Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 2, 2024 7 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers Members Present: Sean P. Malone, Council Member, Acting Chair John J. Boyle III, Member Joanna Ganning, Member Jason Russell, Member Others Present: Joyce G. Braverman, Director of Planning William M. Gruber, Director of Law Daniel Feinstein, Senior Planner The meeting was called to order by Sean P. Malone, Council Member at 7:00 p.m. * * * * Approval of the June 4, 2024 Meeting Minutes It was moved by Dr. Ganning and seconded by Mr. Russell to approve the minutes. Roll Call: Ayes: Malone, Ganning, Russell Nays: None Abstain: Boyle Motion Carried * * * * #2260. HARDERS RESIDENCE – 19801 VAN AKEN BOULEVARD #10: A Public Hearing was held on the request of Robert and Meg Harders, 19801 Van Aken Boulevard, unit 10, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements. The applicant proposes to convert a screened porch into an enclosed sunroom at ground level on the rear of the Shaker Villas condominium building. The proposed sunroom is 12 feet from the rear property line which backs up to the Shaker Heights Country Club property. Code requires a rear yard setback of 20 feet for this building in the A Apartment Residential zoning district. Mr. Feinstein showed pictures of the site. He stated this is a request for a variance to the rear yard building setback to replace a screened porch with a new sunroom. The applicant proposes to build a sunroom to replace the old screened porch on the ground floor of their condominium building. The unit faces the Shaker Heights Country Club and the sunroom is 12 feet from the rear property line. The required rear yard building setback is 20 feet. The Architectural Board of Review approved the design of the sunroom at their June 17, 2024 meeting. Staff recommends approval. Robert Harders, owner, said they seek approval for the project, which they have been contemplating for three years. They love the city and neighborhood and have moved here for their retirement. The building is appropriate but the screen porch is in disrepair. This new room will create a more enjoyable living space for all seasons. They seek to add to the aesthetic style of the building. Mr. Russell said he assumes the new addition is the same footprint as the existing porch. Mr. Harder said it is proposed as the same layout. They will need a new slab and footer under the addition, but the footprint is the same. Mr. Malone opened the Public Hearing. No comments were received in regard to this application. Dr. Ganning asked if the city had ever approved something similar to this request. Mr. Feinstein said there is precedent on a nearby building for a set of stairs from a garage rooftop down to a rear patio. It was moved by Mr. Boyle and seconded by Mr. Russell to approve the request based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet. Roll Call: Ayes: Malone, Boyle, Ganning, Russell Nays: None Motion Carried * * * * #2261. LUDLOW SCHOOL – 14201 SOUTHINGTON ROAD: A Public Hearing was held on the request of Aaron Rodebaugh, GPD Group, on behalf of the Shaker Heights City School District, Ludlow School, 14201 Southington Road, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances in order to replace the parking lot, relocate and expand the playground, and enclose the dumpsters and generator as part of the renovation of the building into a district-wide pre-school. The site work includes expansion of the parking lot and relocation of the playground to the Keswick Road front yard. The applicant proposes to locate two playground structures in the Keswick Road front yard set back 17 feet from the sidewalk. Code allows recreational structures in the rear only set back 25 feet. A brick retaining wall between 2 and 3.5 feet tall with a 3-foot tall aluminum ornamental fence on top of it will border the playground along the Keswick sidewalk. The wall plus the fence is 5 and 6.5 ft above the sidewalk level. The fence and wall are proposed to be set back between 3 and 8 feet from the Keswick Road sidewalk at its closest. Code requires a 33-foot front yard setback for a fence and a maximum 4-foot high fence. The parking lot is proposed with two interior landscape islands that are 4 feet wide with low grow sumac bushes. Code requires interior parking lot landscape islands to be at least 7 feet wide and contain a shade tree. Dumpsters and a generator are proposed to be enclosed with an 8-foot tall brick screen wall and located in the Ludlow front yard setback 20 feet from the Ludlow Road sidewalk. Code Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5812 allows dumpsters and generators only in the rear yard. Walls are not allowed to be over 4 feet tall and must be set back 33 feet in the front yard. Mr. Feinstein showed pictures of the site. He stated this is a request in order to relocate the playground, dumpster and utilities as part of the renovation of the building as the district wide pre-school building. As a result of the exterior renovations, several variances are requested. The playgrounds are located in the Keswick Road front yard 17 feet behind the sidewalk. Accessory recreational structures are allowed in the rear yard with a 25-foot setback. The height and location of the retaining wall and fence around the playground need variances. The brick wall and 3-foot tall aluminum ornamental fence are in total 3.5 to 7 feet above