ARB - March 10th 2016

March 10, 2016

The Architectural Review Board met in regular session on Thurs, March 10, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mayfield Village Civic Center Conference Room. Chairman Parker presided.    


Present: Mr. Ed Parker (Chairman), Mr. Carmen Miozzi (Chairman Pro-Tem), Mrs. MaryAnn Wervey, and Mr. Joshua Klein        

Absent: Mr. Ivo Tombazzi

Also Present: Mr. John Marrelli (Building Commissioner), Ms. Deborah Garbo (Secretary), and Mr. Ted Esborn (Economic Development Dir.)


Mr. Miozzi, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to approve the minutes of Feb 25, 2016.


Ayes: Mr. Parker, Mr. Miozzi, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Klein    

Nays: None             

Motion Carried. Minutes Approved as Written.


  1. Building & Site Improvements
    Premier Development Partners
    6655 Beta Dr.
    The C.W. Courtney Company
  2. New Single Family Townhouse
    Parkledge Development
    Salvatore & Mary Jo Laurie
    6621 SOM Court S/L #1
    MJ Builders
    Polaris Engineering
    (Board of Appeals 3/15/16)
  3. Building & Monument Signage
    Mayfran International
    6650 Beta Dr.
    Ruff Neon Signs & Lighting


Chairman Parker called the meeting to order. We’ll begin with the first item on the agenda.

Premier Development Partners
6655 Beta Dr.
Building & Site Improvements

Jeff Certo Architect with Davison Smith Certo Architects introduced himself. The documents before you show the building modifications for the new tenant going into the north end of the building, Mars Electric. We’re doing some parking lot modifications on the existing paving. We’re creating a new entrance to the tenant space on the east side of the building that’ll involve a new canopy and some new storefront framing along with some new windows for the office space.

The north end of the project currently is not paved. We’ll be adding some pavement & adding (5) docks. The elevations show the general appearance. The building siding was completely painted for QED. We won’t need to do anything to the siding at this time. The entry canopy is the chrome finished panel that matches the QED entrance we did last year. It’s the same material, but it’s bigger because it covers two doors. Other than that, it’s the same type of construction for consistency. The windows you see to the left of that are new. They’ll be bronze framed with bronze glass. The building is brick for the lower portion five feet or so. We’ll patch that as needed and cut into that as we need to for the windows.

The north side shows the (5) new recessed docks. That wall is generally all siding down to the grade. There’s a new employee entrance on the north side. The plan for that is to do a simple canvas canopy, covered for their use. On the west end of that north elevation to the right will be some exterior storage, temporary storage for piping material. That needs to be secured with a fence. We’ve shown a galvanized chain link fence.

Mr. Marrelli asked, did you settle on a fence height?

Jeff Certo replied, we’re proposing 12 feet.

Mr. Marrelli said for the record, if it’s 12’ it has to go to the Board of Appeals for a variance. We only allow 8’.

Jerry Gruszewski with Premier Development Partners said, I believe we’re scheduled for the B.O.A. meeting next week.

Mr. Marrelli said, we haven’t received any paperwork, elevation plan, or application from you to put you on next week’s agenda.

Mr. Esborn said, we’ll need from you a letter of request for the variance with an explanation for the reason and any supporting documentation showing the fence.

Chairman Parker asked, would that canopy be able to match the rest of your canopies for the employees?

Jeff Certo replied, it could. This side of the building really is not visible to anybody.

Chairman Parker asked, can you see that from 271?

Mr. Marrelli replied no, it’s on the back. This building is about 2,000 feet deep. It’s out in the woods.

Mrs. Wervey asked, Mars Electric is taking 108,000 sq. ft. and 1600 sq. ft. of retail? We can go in there and buy?

Mr. Esborn replied, sq. footage is correct. Purchases are on account only.

Mr. Marrelli said, maybe if you’re an electrical contractor you could. They’ll have a counter for the guys to pick up their materials.

