Architectural Board of Review

Architectural Board of Review Minutes Monday, July 21, 2025 8 A.M. Via Conference - Zoom Members Present: James Neville, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair David Berlekamp, Member Kevin Kennedy, 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 minutes from the July 7, 2025 meeting. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000162 – 3400 Lee Road – Preliminary Review: City Hall Addition. Mr. Feinstein explained City Hall is an historic building and designated landmark, built in 1930. There have been a couple of renovations. In 1984 there was an ADA entry added at the parking lot and in 2010 there were interior renovations for ADA compliance. The Fire Department moved to a new building in the early 2000’s. The second floor of the previous Fire Department space was renovated for offices. The Landmark Commission will also review this addition based on the Secretary of Interior Standards. Shannon Marlin, City of Shaker Heights, said there was also a 1970’s addition that housed the Fire Department offices until the department moved from the building. This proposed addition was triggered by the need to get City staff out of the basement into improved space. There were complaints of hazardous air quality in the basement, as well as the need for Human Resources to become ADA accessible. There is not enough room in the former fire bays for the personnel needs. They did review the possibility of using the Annex building for staff and prepared a fit plan. City Council reviewed that plan and asked for other options. They also studied removing and rebuilding the Annex as well as an addition to City Hall. The City has appropriated $1.6M for an addition. David Thal, Weber Murphy Fox, explained they are proposing a 1,900 square foot one story addition, symmetrically placed with the footprint of the former fire bays. The building setbacks for City Hall are shown. The landscaping beds would be extended and the rear driveway maintained. They propose to demolish the main lobby and surrounding offices to create a secure entrance with meeting room and ADA restrooms. A large breakroom, meeting room and Human Resources and Information Technology offices would move into the previous fire bays and new addition. They have paid close attention to the materials and proportions of the existing building. The addition is respectful of, but different than, the original building. They felt it important to set the addition back from the wall of the original building. The existing overhang will be re-purposed for the proposed awnings of the windows on the north elevation. Mr. Neville asked if there are any other arches on the original building, other than the east facing windows on the old fire station. Mr. Thal said the arches over the windows are only present on the Fire Station wing. They now propose a squared off design, not the arches. Mr. Kennedy said he likes the second approach with the square design. The first approach seems tame and safe. He likes the “memory” of the bay doors with the awnings. The second approach takes chances that are good and makes the addition interesting. Mr. Berlekamp said both studies are thorough and that is appreciated. He said he was initially drawn to the round arch option, but hearing the logic of the square detail he now agrees that is an appropriate option. His only question with the rectangular option is that the recessed areas above the windows on the east and west sides seem unresolved. The original building windows with stone below them are single, tall rectangular windows. On the addition the stone panels seem incongruous as the windows are ganged as pairs. Perhaps the side elevations should also have awnings. Overall, this is a nice approach. Mr. Walter said the presentation is well put together. He would like to see better, fuller drawings and photos including more of the original building. He said he has no problem with the addition. Mr. Neville said he likes the way the forms capture the corner. He also likes the rectangular window treatment based on the arguments made today. The jack arches should be lowered some amount and not match the adjacent arched opening height. That needs some study. Mr. Thal said he can study that detail and heights of those elements. Mr. Neville suggested that canopies over the windows on all four sides could be considered. Mr. Kennedy said a canopy above the old bays could be continuous over the north elevation and singular over the east and west elevation windows. Mr. Walter suggested something in the brick detail could allow the memory of the wider, larger doors. Could the brick be inset? The windows should stay in the same alignment. A more subtle hint to the larger bays would be nice. Mr. Thal said the former bays become experiential on the interior, with remaining support columns. Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Braverman asked about how natural light would be brought into the interior former fire bay spaces. Mr. Thal said they have aligned a clearstory window with the second floor windows. This shows up in the break room behind the 70’s addition parapet. This is the only location they found to allow natural light. Mr. Feinstein noted there is a lot of mechanical equipment on that west-facing roof. Mr. Thal said the height of the ceiling in the bays will be kept in the new renovation. Mr. Kennedy asked what happens in the lobby with security. There is a sign in area at a front desk now. That is not in the new plan. Mr. Thal said that between the entry doors there will be a large transaction window and the receptionist will be located in what is now a meeting room. Seating for 6 will be available in the renovated area. Mr. Feinstein said they do have photos of potential brick. The intent is to match the City Hall building brick. Mr. Berlekamp said brick to grade is shown on the plans. Is that correct? Some areas look like there is a stone base on the existing building. Mr. Thal said the plan is to align the addition with the immediately adjacent building. They are working with a vendor to closely match the existing 1970’s addition. That brick is more monochromatic. The tone will match. There is a full Flemish bond on the original building. The existing addition has a Flemish bond course every 6th course. Mr. Neville said it would be worse to try to match the brick and just miss the mark than be different. He would suggest lowering the jack arches some amount to be determined by study. Discussion held with the following comments: 1) the size and massing seem appropriate, with the detailing to be refined; 2) the Board asked for more context photos of the existing original building; 3) add more of the adjacent exterior walls to the plan set; 4) consider lowering the jack arches; 5) study where the canopies go and if they should be separate or continuous; 6) study the stone panels below the windows; 7) study the base wall condition as brick or stone; and 8) consider additional detailing around the north window openings to replicate the original fire bay doors. Submit revised plans for further review. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 3 of 8 ABR25-000152 – 22159 Calverton Road – Window Alteration. Marcus Huth, Infinity from Marvin, explained they are proposing to remove the picture window in the front façade. The owners want air flow. The proposal is for a new picture window with flanking cottage windows. Mr. Neville asked if this could be adjusted in size to have an even window lite setup. There is currently a difference in the center window grid width. There was discussion regarding slider windows for the kitchen area. Approved the front picture window with the condition that the lites within each is the same width. Submit revised quote for administrative review. Denied the slider windows. Casement window replacements are required. * * * * ABR25-000153 – 2844 Weybridge Road – Window Alteration. Charles St. Louis, Renewal by Andersen, said there are currently three windows on the rear elevation where they propose to alter them from the existing double hung windows to casement windows. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000128 – 23700 South Woodland Road – Window Alteration. Zach Tame, Home Depot, explained this change is to a garage window and one window on the rear porch. Both are proposed as slider windows. The other windows on the house were replaced 5 years ago. Ms. Beck confirmed there were no permits for the existing slider windows on the house. Mr. Neville said if this gets approved as slider windows, then the Board is essentially saying the rest of the replacement windows are acceptable. Mr. Tame said the patio area at the rear would not allow a casement window as it would intrude into the space. Mr. Neville said the original windows were made purposefully double hung on the patio. A picture window with double hung flanking windows is acceptable. Denied slider windows. The Board approved a double casement window or picture window with a simulated check rail on Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 4 of 8 the garage and a picture window with flanking double hung windows on the rear elevation. Submit revised quote for administrative review. * * * * ABR25-000126 – 21075 Almar Road – Resubmission: Window Alteration. Mr. Feinstein reviewed the notes from the previous meeting. Mark Polomsky, Empire Window, said this proposal shows that the casements are all the same size and the picture windows make up the remaining space of each opening. There was discussion regarding the divisions of the windows. Mr. Walter suggested the front and rear openings should be three openings and the side two openings. This would make each opening very similar in width. Approved three window divisions on the front and rear former porch elevation openings and two openings in each side elevation opening. Submit revised quote for administrative review. * * * * ABR25-000156 – 20101 Shelburne Road – Landscape Elements. Patrick Beam, contractor, explained this condominium is located above the parking garage. They propose a fence and a gate to create a small enclosed area. The gate would have decorative scroll elements. The awning over the current patio area will be removed. Mr. Walter asked if the brick is painted black. Mr. Beam said this is a black wood lattice that could be removed or painted white as suggested. Approved. * * * * Mr. Walter left the meeting. * * * * ABR25-000158 – 24039 Shelburne Road – Porch Alteration. Richard Cooper, VNTG Place, explained they are replacing all the windows. The back porch windows will be changed to match the house. Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 5 of 8 There was discussion about the front window replacement. The Board agreed the front windows should match the existing house windows. Approved the rear porch windows. The revisions to the front elevation windows were denied. Approved a match to the existing front windows with side windows as matching fixed style or casement side windows. Submit revised quote for administrative review. * * * * ABR25-000163 – 21332 Sydenham Road – Window Alteration. Pete Krouse, homeowner, said they need to replace one window in a group of 4 casement windows on a rear addition. They propose to have a new fixed window with 12 lites. He explained the existing house windows and the various windows in the addition. Elizabeth Krouse, homeowner, said they are trying to match the grids on the main house windows, which have very large panes. There was discussion regarding options for this opening, focusing on how the window relates to the existing front windows. Approved. * * * * ABR25-000164 – 20726 Byron Road – Retaining Wall. Karla Mulzac, homeowner, explained there will be 38 to 42 feet of retaining wall, 21 feet in front of the fence. An opening is created to go to the proposed fire pit. Mr. Feinstein asked how tall the wall will be. What is the material of the top course? Will this be dry- laid or mortared in? Ms. Mulzac said they will not be using a special top course. The wall is proposed at 2 feet tall and they will use rock glue so it will look like dry laid stone. Approved. * * * * Mr. Walter re-joined the meeting. * * * * Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 6 of 8 ABR25-000160 – 16651 Chagrin Boulevard – Signage: Cleveland Dental. Mr. Feinstein said this location is in Shaker Towne Centre, just east of Heinen’s. John Benedict, Brilliant Electric Sign, said only the letters are illuminated. Mr. Berlekamp said the majority of signs in Shaker Town Center only have text, but there is a BMV and orthodontics office also have a logo as part of their signs. The Board suggested the logo and letters have the same height so they better relate. Approved with the following conditions: 1) that the letters and logo are the same size; and 2) only the letters illuminate on the logo. Submit revised sign details for administrative review. * * * * ABR25-000038 – 3606 Lytle Road – New House. Mr. Feinstein said the Board had reviewed this new house design preliminarily several months ago. Pete Schuerger, owner, said they are proposing dark siding and lighter cultured stone. They have addressed the questions raised at the last meeting. Mr. Feinstein said the south elevation has a limited second floor. The proposal is for first floor living. He noted this has not yet been to the City Planning Commission for site plan review. Mr. Neville said they responded well to the previous comments. He asked they consider wood trim or panels around the front door. Andrew Gotleib, Keystate Homes, said the intent is to have the door with brickmold trim to the stone. Mr. Neville said it would work better with the stone ending at the side walls and wood only around the entry door. Mr. Feinstein asked the rear deck material. Mr. Gotleib said it will be wood or composite material. There was discussion regarding the rear deck and porch details. Mr. Kennedy said he is comfortable not changing any of the details at the porch. Mr. Feinstein noted the Design Guidelines for Infill Housing require wood clad windows. The Architectural Board of Review has required them for at least the front elevation and simulated divided lites always on the front elevation. Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 7 of 8 Approved with the following conditions: 1) design the front entry door trim to extend to the side walls of the entrance alcove; 2) mull the triple front windows together; and 3) consider installing a railing on the rear porch; 4) submit proposed window specifications and to address the Design Guidelines for Infill Housing; and 5) submit final material and color samples including the stone, window and door specifications and paint colors. Submit revised plans for Board review. * * * * ABR25-000161 – 21925 Byron Road – Solar Panels. Allan Walker, YellowLite, representing Daniel Petit and Megan Brown, homeowners. Approved administratively. * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The next meeting will be August 4, 2025. _________________________________ _________________________________ James Neville, Chair Hans Walter, Vice Chair Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review Architectural Board of Review 07/21/2025 Page 8 of 8