Committee Members Present

• P. Brown (CH)
• N. Reich
• T. Veider (1st)
• RS Nieswander
• A. Lukaczy (2nd)
• C. Poh
• B. Chew

Project details were presented by Mr. Greydon Petznick and Matt Plecnik of CLE DRAWS, and Mr. Stanley Kuhar of St. Vitus Parish.  Details included site plan layout, use, neighborhood context, fencing, landscaping, ingress/egress, emblems, materials, and building massing/form.

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns

• Are you using any split-faced block on the facades?
• What will your lighting treatment be for the building, parking lot, and gates?
• Will the gates always be open?
• How will the greenspace be used?
• Greenspace should be more "plaza-like" because the current drop-off location makes the area all about the vehicle.
• Consider moving the drop-off circulation to E.61st so that passengers are dropped-off on the correct side of the building.  Moving to E. 61st will also allow for stacking to occur in the parking lot.  Consider adding a "porte cochere" element to the droff-off elevation.
• Consider shifting the building closer to the property line at E. 61st St, removing the landscaping & entering the setback.
• The drive across the front of the building would not be approved.
• Where are the "back of the house" functions?
• What is the bar & takeout area?
• Turn the vestibule into a loge to or gallery so folks can enter on either side (main entry or drop-off area)
• Study the proportionality of all the window systems in relation to the brick materials, facades, and existing church.  The main window over the main entrance appears to be oversized.  Suggest that dormers be increased in scale.
• Bring photos of the rusticated brick as mimicing a Slovenian architectural detail.
• Concerned about the number of material changes & the amount of stucco on the E. 61st St side if the building moves closer to the property line.  May be able to enhance the E. 61st side with more brick and less stucco.  As a trade-off the drop-off side can be less enhanced to help on costs.
• The roof seems much bigger than base of building.  Maybe bringing brick to the parapet wall will help.
• Study the "dog leg/gable return" as it is not a Romanesque feature.
• Choose more of a Romanesque style for the dormers, will be flush with no side overhang.
• Lower parapet wall on E. 61st St side, better for mechanicals if they are moved closer to the interior of the roof surface.
• Extend truss to flat roof of the buidling, making it a full gable roof.
• Study the dormers and parapet.

Motion to approve with the conditions to 1.) move or expand Lausche Ave entry to the west; 2.) use E. 61st access for drop-off circulation; 3.) add a loge area to vestibule; 4.) study parapet height in relation to dormers, mechanicals, etc.; 5.) study simplifing the proposed materials; 6.) study corner gable returns; 7.) move the building forward to the north and also to the east to gain more parking spaces and eliminate the landscaping.

Voting Members Present

• RS Nieswander (2nd)
• A. Lukaczy
• B. Chew
• P. Brown (CH)
• C. Poh
• T. Vieder (1st)
• N. Reich

Revised project presented by M. Plecnik and Mr. Greydon of Cleveland DRAWS.  Presentation began with discussion on how the development team attempted to address the comments and concerns from the Committee during the previous review.  DRAWS team presented two potential options for the site layout.  Stanley Kuhar is available for comment on aspects of the operations.

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns

• Does the passenger drop-off work if you enter from the southern point?  The turning radius seems too tight.
• Is there a need for two loading areas behind the building?  Yes
• Do you have space to parallel park on the south property line?
• Where are visitors/the congregation parking today?
• Option 2 may be more functional for access and circulation.
• The pedestrian circulation in Option 1 stronger than in Option 2.
• Is there a way to combine positive aspects of both layouts.
• Make the whole space a vestibule or push the vestibule massing back and add doors at the either end.  The vestibule space can be used as a waiting area.
• In phase 2 it is very important to use a "nomnia" (sp?) as a cultural marker at the corner of the green space.
• Would the logia be flush agains the building which would eliminate the plant bed or will the plant bed remain?
• Favor the logia in Option 1., pedestrian circulation in Option 1, and vehicular circulation in Option 2.
• What is the height of the light on the fencing compaired to the height of the Metro lights along the walkway.  At the current height the light fixture would be a visual distraction.  Suggest to raise the height of the light on the pole to compliment the Metro lights along the walkway.
• Suggest that you consider the "dark sky" option for the lighting.
• Did the windows decrease in the revision?  Yes
• Is there a disconnect between the rounded windows above and the rectangular windows on the first floor.
• Switch the rounded windows to rectangular above.  Rectangular windows will save some money.
• Is there a sample of the roof shingle?
• Caution in using the EIFS color, because it will standout due to the white color.  Try a softer tone or off-white.
• Do you have wall scounces on the building? Yes, they are cylindars as shown in the rendering.  A cutsheet can be provided.
• Might want to consider toning down the white color at the top of the roof.
• The landscaping can be kept simple and drought tolerant.  Can be ornamental grasses or a low-hedge bush.
• Are the downspouts and gutters painted to match the roof?

Motion to approve with the condition to use the logia and pedestrian circulation in Option 1 and the vehicular circulation in Option 2, consider using the vestibule as an open space adding doors at either ends, using dark sky lighting, change the dormer window to rectangular, change the stucco color to a warmer tone, raise the entrygate light fixtures to match the height of the walkway lighting.

Incorporating the DRAC's comments.