Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW AUGUST 20, 2024 Meeting Called to Order 8:40 A.M. Members Present: George Clemens, Steve King, Wendy Naylor, Chuck Fazio, Bill Childs (Absent), Phil Koepf (Absent) Also Present: Rob Jamieson, Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Naylor, seconded by King to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, King-yea, Fazio-abstain. Motion passed. 1. Carroll 317 Miles Rd. Exterior Alteration-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report from September 26, 2016, and said that the house meets the standards of Historical Significance Property and that the proposed dormers would not have an adverse effect on the historical significance of the existing house. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Fazio-abstain, King-yea. Amanda Kirsch (Architect) and Michael Carroll (Homeowner) presented these plans. Amanda said that they are adding an addition on the north elevation of the house. She said that they are replacing the dormer. Naylor said she is concerned about the second floor roof line which is a character defining feature of the house. Clemens said it’s a significant addition and that the flat eave part of roof is not consistent with the rest of the house. He said eave lines across the large addition overwhelms the historic house and Naylor agreed. Amanda said they are adding a laundry room on the first floor, putting the bedrooms on the second floor, increasing the size of the kitchen and putting in a full bath on the first floor. King said that the addition is overwhelming the house and that they don’t want to lose another old house. Clemens said he didn’t agree with that and doesn’t think it’s a bad place for an addition. He said to scale down the side facing addition and to pull the eave lines down. He said the second story roof line is overwhelming and that they need to make it more consistent. Naylor said when you look at the photo you see a wonderful roof line with the dormer, the jerkinhead roof. She thinks the weight is overwhelming the historic character of the house. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to table this discussion for the following reasons: Restudy scale, massing, and location of addition: Board suggested scaling down to one story addition with roof line to match the front facing existing gable line, so as not to overwhelm the existing house. Michael said that a one story addition would not solve their problems and when they restudy, they need to keep in mind a second story. Clemens said that scaling down the master bath would help. Roll Call: King-yea, Naylor-yea, Fazio-yea with the comment that the bathroom is too large and once you bring the roof down you will lose some of that space. Motion passed. 2. Stecker 276 High Street Accessory Building-Final David Jansen (Architect) presented these plans. Dave said that they want to demolish the existing garage. He said it sits on the edge of a retention basin that has significantly fallen into itself. He said that he is moving it away from that and is using the same materials that are on existing house. Clemens said that he should add a window that is centered on the gable. The meeting was opened to the public about the demolition of the existing garage. No one was there to speak. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve demolition of the existing garage. Roll Call: Fazio-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for final approval of plans as presented with the following comments. They need to add a window at the rear elevation. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, King-yea, Fazio-yea. Motion passed. 3. Sines 55 Carriage Stone Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Naylor read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house at 55 Carriage Stone Drive 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 the house does not meet the standards of a “Historically Significant Property”. Motion by Naylor, seconded by King to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: King-yea, Fazio-yea, Naylor-yea. Heather Davies (Architect) presented these plans. Heather said that she took the recommendations from the Board and reduced the massing of roof and added the side elevation. She said they brought the wall in and reduced the size of the covered porch. She said they are adding living space and want to connect to the outdoor patio. She said they are also adding a wood finish to the fireplace. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans as presented with the following comments. They need to adjust the south elevation trellis and bring in a site plan showing proximity to neighbors and also photos. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, King-yea, Fazio-yea. Motion passed. 4. Norris 195 South Main Field Change George Clemens (Architect) presented these plans. George said that his client wants to add a bar back splash window. He said they want to go from two windows to one window on the side elevation. The Board said that they prefer two windows. Summation-motion by Naylor seconded by King to approve field change plans. Roll Call: King-yea, Naylor- yea, Fazio-yea. Motion passed. 5. Raftus 106 Church Street Field Change Chief Administrative Officer Rob Jamieson explained that he and Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari went and inspected the site and reviewed all the minutes from previous meetings that the project had been discussed and voted on. Rob said they looked at what the limits of demolition were supposed to be and what the approved plan showed versus what was actually taken down. He said it came down to the left a section of the front facing façade that included a window. He said it’s the single story section, part of that wall and also on the south side of the house, the south wall a good portion of that wall was supposed to remain and has been demolished. Rob said that Dominic did some research with the contractor and the architect to see the reason or why that happened. He said that the contractor did reach out to Dominic at some point in the demolition process and asked him to come out there and said the foundation was in bad condition and to agree on what had to stay and what had to go based on what was on the approved plan. Dominic said that the front façade wall had to stay and part of the south wall. He said that those two sections came down and that they were in violation of demolishing more than what was approved and that he would be issuing a violation form for that. He said the remedy for that is coming before the Board with new plans that the ABR can approve and how to address where we are today as well as hearing justification on the condition. He said that obviously the conditions they found were documented and that a lot of the material was saved at the site. He said it’s after the fact and ABR needs to decide where we go from here as well as understanding the limits of taking it down. He said that clearly, they don’t want people to demolish half and save half of a house and that once they see it and say everything is bad shape, so they take it down. Rob said there are certain things at certain times that can be done to preserve both structure and foundations. He said he was glad that their structural engineer was here to help describe the conditions there and to work through what we have. Becky Pantuso (Architect), Jeff Taylor (Contractor), Isaac Lewin (Structural Engineer) and J.B. Raftus (Homeowner) presented this project. Isaac said that the foundation is clay tile that is constructed to look like concrete block or structural clay tile. He said it is horizontal hollows, not vertical hollows. He said that product he’s come across multiple times in Chagrin Falls. He said the clay tile joints are in bad shape, and he doesn’t