Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW JULY 15, 2025 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: George Clemens, Mike Corkran, Eric Kaminski, Janna Lutz, Wendy Naylor, Phil Koepf (Absent) Steve King (Absent) Also Present: Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 17, 2025, minutes were tabled due to not enough voting members present who attended that meeting. Motion by Naylor, seconded by Corkran, to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2025, meeting. Roll Call: Lutz-yea, Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea Kaminski-abstain. Motion passed. 1. DWBH LLC 146 East Washington St. Exterior Alterations-Preliminary Jeff Helprin (Kingdom Home Builders), Kristy Schalmo (Architect) and Paul Taylor (Architect) presented these plans. Jeff said that they received preliminary approval for the building. He said that they reevaluated their needs for the building and decided that moving forward they were going to make some modifications and changes from their original program and design and have hired the Bialosky team for their project. Paul said that the HSR report showed the property has historic significance. He said they looked at the building especially the second story which is in very dilapidated shape and that the second floor does not have ceiling height that is up to code. He said they are proposing to remove the 2nd story and are salvaging the one-story warehouse in the back. He said it’s an interesting location because you have the historic homes directly to the west, commercial buildings to the north, to the east you have a large expanse of asphalt and paving which is the service drive to the post office along with the building and parking, and the new townhomes. He said that there is a lot going on architecturally and this building is a very industrial utilitarian building that doesn’t fit the neighborhood at all. Paul said that their intent with this project is to greatly improve the building so it will fit into the character of the neighborhood. They also will soften up the landscape around the building. He said they are proposing a 2-story addition that is better proportioned than the existing building and that they are looking to respect the neighborhood. He said that their client asked them to build a more contemporary building and that what they will show is something very respectful of the neighboring historic buildings in proportion and form. He said they will have pitched roofs on the entire property and will use very high-quality materials that respect the residential character. Kristy said that they plan to remove the existing 2nd story and will allow them to add a basement that will be the same level as the existing basement. She said it will also allow them to have better head height on the second floor. She said they will add more green space, new patio in front and an entry garden in the back. She said they have a new loading dock and trash in the back that will be hidden. They are also proposing a new fence between the post office and their property. Kristy said that the first floor will have offices and storage in the back. She showed the 2 new additions on the front which will contain offices and that the existing loading dock will have a new front porch with a patio, café, and some seating in the front. She said the second addition will be the conference room and that by adding these new additions it allows them to have a nice garden. She said the second floor will have offices, conference room and the basement. Paul said that the 2nd story structure is better proportioned with the existing homes going down the street. He said they want to respect the historic homes on the street and will have painted composite clapboard siding and overhangs that respect the general overhangs on the street as well as the window openings that are similar in proportion to the windows and homes on the street. He said that all the materials will be high quality with high quality details. Naylor asked about the stucco material and Paul said not on the facade and not as bright on the renderings but it’s a tongue and groove vertically stained wood. He said the roof has a more traditional overhang and the roof comes down with a slate material. Clemens asked if the wall is slate and Paul said yes – a slate like material. He said they are looking at an asphalt shingle roof and that the rest of the building and that the front porch spills down into a heavily landscaped screened private patio. Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari said that hedges can be no more than 42” on the front property. Corkran said that he doesn’t see the design having any continuity with the surrounding properties. He said that the other new buildings followed the criteria from the Village design guidelines, and he doesn’t see any continuity with the visual appearance on the street with the other properties. Naylor said that one of the recent new buildings on the corner of Senlac Hills was designed to look like a house because you are in that transition area with residential and commercial coming together. She said that this is very contemporary in relation to the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Clemens said he doesn’t think the building is overscale and you can make an argument about high quality modern in this spot may not be problematic. Naylor said that the building is beautiful, but the discussion is about its location at this site, and she is looking at the historic context of the neighborhood. Kaminski asked if it was the façade that was facing the street. Naylor stated that the front gable with the side addition upright and wing form works in the Village. Clemens said that the vertical wood doesn’t work since it’s not residential and neither is the frame. Kaminski suggested they tone down the front façade in keeping with the neighborhood. He thinks that since they are builders, they will build a beautiful building. Naylor said she understands the challenge of identifying the historic context within the commercial pocket with a Colonial Revival Post Office next door, the plumbing store, new condos and Two & Co. across the street and residential National Register District to the west. Paul said it’s a commercial area right on the edge of the historic district. Naylor said the building still must conform with the historic forms and shapes. Jeff said that there is a lot going on in that area with the Condos, the Cleveland Plumbing Co., Two and Co. so to say it doesn’t fit with the historic context it’s a slippery slope since it doesn’t exist with the other buildings. He said that this building is much more toned down from the one that was preliminarily approved. Naylor said that they have mimicked the front gable from the house next door with a one-story wing . She said that the Code talks about the Village allowing contemporary forms stating under “Section 1146.04 (4) Contemporary Design. All structures shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alternations, additions and new development which have no historical basis, and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall not be required. Conversely, compatible contemporary design shall not be prohibited or discouraged except where such design would clearly detract from the architectural unity of an ensemble of Historically Significant Properties.” Clemens said he likes the rear facing gable with the horizontal lines and how they broke up the monster building. Paul said that the building is more contemporary in the back because it’s 100% private. Naylor said that this will be a statement building. Jeff said that if you look at the front it looks like a home. It has a rhythm of windows, with gable roofs, the front porch. He said it’s far more residential than the current building. Corkran said that everything in the project with materials is first class. He said he was just uncomfortable with the façade of the building. Lutz said that this building has nothing to do with the surrounding buildings. She said it’s lovely and you never see the windows with different materials. Clemens said that the fascia could be broken up in scale to make it look better, add a little more articulation and the front porch element could have different materials. He said that they could study that area. Naylor said that they need to restudy the front gable. Jeff asked if it was the two-tone panel in the front and whether they could change that. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Lutz for preliminary approval of plans as presented with the following comments: Consideration of toning down the contemporary appearance. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, Lutz-yea. Motion passed. 2. Horvath 255 Senlac Hills Exterior Alterations-Preliminary Andrew Reynolds (Architect) presented these plans. He said that the existing residence has a side- facing two-car garage, and they want to add an additional garage bay with front-facing doors. He said they are extending the existing front porch out and that the 2nd floor will have an exercise room. He said that they will also raise the chimney. Clemens said he is concerned about the massing stretching across the front. He said they are doubling the front of the house. Andrew said that they have a one car detached garage also. Kaminski and Clemens said they should look at removing that garage. Naylor said you have as much garage as they do for the house. Corkran said that half of the front of the house is garage doors. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski to table this submission with the following comments: Restudy the garage configuration and massing and scale so as not to dominate the house: Blend with character of the neighborhood. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Lutz-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 3. Bidar 385 Bell St. Demolition-Preliminary Naylor read the Historical Significance Report and said the house was built in 1846 and moved in 1985 to its current location. She said that because the house is more than 100 years old the subject property meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property.” The findings that while the house is considered a “Historically Significant Property” per the Village’s Codified Ordinance, the house would not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP reviews a potential historic property by either retaining historic integrity or not retaining integrity. This review is completed by looking at seven aspects (or qualities) and determining if the number of aspects which are intact warrant the property to still retain its historic integrity. When reviewing 385 Bell Street against these aspects, the house appears to lack historic integrity in terms of the NRHP: Motion by Naylor, seconded by Lutz to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Kaminski-yea, Corkran-yea, Lutz-yea, Naylor-yea. David and Theresa Bidar (Homeowners) presented these plans. Theresa read a letter that she wrote about wanting to develop history in the Village. She showed examples of homes they are considering building with front porches and that are keeping with the aesthetics of the architectural homes in the neighborhood. Naylor asked if they were looking for guidance today about the process and David said they were hoping they would vote for the demolition. Clemens said that they can’t vote without drawings for the house they plan to build and that the historic value of this home has been compromised. Naylor said that according to the code, if you are requesting demolition of a property that has been determined historically significant you are required to produce an economic feasibility report of the home that shows there is no way to rehabilitate the existing home in an economically feasible manner. Naylor said that you would compare prices of the adjacent properties and market value of your property and then is there a path to rehabilitate that house that fits with an economically feasible program. She said that they are required to do that under the code once the building is determined to be historically significant. She said that if the house is 100 years old it is automatically considered historic. Naylor said that they must be careful to follow the process, so they don’t set a precedent for the next submission that comes in. She said they must be careful that they treat each project through the same process. She said she understands what they are presenting and sees where the integrity has been impacted. Another approach is to present a structural engineer report that shows the house is compromised to justify demolishing the home. Kaminski said they need a report from a structural engineer. He said that they are all on the same page about this house. Naylor said that a structural engineer report will go a long way in helping to decide. David asked what else they would need. Clemens said they need preliminary drawings. Naylor opened the meeting to the audience about the demolition. Sharon Broz 410 Bell Street spoke in favor of the demolition. She read a letter that she prepared regarding the demolition and gave the Board signatures from all the property owners that live in close proximity to 385 Bell Street that support the demolition request. The letter and signatures are attached to the minutes. The public meeting was closed. Naylor said that the Board needs a report from the structural engineer talking about the integrity and condition of the building. It would help to get a report on the safety of the building, maybe some documented police reports that would help the Board with their decision. The Building and Zoning Inspector said that demolitions cannot be approved until the final building plans are approved. When they give you a preliminary design approval that is their nod towards approval, unless you come back with something completely off base to what was preliminarily discussed they will allow you to move ahead with demolition. They cannot give approval to demolition without plans. There was no vote taken on this matter. 4. Skoch 278 Orchard Exterior Alterations-Final Mitchell Senac (Scenic FX) presented these plans. He said that the main change was that everything is boxed in and closed with no open roof visible. He said that the pitch is the same. Naylor asked about how they were tying the gutters in. He said that the gutters run into the existing gutters on the side and then down. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Lutz for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Kaminski-yea, with the following comment that the final drawings reflect the down spout on the right-hand side of the roof line, Corkran-yea, Lutz-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 5. Blossom Bio Clinic 15 Pleasant Ally Signage-Final Aldo Dure (Next Awning & Graphics) presented these plans. Aldo said that they are proposing two signs for the building. The one is an awning sign, and the other is a double-sided post and panel sign. The Board suggested increasing the size of the fascia of the painted letters on the awning sign for better visibility. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for final approval of plans as presented with the following comments: Increase the front fascia height to accommodate the wording on the awning sign for better visibility. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Lutz-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 6. Wilders 71 North Main Signage-Final The Board reviewed the new sign for the Wilders Clothing Store since no one was here to present the project. The Board all liked the sign. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Lutz for final approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Naylor-yea, Kaminski-yea, Lutz-yea. Motion passed. Walk-Ins Donna Murphy (Chagrin Plaza Building Owner) and Dave Cerveny presented these plans. Donna said that they want to add a new awning over Juicy Lucy’s window facing Bell Road since they have a problem with water getting into Juicy Lucy’s building. She said everything will match the existing awning. Dave said it would be a shed awning and would have no writing on it. The Board said they would be supportive of the new awning. Meeting Adjourned 10:01 _________________________________________________ Wendy Naylor (Acting Chairman) Date