the Keswick Road sidewalk and setback between 3 and 8 feet. A 4 foot height and a 33-foot setback are required. The dumpsters and generator are proposed in the Ludlow Road front yard 20 feet behind the sidewalk screened with an 8-foot tall brick wall. Code requires a brick wall enclosure, but limits the location to the rear yard and only allows a 4-foot tall wall in the front yard set back 33 feet from the street. The interior parking lot islands are only 6 feet wide and code requires a 7 foot wide island. The Architectural Board of Review requested the City Planning Commission review and provide feedback on the new entry area for pick-up and drop-off safety and feasibility. The City Planning Commission can provide comments to the Architectural Board of Review on this topic per Section 1212.03 of the zoning ordinances. The Architectural Board of Review was concerned with how the ramp, steps, and the width of the walkway work with the redesigned parking lot. The Architectural Board of Review has preliminarily reviewed the two new building entry designs twice. The revised design was reviewed preliminarily yesterday with comments ranging from creating a coherent window design, to reducing the ramp wall, to redesigning the area above the new main entry door. Staff suggests continuation. Jeff Grosse, Shaker Heights City Schools, introduced the GPD Group architects in charge of design of the Ludlow project. Aaron Rodebaugh, GPD Group, described the neighborhood and the programming of the school renovation. The old parking lot was removed and replaced with fields in 1988. Now there are 34 total parking spaces and a small playground. He described neighborhood feedback gathered at meetings. The community wanted a K-5 playground, to preserve trees, maintain the fields and have access into the gymnasium. Ludlow School will be different from other schools. All of the city, not just the neighborhood, will attend the pre-K building. These small children will need direct drop off instead of buses. Onaway has a pre-school program and drop-off currently works with staff escorting children from the private vehicles. He showed early draft plans that were shared with the City and Ludlow area neighbors. He showed the preferred layout, number 4, of the parking lot with 24-foot wide aisles. They lose some parking, but add a drop-off lane. These options were presented to the School board to refine the plan. There was a design charrette to better envision the playground. He showed a “What We’ve Heard” slide, with feedback from the neighborhood. The reasons for the requested variances include a need for parking and drop-off support, which needs rear yard space. They need a Pre-K ADA compliant playground with a hard surface and storage area. The generator area replaces the gas house with the dumpster and generator enclosure. The dumpsters are currently not enclosed. The variances required are to the school being surrounded by three streets, creating three front yards on this property. The need for fall zones have pushed the playground closer to the sidewalk on Keswick Road. The district’s parking needs push the playground around toward the Keswick Road side. There are 24 staff expected with more in the future. There are 23 on-street spaces on Ludlow and Keswick Roads. The retaining wall and fence around the playground varies in height from 8 feet of fence and wall to 3.5 feet for just the fence. Angela Short, GPD Group, said the existing tree critical root zone has been calculated but is not code required. They have included a root zone equaling 1 inch of tree diameter equals 1 foot of area around a Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5813 tree for the critical root zone. The proposed playground does not encroach into more than 25% of disturbance of the calculated critical root zone. Mr. Rodebaugh explained the dumpster is currently located on Ludlow behind some bushes. They are working to find the best locations for a lot of items on a tight site. Mr. Malone opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Feinstein summarized the following submitted letters: Kevin Dreyfuss-Wells, 3021 Ludlow Road, writes that he supports the Ludlow School Pre-K project, however he does not support the project as it has been presented. The plans to not show a realization of a shared vision for the school with the neighborhood. The design challenges are a result of an overcrowded program dominated by substantial automobile parking and circulation. It is disappointing to see a submission that is incomplete compared to what the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals is typically presented for projects of similar significance. The significance of the existing trees on the site should not be understated. Recommendations from a third-party independent arborist should be developed, including a plan. The applicant has inaccurately represented the relationship between zoning and parking stating that 27 spaces are required and provided. The unique nature of drop/pick activities at an early childhood center has likewise been often noted, and is undoubtedly the case, but again few details have been provided. He asks the Board to require a traffic study from appropriate professionals to quantify anticipated volumes. The importance of creating a quality playground at Ludlow can’t be understated. He encouraged adding green, both within the boundaries and around the perimeter. The