Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW OCTOBER 15, 2024 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: George Clemens, Mike Corkran, Chuck Fazio, Erik Kaminski, Phil Koepf, Wendy Naylor, (Bill Childs Absent, Steve King Absent) Also Present: Rob Jamieson, Joan Andersen, (Dominic Cribari Absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Corkran, seconded by Kaminski to approve the minutes of the October 1, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Fazio-abstain, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 1. Kilpatrick 305 East Washington New Dwelling-Preliminary Naylor read the Historical Significance Report and said that the structure does not meet the standards of a “Historically Significant Property.” Although it is over 50 years old: The proposed changes #1-2 have no adverse e ect on the design and historical significance of the house. Roll Call: Motion by Corkran, seconded by Kaminski to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea. Dave Jansen (Architect) presented these plans. He said he did a walk in on this project in July and took the recommendations of the Board and he flattened the pitch on the roof on the porch so the windows could all be the same height, and, on the driveway, side added dormers to where the master bedroom is. Corkran asked if there was any material change with the grading that would cause any drainage problems to the property and Dave said no that the area is flat. Koepf asked what the variance was for, and Chief Administrative O icer Rob Jamieson said that it was for a 5’ front yard setback. Dave said he lined the house up with the neighboring houses. Clemens asked what the footprint of the house was, and Dave said it was 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. Clemens said he liked that he pulled the main gable down and the windows and chimney are nice. He said he thought it was a good solution. He said he is not a fan of the gable/gable. He said the massing on the garage dormer is extremely wide and that he thought a sloping front porch would be better than a flat one. Kaminski asked what materials they were using, and Dave said either cement or Boral siding and the trim would be Boral or Azak and a brick chimney. He said the windows would be aluminum clad. Fazio said he thought they should make the dormers a little smaller and the gutters need a cleaner look. Clemens said to bring the windows up and relocate the columns. Meeting was opened to the public: Peter Goldman 337 E. Washington asked the relationship of the house size to the lot size. He said it was a 3.2-acre house and wanted to know the square footage of house. Koepf said the maximum lot coverage is 20% and this house is 19% and that includes the garage. Kate Humphry 299 E. Washington asked which side was the new driveway and how much wider is the new footprint. Dave said the driveway is on the right side. He said the new footprint is 5’ o the property line. Todd Smith 311 E. Washington asked what the setback for the new driveway and will they need to take out any trees. Dave said that the driveway would be closer to the property line and that they were going to have to take down some trees. Todd asked about a retaining wall and Dave said he hasn’t proposed one yet. Clemens said to move it in 2’ and it might make it a non-issue. Todd said they are putting the largest possible house on a small lot. Clemens said what he thinks mitigates is that the house is not as tall or massive as it could be. Jay Humphry 299 E. Washington asked about the demolition process and Kaminski said it is usually a one-day process, they will put orange fencing around the property, and normally the utilities are all shut down, but they will have water on sight for any dust they might create. Dave said it will probably be about 6 months for the house to be enclosed. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski to close the public hearing. Roll Call: Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea. Motion passed. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for preliminary approval of plans as presented. The Board also recommends approval of the 5’ setback variance and reduction of the dormer size. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea. Motion passed. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for approval of the demolition with condition of final approval of plans. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 2. Freese 126 East Washington Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Naylor read the Historical Significance Report and said that the house meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property”. The proposed changes #1-3 have an adverse e ect on the design and historical significance of the house. The proposed design does not follow the “guidelines” for “preservation of features”, “replacement of features”, and “compatibility”. Proposed changes #4-7 have no adverse e ect on the design and historical significance of the house. Naylor said that this house is part of the Chagrin Falls East Side Historic District and individually listed on the National Register. She said that the house has an interesting story. She said important people in our history including Bebe Ober and Judge Thomas listed this house on the National Registry to save it from demolition because they were going to tear it