Architectural Board of Review

Architectural Board of Review Minutes Monday, August 4, 2025 8 A.M. Via Conference - Zoom Members Present: James Neville, Chair David Berlekamp, Member Greydon Petznick, 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 July 21, 2025 meeting. Approved with corrections. * * * * ABR25-000189 – Park Drive – Doan Brook Restoration. Mr. Feinstein explained there are renovations to Horseshoe Park that include restoration of Doan Brook and associated park amenities. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission. This design review is for both Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights as Cleveland Heights asked the Shaker Heights Architectural Board of Review to review for both municipalities. Matthew Langan, Stimson, representing the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, explained this review is to restore the stream through the area of the old dam. The area is located between Lee Road and Park Drive, and from North Park to South Park Boulevards in both Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights. What was a 6 acre park will be extended with these alterations. NEORSD is in charge of the dam and restoration, but the related park amenities are the responsibility of each city. A series of boardwalks and bridges will be placed over the restored stream. There will be destination amenities and existing paved and primitive trails remain. Most of the paved areas are asphalt, but some portions are concrete with sandstone stepping areas and steps. The decking on the bridges will be wood. There are gateways to the park at both cities’ edges. These entries will have refuse and recycling bins, entry piers, and wayfinding signage. There is an outdoor classroom along North Park Boulevard which is also an opportunity for informal gatherings. The stones in this area will be from Cleveland Quarries with a rough edge. This stone exists throughout the Doan Brook corridor all the way to Lake Erie. There is a sensory garden with a stilling pool as a relic of the dam spillway. They will restore the masonry wall and it is located just below the wetland observation terrace. That terrace has a galvanized steel structure with a cedar trellis for shade and 12 round columns. There is a walkway connector between Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights that goes behind that structure. The structure is 22 feet deep and 54 feet long. The terrace has a series of sawn sandstone seat walls and patterned concrete pavers. There is a retaining wall faced in sandstone. He explained the concrete pavers and options for color. They will mock up 2 to 3 color choices for both cities to determine the final color at a later date. At the vehicle gateway there is parking for bikes and cars. They are preserving the CCC era structures that remain in the park and add new play equipment. There are swings, a climbing structure and slides in the side of the hill. There are also three pre-cast concrete animals in the beach area. The nature play area has a fence around it. All of the handrails in the plan are galvanized steel. All play equipment is proposed to be by a German equipment manufacturer. They will repair the CCC stone areas by re-setting sandstone, cleaning and re-pointing where necessary and filling in the missing areas with like materials. There are several types of bridges including a pedestrian bridge, a boardwalk, and stepping stone areas. The boardwalks are high enough to be above a 100-year flood event, and constructed on wood piles with wood framing and steel structure. The pedestrian bridge is an important piece to connect Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights. It is proposed in alignment of the path now blocked for safety during demolition of the dam. The pedestrian bridge has a concrete base and abutments with painted steel piers and pre- fabricated steel deck segments. They will use weathering steel for the rails and floor with treated pine floor panels. The flood plain vegetation and trees will grow so the experience of the bridge will also change over time. The amenities include a comprehensive wayfinding sign plan designed with the cities. There are two lounge swings on concrete patio areas. Mr. Neville said this was an extraordinary presentation. The details have been well thought through and presented. Mr. Berlekamp said the level of design for this project will create a lasting impact for the community and broader region. Mr. Neville asked about the existing memorial within the park. Joyce Braverman, Planning Director, said they have worked with the family to move the memorial to an alternate location, but it was determined by the family that the memorial will be moving to Lakeview Cemetery. Mr. Neville said the seat walls have sky-facing joints and no cap detail. He asked that they speak to their experience with this condition and water damage to the joints. Mr. Langan said they also struggled with this detail. The capstone is modular. Two-thirds of the capstones have full width in order to alleviate water penetration issues. The reality of horizontal joints is that they have to deal with maintenance. Mr. Berlekamp asked if the Jacob Russell grave or the World War II markers are affected. Mr. Langan said the Liberty Oaks, with the markers, and the grave are outside the scope of their work and the construction and will remain. Mr. Berlekamp asked why the galvanized steel railings were chosen over stainless steel. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 2 of 15 Mr. Langan said the galvanized steel is cost effective and dulls over a few seasons. The stainless steel is hotter, as well as shiny and reflective. The wood details will grey out along with the metal in this case and recede into the environment, which is the desired effect. Mr. Neville asked by structural tubular steel was not chosen for the pedestrian bridge instead of the details shown. Mr. Langan said that option should be brought back to the team and studied for design and cost. Mr. Berlekamp said the swing has a wide flange. He likes the simplicity of the images on the sample photos. Mr. Langan said the design was to mimic the details of the bridge. They could go with a simpler square tube detail. Mr. Petznick said he has concerns regarding the concrete abutment at the bottom of the pedestrian bridge. Was there any thought given to another detail rather than glassy concrete? Mr. Langan said they did go as cost effective as possible. The abutment will be buried as much as possible to hide the abutment. The absolute requirement is that there is no impediment to the water flow and stream hydrology in mind. The boardwalks are pushed down as far as possible due to the 100 year flood models. Mr. Neville said a concrete texture or retarder on the form could be used and water blasted so it is not shiny and the aggregate is revealed. Mr. Petznick said moss growth could be encouraged if this technique was used. Mr. Langan agreed to study water blasting the concrete. Approved the design with the following conditions: 1) consider a redesign of the primary pedestrian bridge supports using a tubular steel design; 2) roughen the concrete bridge abutments using water blasting to reveal some aggregate; 3) review the final pedestrian bridge design; 4) redesign and simplify the swing supports; 5) review the final paver color and design during construction. Submit final plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000155 – 23500 Laureldale Road – Landscape Elements. Anthony Angelotta, Angelotta Landscape, said there are two elements to this proposal. In the rear yard there is an existing bluestone patio that will be lifted and re-used with some new materials added, with a covered structure with a louvered roof. There are piers on this structure with a seat wall to one side and landscape to screen that seat wall to the neighbor. The trim on the structure matches the house. In the front yard there are two piers with a wing wall to the house at the driveway. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Feinstein asked the height of the piers and wing wall. He noted that this type of structure requires landscape screening toward the street. Mr. Angelotta said the piers are 4 feet tall and the wall is 3 feet tall. The existing bush will be removed but it will be replaced with new landscaping. Mr. Feinstein said zoning ordinances require the wingwall to be screened by more than perennials. He asked the wing wall material. Mr. Angelotta said it is MCU with a brick face that is painted white to match the house with a cap of sandstone. Mr. Feinstein said the post detail for the rear yard structure does not match the house, how are they different. Mr. Angelotta said the posts will not be fluted like the example, but the piers are brick with a stone cap. The trim will match the eave detail on the house. Mr. Neville said he would like to see a sketch of the piers and wing wall at the driveway to confirm the height and proportions. Approved with the condition that a sketch of the wing wall detail is provided for Board review and drawings are provided of the trim detail proposed for the pergola structure. * * * * ABR25-000165 – 2996 Falmouth Road - Addition. Heather Davies, Davies Architecture, explained they are proposing an addition at the rear of the house. The existing garage has two separate doors and a flat roof which is leaking. The existing garage will be demolished and the new garage will have an addition of a second floor. The exterior material are brick at the first floor and shingle siding at the second floor to match the existing house materials. The roof on the existing house is slate. They propose new slate or composite material to match the house. They have worked hard to get a good brick match. Mr. Berlekamp asked if the gable end of the new garage could have horizontal trim to match the house detailing. Mr. Neville noted the upper roof material will be required to be slate as the structures touch. If there was a differentiation between the rooflines an alternative material could be possible. Approved with the condition that slate is used for the roof material. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 4 of 15 ABR25-000167 – 3466 Colton Road – As-Built Window Alteration. Ananda Hunt, owner, explained that Affordable Windows replaced the windows in her house, but did not get approval or a permit. The casement windows were replaced with slider windows and the double hung windows were replaced with double hung windows. MR. Neville explained that slider windows do not replicate the former casement windows and are not appropriate in this historic house. Mr. Berlekamp explained that the Board must review the request as if the work had not been completed. If presented with this request prior to the work, the Board would not approve these changes. The Board generally agreed the double hung window replacements were appropriate. Denied the casement windows being altered to slider windows. * * * * ABR25-000170 – 3110 Keswick Road – Chimney Removal. Mr. Feinstein explained the front chimney on this house collapsed and exposed the interior of the house. Kris, Daiso Construction, said their objective is not to re-build the chimney, but to put a new front façade on the house. This is cost effective for the owner and they do not use or want the chimney. Mr. Feinstein asked if they would be able to extend the Tudor detail on the second floor and infill the brick on the first floor. Kris asked if they could use cement board like new homes. This would be textured and colored to look like brick. The Board agreed any infill materials need to match the house materials. Mr. Neville said the stucco goes around the right side of the house. This could be used to infill. Mr. Petznick asked the material behind