Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW DECEMBER 3, 2024 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: Bill Childs, George Clemens, Mike Corkran, Eric Kaminski, 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 from the November 19, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: King-yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed. 1. Frank/Wells 81 May Court Exterior Alterations-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said that because the house is more than 100 years old the subject property meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property”. Proposed change #1 has an adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house. By removing the historic materials from the site, it does not follow the “guidelines” for preservation of features”, “replacement of features”, and “compatibility”. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Corkran- yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Michael DeShane and Sally Stevens (Archadeck) presented these plans. He said that they are putting a composite floor on the porch instead of a wood one so that it will drain properly. He said it is a pressure treated low maintenance composite material. He said that they had come in as a walk in and know that they need to maintain the historic features of the front porch, so they have made some changes. He said the changes will keep the look of the roof post and the roof post cap. He said they will duplicate or reuse what is already there. He said that with the rail posts they are going to duplicate those in four for the top and bottom of the stairs. Michael said that the porch would be open and that they are continuing with the balusters and that the railings will meet code. Kaminski said he didn’t think they need railings and Clemens said to keep them. Michael said the homeowner has specific requirements, a floor that drains and that the porch is open. He said that they are putting in balusters instead of a wall and that they will meet all the code requirements. Koepf said that he looked at the porch and it is not failing and that the slope is built into the porch. Kaminski said that the structure doesn’t look bad and that there doesn’t seem to be a need for this. He said he lives on May Court and had the exact same problem. Koepf said to pull the decking out from the post and that he looked at it and it is not failing. Kaminski said to reframe the whole thing and that the panels are what needs to be saved. Michael said that the homeowners don’t feel the porch is structurally safe. He said that the porch does need to be replace. Childs said that they are creating duality instead of unity where the design is. He said it should be a three-part composition. Clemens said to keep the railings and replace the floor. Michael said they are going carefully remove everything, inspect it and repurpose the roof post, railing and that they need to modify it to meet code. Koepf said he wouldn’t approve what they are showing and that they should resubmit. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor to table this discussion for the following reasons: Need to retain columns and solid balustrades and employ tongue and groove flooring: Need to have drawings to show these details. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 2. Crowley 172 Kenton Window-Final Jeff Vasicek (Pella Windows) presented these plans. He said that at the previous meeting there was some question about the height of the window. He said the homeowner is converting the space in the garage to an office. The window will match the existing double hung Pella double hung window that will match the existing ones, and they are all the same dimensions. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Childs- yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 3. Regency/Hamlet 150 Cleveland Street Signage-Final No one was here to present these plans. The Board looked at the sign and had no issues with it. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Childs- yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 4. Pepper Tree Capital 57 East Washington Exterior Alteration-Final Roberto Vega-Peralta (Architect) presented these plans. He said that they took the recommendation of the Board and wrapped the brick façade and that they reduced the tension of the tablatures. He said that they also extended it based on the recommendation of the Board. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: King- yea, Childs-yea, Corkran-yea, Naylor-yea, Kaminski-yea. Motion passed. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Corkran to approve the demolition of the 67 East Washington based on the excellent plans presented. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Childs-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Corkran-yea. Motion passed. 5. La Bistrot 86 North Main Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Rick Siegfried (Architect) Rick Doody and Joe Cicconi (Owners) presented these plans. Rick Doody said that in answer to their process question he understands that this is the beginning of a very long process. He said that they made the adjustments to the plans the Board asked for including lowering the sign to the straight across and added lights. He said he realizes this must go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning and Zoning. He read part of the letter that the Village Chief Financial Officer Rob Jamieson sent them. The letter is attached to these minutes. Clemens said that the ABR Board only needs to deal with the architectural side of this submission. Kaminski said that they addressed all the design questions the Board had and from his perspective they will have to come back with a final design for ABR approval and that he is fine with the design. Naylor asked what the shape of the skylight and if there is a way for it not to be seen from public site lines. She said that she would not do a pyramid type skylight. Rick Siegfried said that it will not be a pyramid like shown on the design and that they are putting a tree in to block the view. Clemens said he does not have a problem with the skylight as an element and adds to the interior space. Kaminski agreed with Clemens. King said that when he toured the building, he was comforted by how far back the skylight was. Rick Doody agreed about the design and said that putting a large tree inside the structure will add an outdoor element to it. He said they want it to look classic. King said that they have done all they can, and he likes the way the skylight was recessed since it did not look that way in the renderings. Rick Doody said that they really want an outdoor element to this restaurant, and they think it is important to the element of this restaurant. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for preliminary approval of plans subject to variances to be presented to Planning and Zoning and Board of Zoning Appeals. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Corkran- yea, Naylor-yea, Kaminski-yea with comments that he likes the design presented. Walk-Ins 48 Church Street Mike Caito and Daniel Villani (Payne and Thompkins) Mike said that they are adding an addition to the back of the house. He said that they are not changing anything on the front. He said they are just painting the siding, leaving all the trim and replacing the windows with Marvin windows. He said on the north side they are removing the porch. Mike said that on the back side they are removing a wall and adding an addition with a full basement. He said that in the interior they are putting in a new kitchen. He said they around the new windows they are adding a simple trim. He said they planned on replicating the gable and tying it into the roof. Mike said he wasn’t sure if that is the right decision. Childs suggested that they hip it in the back. Mike said that it should match exactly what is on the front part. He said to change the hierarchy of the roof and to change the architrave. Kaminski and Childs said to change the brackets on the side to a smaller, simpler one that are compatible. Clemens said they need simpler brackets. The Board said to keep the same Dutch lap siding. 129 Maple Street Bill Joyce (Architect) and David Stecker (Owner) Bill said that David purchased this property on contingency of being able to demolish the building and build a new single-family home on it. He said that they know the property is zoned R-150 and that they want to put a single-family home on it. Bill said they want to see what the Board thought before David goes through with the purchase. Corkran asked where they were going to put the driveway and David said that his theory is not having everything in plan site will tone down the traffic. Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari said that the problem with this property is that it is an existing non-conforming used lot that is zoned R-150 and only grandfathered for retail services under the business used section. He said that they cannot change it into an office building. Kaminski asked if the tanks had been removed. David said that there is a phase one and two and a no further action letter. Corkran asked about the no further action letter and said he would do his due diligence on that one. David said that they need to work through the environmental component. Childs said that they will need a site plan. The Board said that there would be no fight to keep the existing structure. Meeting Adjourned at 9:40 A.M. 1-21-25 _____________________________________________ Steve King (Chairman) Date November 27, 2024 Mr. Rick Doody NCR Ventures 33 River Street, Suite 12 Chagrin Falls, OHIO 44022 RE: Building Addition Zoning Review 86 North Main Street Dear Mr. Doody: I have reviewed the plans, submitted to this office on October 31, 2024, for compliance with the Chagrin Falls Zoning Code. Your proposal to build an addition to a commercial building (restaurant) located at 86 North Main Street (PPN’s: ) in the Central Shopping zoning district does not conform to the following code sections: Section 1138.04 Central Shopping District, Yard and Setback Regulations states that minimum yard and setback regulations for the Central Shopping District are the same as those specified in section 1137.04 of the Retail Business District. The setback nonconformities are in #1 and #2 as follows: 1. Section 1137.04(a) Yard and Setback Regulations, Yards, Front Yard Setback requires a 20-foot front yard setback to the street right-of-way line. The proposed building addition as a 15-foot front yard setback to the right-of-way line, resulting in a 5-foot nonconformity. Pursuant to Section 1137.04(c)(1) Yard and Setback Regulations, Modifications, Front Yards, the Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required front yard setback to permit proposed buildings in substantially built-up blocks to meet prevailing setbacks if such alignment is deemed more appropriate by the commission. 2. Section 1137.04(a) Yard and Setback Regulations, Yards, Side Yard Setback requires a 5-foot side yard setback to an “other” lot line. The proposed building addition has a 0-foot side yard setback to the north lot line, and the addition extends over 3 parcels with a 0-foot setback to all of them. Note – the proposed building addition extends over 3 unique and nonconforming parcels, and leases with all involved property owners have been provided and accepted to conform standing to propose this project. Pursuant to Section 1137.04(c)(2) Yard and Setback Regulations, Modifications, Side Yards, buildings on adjoining lots may be attached at side lot lines if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Architectural Board of Review in consideration of planning and design standards. 3. Section 1141.02(a)(2) Off-Street Parking Facilities; When Required, Central Shopping District, requires that parking facilities shall be provided for any additional parking requirement resulting from an increase in the number of dwelling units, indoor or outdoor seating capacity, floor area or number of establishments. The proposed restaurant building addition along with the remaining portion of the outside dining patio has 40 seats indicated. Per Section 1141.05 Schedule of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces, Retail Businesses, Eating Places, Bars, Taverns, one parking space for per 50 square feet of floor area, including outdoor eating areas, or one space for each two seats, including outdoor eating areas, is required whichever is greater. A  previous variance for 20 parking spaces (for 40 seats) for an outside uncovered dining patio was granted by the BZA on 2 June 5, 2006, and confirmed by Village Council on June 26, 2006. The proposed enclosed building addition is within and less than the space currently used for the outdoor patio. With a change of this space from an outdoor patio area to an enclosed building space with the same number of seats and use as a restaurant, a variance would be needed to this section. There is an increased impact to area public parking in making a change from a seasonal outdoor dining patio to a year-round enclosed building space. Please use this letter as official action denying a building permit due to non-conformance to the zoning code. You may either amend the plans to conform to these regulations or submit an application for variance to these code sections where practical difficulties exist. Attached please find a variance application for your use. The variance application provides a complete list of submission requirements. Be advised that pursuant to Section 1109.05(b)(1)(D)(1)(b), preliminary plan approval shall be obtained from the Architectural Board of Review, which may be conditioned upon obtaining any needed variances or modifications, prior to the applicant seeking a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. This first step is also recommended for consideration of modifications to setbacks from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please feel free to call should you have any questions. Regards, Robert Jamieson Chief Administrative Officer Cc: Dominic Cribari, Building Inspector Board of Zoning Appeals Dale Markowitz, Law Director Rick Siegfried, RSA Architects Joe Saccone, Hyde Park Restaurant Group File: 86 North Main Street (2024-11-27) Zoning Review Letter