VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW - The Village of Chagrin Falls
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW May 18, 2021 Members Present: Bill Childs, George Clemens, Steve King, Phil Koepf, Wendy Naylor Also Present: Harry Edwards, Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen, Katie Knauff-Facilitator APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve the minutes from the May 4, 2021 meeting. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 1. Vadakin 313 Miles Rd. Exterior Alterations-Final King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the property at 313 Miles Rd. does meet the standards of a historically significant house and that the changes would have an adverse effect on the home. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Marc Graham (Classic Designs) said the homeowner wants to screen the front porch. Marc said they need to replace the decking on the porch since it’s rotting, replace the concrete steps that are deteriorating, and replace the round columns that are rotting away. He said they are retaining the upper part of the roof structure. He said they also want to change the rear porch. He said they were changing the round columns to square ones. Marc explained that the homeowner wants some outdoor living space in the backyard so they plan on adding some decking on the back porch. He said both porches would have the same walls, would not have spindle railings, and they are not adding screening below. King said that this was a substantial change on the front porch and the screening is questionable. Naylor said that if they look at the Village of Chagrin Falls Design Guidelines there is a detailed section on porches and entry features. They talk about retaining and restoring historic materials and details. She said there is also a section about enclosing porches and that on historic homes it is not recommended. She said this plan is a great departure from the intent of the code and design guidelines. Childs agreed with King and Naylor’s comments about the changes. Marc asked how they would handle the screening and King said to treat it in a different way and that they would need to see the revised plans. Marc said that they haven’t changed any of the gingerbread features of the house and wouldn’t know how to do the screening. Childs said he wouldn’t move the lattice on the bottom of the vinyl siding walls. He said he would maintain it with the emphasis on the columns. He said he would screen the back porch and keep the aesthetics of the front. The board all agreed that they wouldn’t screen the front and would only maintain it. Naylor said the gingerbread doesn’t appear original, she would restore the rafter at the gable end and wouldn’t put screening on the front. Koepf said to save the front porch, replace the steps, flooring and only do a basic restoration. He said they would sacrifice the rear porch to save the front porch and maintain the character defining features of the front porch. Marc asked if they replaced in
kind would they have to come back and Koepf said they would have to repair the base and maintain it. Marc also asked if they could do what they proposed on the rear porch and Childs said they would have to see plans and details. He asked about the windows and Clemens said they should match the existing ones that are in the old picture. Marc asked if the Village says no to screening all front porches and King said that when it changes the historical significance on the home they don’t recommend it. Cheri Vadakin (homeowner) said she’s trying to maintain her home and still keep the historic significance. She asked if she can only replace the steps and handrails. King said that the screening is not going to work on this house. Clemens asked what the board thought about just maintaining the railing. Naylor said that the choice would be up to the owner and they could examine the cost and come back with a proposal and they should consider alternative materials other than vinyl for the spindle railing. She said she thinks they’ve set some perimeters for them and that the board wouldn’t consider the screening of the front porch as compatible with the historic characteristics of the house. She said it’s a wonderful craftsman bungalow house and that you elevate the value of your home by keeping the character defining features of it and that in the long run she would increase the value of her home by maintaining those features. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs to revise and resubmit based on the feedback from the board. They need to look at the Chagrin Falls Guidelines for maintaining a historic home. The board needs to see the design as a whole for approval. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, King-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed. 2. Markey 113 Church Street New Accessory Structure-Final Rick Siegfried (Architect) said that the garage is currently attached to the house and that they want to build a new detached garage. He explained that the homeowners are planning to move their parents in and that the addition solves that lifestyle change. He said the garage is typical of garages in Chagrin Falls. Clemens asked if the addition conforms and Rick said that it did. Naylor said she was okay with the location of the garage. Childs said they should line up the windows. Rick showed the board plans for the addition on the house. He said the existing house has a lot of level changes and that they plan on leveling it out. He said the new master bedroom is going to be where the existing garage is. They plan on getting rid of the shutters. Clemens said that matching the eave detail is a critical component and that the garage could be simpler and Koepf and Childs agreed. Summation-motion by Naylor seconded by King to approve plans as presented. They need rake details to compliment house rear elevation and consideration to the site location of the garage being as far north as possible. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 3. Murphy 100 Church Street Exterior Alterations-Preliminary Rick Siegfried (Architect) said they have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance for the fireplace they want to add. He said the house currently has no fireplace and it will project out because of a closet that’s on the second floor. Clemens asked if they were using natural stone veneer or stick on veneer. He said they need a stone cap and that the shoulders don’t look properly detailed. Childs agreed
with Clemens’s comments. Rick said that they would add a stone cap on it. King said it’s a great addition to the old house and Clemens agreed that it adds to the house. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans as presented. They need to see the stone detail at the cap and shoulder and sample stone material to be submitted for final approval. Roll Call: Childs-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 4. Kramer 107 Kenton Rd. New Accessory Structure-Preliminary Building and Zoning Inspector Harry Edwards said that the homeowner went to the Board of Zoning Appeals and was granted a variance for the garage that is over 700 square feet. Ted Kramer (Homeowner) said they are proposing a two-car accessory structure that will have a storage area on the north side and a bonus room above. He said the garage is designed to mimic the house and they are matching all materials. He said the new structure will compliment the house and that they will also be doing some grading work. He said the second-floor bonus room is a future plan. Clemens said to cut down the left elevation projection and to have symmetry in the front. Childs said massing wise they did a nice job, said to do a flat roof in the front and railing that ties in. He said that they need to have the gutter boards consistent. He said that on the back elevation they need to line up the newel posts. Koepf asked about the lack of windows and Ted said the area was for storage and since it was in the back they didn’t want the added cost. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King, for preliminary approval of plans. They need to adjust the roof line and show rear porch banister details. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 5. Siegel 87 South Main Street Fence-Final Don Simpson (Auburn Fence) and Dan Siegel (Homeowner) presented plans for a new fence that would maintain the integrity of their property line and also a screen for their dogs. Building and Zoning Inspector Harry Edwards asked if the arborvitaes would be in front or behind them and they said the fence would go behind. Dan explained that the neighbors built an 8 ft shed that is encroaching on their property. He said they are trying to establish their property by adding the fence. He said the fence is also to help screen the dogs that they have. Clemens asked if they were going to build the fence through the property line and he said yes. The board suggested using a board on board 42” fence. Summation-it was decided to table this discussion. They suggested getting something in writing and that the homeowners need to communicate with the neighbors. The board would like to do a site visit. They need updated plans with shed relationship to the property line on 95 South Main Street. Building & Zoning Inspector Harry Edwards said to handle this as a revise and resubmit, they need updated site plans showing the shed as it relates to the property line and the new fence. He also suggested that Mr. Siegel get something in writing from the owners at 95 North Main Street that says they agree with the fence and that the board can go visit the site. They also said he needs to get rid of the frame shed on their site plan. The board would also like the homeowner to consider a different style fence.