proposed changes reduce the usability for soccer, both by eliminating a berm often used for seating, and by pushing the field west against an existing drain location. Chris Cheraso, 2856 Chadbourne Road, writes that he agrees with the BZA staff position to continue the request. An illustrative rendering would help show design intent. They are not taking into account the impact to the adjoining neighborhood, existing tree canopy and its relationship to the street. He asked the design team to look at alternatives and evaluate the size of the playground and need for the brick wall, consider natural stone and study the parking lot and its circulation. A joint letter was submitted by Nancy R. Moore, Ted Auch, Nick Fletcher, Alan Gross, Timothy Kalan, Christine Medvedev, Michael Peters, Mimi Plevin-Foust and Anne Williams. It requests all planning bodies in the City and Schools give additional thought including: Trees must be protected; Need for a greener site; Need a great playground. Play areas at other schools in the district include areas for trees and plantings integrated as part of the well-equipped playgrounds; Need a plan for traffic; That the site be cared for; and for the school district to listen. Marika Emerson writes that she relocated to Cleveland from Portland, Oregon. Ludlow deserves a beautiful school and a well-executed project to benefit this community now and in the future. Beth Friedman-Rommell, 3029 Ludlow Road, writes she is thrilled with a district-wide preschool coming to the Ludlow community. She lives across the street from the school. Current pluses for the site include: mature trees and shade, grass, a big field, an attractive historic building, a safe cohesive neighborhood that is proud of its history and heritage. What the site doesn’t need is more asphalt and she strongly opposes any increase to impermeable surface. There is ample room for folks to park on the street; Moving the trash bins from the back of the building to the front. Please preserve green space on the site. Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5814 Rosa Hand, 3175 Ludlow Road, expressed her support for the variances requested for the school renovation. The plans incorporate community feedback and balance those with school needs and neighborhood character. Mr. Dreyfuss Wells said he is a member of the school’s facility advisory committee. He is also an architect who understands the challenges of this site. This is a unique moment for this school and neighborhood. Everyone supports the Pre-K and education, safe drop-off, playground, parking, and protection of the field, but the designs are not there yet. The School Board should consider more than just the variances proposed. The hard surface area is large and the green space is too small. There is plenty of on-street parking with 63 on street spaces. The earlier plan shown to the community had 21 parking spaces in the lot and now there are more parking spaces. Only 4 to 5 cars at a time can drop-off then one up to 17 cars line up. A smaller lot could accommodate the single row of drop-off, which allows a narrower lot. Heinen’s has 15 feet to the curb for their entry. Shaker Heights buildings have front doors. This building is focused only to the parking lot not the street. No bike parking is included. There are a lot of solutions. Ben Hsu, 3034 Ludlow Road, said he is the President of the Ludlow Neighborhood Association. There are 200 on their email list and Facebook page of 600. There are 250 homes in the neighborhood and 3,000 residents. Their Association has limited outreach. Resident comments include to not pave the field, protect the trees and use native species, proper drainage, reduce hardscape and have a multi-age playground. They want to maintain a community use in the building fore events and meetings. Mike Reicher, 3033 Keswick Road, said he appreciates that the architects have done a nice job and the layout is acceptable to them. There is already a field with enough green space. He wants it all to work out. Richard Cissell, 2900 Huntington Road, said he is on the school’s faculty advisory committee. He is concerned with a lack of green space, which affects the character of the building. The area near the building entry is concerning. The Architectural Board of Review is concerned about the drop-off. Lee Markowitz, 3542 Townley Road, said this project sets a precedent for the future. The district needs to listen to the Ludlow Community. They need to be sensitive to the neighbor’s concerns. Ellen Lazarus, 14401 Onaway Road, asked the number of children expected to attend? Will there be district office use in the building? Ms. Chapman, Corby Road of Cleveland, said she is part of the neighborhood. What can the community use the building for? She was there when the school closed and is now here for the re-opening. What space will the community be able to use in the building? Susan Rottetori, 3169 Ludlow Road, said she is part of the Ludlow Association. She supports Kevin Dreyfuss-Wells comments and future community use of the building. Sara Schiavoni, 2940 Morely Road, speaks on behalf of the Youth Soccer Association said she is concerned with additional parking spaces encroaching into the fields affecting recreation programs of soccer and baseball at Ludlow. Changes of the plan impact the fields. The parking lot is 10 feet larger than what was shown. It is not safe to be that close to the field. Where do parents sit and watch? It is not safe. If the playgrounds were flipped then they could be closer to the field. Fernway was renovated nicely. Drainage needs to be fixed. This is our opportunity to do it right. Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5815 Mr. Cheraso said the playground brick retaining wall is too tall at 8 feet tall adjacent to the sidewalk. That will impact those trees negatively. The plan checks the program boxes but alternate materials and a smaller playground and material selection should be considered. Use existing grade and more natural materials. The proposed wall with a deep footer impacts the tree roots. They should provide renderings to show the visual impact of the walls and fence. Lynn Lilly, 3643 Latimore Road, said facilities for a community Pre-K are important. This is a test case and they need to be as good as can be. Sustainability Committee members are concerned and she supports the comments of that committee. Nick Fletcher, 3111 Ludlow Road, said Sumac is natural and not poisonous and not invasive. They should also improve the rest of the site, which has invasives. The need to think into the future. Protect trees that are mature and think of them as being there in 50 to 100 years for the city. Allison Lin, 18019 Lomond Boulevard, said she is on the School facility committee. There should be community use of the building. Consider using the circular driveway for the drop off area and orient the doors to Ludlow Road. The original Ludlow Road front door is usable. Can hardscape be decreased to be similar to the existing? What are models and best practices for the pick-up and drop-off? Has that been presented? James Reed, 3109 Keswick Road, said he is a 60 plus year resident. Safety for students is important including entrance and exit points for students. Make sure that is worked out. Mr. Malone said he supports the staff recommendation of continuation. He wants to work with the Board on revisions and addressing issues raised at this meeting. There has been good, inspirational neighborhood input. What do the Board members think of the dumpster location? Mr. Boyle asked where the existing gas house is located. Mr. Rodebaugh said the gas house is in approximately the same location as the dumpster enclosure. There is a grade change and a driveway used for buses and vans, which restrict where it can be located. Mr. Russell asked the number of students expected in the school. Mr. Grosse said there are now six classes with 12 to 14 students at Onaway school, some attending half day and some full day. He estimates 150 to 288 students when fully occupied. Parking and drop-off have been studied extensively to figure out and ensure safety. In other districts and at Onaway they use a similar system. He explained drop-off and pick-up. The Architectural Board of Review is concerned with drop- off space near the steps. They need to get kids into the building in a safe and efficient way. There are 27 parking spaces and 28 staff members today. 56 staff are anticipated in the future. Fernway has 39 parking spaces, Boulevard 32 spaces, Lomond 40 spaces, Mercer 70 spaces, and Onaway 69 spaces. Ludlow has and would continue to have the least parking in the district. Mr. Malone asked about use of the building. Where is the community use? Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5816 Mr. Grosse said the whole building is for pre-K with no administration offices and includes 12 full classrooms. Yes, community use is proposed during off hours. The district has a permit process to use school spaces. They will have community space in this building in the gym. Ms. Braverman asked the peak hours and number of cars, stacking and number of students being dropped off at a time be provided to better understand the impact of the drop-off procedure. Mr. Rodebaugh said they do not have estimates right now. Cars could stack up Ludlow Road if needed. They will need to work with the city about on-street parking restrictions if that happens. Mr. Malone said they need to have some scenarios to present to the Board and examples of other schools that operate similarly. Dr. Ganning was concerned with exit out of the right side of the drop-off vehicles versus the left side. She asked about the flow of drop-off and the bus lane interaction. Mr. Russell asked the percentage and number of buses and vans. If it is a small number then this should be solved for cars. Mr. Grosse said they currently have 3 to 4 vans. Staff will be out with the students. This is a much safer situation than exists at Onaway School. Mr. Boyle said besides 8 stacking cars in the lot they could use the street instead. His chair for softball is proposed to be parking lot. Is this the best use of the site? This is a cramped site. He understands they need variances and supports the project, but which variances should they grant. Mr. Malone said if they take out some parking or stacking what does that do? If several spaces are removed then could they move the playground further from the trees? Dr. Ganning said the Architectural Board of Review asked for unput on the drop-off area. There is a tall wall near the entry. The site needs to be welcoming from all directions. She does not feel there is enough information to respond to the Architectural Board of Review at this point. Mr. Malone asked if the playground would be more in the Southington Road front yard. He is not sure where else garbage facilities could go. Mr. Boyle asked for a rendering view by the dumpster wall. He is okay with the location in the front yard. Ms. Short said she is the Landscape Architect for GPD Group. Taller evergreens with other lower bushes are proposed to screen and soften the masonry wall around the dumpsters and generator. Mr. Rodebaugh noted the Architectural Board of Review suggested the ramp wall be lowered, with a more open railing. Dr. Ganning said she is not sure if there is enough space near the entry and stairs. She is concerned with the two lanes near the drop-off area. Mr. Russell asked what does the gas house structure look like now. Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5817 Mr. Rodebaugh said it is brick with a stone cap to look like the building. The enclosure wall recedes into the background of the building. Mr. Feinstein said the Architectural Board of Review asked for examples of other schools that have similar drop off procedures and set up as is proposed here. Mr. Malone asked about the fields. Does the city maintain the field? Mr. Grosse said the maintenance is by the city. The Schools work with the city on the fields and the site overall. Mr. Malone said this is an opportunity for the city and schools to work together to fix the fields. He asked about the circulation of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Boyle said he is not in favor of the current parking lot size. There is too much asphalt and stacking could be reduced. He is not sure trees are right to have next to the fields for soccer players. A pre-K use at Ludlow needs stacking but some of that could be in the street. Mr. Russell said he agrees. He supports the screening for the dumpsters. The applicant needs to present the numbers to justify the proposed layout of the parking lot. Mr. Malone said staff recommends continuation of the review. The school district needs to re-align the playground and protect the trees. Ms. Short said they have worked to stay away from the trees. What critical root zone is required by the city? Any grade change is a concern for the playground. She requested some clear direction. Mr. Gruber suggested the district engage an independent arborist to review the project. Dr. Ganning said the original design of the Fernway playground was then changed significantly with new development. That was also a small space. She encourages them to work with the neighborhood and find creative solutions. Mr. Russell said the Pre-K playground requires a fence. Move the pre-K playground closer to the building entry. Then you do not need to fence all the way around. Move the playground wall and fence as needed to preserve the trees. Maybe use the front yard as there is there nothing there. It is a usable space. The school playground and maintenance of the tree canopy are both important. Mr. Grosse thanked the Board for the direction and the public for their comments and input. Is there any other direction that the design should consider? Mr. Malone summarized that the dumpster location wall and landscaping seem acceptable. Mr. Boyle asked for a schematic and rendering with Ludlow Road view of the enclosure to see what residents will see. He is concerned with the appearance of the playground wall and fence. They need something that does not look like an 8-foot wall and fence. Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5818 Mr. Malone said he wants more information to revie regarding the building. The request was continued in order for the applicant to address the following: 1. Reconsider the playground and wall location to avoid trees, add green space. Study relocation and redesign of the playground, grade and retaining walls due to impact on the mature Keswick Road street trees. 2. Confirm the critical root zone location for the Keswick street trees. Retain an independent arborist to provide a report of the impact of the proposed construction on the street trees. 3. The tree preservation plan needs to be updated to adequately show tree preservation fencing, practices or other techniques to save the mature street trees from construction impact. 4. Add tree protection fencing location to the plans which would be erected on site to protect any street trees and on site trees prior to construction. 5. Provide information regarding the pickup/drop off procedure and safety including expected capacity, peak hours, safety procedures and examples of other similar preschool pickup/drop off operations. Include information on numbers or percentage of vans and buses. Provide information on appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate drop off/pick up and use of ADA ramp. Provide diagram that shows cars stacking and include Ludlow Road, if needed. 6. Consider pushing the playground location into paved space in the parking area to be further from the trees. 7. Consider the athletic field location and proximity of parking lot to players and viewing area. 8. Provide renderings and elevation drawings to show the walls and landscaping. * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The next meeting will be August 6, 2024. _________________________________ _________________________________ Sean Malone, Acting Chair Daniel Feinstein, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals City Planning Commission City Planning Commission Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2024 Minutes Page 5819