Mrs. Wervey comments, I think this is great tenant for this area.

Mr. Miozzi asked, will they abandon their space in Willoughby?

Mr. Esborn replied, yes.

Mr. Miozzi asked about matching the new doors that are going in.

Jeff Certo said the 4 on the east side are existing, the drive-in doors to the right are existing. We’d match them with the new ones. The ones on the north are all new.

Mrs. Wervey asked, are they allowed to do outdoor storage per our code?

Mr. Marrelli replied, Planning Commission approved the concept. We still have to get the fence height straightened out.

Mrs. Wervey asked, will you come back for signage?

Jeff Certo replied, it’ll be a combined monument sign out front & door signage. We’re not ready for that yet.

Mrs. Wervey asked if building lighting will match existing.

Jeff Certo replied, for QED we replaced the existing lights. We’ll match and add some on the back.

Mr. Marrelli asked, same general & subcontractors?

Jeff Certo replied, same general, some of the subs might change.

Mr. Klein asked, when are you looking to start?

Jeff Certo replied, soon. We have the plans worked out with the tenants. We’re getting started with construction documents.

Mr. Miozzi asked about the trash dumpster by the new entrance.

Jeff Certo replied, that’s there, it’s QED’s.

Mr. Miozzi asked, can it get fenced in?

Mr. Marrelli said, I’m not even sure if it’s sitting out there right now.


Mr. Miozzi, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to approve the proposed Building and Site Improvements for Premier Development Partners at 6655 Beta Dr.


Ayes: Mr. Parker, Mr. Miozzi, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Klein    

Nays: None                                      

Motion Carried. Drawings Approved.  


Parkledge Development
6621 SOM Court S/L #1
New Single Family Townhouse
MJ Builders

Joe Calderwood Architect with The CM Consulting Group introduced himself. We’re presenting a one story residential structure. The design of the structure is to be in harmony with the rest of the subdivision.

  • Chimney

Mr. Marrelli said, there are no other chimneys or fireplaces that extend through the roof in this whole development. When the Judge came in with this development, we had a color scheme, materials and features that were all agreed on in the very beginning. All the houses comply. This one doesn’t with that chimney.

Joe Calderwood said the reason for that chimney is because it’s an interior fireplace. It’s in the middle of the house.

Mr. Marrelli said there are no other houses in this whole development that have that feature.

Joe Calderwood asked, can we do a flue?

Mr. Marrelli said, why don’t you do what everybody else did and put a thimble on the back wall.

Joe Calderwood replied, we can’t. It’s in the middle of the house.

Mr. Marrelli said you’re coming into a development that there’s been agreements made on how these houses are going to appear and what features they’ll have. You’re the last guy, you can’t change everything now. It’s supposed to be a cohesive development.

Joe Calderwood asked Mr. Laurie if he’d mind going with an electric fireplace.

Chairman Parker would like to see it in stone, as a real chimney. Does the Development Agreement actually say no chimneys?

Mr. Marrelli replied, they said this is the style and everything will match. It’s a Planned Unit Development. I took pictures of some of the houses in the Development. All of these houses look the same. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

Chairman Parker asked, if somebody comes in and says they’d love to have a chimney here, they’d to come to this Board and we’d acknowledge the design of it. Would we be able to approve it or would we have to say that’s not allowed in the development.

Mr. Marrelli replied, I’d have to pull out the Development Agreement and see what the features were that were agreed on. When this whole development went in, it was proposed to the public and voted in as a cohesive unit. The one thing they didn’t want was different builders and homeowners doing different things.

Chairman Parker states, I just have a hard time putting that onto the owner that they can’t improve upon that. I don’t personally like it being in vinyl siding.

Mr. Miozzi said, we’ve never had it come up as an issue.

Mr. Marrelli states, nobody’s tried to put a chimney through the roof yet.

Mr. Miozzi states, if we approve this, we’d be setting a precedence and if somebody wants to put in a chimney now, that’s fine if we say it has to be brick to match the house.