6. Adams 79 West Street Accessory Structure-Final Heather Yellen and Rick Siegfried (Architects) explained that based on the recommendations from the board they added a mesh screening and the grade is a little subtler. Heather said the mesh will have plant growth going up and around it. She said it will give it a softer look and that it was per the Historical Significance Report. Clemens asked about the mesh elevation and said he thought the mesh looked dark. Heather said it wasn’t as dark as it looked and that you would be able to see behind it. Clemens said to soften the look of it. Koepf said to drop the front a couple of feet to give it some interest and Childs agreed that the corner was to high. King asked if the north and south ends were the same height and Heather said yes. Heather said it was a pergola and trellis structure and was Asian looking to compliment the Sushi restaurant. She said everything will be simple. Rick liked the idea about cutting it down and said they would study it. Koepf said they need a photograph of the mesh they are using and he thought the new trash enclosure was an improvement from the last one they presented. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs for preliminary approval of plans as presented. They need to restudy the north and south end mesh and mesh samples need to be submitted for final approval. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 7. Kauffman 71 Standridge Rd. New Dwelling-Preliminary David Krebs and Brian Kauffman explained that this was a new dwelling and that the existing home was already approved for demolition. He said it was before the board in December of 2020 and that they made some changes to the original plans. He said they eliminated the connected portico so that they avoided having to get any variances. He said the position of the house is the same, that it sits far back on the property line. He also said that the property straddles Moreland Hills and Chagrin Falls and that the house was positioned to take advantage of the panoramic views. He said the kitchen was closer to the garage, they have a contemporary roof, the garage is a little more sunken and works with the grade of the property. Childs said that the composition looks great. Clemens asked what it backs up to and they said the Metro parks. He agreed with Childs that the composition is very nice. Koepf said once they eliminated the zoning issues it’s a perfect spot for a contemporary house. Brian said that they wanted to make sure they were on the right track. King said they think they can move forward. Childs said they need to get the straight view and look at the elevations. Naylor said they have the three voting members telling them they are moving in the right direction. Summation-there was no motion on this submission 8. Milstein 35 Hall Street New Dwelling-Preliminary Dave Jansen (Architect) and Marc Milstein (Homeowner) said based on the comments from the last meeting they changed the front elevations height and pitches, got rid of the vertical siding and did a horizontal band up the attic window. They have a two-story roof pitch which is consistent with the neighborhood. They restudied the dormer but liked the gable better. They got rid of the transom windows and only have one over the front door. Clemens thought the front elevation was more successful, thinks the dormer over the garage works and is not as worried about the front elevation. He
said that the long roof ridge running front to rear looks like an addition instead of a new house. Dave said they put the bay there to break up that wall. He said the side wall doesn’t bother him because the houses are all on top of each other and he thinks the bay works. Clemens asked to see the site plan and said it helped to see how close the houses are to each other. King asked to see the rendering of the house showing the hand sketch. Koepf didn’t think the drawing was relevant since this is what they were submitting now. King said he thought they did a tremendous job on this and appreciated their efforts. He said he liked the shed roof instead of the gable over the garage. Naylor said she prefers the shed but thinks the gable works and appreciates the removal of the transom and thinks the form being presented blends well with Hall Street. She said that on the bay window they have muntin’s on the upper and lower sash and it’s not consistent with the rest. She said to lighten the color of the muntin’s. Naylor said the new design is an improvement from the last one and is following the design guidelines. Clemens suggested doing a lighter color muntin on the exterior and darker on interior if they want. He said moving the garage dormer face back behind the line of the front wall of the garage could lighten it up. Koepf said that the gable dormer windows seem to big for the size of the dormers, suggested shortening them. He thinks it has come a long way from the first one. King asked what kind of windows they were doing and Dave said he was going to suggest an aluminum clad wood, the siding will be cement board and Azak or Boral trim. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor for preliminary approval of plans as presented. They also wanted it on record that they would not approve black exterior muntin bars or dark tinted windows. Roll Call: King-yea, Naylor-yea, Childs-recuse. Motion passed. 9. Muscenti 271 Bell Street Exterior Alterations-Final Dave Jansen (Architect) said that based on the previous meeting they removed the brackets or bents. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to approve plans as presented. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 10. Barr 47 East Orange Street Fence-Final Addy Barr (Homeowner) said that they were tying the yard together with a fence. Koepf asked about the height of the fence and Addy said it would not exceed 42”. Building and Zoning Inspector Harry Edwards said they will have to shave the gates down a little and she said they would. The board all agreed that they liked the fence. Addy said the only comment was that the gate could not exceed 42” and Harry said that was correct. She asked if the board has a preference to the ornamental toppers and they said any of her choices would be fine. They said if they wanted to have the gate that height they would have to go for a variance. Addy said that since this was a custom fence she would ask them to lower the fence so they can keep the curved gate. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Childs to approve plans as presented. Roll Call: King-yea, Childs-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 11. Village of Chagrin Falls Grove Hill Fence-Final
