Architectural Board of Review

Architectural Board of Review Minutes Monday, July 1, 2024 8 A.M. Via Conference - Zoom Members Present: Sandra Madison, Chair Hans Walter, Vice-Chair James Neville, Member Kevin Kennedy, Alternate Member Vincent Leskosky, 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 the June17, 2024 Meeting Minutes Approved. * * * * ABR24-000052 – 14201 Southington Road – Preliminary Review: Ludlow School Renovation. Mr. Feinstein reviewed the comments from the June 3, 2024 meeting. Aaron Rodebaugh, GPD Group, said they are implementing details to tie the new addition to the existing building. The design team and the district support the details which bring the addition closer to the historic appearance of the building. The entry design is reflective of the Southington Road entry but is simplified. Pilasters have been added to give separation to the building. The proportions are the same as the other entry. Ornate glass is simplified for modern windows in the design. The Ludlow elevation is enhanced to rectilinear to reflect the window around the corner. The secondary entry has been simplified. The operations entry is adjacent and has separate entry doors. Tamisha Lawson, GPD Group, explained they refined details on the existing building. They removed two doors to the gymnasium and infilled with brick. The steps to the front entry now have 6” risers. They are retaining small windows on the south façade. The playground retaining wall was not discussed in the first review and is now detailed. It is masonry brick to match the building with a limestone cap with an ornamental fence above. A masonry enclosure is proposed for the generator and trash enclosure. Mr. Kennedy said they are looking at the building as a whole. He thinks the entry addition design has improved. He likes that they used the details of the original, but they could refine the details. The canopy is gone, but there are other design options needed to add depth and weather protection to the entry. The entry could be worked to create depth within an arched or square portion to create a canopy. The ramp at the entry empties to the drop-off area sidewalk and needs to have transparency. How does the ramp relate to the retaining wall? The new brick should be held back from the existing wall. Mr. Rodebaugh said the intent is to recess the brick where the service doors to the gymnasium are removed. Mr. Neville said they should keep in mind the Board would like the new entrance to refer to the existing, but there is no need to replicate it exactly. This was meant as a starting point for further study. The entrance is oriented to the parking lot rather than Ludlow Road. This direct orientation is not absolutely necessary. Mr. Walter said the drop-off scenario is not necessarily in their purview but this school is historically walkable to the community. He is not sure the drop-off as suggested works. It would create a bottleneck. He suggested study from the City Planning Commission on how to engage the entry. He is concerned with pre-school kids going down the ramp to the parking lot presenting a risk. Community schools in Shaker Heights typically have front lawns with kids playing and running around. Mr. Rodebaugh said this pre-K is different than neighborhood schools. They have explored with the district the existing drop off at Onaway School’s pre-school program and discussed the front entry at this building. The children will be buckled in and need help exiting their cars from staff members which is how it is done now. Ms. Lawson said they have provided a wide sidewalk area to allow staff and students to maneuver to and from cars to the entry. Mr. Walter said the sidewalk seems narrow for all that activity when there are people walking both ways back and forth to cars with children. Mr. Kennedy said he remembers when his kids were in pre-school and the drop-off/pick-up was not dissimilar. The children do not walk themselves into the building and a teacher usually removes the child from the car. Only to say this condition is not out of the norm. Mr. Walter said it still looks like a tight area with the stairs and ramp included in the mix. It is really important for the stair and ramp location to be safe. Ms. Lawson said there are no children walking through the parking lot. The ramp is for ADA access and should not have running children. They children are escorted by hand into the building. This ramp is only for those that cannot navigate the steps. They had teachers give input on this design. Mr. Kennedy said when the area is staffed is one thing. Outside of school hours and having neighborhood kids in the area is another thing. At a minimum, the ramp walls need transparency. Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Neville said he respects the school district and their consideration of the building entry and its operation. The top of the ramp wall off the Ludlow side is above eye level. This is not a good thing. He likes the idea of an art feature on the ramp wall, but is more concerned with how this relates to the pre-school students. Lower walls around the ramp are more appropriate, especially for small children. The wall could pick up the datum line on the building. Perhaps make the stairs narrower. The steps look monumental. The ramp wall could have planter beds. The wall as shown shuts the entry off from the community and Ludlow Road. Mr. Leskosky said he does not have a lot of issues with the entry architecture in general, though it needs refining. The walls should not be higher than the landing and need to be more transparent. Ms. Lawson said ADA requires a barrier 3 feet higher than a landing. Mr. Walter said the ramp design at the main library could be used as an example It is integrated into the side of the entry. Mr. Neville said a more transparent railing would be better. It could incorporate custom art work to the pre-school or not. He said architectural concrete could be incorporated into the forms to create planters. Mr. Walter said a landscaped type element could be artfully designed to improve the visuals of the very hard and imposing step and ramp design. Mr. Neville said high school student artists could be tied in. He questioned the security at the top of the ramp at the