Mrs. Wervey states, before you jump to any conclusions, I think it would be prudent to pull out the Development Agreement.

Chairman Parker requests to see the by-laws. It would be interesting to see if it says ‘no chimneys’.

Mr. Marrelli said, I don’t know if it would say that, but it would tell you what the materials are. It’s the same shingles, same brick, same stone, windows and same everything probably down to the door handle. There’s one’s, two’s & three units there.

  • Bay Window

Salvatore Laurie states, what I saw that I was surprised you guys o.k.’d, was when Miller started building the single family ranches, you let them skip the bay window.

Mr. Marrelli said the bay window wasn’t required.

Salvatore Laurie said, but that’s a big part of the community, that bay window.

Mr. Marrelli replied, they don’t all have bay windows.

Salvatore Laurie said, in the beginning it was required. I think they look sharper.

Mr. Marrelli said some have bays and some don’t. The middle sections they didn’t have bays, but the ends did. They bookended it.

Salvatore Laurie states, when you let Miller change the three’s to two and one stories, he made them a lot less expensive on the outside.

Mr. Marrelli said, it’s all the same materials still. This Board’s concern is that all the materials match.

Salvatore Laurie asked, you don’t care if it has a bay window or not?

Mr. Marrelli replied, no.

Salvatore Laurie asked, but you do care if it has a chimney or not.

Mr. Marrelli replied, especially if it’s got siding sticking out on it. When you pull down the street and look at the rooftops, you’ll be the only one with a chimney coming out.

Salvatore Laurie understands. Yes, the rest are in the back of the house.

Mr. Marrelli said, there’s nothing coming out of any roofs in this whole development.

Salvatore Laurie said, o.k., I see, it comes out of the wall. This is moot point. Let’s carry on.

Mr. Marrelli agreed. We’ll work it out. Let’s take the chimney off the board and move on.

  • Front Porch Posts
  • Lot Shape & Size

Mr. Marrelli said the front porch doesn’t match these porches. I’m looking at the 4 x 4’s and overhang you have which nobody else has. I picked out the stuff that I thought was going to stick out as not matching anything else. You shouldn’t have posts on yours.

Joe Calderwood states, the reason I have posts is because of the configuration of the house. We’re trying to fit this house to the property on this triangular shaped lot. I’m very limited. If you look at the floor plan, you’ll see why there’s all these setbacks.

Mr. Marrelli said there’re setbacks because it’s a one story on a lot that should be a two story. One of the issues is there’s a minimum house size, a minimum square footage. This lot’s extra small and it’s triangular. It really should have a two story house on it. They’re trying to make a one story fit. So that you know, we have to go the Zoning Board next week for setback variances.

Joe Calderwood states, it was very difficult to try to get a house to fit on this lot.

Mr. Marrelli said, a two story house would have fit.

Joe Calderwood replied, true. But the homeowner is going to retire in this house and he wanted one floor living. I had the house designed for ADA accessibility.

Mr. Marrelli states, I understand why the one story and I appreciate how many times you gyrated this thing around. So, the two issues I had were the chimney and the porch posts. Again, I’m not a big fan of everything being exactly the same, but we were sold on that uniformity program.

Salvatore Laurie asked if everyone received the e-mail from the Homeowners Association.

Mr. Marrelli replied, yes. It doesn’t have anything to do with this Board. This Board tonight is looking at the appearance. The letter’s referring to the setback variance requests which is the Board of Appeals on 3/15.

  • Exterior Features, Elevations & Materials

Joe Marra, Builder states, we have the same frame, shingle. Siding has one of the same colors, same grain, a little better siding than what’s been used. Mr. Romanini from Parkhill has been out there to match the roof with a Landmark 3 dimensional CertainTeed shingle. Trim stock will match.

Chairman Parker comments the roof vent would look ugly.