like that tile. He said one of the problems he has had with clay tile foundations is that they are low fired clay and if they stay in the ground too long, they revert back to clay instead of being ceramic. He said he would suggest getting rid of that product since he doesn’t think it’s structurally sound. He said he would prefer for it to be removed in order to maintain the longevity of the existing house or what the new house is going to be. He said that that is his preference and recommendation. He said it would establish better drainage, waterproofing and better reinforcement. He said the plan is to take 12” block up to a point a couple of courses below grade and then switch to a thinner block using existing tile and use that as a veneer so it appears to look like the original house, but the foundation will be a sound foundation that will last a substantial amount of time. Naylor said that an interesting part of this house’s history is the house is older and was moved to that site and she is curious about whether this particular clay tile was around the entire foundation or around just the gable house in the front. Isaac said if he remembers correctly most of the foundation was the hollow clay tile and it’s all around the entire perimeter. Becky said that there is some brick and concrete in the front porch. Clemens said changing the foundation doesn’t change the appearance of the front of the house. Naylor said she was talking about foundation material going forward and doesn’t know if she would recommend going back and veneering with the clay tile that they are proposing because of the nature of the clay tile. Becky said that is what they are proposing and trying to be historically sensitive and return it to its original appearance. She said that it’s costly to do that. King said he thinks going back to the original foundation before it was moved would be more fitting with the house. Naylor said it was an interesting situation because the house has been moved. Clemens asked when it was moved, Naylor said maybe 1914. Isaac said if it was moved in 1914 it was probably a stone foundation. Naylor said she would suggest going back to something that was compatible to the Greek Revival date of the house and King agreed. Clemens said that he thinks the foundation that is there now is historic and have them replicate what is there now. Naylor asked if there was any foundation left around the house. Becky said that the foundation is all on site and that there is no footer but there is a basement under what is seen above ground and that it is clay. Fazio said that since the neighbor has the same sort of block it would be nice to replicate it. Isaac said they are recommending jacking up the house removing all the existing foundation, rebuild it back with concrete masonry, reinforcing it as needed and then once you get above grade then cut the existing clay tile into thin slices and then use a veneer similar to what they would do with the brick veneer. This would give it a better waterproofing then the house is much more structurally sound. They will also have footers. King asked about the grade of the driveway and wants to make sure there won’t be two different foundations exposed at the driveway. Becky said that they would not have two different foundations exposed. Jeff said that it’s going to be quite a process to cut the tiles and that things happen when cutting them especially with the size they have. Becky asked if it was okay to just come in a foot or two under the porch so they can stretch the clay tile. The Board thought that would be fine. King asked how they get back to the original plan. Becky said that the left wing wall has been removed and is at Jeff’s shop. He has all the beams and everything that goes on the porch. Becky said they intend to reuse it but not in a structural way since they have termites and are compromised. She said they are saving it to put back in the house. Naylor asked if they were going to get new compatible material and Becky said they don’t think structurally they could. Naylor said there is reclaimed post in beam, hand tuned post and install where the post beam was in the Greek Revival. Becky said that they are not structurally sound in today’s standards. Isaac said what he has found in pre 1940 houses are typically undersized because they were built by carpenters with rules of thumb and that the beams and joints are undersized in today’s standards. They are replacing to meet today’s building code standards. Naylor asked if we had pictures of what was left. Clemens thinks it’s a shame that the two walls that are left are going away. Jeff said that wall extended and is where the addition of the foundation happens as well so that the wall would have been altered. Clemens said to take it back to the original and then the new demarcation is right at the porch. Naylor doesn’t think that corner part of driveway is a historic Greek Revival piece. Naylor said they are trying to see what the house looked like when it got moved on that site. Naylor said they are trying to rebuild the house with as much historic or historically compatible material and get to where the approved plans were. Rob went through the photos of what is there now. Clemens said that looking at the west you have a window, chimney and a triple window. He said basically all that would change and he thinks that is a problem. J.B. said that is what is important to them, and they will do everything to make it look original, beautiful and better than what is there now. Clemens said that they could replicate everything that is there but that a restoration with all new material isn’t what they are trying to do. Becky asked what he would deem the most important aspect of the history of this, He said the front facing gable and the freeze boards are Greek Revival elements. Becky asked what the most important aspect was. Naylor said it’s the historic materials and trying to maintain as much of them as what was proposed in the original plan. Becky said that if there are cedar shingles, overlap siding over historic studs or post and beams. She said in other places around the village she is seeing on other projects that siding get torn off and replaced with the same siding. Naylor stated if there’s historic clapboard siding could you go with that. Naylor said if you start pulling those shingles and they are deteriorating then you replace them with new siding. Becky asked if this was happening in the village and Naylor said they were talking about this house. Clemens said that this was already approved plans and twice as much of the house was torn down that wasn’t supposed to be. He said it’s a different situation than normal. He said that things didn’t go the way they were supposed to. Becky said that the proposed shingles was a single finish. Jeff said that he was on site during the demolition process, and they weren’t trying to take away and ask for forgiveness. He said the demolition went further than they intended it to be, but it was a matter of common sense and safety. He said they were trying to be smart about how to tie in the new structure with the old framing. He said looking back they should have jacked up the house added new foundation. Fazio said if they can replicate what was approved that would be helpful. Naylor stated this is new territory for the Board and we are trying to work through this to move forward. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to approve field changes to include: CMU block foundation with reused clay tile veneer: Jack up foundation with drain improvements: New driveway grade to coordinate with new foundation: New cedar shingle siding. Roll Call: Fazio-yea, King-yea, Naylor- yea. Motion passed. Meeting Adjourned at 10:30 A.M. 9-17-24 ___________________________________________ Steve King (Chairman) Date