landing. A planter could be added near the double seat risers to better protect that edge and soften the view. Mr. Walter said if the entry is turned to face Ludlow Road it could create a space that is more inset to the building and the parking lot. This could create a plaza space in the front, with a refuge from the asphalt area to increase safety. Mr. Neville said lower ramp walls and landscaping would go a long way to improving the entry experience. Consider an entrance door to the left, so it is not so symmetrical. The lower sections of glass on either side of the entry need work to coordinate and go with the design. There is not enough substance in the entry side lights. Mr. Leskosky said the design is focused on the main entry. The problems with the entry design should be addressed with improved detailing and coordination. Mr. Feinstein said substantial discussion has centered around safe and effective access and use of the entry plus the look of the ramp, stairs, and walls. The other two entries have been redesigned to be significantly less important in the overall design. Mr. Neville said the designers should consider stone headers on the entry and windows should extend beyond the jamb like on the existing building, to appear like a real lintel. Ms. Lawson said they did try this look, but is seemed too ornate. Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Neville said the window to the left of the ramp seems to be the wrong size. He would investigate the elevation to simplify the glazing relationships. The transom element needs work and could have a simplified glazing design. Ms. Lawson said the transom above the entry door is an applique to replicate the front entry and maintain the u-factor of the glazing. Mr. Walter noted there are a number of window sizes and head heights in the entry addition. The window on the side wall of the new entry addition could be lowered to be less important than the entry side of the addition. Mr. Neville suggested they study the design of the side lites of the entry door as well. Ms. Lawson said these large windows match the gymnasium windows. They have played around with different sizes. There is some interference with the cornice. Mr. Leskosky said they could have two side lite windows instead. Mr. Neville asked if they could manipulate the sill heights to better line up. Mr. Leskosky said the applique of the half-round feature window above the entry is not the most appropriate design solution. The Board suggested the following: 1) study the entry windows, simplify the window elements of the new entry addition to more closely relate including having the side lights and windows on the side of the addition and correlate to the entry door; 2) consider changing the glazing above the entry door instead of replicating the front entry in glazing, a more abstract or simple interpretation should be investigated; 3) raise the entry head height and study how that relates to the stone belt course around the rest of the building; 4) study the side lights and how they relate to the entry; 5) consider one less vertical grid in the entry doors, trying to make the lites as square as possible; 6) perhaps add landscape planters or beds to bring softness to the entry stairs; 7) lower and open up the ramp for a more open appearance, both for massing and safety, ability to view into the area from the direction cars can view the area; 8) study how to provide some overhanging weather protection at the entry and 9) study lowering the roof height of the storage area next to the secondary entrance.. The Board requested the City Planning Commission study and provide feedback regarding the entry area regarding the pickup and drop off issues raised during their review of the project. The Board was concerned with the width and safety of the drop-off area, ramp entry/exits, height of the accessibility ramp walls, and suggested a change of the grade should be studied to alleviate the extent of these issues. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Mr. Kennedy left the meeting. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Madison joined the meeting. * * * * ABR24-000068 – 3012 Warrington Road – New Garage. Diane Bija, New Creation Builders, said this is a new single door garage with harbor blue siding and black shingles. Mr. Neville asked about the black horizontal line on the plans. Ms. Bija said that is a layer on the drawing that should have been removed. Mr. Neville asked about the door swing for the service entry. Mr. Feinstein noted the floor plan shows a 22 by 26 foot garage so there should be room for an interior door swing. Approved with condition that the plans are noted with the Harbor Blue siding and Black roof colors. Submit revised plans for administrative review. * * * * ABR24-000069 – 2730 Cranlyn Road – Landscape Elements. Josh Tooker, Pattie Group, explained the details of the design. There are benches to separate the deck from the patio. The deck is made of Trex in a grey brown color. There is a Trex metal railing at one end. Approved. * * * * ABR24-000074 – 3285 Warrington Road – New Garage. Nilsa Carrero, Platinum Construction, said they will demolish the existing garage and the new garage will be a 20 by 20 foot garage with a reverse gable roof design. The siding is a clay color and the roof color is weathered wood. The trim, and doors are white. The doors have raised panels. Ms. Madison asked for the service door to swing out so it does not interfere with parked cars within the new garage. Approved with the following conditions: 1) outswing man door; 2) 6 panel man door. Submit revised plans for administrative review. Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 5 of 9  * * * * ABR24-000076 – 3562 Riedham Road – New Vinyl Siding. Rick, MGL Holdings LLC, property owner, said the sides and rear of the house are proposed to be sided with double 4 inch heritage cream siding with new white window casings. Mr. Leskosky asked how the new siding meets the first floor window casing if the existing siding is not being removed. There does not seem to be any relief between the window and the existing wood siding. Rick said it will be a j-channel into the corner of the window casing. Ms. Madison said the new siding cannot be forward of the existing trim next to the first floor windows. Rick said he will have to check and see at the front corner of the house. If there is no relief, they could remove the portion of wood siding to allow the new vinyl to look like the existing wood. Approved with the following conditions: 1) the detail at the first floor corner is provided for administrative review; 2) if there is no relief to the first floor trim, suggest removal of the existing siding to the corner to allow room for the new siding; and 3) double 5 inch siding is used. Submit revised plans for administrative review. * * * * ABR24-000078 – 3658 Avalon Road – Roof Alteration. Mark Munch, homeowner, said they are proposing a new roof type on their rear addition. It will be a standard gable roof with a new window replacing a door. The brick infill will match and a window sill will be added. The Board commented that the intention seems acceptable, but the plans do not show that design intent. Tabled so that the plans are updated to show the following: 1) detailed, to-scale drawings, including construction details; 2) show brick as toothed-in under new window; 3) window details, including brick sill and trim; 3) window quote; 5) roof shingle color to match the existing slate house roof; 6) location of gutters and downspouts. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 6 of 9 ABR24-000080 – 3294 Warrington Road - Deck. Sally Levine, architect, explained there is a small porch on the rear. They are retaining the porch and expanding the first floor to be a deck. The new handrail will match the existing second floor railing. The pergola roof will be added only over the extended deck portion. The deck skirt is horizontal siding in brown. They are re-using the sandstone steps on one side with new steps on the other side. There is a white rail and treated lumber floor with a white pergola. Approved with the condition that the treated lumber posts are wrapped in cedar and painted white. Submit revised plans (A-9) for administrative review. * * * * ABR24-000022 – 18102 Parkland Drive – Resubmission Window Alteration. Mr. Feinstein said this window replacement work will be done in two phases, the second phase has now been submitted for review. Laura Mott, Renewal by Andersen, showed revised window configurations one both floors. They are proposing matching configuration with one less wide and one less high grid as the new grids and frame are slightly larger than the wood and leaded glass grids. Approved both phases of the window replacement. The second floor windows will be replaced first. The first floor is the second phase and will be replaced within 2 years. * * * * ABR24-000067 – 3558 Hildana Road – Preliminary Review: New House. Gillian Hall, Knez, explained they are using their “Metro” design house, which has been approved before, to fit the fabric of the neighborhood on this new lot. She showed a view of the new house on the block. Mr. Feinstein asked if there are any changes to the plan from the “Metro” house design already built on Ludgate Road. Ms. Hall said it is the exact same as the house on Ludgate. She showed the material and color choices. Approved. * * * * ABR24-000062 – 3136 Van Aken Boulevard – Preliminary Review: Addition. William Oeflein, architect, explained the inspiration and went through the proposed new second floor rear addition layout and design. The entire addition is cantilevered over the garage edge. It is a Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 7 of 9 modern designed addition on this 50’s mid-century modern house. It is not dissimilar from some other modern addition within Shaker Heights. Mr. Neville said this is a reasonable design suggestion for this house. He would like to see the overhang extend farther out on the balcony overhang roof. Mr. Leskosky said the shapes of each side of the addition work. He suggested the front façade be a more independently designed form like the other sides. There was discussion regarding detailing of the addition and how the front elevation might be changed. John Cook, homeowner, indicated he appreciated the feedback and liked the design suggestions for the front elevation. Approved of the design direction with the following comments: 1) the vertical side elevation windows could push closer to the horizontal window; and 2) the front vertical window should replicate the taller rear elevation window in order to create a similar front elevation shape and design. * * * * ABR24-000075 – 17350 South Park Boulevard – Preliminary Review: Accessory Structure. Ronald Kluchin, architect, said this is a 1958 home. The owner has been remodeling since they moved in 11 years ago. They propose to replace the pool and cabana. There will both horizontal and vertical siding on the cabana. There is a cantilevered roof at the front. The new pool will be closer to the house and have stone deck. The new cabana is located 24 feet from the property line. The new cabana will not have heat or air conditioning. The doors open all the way to the lounge area with 10- foot high doors. The siding and roof colors match the house. The Board agreed the concept is good and goes with the modern design of the house. Mr. Kluchin said they hope to break ground in the Fall so they will return with final plans soon. Approved of the design direction. * * * * ABR24-000071 – 16108 Scottsdale Boulevard – Window Grid Alteration. Window Nation representative, representing Kimberly Stewart, homeowner. Applicant not present. The Board determined no grids are appropriate in the windows on either side of the front door. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 8 of 9 ABR24-000066 – 19913 Shelburne Road – New Vinyl Siding. Mark Whalen, Pro Trades, representing Stephen and Lesley Brown, homeowners. Approved administratively prior to the meeting. * * * * ABR24-000079 – 3329 Avalon Road – Window Alteration. Brandy Ehrenschneider, Karlovec and Company, representing Deepak Sarma, homeowner. Approved administratively prior to the meeting. * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The next meeting will be July 15, 2024. _________________________________ _________________________________ Sandra Madison, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review 07/01/2024 Page 9 of 9