Mr. Klein said, we need to check the bylaws. If it doesn’t say anything about the chimney, I’m fine with looking at a chimney with a nice brick exterior that matches.

Salvatore Laurie states, I would like the chimney with the gas fireplace. But if you guys don’t want it, then I could do the electric.

Chairman Parker said, my point is if he wanted to do the gas and no chimney, he has the right to put a roof vent on for that chimney which would be uglier.

Mr. Marrelli said yes, as long as it’s in the back where nobody can see it. All that matters is that you don’t see it from the front. Is it a wood burning fireplace?

Joe Marra replied, no, just gas. Electric is an option.

Mrs. Wervey to Chairman Parker, I’m asking for your opinion as the Architect on this Board, as you look at the front, right, rear and left elevation, in your mind, are these drawings as shown consistent with what you’re seeing in these pictures of the existing homes?

Chairman Parker replied, it is an end unit so it’s not as far a comparison. To be honest, I think it looks better.

Mrs. Wervey asked, if you drove into this subdivision, would the difference be obvious?

Joe Calderwood said, the big stumbling block is the shape of the lot.

Mrs. Wervey to Chairman Parker, I need your eye to tell me that if I drove into this subdivision, this one house wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

Joe Marra said, with the brick veneer & siding, it’s going to look similar.

Chairman Parker replied to Mrs. Wervey. It has a lot of hips compared to everything else that has gables. The only hips that they have on there are on their bays. It’s just such a different unit.

Joe Calderwood said, we initially tried a two story. We had a gable roof, there was so many gables, it was too busy. That’s why we went with the hip.

Chairman Parker said it’s going to be a little different. I think it’s actually going to be nice. I don’t know how it’s going to contrast to the one across the street, but when you pull in with the hip roofs, it’s almost like a bookend to all the gable ends. You’ll have a kind of rhythm.

Joe Calderwood said, we put forth a lot of effort to try and make it look so it compliments and belongs there. We don’t want it sticking out like a sore thumb. We tried the gable roofs and it looked hideous.

Mr. Marrelli states, you have the only pie shaped lot in the development.

Discussion ensued on gable options, framing change. Joe Marra wondered how the Association would feel about the change.

Mr. Marrelli replied, the Association will weigh in on the variance, not the design. I’ll need a new roof framing plan with the changes.

Joe Marra references drawings; this area is brick veneer which leads up to the window sills. Then you have brick to grade all the way around. Did you notice some of those homes have very little brick?    

Mrs. Wervey replied, I don’t mean for you to do more, I just want it to be consistent with what the design intent was.

Mr. Marrelli said this east end, they were going to stop the brick. That whole east side has to have the brick veneer on it. Joe Marra will make it even.

Chairman Parker said, the corner post porch, you have an exposed area, if you could wrap that with brick too. As far as the chimney, you’re going with electric?

Joe Calderwood replied, no vinyl chimney. No chimney visible. We’ll have a terminal on the roof itself on the back side. We’ll keep it lower from the peak so you can’t see it. We’ll figure it out.

Mrs. Wervey asked, are the materials, makes & colors o.k.? Is it the right brick to match?

Joe Marra replied, I don’t know if it’s the same manufacturer. It’s the same size and almost identical in color. The only reason I said it has more brick is because it’s a ranch, it’s wider, which will look fantastic. It’ll really showcase that development.

Mrs. Wervey asked about exterior lighting.

Joe Marra said we set up for landscape lighting. If he wants coach lights on the garage, that’s fine, whatever’s consistent with the development.

Discussion ensued on footprint.

Joe Calderwood recaps revisions:

  1. No chimney
  2. Right side – two smallest hip roofs, except for the bay one, convert them to gable ends vs. hip ends.
  3. Brick Wainscoting - half wall on the SOM Ctr side, continue the brick half wall.
  4. Front Porch – wrap half brick around front side.
  5. Center the hip on the bay.

Mr. Marrelli asked, are you going to match the garage doors?

Joe Marra replied, we’ll match. It’ll look the same.

