Architectural Board of Review

Architectural Board of Review Minutes Monday, August 19, 2024 8 A.M. Via Conference - Zoom Members Present: Sandra Madison, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair James Neville, Member David Berlekamp, Alternate Member Kevin Kennedy, Alternate Member Vince Leskosky, Alternate Member Others Present: Daniel Feinstein, Senior Planner Kelly Beck, Planning Specialist The meeting was called to order by Daniel Feinstein, Senior Planner at 8:00 a.m. * * * * Approval of minutes from the August 5, 2024 meeting. Approved. * * * * ABR24-000052 – 14201 Southington Road – Ludlow School Renovation. Mr. Feinstein reviewed the summary of comments from the most recent Architectural Board meeting. He said the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the proposed variances for the utility walls. They continued the playground to a later date. They also reviewed the pick-up and drop-off procedure, but they determined there was not enough information. Aaron Rodebaugh, GPD Group, said the plans have been updated to include the ramp walls being level along the top. They have also reintroduced the planter in front of the wall for future art installation. The guardrail was also modified and includes a piece of signage on the top. They would like to have more artistic pieces in the future. He showed the color rendering. The mechanical roof screen has been studied to verify the height needed. It is symmetrical now. It is likely that the new mechanical unit will be on the gymnasium roof and two larger units will be on the center roof section. The wall is currently shown as 9 feet tall. Tamisha Lawson, GPD Group, said this is as high as the mechanical screen wall will need to be. If they have the option to lower the wall based on the unit heights, they will. The gym window proportions are maintained. The head of the Ludlow facing window matches the height of the stone band around the building. The sill matches the other windows on that side of the building. The gym windows are shorter so the top glass is the same as the rest in the window. They will be using aluminum clad wood windows for the gym and other new windows. They have confirmed with their contractors that they can produce the needed windows sizes. The gym and addition windows will not operate, they are fixed windows. There is limestone below the Ludlow facing window. The new entry has a new cornice to match the building. There is cast stone surrounding the three foot recess at the entry door. The side walls of that entry are also limestone designed like the existing front entry. Mr. Rodebaugh said the stairs to the entry have been revised to a 12 inch tread depth. He showed the color/material sample boards. Mr. Feinstein said he expects this Board to require a brick and mortar sample board be reviewed on site before any construction of the exterior walls can begin. Ms. Lawson said they are prepared to create a sample board. They have been working on getting the correct brick and mortar colors. They will most likely have to create their own mix from several brick lines. Mr. Kennedy said the planter in front of the ramp is slim and will not allow plant materials to survive. There is a planting bed in front of the building now. It should just be extended in front of the ramp wall. He does like the evolution of the ramp and wall design better. There are still some details to figure out. Ms. Lawson said that planter is a place holder meant for an art opportunity for the children like tiles, paint, etc. Mr. Neville said there is a long length of brick wall adjacent and this planter. The planter seems stuck on. There are other areas available for art installation. Mr. Leskosky said the seating area adjacent the steps is also an ideal area for art installation opportunities. Mr. Kennedy said the design has come along. He commented the that the mechanical equipment roof screen being the correct color is important. Ms. Lawson said they are not thrilled with the screen plan as it is currently. This is still under review. Mr. Leskosky noted the original units were not symmetrical to the building. That option could allow for a reduction in the screen size. There was discussion regarding the mechanical unit coverage and locations. The Board asked for investigation of the unit location in order to reduce the length and mass of the screen. Mr. Walter also said a lighter color screen could make it disappear against the sky. Mr. Neville asked that the screen be located as far back as possible. He suggested that the lintel on the large addition window facing Ludlow be lowered and a different architectural detail be Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 2 of 8 implemented so that all of the window panes are the same size. The top line of window lites does not match nor look good. He appreciates that this window is different from all of the others, but it should still be an appropriate design. He asked that the drawings presented to the Board at review meetings be presentation type drawings, not construction type drawings. The plans need to represent the design intent, be accurately represented and be a good design in and of themselves. There was additional discussion regarding the window design and how the windows relate to each other and the rest of the building. Mr. Kennedy noted a larger lintel could be an option to enable the window lites to even out. Mr. Leskosky said a soldier course with a keystone on top is found above the second story windows. This is also an option to add to the large addition window design. Mr. Walter said he would also like to comment on the ability to review the submitted drawings. The Board has a responsibility to the city to make sure this school design is successful. He does not want this design process to be