Voting Members in Attendance

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

Kevin Hudson, Tommy Youkum, and Jonathan Cana presented details on the development of the new community center.  The building will be used for social services, education, programming, etc.  The building is a part of the fuller renovation and parcel consolidation for Kenmore Village.  The design team is working to vacate the stub at E. 89th St.

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns

• Does the color of the gable and brick match the existing buildings to the left and right of your site or the buildings across the street?
• Remove the eyebrow dormer over the community room, perhaps repeat the peaked gable form.
• The parking lot on E. 89th could potentially be relocated to the rear if the street is vacated.  More parking is possible with the recent acquisiton of the new parcel in the rear of the site.  Site plan will be revised considering the new parcel.
• One option could be to add a porch if the building has to shift torward Wade Park Ave to accomodate the parking in the rear.
• Make the columns a bit thicker to better compliment the full gable
• Take another look at the batten gables, it can be a bit overpowering in the design composition.
• What will the lighting treatment be?  Design team is exploring scounces and down spout lighting.  Committee will need to see lighting plan and details for final approval.
• Potential for a minor zoning issue with side yard parking if the street isn't vacated before official plans are submitted to Building & Housing.
• Add a window from the learning center to the porch
• Study the making of the front porch element.

Motion to approve with the consideration of the items discussed.

Voting Members Present

• C. Poh
• A. Lucazsy-Love (2nd)
• R. Nieswander (1st)
• P. Brown (CH)

Project presented by J. Cana from LDA Architects.  Details provided on the changes to the original submission.

Committee Comments, Questions, Concerns

• Revise the horizontal windows to better line up with the joints with a more rectangular shape.
• Decided against added parking at the rear to increase safety and protect the mature trees on the site.
• Wall mounted lighting will be on the front face of columns and at the entrances.
• Is there overhead lighting under the front porch area.
• Use the wall lights inside the porch element instead of the overhead lighting and placing them on the column face.
• What material is being used for the inside of the porch?  Cement board
• What is the depth of the porch area, is it usuable, will there be seating?
• Condsider using a warmer light for the parking area because of the residential nature of the area.
• Investigate the existing lighting in the parking lot and possibly better coordinate so that it is consistent.
• Pedestrian lighting at the rear of the site where all of the seating amenities are proposed. And 1-2 pole lights near the parking within the tree island.
• Rhodedendrum might be tempermental and need more maintenance. Perhaps choose a different material that doesnt need as much attention.  Consider using less ornamental shrubs.
• Moved the building forward about 6 feet.
• What will the fencing material be?  It will match the fencing of the two properties on either side, but will be lower.

Motion to approve with the conditions to change the clerestory windows for a more vertical/rectangular treatment, reviewing the clading the on the porch area so that it does not feel like a blank wall, review the site lighting for location and color temperature, reviewing the landscaping to eliminate the rhodedendrum and maintainance for all materials, and remove the wall sconces from the columns.