down in the seventies to connect East Washington to Elm Street. She said it is probably one of the most important houses in Chagrin because it is one of the few that are individually listed on the National Register. Motion by Naylor, seconded by Corkran to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea. Attached is a letter from Architect Advisor Phil Koepf restating his opinions on the report from Perspectus. Mr. Dominic Cribari and C.F.A.B.R. Members Village of Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Dominic.cribari@chagrin-falls.org Oct.15, 2024 Re: 1266 East Washington St. Proposed Demolition and Additions Dear Mr. Cribari & Architectural Board Members: I am writing to restate for the record, my opinions expressed during the ABR meeting this morning. The purpose of my comments was to respectfully disagree with the Architects opinion regarding the adverse effects of the proposed project in the HSR memo from Perspectus to Robert Jamieson dated October 10, 2024. Change #1: “Perspectus suggests extending the porch the full length of the one-story wing.” My opinion is that the house has had no less than 5 porches of varying configurations and that the proposed porch is architecturally sensitive, aligns with the existing recessed porch and reflects the detailing of the recessed porch that has been in place for more than 120 years and is in itself reflective of its time. 2. Change #2 i.: The roof ridge line on the addition is hidden behind the existing east wing of the house and although slightly higher than the existing roof in front, it will not be visible from the street. I hope this clarifies my statements and discussion during the meeting. Sincerely. Philip M. Koepf Architect David Jansen (Architect) and Tom Freese and Sarah Squire (Homeowners) presented this project. Dave said that they are extending the front porch to make it more useable for the homeowners. He said that they are maintaining the existing windows that are on the original 1 ½ story house. He said they are lining up to the existing tablature and keeping the flat roof. He said they are adding a 1 story addition on the back. He said they broke it up so they could tie it into the existing house. He said the house will be very little impact from the streetscape. Koepf said his drawings are a little deceptive because he’s showing where the higher gable is, and it will never be seen by the street and that made it worse, and Clemens agreed. Clemens said that the front porch is a much more sensitive issue. Naylor said it’s a New England 1 1/2 style and an important component of that style is the secondary setback and by bringing the porch element out they are interfering that relationship. She asked if the proposed porch would still leave the main house corner and cornice return exposed - which it will. Koepf had comments about the Historical Significance Report (see letter above). Koepf said that Dave has honored the scale of the house and the original front of the house. They are saving the house and the scale of it. He said Dave has done a wonderful resolution to saving this house. Clemens said those comments are great. He said that the rear addition has no negative impact and distinguishes itself and is respectful of the existing house. Dave said they are trying to be as sensitive as they could and giving the owners what they want. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for preliminary approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea. 3. 97 Williams St. LLC 97 Williams St. Retaining Wall-Final John Peterson (Landscape Architect) presented these plans. He said they are proposing two retaining walls. He said the front retaining wall will be painted white to match the house and the driveway retaining wall will be barn stone. The Board liked it. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea. Motion passed. 4. Jensen Travelon 26 South Main Signage-Final No one was here to present this project. 5. McClintock 40 Tartan Ct. Exterior Alteration-Final Sue Zala (Architect) presented these plans. She said that they took the comments from the Board and added finishes to the trim on the front porch. She said it will be all white. Fazio said to add skirting to the original porch. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Corkran for final approval of plans with the following comments: Add a gable on the garage side, skirting around the porch and suggested adding a 1” standing seam roof. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 6. Chagrin Falls Dental 45 East Washington Signage-Final Gill Macias (Fast Signs) presented these plans. He said they took the recommendations and moved the sign to the side elevation of the building. The Board recommended raising the sign to the window height. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski to approve plans as presented with the following comment: The sign should line up to the top spring of the window arch and match window trim color. Roll Call: Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea. Motion passed. 7. D’Onfro 55 West Washington Exterior Alteration-Field Change Ann Dunning (Architect) and Beth D’Onfro (Homeowner) presented these plans. Ann said that they made changes more in keeping with what they originally showed the Board. Ann said the original porch had a gable front end. She said they moved a wall back and changed the door to a single window. Corkran said this was very private and wouldn’t be seen. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Corkran for final approval of field change as presented. Roll Call: Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea. Motion passed. 8. McClure 54 West Washington Exterior Alteration-Final Becky Pantuso (Architect) presented these plans. She said that they pulled back and shrunk the sunroom down, so they don’t need a variance. She said it’s a smaller sunroom/office and conforms with the code. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Fazio-yea, Kaminski-yea. Motion passed. Walk-In 86 North Main Street Lola’s Restaurant Chief Administration Officer Rob Jamieson said that he reviewed the submission and investigated the history of how the existing outdoor seasonal patio was allowed to occur which was back in 2006. He said there was a variance granted. He said he learned of some historical elements of that access which include an alley and looking at that as well as the proposed enclosure of part of the patio with this addition. Rob said the building has already been deemed historically significant due to previous HSR’s and talked to Wendy Naylor and said he felt they needed an updated HSR so switched this submission into a walk-in. Naylor said that this is part of the Chagrin Falls Triangle Park National Register Historic District with the cut through known as Stoneman Alley and so they are looking at the HSR to get some guidance before we start building over a historic alley. Clemens asked if it was all one property now and Rob said there were four parcels and now there are three that make up the alley. Rob said that they had gone through a process to adjust the Sassy Cat Building. Rob said that there are three different owners of the parcels. He said part of the process to continue with this would be long term lease agreements which have been submitted and under legal review. He said preliminarily the Law Director said the lease agreements look solid and that they appear to convey that they have a standing to present this project before ABR and they are finalizing that now. He said they will have that completed prior to the preliminary submission. Corkran said that something that needs to be considered is that there is a setback issue. He said the code says there needs to be a 5’setback from the property line and this has the building going all the way to the attached building. He said there is also the issue of a parking provision, and we are converting a patio into a larger year- round seating. Rob said that the variance that was granted in 2006 for the outdoor patio was for 40 outdoor seats. He said that the variance was granted to wave the parking provision for 40 outdoor seats and now they have 50 seats year-round and not seasonally. He said whenever you change a variance from seasonal to year-round you are looking at a different scope. He said a parking variance and side yard variance will be required. He said the issue with the front yard setback could possibly be adjusted by Planning and Zoning. He said there are several variances that need to go through the process. Corkran said he understands the business aspect but that they need to follow the ordinance. Koepf said he thinks this a ridiculous ask and destroys the cadence of that street. He said you have two small structures then this long, tall one and it just destroys the rhythm. He said the reason we have Zoning is to prevent this kind of thing and he doesn’t think it should go any further. He said architecturally this is ridiculous. Naylor said that the loss of an alley feature to the downtown is a concern. She said one of the character defining features of Chagrin Falls are these alleyways and are we now going to allow building on the alleyways. She said that this appears to be a zoning question. Rick said that the process of the two owners who have invested a lot of money in Chagrin Falls is to purchase the Huntington building because the property lines are all messed up. He said they are also going to own the Sassy Cat Building. Rick said that the first 5’ of the property belongs to Rick’s Café and then there is 5’ that the Hardware Store owns. He said that he doesn’t know what that is all about. Naylor said that it’s because Joseph Stoneman historically lived in the Cuff’s building (Stoneman House) and operated the (Stoneman) hardware store and that is why it is called Stoneman Alley. She said that is how he traveled from his house through that alley and connected with his business on the street. Naylor said that she thinks the plan moving forward is they are requesting an HSR to get documentation of this history. They are asking for Zoning feedback on whether we are building on an alley and if Planning and Zoning has any comments on this. Rob said they need a front side and parking variance. Rick explained about what the owners want to do with the restaurant. Walk In 114 and 118 May Court Eric Kaminski said that they want to add detached garages on his property and the neighbor’s property. He said they meet all the requirements for rear coverage. He said that they are under 18’ and have a bay. The Board said that they will just need a site plan and to move the bay to the back. Meeting Adjourned 10:24 A.M. Wendy Naylor 11-05-24 ___________________________________________ Wendy Naylor (Acting Chairman) Date