Architectural Board of Review

Architectural Board of Review Minutes Monday, April 7, 2025 8 A.M. Via Conference - Zoom Members Present: James Neville, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair David Berlekamp, Member Kevin Kennedy, Alternate Member Leslie DiNovi, 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 March 17, 2025 meeting. Approved. * * * * ABR24-000228 – 15400 South Woodland Road – Resubmission: Woodbury School Renovations. Mr. Feinstein reviewed the previous meeting notes. The school building wings will be demolished and the original school building is proposed to remain. There were preliminary design reviews on both January 6, 2025 and February 18, 2025. The City Planning Commission Working Group has also met with the applicant regarding site and design. Comments from the last design review included references to the original design proposal and the visual preference survey results. Aaron Rodebaugh, GPD Group, noted they are working on further development of the landscaping due to comments from the City Planning Commission Working Group meeting. Mr. Neville asked the status of the bus drop off conditions. Mr. Rodebaugh said the buses will drop off and pick up students while parked along South Woodland Road. There is an 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk proposed to access the building from South Woodland Road. The main public entry faces Woodbury Road and will be used for parent drop-off and visitors. The driveway near the entry is one-way with vehicles circulating from the south entry to the northern driveway. Evening events will have access at the west and south entries near the auditorium. They will be using a median in the parking lot to add another layer of screening for the parking lot. He explained some of the changes made to the materials and locations of changes on the buildings. Abby Rainieri, GPD Group, said they are still developing the exterior materials. Mr. Rodebaugh said the Woodbury Road entry has had glass added near the roof. This lightens the appearance. They will use spandrel panels for the third floor glazing. They introduced an entry canopy and extended that detail across the window openings. This is a conscious effort to bring the massing and appearance down to a pedestrian level. Ms. Rainieri said they are studying the colors and are proposing champagne and warmer colors instead of the cooler grey tones previously reviewed. Mr. Rodebaugh noted they also changed the coping at the roofline from silver to bronze. The gymnasium fenestration is proposed to move to the top of the wall. The landscaping obscures the view of lower windows They felt the brick above the tree line looked more monolithic. They have added brick pilasters for interest. The transition element from the gymnasium to the natatorium has been reduced in visual importance as it is just an egress door not an entry. The brick soldier courses are set ½ inch from the previous course to give detail. There is now detailed brick work around the windows. Rusticated materials are proposed low on the walls like the original building. Mr. Neville said he is concerned about the connector elements to the original building having evolved from the light and glassy modern design to attempting to blend with the building. He prefers the distinct separation of the glassy open design proposed in the prior designs. He would consider studying windows with muntins except for in the link areas. This might help carry the rhythm of the original building design. Mr. Kennedy said the bottom left image on the inspiration page seems to be where this design is going. This is just brick on very simple massing. Monochrome details around the building make it less related to the original building. There is too much going on in the brick work. The horizontal line carrying through the building isn’t helping. He realizes this horizontal detail is found on the original building, but it is not necessary on the new additions. The connectors need to be glassy and open as in the earlier rendering. The Woodbury Road entry feels like a medical building. It is not welcoming or joyful as should be expected for a school. Mr. Berlekamp said he agrees with the comment about the Woodbury Road entry. He said a lighter reflective spandrel option could help the way the windows appear. He does not mind the proportions of the overall building additions. The reference images should be a guide and the last design seemed lighter in the glassy transition areas. There was discussion regarding various window sizes, patterns, and materials around the building. Mr. Walter said the design needs to be edited back down to a simplistic design language. Edits are needed to find one design module. Three or more design languages carry around the building now. A cohesive design needs to be applied around the building. Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Kennedy said he does not like Kalwall panels as they have a yellow overtone. He would prefer another type of glass for the gym. Mr. Walter said the building design needs to be tied together. Remove the disparate elements and develop a cohesive design language. Mr. Rodebaugh said they will consider a single design language and apply it around the building. There was discussion regarding the elements of the proposed additions and their relationship with the original and each part of the new additions. The Board suggested the following: 1) review the original concept design, edit the design back to the essential elements, then develop a design module to apply around the building; 2) the fenestration around the building needs to have some continuity; 3) The transition elements at the connection points to the historic building need to be glassy and light feeling; 4) redesign the Woodbury Road entrance to reduce the massing and create a more welcoming entrance; 5) the Woodbury Road entry connection could include additional glass and thinner columns on the canopy; 6) consider where the banding is found on the brick elements; 7) do not recommend using Kalwall material on gymnasium windows; and 8) a material board mock-up would help define colors. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Mr. Kennedy left the meeting. * * * * It was moved by Mr. Walter and seconded by Mr. Berlekamp to move to Executive Session to discuss imminent or pending litigation. Aye: Mr. Neville, Mr. Walter, Mr. Berlekamp Nay: none Abstain: none * * * * Ms. DiNovi joined the meeting. * * * * ABR25-000043 – 2926 Fontenay Road – Porch Alteration. Mr. Feinstein explained that this application had received approval, but it has been 2 years. Design review approvals are good for 1 year. Donald LaMonica, homeowner, explained this three season room has sliding doors at the front and side elevations and the rear elevation has a sliding window. They still propose removal of the doors and window and altering the front and side to have knee walls the height of the rear window sill and Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 3 of 10 installing new double hung windows. It is the same as was approved before. He has now found the right contractor. There was discussion regarding the infill panels and infill brick. Don Yates, contractor, confirmed the panels will be painted the trim color and the brick will be toothed in where it meets existing brick. The mortar will match. Approved with the condition that the brick will be toothed in and the new mortar will match the existing mortar color and texture. * * * * ABR25-000033 –3403 Tuttle Road – Resubmission: Signage—Tony’s Burger Shop. Mr. Feinstein summarized the notes from the previous meeting. Anthony Zapolla, Tony’s Burger Shop, explained he has been at this location with his Rice Shop for 4 years. They are now revising the concept to be burgers. The “Burger” line is the largest and is what should attract customers. The letter spacing on the sign is correct and was done with purpose to reflect his restaurant concept and design. Mr. Walter said he can read Burger Shop well. The issue is the legibility of “Tony’s” and the running burger in the top line. It is just a legibility issue and concern passing patrons can read it. Mr. Zapolla said the sign design was done on purpose with “Burger” being the largest lettering. Mr. Neville said this specific sign is meant for pedestrians. The Van Aken District is mostly pedestrian oriented with very slow vehicular traffic. He feels only the Burger Shop language is legible but pedestrians will see the rest of the sign when they approach the entry. Mr. Walter said he would suggest a different top line design for this particular sign, but recognizes the content purpose as explained by the restaurant owner. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000049 – 3671 Lytle Road – Window Alteration. Chris Milowicki, contractor, said the owner would like to replace these windows in the kitchen and the rear elevation, both for ventilation and view purposes. They propose slider windows for both openings. Mr. Neville said casement windows should be used in this colonial house. Slider windows are not appropriate. Mr. Walter noted that gliders have offset panes of glass and are not traditional for colonial style Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 4 of 10 homes. The kitchen windows were probably originally casement windows before they were replaced. Denied the glider windows. Approved casement windows with colonial grids, or an awning window with grids over the sink. For the rear elevation two double hung windows with grids are appropriate. Submit revised window quote for administrative review. * * * * ABR25-000047 – 3315 Ardmore Road – Door/Window Alteration. Frank Pajcic, contractor, said the homeowner had been cited to install a railing or remove a door accessing an airing porch. They propose removing the door and installing a new window with a solid panel below. Mr. Walter asked the height of the window sill relative to other windows on the second floor. Mr. Pajcic said the new window will be within an inch or two of other windows. Mr. Walter asked if the sill will be at the height of the rowlock that bands the house on the second floor. What color will the panel be painted? Mr. Pajcic said the sill will be at the height of the rowlock and painted to match the house trim. Approved with the condition that the infill panel has trim as described and is painted the house trim color. * * * * ABR25-000051 – 3619 Townley Road – Window Alteration. Shawn Liston, Renewal by Andersen, explained the proposal as altering the first floor front windows to remove the transom. This also occurs on the first floor side walls to the right. They are replacing the wall windows on the entire house to be dark bronze in color. They also propose window 104 as an awning window and window 105 to be a single casement window. Mr. Berlekamp said he is concerned that the single casement window will protrude out from the wall into the driveway when open. Mr. Liston said they considered that, and this new window will not interfere with the driveway due to the distance from the house wall to the driveway edge. They measured the area to be sure. Approved. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 5 of 10 ABR25-000050 – 3407 Tuttle Road – Storefront Alteration. Sue Frankel, Susan Frankel & Associates, said Xhibition is downsizing their space. The new space, to the north, will be divided from Xhibition along the column line. This will be a single bay space with a new tenant and a single door matching the storefront color. They propose to move the Xhibition blade sign to the south edge of their storefront so it does not interfere with a possible blade sign for the new tenant. Mr. Berlekamp asked about a frost slab for the new entry. Ms. Frankel said they would have to put one in if there is not one there already. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000048 – 3385 Tuttle Road – Storefront Alteration. Mr. Feinstein explained this space is a corner and faces both Tuttle and Farnsleigh Roads. The changes will be to the Farnsleigh Road elevation. Sue Frankel, Susan Frankel & Associates, said they propose to split this corner commercial space. There is a significant grade change along the building so they will have a landing inside the door and a ramp at the western end of the new space. There is a single entry door proposed. Signage and/or awning possibilities are as of yet unknown. Ms. DiNovi asked if the door could move one window to the east. Mr. Berlekamp said the proposal is missing any entrance design expression. There is no interruption of the window rhythm to signify the entry. There was discussion regarding options for the new demising wall location, door, and interior landing location. Ms. Frankel said it could be possible to move the opening to the left of the existing window, while adding an exterior vertical break to hide the demising wall. The new tenant would also like to propose window film for privacy. The tenant is aware of the percentage of clear glass required by zoning code. Mr. Feinstein said he did comment on the Building Permit application that this type of film would not be permitted. The Board suggested new infill panels to hide the wall and wrap around and above the door location. Continued in order for the applicant to design an entry element to go with the new door. The door could move to the left side of the window, which allows a panel for hiding the demising wall. Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 6 of 10 Proposed window film is not permitted. * * * * ABR25-000026 – 21176 Brantley Road – Resubmission: Addition. Cory Brown, Payne Tompkins, said the concept is to match the existing full size brick with a thin brick and have stucco and ½ timbering at the second and third floors. The window on the third floor is salvaged from the construction. The roof material is problematic as the real copper material is too expensive. They could also use a slate color asphalt as the house roof is real slate. Mr. Neville asked if the house roof could drop below the rake edge of the existing house roof. This would negate water issues. He asked if a match to the natural slate had been investigated. Real copper is most appropriate for the roof. Mr. Brown said they did not price natural slate. Mr. Walter said the thin brick could be replaced with wood panels on the first floor like surrounds the adjacent bay window. The price difference between brick and wood may allow for a higher quality roof material. Mr. Brown asked if they chose to use a metal roof, not copper, is there a specific color the Board would prefer. Mr. Berlekamp said a dark brown could work over any fake green copper color. Mr. Neville said a natural material would be most appropriate and have more longevity. He is hesitant to comment on the metal roof. Continued for the applicant to consider wood material on the first floor to match the material around the bay and to reconsider copper or slate roofing. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000024 – 18750 North Park Boulevard – Garage Addition. Window Replacement. Charles Fazio, architect, said they will be replacing all of the windows on the house to match what is there, with the exception of the new window on the side elevation, and removal of the front window on the second floor as previously approved. They are also proposing a garage addition. The change will allow for three separate overhead doors instead of the existing condition of one double door and one single door as well as allowing for storage space. Mr. Feinstein noted that the addition as shown extends into the 15 foot side yard setback and would need a zoning variance. Ms. DiNovi asked if they considered making the garage deeper for storage space while holding the Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 7 of 10 15 foot side yard setback with the addition. Mr. Fazio said the grade change at the rear of the house is significant and the owners do not want to extend into the rear yard. There was discussion regarding the appearance of the three single garage doors and the extension of the garage into the side yard setback. The Board did not support the extension into the setback without study of expanding to the rear. Ms. DiNovi said glazing in the overhead doors could lighten their appearance. Mr. Fazio said the house is very monochromatic. He would prefer it stay as true to the original architecture and not have glazing. The painted doors to match the house color fade into the house and are less visible. Continued in order for the applicant to consider adding storage space on to the rear of the garage instead of extending beyond the required 15 foot side yard building setback. * * * * ABR25-000053 – 2675 Eaton Road – Window/Door Alteration. Nancy Kennedy, architect, explained this is a renovation to the kitchen to allow a pantry. The rear elevation would be altered to have two sets of French door openings. They will be using salvaged brick from the demolition under the existing windows in order to infill where needed. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000057 – 20600 Chagrin Boulevard - Telecommunications. Jennifer Baldwin, Crown Castle, representing Verizon, tenant. Approved administratively. * * * * ABR25-000055 – 2768 Landon Road – Preliminary Review: New House. Mr. Feinstein said this lot is at the wedge of land at Landon/Green/Shaker. He described the lot and the history of the lot and relative location of the next door neighbor. He showed photos of the intersection, an overhead view, and photos of the homes on both sides of Landon Road. Ibrahim Hakki, architect, said they are proposing a two story house with an attached garage. The house is held away from the intersection to be within the zoning setbacks. The garage doors would face the interior of the lot. They propose a brick façade facing Landon Road and vertical siding on the other three elevations. The roof is proposed as standing seam metal. There is a front porch with Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 8 of 10 roof facing Landon Road. The siding and brick are a cream color. Landscaping is proposed to screen the garage doors from the direct neighbor, who is set back much further from Landon than the other homes. The outside corner of the rear porch is at the building setback line. He noted the perimeter of the property has a line of trees, which will be maintained. Mr. Feinstein noted that an open porch is permitted to encroach into the setback by 10 feet. The house could be moved further from the western property line if the Shaker Boulevard rear porch extended into the building setback as allowed. Mr. Neville requested the applicant provide a cross section view of Landon showing the other homes’ elevations in regard to the proposed new house. Mr. Walter asked about the orientation of the house on the lot. How does that relate to the neighbor’s and to the streets? The house has three street views and all these sides need to have appropriate architectural details. Mr. Neville agreed the house is very visible besides just the front façade. Mr. Hakki said full brick is proposed for the Landon Road elevation. Thin brick will be used to cover the cement block foundation. Mr. Berlekamp suggested more detail on the eastern façade might include additional or modified roof lines or additions to change the house massing. The front brick could extend inside the front porch and wrap around the side elevations. Mr. Walter said he would like to see the east elevation be less severe. A lot of traffic travels on Shaker Boulevard and this is the elevation that will be most visible to them. There could be rooms of the house extended out further on the east side, maybe at a one story height, to elongate the house to take advantage of the lot. Mr. Hakki said they could possibly wrap the rear porch around to the east side to add architectural interest. Preliminary design review comments include the following: 1) consider extending the house footprint to the east with lower massing to elongate the appearance and take advantage of the buildable footprint; 2) consider enhancing the detailing on the east side of the house to improve the view to Shaker Boulevard, which could include a one story mass, porch, and different roof structure; 3) consider brick and stone materials for the front porch and steps, including a railing; 4) consider wrapping the brick material onto the front porch walls; 5) turn the corner with brick material; 6) investigate different vertical siding widths; 7) submit a cross section of the site to better understand the different grades and elevations on the lot; 8) submit and expanded layout of surrounding houses on the street to better understand the context. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 9 of 10 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. The next meeting will be April 21, 2025. _________________________________ _________________________________ James Neville, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review 04/07/2025 Page 10 of 10