she was concerned about the foundation and King said that the foundation is replaceable, it’s the rest of the house that is not. Naylor asked if the builder had stopped working. Becky said that the status was the builder asked her what to do with the foundation. King said that they should stop work until they figure out what to do. He said they knew where they were going but now, they don’t. Naylor said that new foundation materials have not been approved and the goal was to maintain historic materials. She asked if the owner was the only one who could stop work other than the Village. Dominic said they wouldn’t want to do a formal stop work order because there could be legal repercussions. The Board just wants to regroup and figure things out. Becky asked what they should do about the foundation. Naylor said the board could not design the project and recommended consulting with an engineer to come up with a plan. The plans should show what is gone, what is still there and what can be saved. King asked how they can go back to the original plan now that someone decided they didn’t like what they saw and tore it all out. King said the foundation is the least of their worries. Naylor said they need drawings showing how they are going to preserve historic materials, with an engineer to consult on this. Childs said that they are basically starting over, and need to have engineers figure out what they have and start back by cutting the loads into sections. Naylor said they need to come up with a plan to reapproach this before any more work is done. Naylor said that when they are doing their analysis they need to come up with a plan. The focus would be justifying why you have to go to new materials, not use existing materials and how your replacement materials are compatible with the existing materials. She said that would be the goal of the whole new plan. Meeting Adjourned at 10:17 A.M. 8-20-24 _________________________________________________ Steve King (Chairman) Date