Salvatore Laurie asked, could the garage come up two more feet? Mr. Marrelli advised Mr. Laurie to bring it up at the Zoning Board meeting on 3/15.


Mr. Klein, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to approve the proposed New Single Family Townhouse for 6621 SOM Court S/L #1 as noted contingent upon Board of Appeals variance request approvals.    


Ayes: Mr. Parker, Mr. Miozzi, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Klein    

Nays: None

Motion Carried. Drawings Approved As Noted. B.O.A. Meeting scheduled March 15th. Applicant to submit revised Drawings.

On 3/11 Chairman Parker submitted the following to the Board of Appeals for consideration at the upcoming meeting on March 15th:

“At last night’s ARB meeting for review of the new single family home located at 6621 SOM Court S/L #1 there was discussion that the owner is to go through Board of Appeals process for approval of a variance for the buildings encroachment of the south property setback lines.  As submitted, ARB agreed that the planning of the site was appropriate as the site is an odd shape.  In addition, ARB made the suggestion to shift the south wall of the east most gable end even further south to allow for the bay to be centered on the gable end. 

We made these recommendations with the anticipation of Board of Appeal’s approval, but will obviously respect their ruling on the setbacks.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me”.

Thank you,
edward t. parker RA, LEED AP


Mayfran International
6650 Beta Dr.

Michael Cave with Ruff Neon Graphics introduced himself. Our client wants to improve on their signage that’s already existing. Mayfran International partnered up with Tsubaki Group and they want to put their name on the building as well. All the other signage is just an improvement on what’s already there. The signage is really dated. Right now all the illuminated signage is LED fluorescent lighting. We’re updating it to be more energy conservation. It’ll look crisper.

Mr. Marrelli asked, you’re taking all the Mayfran signs down and replacing them with Mayfran International?

Michael Cave replied, yes. The Mayfran one will be exactly the same size. The one that’s up there is dated, neon lit & a service nightmare. The color was always raw. I’m putting up the correct color for the logo.

Michael Cave said, the ground sign is where the ground sign is already. They want the V-shape ground sign. There’s nothing in the bylaws about a V-shaped sign so I was hoping you guys could take it into consideration as a double faced sign. The problem is they’re right on a corner lot and if you put a double face sign there, you’re only going to get a percentage of visibility coming from the other way. With a V-shape, you’ll get 100% coverage. They’ve had issues with trucks coming in the other way and passing it. This will help the traffic congestion too.

Mr. Marrelli notes, we’re looking at the V-shape (Sign C Option 2).

Chairman Parker asked about letter height.

Mr. Marrelli said, we have a requirement on letter height.

Mr. Esborn said, we had a question earlier this week about how high letters are on the current sign. They’re significantly higher than the 18” maximum.

Mr. Marrelli thinks when they approved it the first time they probably looked at just the area coverage. This came into play when we did the Musca Plaza signage across the street because they had single letters and specific heights. I don’t know that this tonight really applies. It’s a one tenant property.

Michael Cave states, the monument sign color will be dark brown, duranodic bronze; showing sample color.

Mr. Marrelli asked about the wall sign color.

Michael Cave replied, a lighter colored stone.

Michael Cave said, one last thing, we’re removing this one black Mayfran wall sign and nothing else is going up. We’ll fill in/repair any holes. It faces the dock, it has no purpose and you can’t see it from the street.


Mr. Parker, seconded by Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the proposed signage for Mayfran International at 6650 Beta Dr. as presented.

  • V-Shape Monument Sign (Sign C Option 2) approved.
    Note: No Sign C Option 1 was submitted.


Ayes: Mr. Parker, Mr. Miozzi, Mrs. Wervey, Mr. Klein    

Nays: None                                      

Motion Carried. Drawings Approved.


There being no further business, Mr. Miozzi, seconded by Mrs. Wervey made a motion to adjourn the meeting.


Ayes: All                               

Nays: None                         

Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.