the tree to the left of the front door. Dwight Brown, homeowner, said it is a wood frame open patio, so this does not relate to the right side of the house. Mr. Neville asked if there is stone detail on the right side of the window closest to where the chimney was. They should use the brick from the chimney to match the first floor and stucco and half-timbering on the second floor. That sort of redesign could be appropriate. Continued with support of the idea of permanent removal of the front façade chimney with the following: 1) submit a design to enclose the second floor with stucco and half timbering details; 2) Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 5 of 15 the first floor is repaired with matching brick utilizing and reusing brick from the collapsed chimney; and 3) stone detail to match the other front windows is maintained or added to the left edge of the first floor window closest to the front entry. Submit revised drawings for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000169 – 19981 Fairmount Boulevard – Entry Alteration. Blake Wynveen, homeowner, said they just purchased this home. They propose to add an awning to the front entry for protection. This is similar to others in the neighborhood. The roof will have asphalt shingles to match the house and the trim is white. Mr. Neville said he is concerned about the small areas between the door trim and the bracket support board. He would suggest adding a flat panel or butt bracket board up to the door trim. Continued with the suggestion that the trim around the door is redesigned so there is no siding between the bracket support board and the entry door trim. Alternatively, the pitch could be lowered slightly on the canopy to allow a wider area between bracket board and door trim. Submit revised plan for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000171 – 3299 Avalon Road – Vinyl Siding. Robert Frank, Barbera Home Improvement, said they propose new vinyl shake shingle siding over the existing wood siding and will build out the trim. Mr. Neville asked about the fan trim above the entry door. Will that be removed and re-installed? Mr. Frank said that fan remains, but they would leave it in place and side around this area. Mr. Neville said the panel needs to be forward of the siding, like the window trim. Approved with the condition that the front entry fan detail is maintained out in front of the new siding. Confirm process to maintain fan detail above the front entry with Planning Department staff. * * * * ABR25-000173 – 20701 Brantley Road - Banners. Bill Holsman, Apex Pinnacle Services, said there are 30 banners for 15 poles. They are generally the University School logo and photos of students on alternating poles. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 6 of 15 Thea Kennedy, University School, said every other banner is the school logo and the other banners are the photos. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000174 – 17117 Kenyon Road – Vinyl Siding. Anthony Metals, AA Metal & Dimensional Roofing, said they propose a horizontal double 5 inch dutchlap siding in Tuscan clay color with white trim. Mr. Petznick asked if the shutters will be replaced. Mr. Metals said they propose to re-install the existing shutters. Mr. Petznick said they are too short now. They need to run from the sill to the header. Mr. Berlekamp said the shutters could remain off if the window trim is now proposed as white. The Board generally agreed. Mr. Neville said the siding cannot be dutchlap. It must be straight lap siding. Approved with the following conditions: 1) the siding is double 5 inch straight lap; 2) the front window trim is white; and 3) shutters are removed. * * * * Mr. Berlekamp recused himself and left the meeting. * * * * ABR25-000168 – 20300 Farnsleigh Road – Signage: One Medical. Mark Branovic, Advanced Installation and Sign Service, explained there is a non-illuminated blade sign, door graphics and an illuminated wall sign for this new tenant facing Farnsleigh Road. Mr. Feinstein said they need to discuss the film proposed on the upper glass areas to cover the mechanical areas. The signage does meet the Van Aken District sign regulations. Mr. Petznick said he recalls asking for dark grey or black for the clerestory window film. He asked how the blade sign mounts on the door panel. Sue Frankel, Frankel and Associates, explained there is a new panel around the door where the blade sing will hang. Mr. Neville said he does not recall approving the grey clerestory film color. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Feinstein said they suggested a dark color and to bring it back with the sign proposal. Mr. Neville said the grey film color competes with the stone band. He said it should be dark, black or almost black. Mr. Petznick agreed that the film should be as dark as possible. Approved the signage with the condition that the window film for the clerestory windows is black or almost black. Submit revised plan with window film color for administrative review. * * * * Mr. Berlekamp re-joined the meeting. * * * * ABR25-000184 – 3569 Lee Road – Signage: Shell. Mr. Feinstein explained this is an existing Sunoco gas station at Lomond and Lee Road. The proposal is for a new monument sign and gas pump canopy replacements to convert to a Shell station. George Dragon, Cicogna Electric & Sign, explained the change from Sunoco to Shell graphics and colors. he said the Shell logos on the canopy can be reduced in size to meet zoning. Mr. Neville said the building canopy colors seem to be too much high contrast. Mr. Dragon said there is no permit for the building canopy, which has to come back. This canopy will be changing. The owner is aware that the canopy is not compliant. It used to be shorter and the blue of Sunoco. Mr. Feinstein said the building canopy sign does not meet zoning regulations as only 6 square feet of sign is allowed. Mr. Dragon noted this canopy is not in his scope. Mr. Feinstein asked about the sign base for the monument sign. Mr. Dragon said it is identical to what is there. It is drawn incorrectly. Mr. Neville said the proposed monument sign is a lot busier than what is there now. He would ask them to strive for simplicity. The Board agreed that they prefer the V-Power logo move to the right side of the sign and to simplify the color scheme with no lite on the left. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 8 of 15 Mr. Dragon said he can revise the monument sign to simplify the design and consolidate the additional sign panels. Mr. Feinstein said the changeable copy can change only for the price, but not move or change for other messages. There was discussion regarding the zoning issues for the site. The Board agreed the gas canopy colors are too bright and too much contrast with the brick columns and colonial brick building. The canopy should be redesigned to be white with the yellow shell logos. Continued for the applicant to: 1) redesign the monument sign by (a) moving the “V-Power” bar to the right and increasing the white portion with the shell logo to encompass the entirety of the left side; (b) remove the capability of cycling through prices for credit or cash; (c) ensuring the new sign face fits within the existing sign face parameters; (d) unify the colors of the information panels on the right side; (e) ensure only the letters of information are illuminated; and 2) redesign the pump canopy as white and consider two “Shell” logo signs as the canopy is too bright compared to the colonial commercial building; and 3) resolve the non-permitted building canopy sign with the owner in order to bring into compliance and meet zoning requirements. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000176 – 3658 Hildana Road – New House. Mr. Feinstein explained the next 8 new house applications basically consist of two types of home, one colonial and one ranch style. They are proposed on 8 lots on the street, with four of them next to each other. He read a list of staff comments and design issues with the proposed houses. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer, said these are the same homes, without the front porches, in order to save money. Mr. Feinstein said the second floor overhang is found in the city, but not in this neighborhood. Mr. Neville said the other house designs were so good and derivations of the neighborhood vernacular. He said this design is not as good. Mr. Petznick said this type of home is found in Shaker Heights, but those existing homes have trim at the overhang, or other ornamentation. This simple plan needs work on the trim and to organize the detail. There is an opportunity to improve the design. There should be windows added on the side elevations. The applicant needs to compare these to the street of existing houses where they are located. Mr. Feinstein said they should look for opportunities to dress up the trim details, the overhang and at the front entry. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 9 of 15 Continued. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Specifically for the colonial style homes the following comments were made: 1) the upper floor hanging over the first floor is a design that is not regularly seen in this neighborhood and that overhand is an opportunity for additional design detail and trim; 2) there is a lack of windows on at least the one side elevation; 3) the trim around the windows and doors needs to be shown. The front door needs special trim; 4) trim needs to be shown at the rake boards and other trim boards. Are there going to be corner boards? Will those corner boards be the same color as the siding or will they be the trim color?; 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house; 6) indicate the foundation material; 7) the front stoop and steps should be masonry to match the foundation; 8) show the side entry step if one is needed. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000177 – 3662 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000176 – 3658 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the upper floor hanging over the first floor is a design that is not regularly seen in this neighborhood and that overhand is an opportunity for additional design detail and trim; 2) there is a lack of windows on at least the one side elevation; 3) the trim around the windows and doors needs to be shown. The front door needs special trim; 4) trim needs to be shown at the rake boards and other trim boards. Are there going to be corner boards? Will those corner boards be the same color as the siding or will they be the trim color?; 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house; 6) indicate the foundation material; 7) the front stoop and steps should be masonry to match the foundation; 8) show the side entry step if one is needed. Submit revised plans for Board review. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 10 of 15  * * * * ABR25-000178 – 3666 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer, explained for this type of home they are looking to accommodate the buyer who needs or wants the accessibility of a single level. There is a basement for storage, but this is a three bedroom, open floor plan with the laundry on the first floor. Mr. Feinstein noted there was another developer who did a single floor house, but it was attached to a two story house. All the others on the street are cape cod or bungalow homes with a second floor. He reviewed his notes to the developer. This house is 17 feet tall, which is a much smaller massing than others in the city. The foundation here is noted as 6 inches high, but there are no notes for the finish material. Mr. Neville said this style seemed inappropriate when not looking at it for accessible reasoning. He is sure there is a market for this type of home. Mr. Berlekamp asked for a way to express how the foundation relates to the siding. The front gables seem flush with each other and not really detailed. Mr. Petznick said pulling the smaller gable forward to make a covered porch would help give depth to the structure. Mr. Feinstein said this type of house would need to be next to a bungalow home to even be close to successful. Continued. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Specifically for the ranch style houses the following comments were made: 1) the 17 ft tall overall height is very short for any house in that neighborhood, even the bungalows. The house should be taller to better match the massing of the existing homes on the street and placement on a lot should be carefully considered taking into account adjacent houses; 2) indicate the foundation material; 3) provide the materials for the front entry step/stoop; 4) enhance the front door trim design; and 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 11 of 15 Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 12 of 15 ABR25-000179 – 3670 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000178 – 3666 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the 17 ft tall overall height is very short for any house in that neighborhood, even the bungalows. The house should be taller to better match the massing of the existing homes on the street and placement on a lot should be carefully considered taking into account adjacent houses; 2) indicate the foundation material; 3) provide the materials for the front entry step/stoop; 4) enhance the front door trim design; and 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000180 – 3606 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000178 – 3666 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the 17 ft tall overall height is very short for any house in that neighborhood, even the bungalows. The house should be taller to better match the massing of the existing homes on the street and placement on a lot should be carefully considered taking into account adjacent houses; 2) indicate the foundation material; 3) provide the materials for the front entry step/stoop; 4) enhance the front door trim design; and 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 13 of 15 ABR25-000181 – 3589 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000178 – 3666 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the 17 ft tall overall height is very short for any house in that neighborhood, even the bungalows. The house should be taller to better match the massing of the existing homes on the street and placement on a lot should be carefully considered taking into account adjacent houses; 2) indicate the foundation material; 3) provide the materials for the front entry step/stoop; 4) enhance the front door trim design; and 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000182 – 3550 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000176 – 3658 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the upper floor hanging over the first floor is a design that is not regularly seen in this neighborhood and that overhand is an opportunity for additional design detail and trim; 2) there is a lack of windows on at least the one side elevation; 3) the trim around the windows and doors needs to be shown. The front door needs special trim; 4) trim needs to be shown at the rake boards and other trim boards. Are there going to be corner boards? Will those corner boards be the same color as the siding or will they be the trim color?; 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house; 6) indicate the foundation material; 7) the front stoop and steps should be masonry to match the foundation; 8) show the side entry step if one is needed. Submit revised plans for Board review. Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 14 of 15  * * * * ABR25-000183 – 3540 Hildana Road - New House. Ishmael Martin, YRM Corp., developer. See Minutes above from ABR25-000176 – 3658 Hildana Road. Overall comments for the new houses on Hildana include: 1: the plans do not show a lot of details; 2) several of these homes seem to be right next to each other. Different colors are not enough differentiation in design; 3) provide a street map showing the location of the proposed homes on the street; 4) provide pictures of each lot including the existing homes on each side; 5) submit a site plan of how the house lays out on the lot; and 6) submit a view of the house design, to scale, in between the existing homes to either side. Continued with the following comments: 1) the upper floor hanging over the first floor is a design that is not regularly seen in this neighborhood and that overhand is an opportunity for additional design detail and trim; 2) there is a lack of windows on at least the one side elevation; 3) the trim around the windows and doors needs to be shown. The front door needs special trim; 4) trim needs to be shown at the rake boards and other trim boards. Are there going to be corner boards? Will those corner boards be the same color as the siding or will they be the trim color?; 5) provide a materials list, color and specifications of the siding, windows, doors and roofing for each house; 6) indicate the foundation material; 7) the front stoop and steps should be masonry to match the foundation; 8) show the side entry step if one is needed. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000157 – 3131 Warrington Road – Preliminary Review: Addition. Continued at the request of the applicant. * * * * Other Business 16740 South Park—Banner Signs. Approved replacement banner design. * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. The next meeting will be August 18, 2025. _________________________________ _________________________________ James Neville, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review 08/04/2025 Page 15 of 15