King said he spoke to our Chief Financial Officer Rob Jamieson and he said there was never going to be a sidewalk going up there. King said with the drawing they couldn’t tell where the fence was going to be. Koepf said that there is a stake in the ground right where the drawing shows the sidewalk starting to turn up to the house and thought that was where the fence was going. Naylor asked if Parcel B is owned by the Village and everything to the east is owned by the Village. Building and Zoning Inspector Harry Edwards explained that this was all a part of the development agreement with the Western Reserve Land Conservancy and the Village of Chagrin Falls. He said it was to divide the property from 3 West Summit Street. Naylor asked who was paying for the fence and Harry said the Village is paying for part of it and it’s all a part of the agreement with the Land Conservancy. Naylor said her issue with this fence is that the gate for the visual connection between Grove Hill wall and that interior sidewalk. She said if she could pick how the fence could go, she would have it go straight up the sidewalk and have the gate where the sidewalk curves into Parcel A property owner. Naylor said she thought they were setting a bad precedence when they start fencing in public property. Harry suggested they approve the fence that separates 3 West Summit Street from the Village property and that the section they are concerned about between Grove Hill wall and the sidewalk that they should go and speak to the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer about their concerns. He said they need to get the fence ordered and they want to get it done. Naylor said they’ve been talking about this and she hesitates to approve a fence that she’s not seeing as a whole. King said that based on his conversation with Rob that came from the Mayor was that they had cut a deal with the Conservancy and that this was the deal. King said that it was a unique situation and won’t set a precedence with anyone else. Koepf said that if the agreement is with the two pieces of property and if the property along the right of way of main street is public property not private property to meet the letter of agreement separating the two pieces of property. He said it stops at the sidewalk and if you put the fence in the rear of the property that meets the requirements. Harry said he would suggest they talk to the administration about their concerns with the public sidewalk and the piece between the wall and the sidewalk. Naylor said she would approve the fencing to the west of the sidewalk. Clemens said the fencing is 50’ off the walkway and going up to the private property so he doesn’t see it as a big issue. He said they should look at visual impact of the fence as it meets the wall, they should look at a tapered down section. He doesn’t think it has very much visual weight or impact at the wall. Naylor thinks it’s an issue because Grove Hill is a very historic. Koepf said that if the Village is responsible for maintaining that right of way meaning both sides of the wall are the Village’s responsibility and eventually the Village is going to have to put some money in clearing the vegetation out. Naylor said they need the ground rules of what deal has been made very specifically, was there a specific fence in a specific location and what is the policy when we have public land that we are fencing off and she’s not comfortable voting until she has that information. Summation- King said they should approve in principal the style of fence and in principal to recognize the agreement but final approval will occur after they know what they are doing and how they are tying into the wall. He said that the mayor said we have agreed to no right of way. They decided to table this discussion. They want it noted that they like the fence style and the general theory but need to know exactly what they are voting on.
Walk-In Phil Koepf said this was the Wynveen Residence and that the house is one of the Greek Revivals on Washington Street. He said it’s on the corner of Washington/Cleveland Street and is on a fairly steep slope up to the house from the sidewalk. He said that the one car garage was converted to a bedroom and the owner wants to put a covering over the front stoop. He said she wants to add a porch. Clemens said the house looks like it’s divided into thirds. Naylor said to go with the simplest stoop. Childs said to move the door. Phil said that the bracketed canopy is the least invasive. He said he would love to move the door but thought it would have an impact on the inside of the house. Clemens said he agrees with the flat roof and to make it as wide as the porch. Phil said it was out past the structure and would give it more depth. He said if it’s a flat roof do they think it would read better. Childs said the porch should be more dominant. Phil asked if they should just do something simple, flat roof, no defining any gable. Meeting Adjourned at 11:20 ___________________________________________________ Steve King, Chairman Date
You can also read