representative of the future design reviews for other buildings. Presentation drawings, not construction drawings need to be presented for review in order to respect the design process. The applicant needs to take a step back and consider the design in total. This is the fifth time they have reviewed the plan. While he encourages preliminary designs, this is too much. Mr. Neville agreed with Mr. Walter. Mr. Kennedy said the Revit program is not helping their presentation or the Board’s ability to review the plans. Ms. Lawson said they are not trying to be disrespectful of the process. They will work to draw the plans in a presentation format for the next review. Mr. Neville asked about the stone at the entry door. The detailing should align to the mortar joints. This design is a monolithic look The proposed cornice should match the gym cornice details as a one-story part of the building instead of the wider two story, top of wall cornice that is in the details. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Leskosky said the cornice drawings show an approximate cornice of the correct size. Mr. Neville said once again he would like to object to the monumental step entry for this pre-school building entry. He thinks it is inappropriate for the building and the type of students. Continued with the following comments: 1) investigate the location of the rooftop mechanical units in order to reduce the length and appearance of the screen wall, 2) provide accurate drawings detailing the new windows; 3) study the large window facing Ludlow to reduce the upper row of lites to match the rest of the lites in that window including lowering the head height or use soldier coursing and key stone detail like the second floor windows; 5) redesign the stone within the entry recess to coordinate with the exterior stone surround detail; 6) study the design of the cornice for the entry compared to the other exterior building cornices; 7) add stone to widen the lintels in the entry side lite windows; 8) consider raising the entry side lite windows off the platform to improve durability; 9) extend the building foundation landscape bed in front of the ramp wall rather than a Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 3 of 8 raised planter; 10) consider methods to reduce the massing of the stairs; and 11) produce presentation level quality, coordinated, design drawings to allow for accurate and further review. Submit full design presentation drawings at a future meeting. * * * * ABR24-000104 – 3713-15 Menlo Road – New Siding. Brian Pallotta, MR Plank Roofing. Withdrawn at the request of the applicant. * * * * ABR24-000105 – 2705 Green Road – Window Alteration. Renewal by Andersen representative, explained the owner has a special needs child and would like to replace the windows to allow them to operate the windows. They do not like the casement windows and have concern regarding egress. The single casement windows would stay, but any larger casement windows would be altered to be slider windows. Mr. Feinstein confirmed the current condition on the house is all casement windows. Mr. Walter asked if the front feature window would be altered from the existing 5 openings to the proposed double slider window. Mr. Feinstein confirmed that is correct. The Board agreed they are sensitive to the condition of the existing windows as well as operability and egress for the homeowners. This is a 50’s style house with casement windows without grids. Mr. Berlekamp said if slider windows are considered, he would like them to respect the different plan of glass with the forward window being uniform on the new replacement windows. Mr. Walter said the Board does not typically approve slider windows as replacement windows. Due to the age of the house, it does set a reasonable precedent in this instance. The front feature windows should stay casement windows or have the same configuration. Discussion regarding the difference of windows on the first and second floors. Approved the second-floor glider replacement windows with the condition that the glass panes are coordinated for each opening to give a uniform appearance. Denied the alteration of casement windows for the remaining windows. Submit revised quote for administrative review. Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 4 of 8  * * * * ABR24-000106 – 3275 Ingleside Road – Window Alteration. Ms. Beck said the changes to the windows are proposed on a second floor at the rear of the house. The existing French casement windows are proposed to be converted to double hung windows. Jeremy Dietrich, Window Nation, said the side elevations would have a double hung window and the rear is proposed to have two double hung windows and a picture window in the middle. Approved with the condition that a photo of the gable end attic windows to confirm the existing conditions or submit a revised quote for lines 2 – 4 to be 6/6 grid pattern. * * * * ABR24-000107 – 18134 Chagrin Boulevard – Porch Alteration. Tanya Tate, Levine Architecture, said the rear porch is proposed to be re-built. They will create a concrete patio outside of the existing porch. This new patio will hold the new posts for the second story. All of the finishes match the existing house details. If the stone is damaged under the existing posts those will be replaced. Mr. Berlekamp asked if the roof is being replaced in the same area on the house. This would make a less pitched roof. There was discussion about the plans representing the roof correctly. Discussion regarding the details and having the posts outside of the existing porch structure or checking the existing foundation to enable the existing design to remain. Continued with the following comments: 1) provide accurate section drawings for the second story; 2) investigate the foundation of the existing porch to determine if it can accommodate the new posts; and 3) if the posts are proposed beyond the existing platform, integrate them into raised planters or some type of raised base. * * * * ABR24-000108 – 3671 Townley Road – Porch Alteration. Lonny Beck, Dream Home Construction, said they will be replacing the sunroom walls. They will use the existing porch foundation with new walls and windows. The flat roof will be replaced and the existing rail restored to the existing location. New vinyl siding will match the siding on the garage, which is double 4 inch white vinyl. Mr. Neville asked about the frieze trim. Mr. Beck said they will match the detail, but the frieze is proposed at about 6 inches. Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Neville said a deeper 10 inch frieze should be used. Mr. Walter said there should be corner trim, and additional trim between the windows and the corners so there are not small slivers of siding. Approved with the condition that the fascia board is replicated with trim board and trim is added between all the windows and at the corners. Submit revised plans for administrative review. * * * * ABR24-000109 – 2914 Chadbourne Road – Window Alteration. Laurie Arena, homeowner, said this is a window replacement of the French casement window over the front entry door. Mr. Feinstein noted this could be a new double casement window or the existing window could be repaired. Ms. Arena said she likes the window from the inside. But it does not even close all the way. There are also replacement windows proposed for the basement. The contractor suggested slider windows. None of these windows face the street. Mr. Leskosky said he would prefer an awning over slider windows for the basement windows. Denied slider windows. Approved a double casement window with matching grid pattern for the second floor window over the front entry door. Approved awning or hopper style window for the basement windows with matching grids. Submit revised quote for administrative review. * * * * ABR24-000112 – 2661 Belvoir Boulevard – Exterior Alteration. Shade Shelter. Mr. Feinstein said this house is at the corner of Fairmount and Belvoir Boulevards. This is a residential care home operated by Wingspan who operates Bellefaire. Ron Makovic, architect, said there are two changes proposed. The first is to convert the porte cochere to a screen porch and to add a shade structure in the rear yard. The shade structure is 15 feet by 22 feet and 11 feet tall at the peak. This type of shade structure has been used for many years at other Wingspan properties. The porte cochere will be altered to a screened in porch. The foundation will match the rest of the house. The framing is metal to hold the screens. Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Neville asked if the floor surface will slope. Mr. Makovic confirmed the interior surface will slope to allow any water to exit. Mr. Walter asked about the side not shown on the plans. Is there an exit door? Mr. Makovic said it will exit to the rear and there is a sidewalk from it through the shade area to the driveway. Approved with the condition that the east elevation with the door wall is provided for Board review. * * * * ABR24-000113 – 18115 Shaker Boulevard – Exterior Alteration. Leandra Buchin, Compass Studio, said this is a classic home from the 1930’s where they are proposing modern updates. The trim is currently a creamy white and they propose an off white with much less yellow tones. The gutters and downspouts will be the same color. The windows and front door will be painted a dark grey color. The existing siding in the gables is proposed to be replaced. On the front it will receive a brick veneer, and the side gables will have a horizontal ship lap siding. They will alter the front entry to a squared off detail with trim to match the nearby bay windows. Mr. Leskosky asked how the brick veneer will relate to the wall of the existing house. Have they found a good match? Ms. Buchin said they will remove the existing layer of siding. The new thin brick may be just slightly forward of the existing siding location. They have not yet found the right brick for this house. They are working with a specialist and will not use pre-packaged brick, but use several colors to blend it in better. Mr. Leskosky said that brick color match is key. There is a trim between the new brick which should help. Ms. Madison said that color match is very important. The changes look nice. Approved. The Board suggested the new white trim color be close to the stone work color on the house. * * * * ABR24-000114 – 3683 Traver Road – Sunroom Alteration. Barry Hoffman, Hoffman Construction, said they are replacing the existing windows with 8 lite casement windows. Approved. Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 7 of 8  * * * * ABR24-000116 – 24112 Duffield Road - Deck. Landscape Element. Andrew Zeft, homeowner, explained the room. There is leaking in the room and they propose to remove it entirely and replace it with a deck and pergola. The windows in the adjacent room are also being replaced to match what is there now. The deck is a composite material and the pergola is vinyl. Mr. Neville said the deck needs a skirt to keep animals out and to give the deck design a finished appearance. Approved with the condition that a skirt and steps are added to the base of the deck. Submit revised plans that detail a skirt around the deck and show the step unit in elevation for administrative review. * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. The next meeting will be September 3, 2024. _________________________________ _________________________________ Hans Walter, Chair James Neville, Vice Chair Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review 08/19/2024 Page 8 of 8