Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission Agenda City

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 7:00 PM

1. Roll Call.

2. Approval of Minutes from the July 2, 2019 meeting.

Documents:

DRAFT BZACPC MINUTES 2019 0702.PDF

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

#2028. FALTISCO RESIDENCE - 18524 LOMOND BOULEVARD: Public Hearing on the request of Sally Levine, architect, representing Daniel and Anne Marie Faltisco, homeowners, 18524 Lomond Boulevard, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the garage regulations in order to construct a new detached one car garage located in the rear yard. The applicant proposes a one car detached garage located at the end of the driveway facing the street. Code allows only one garage structure on the property, located in the rear yard. The existing attached rear facing one car garage is proposed to remain, creating two garage spaces on the property.

Documents:

18524 LOMOND.PDF

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

HATHAWAY BROWN SCHOOL - 19600 NORTH PARK BOULEVARD: Public meeting on the request of Craig Cawrse, CT Consultants, representing Hathaway Brown School, 19600 North Park Boulevard, to the City Planning Commission for review of on-street parking design and location. The applicant proposes to create a new on- street parking area located on the south leg of the North Park Boulevard/Sherbrooke Road triangle. The new parking area is proposed on both sides of the street within the street right-of-way and includes a total of 53 head-in parking spaces, landscaping, sidewalks and a crosswalk. Several alternate parking layouts and locations are also outlined in the applicant's proposal. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to the parking lot location requirements for parking on the school property at the May 7, 2019 meeting. The City Planning Commission will review this on-street parking space proposal in an advisory role to City Council.

Documents:

19600 NORTH PARK.PDF SUPPLEMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE.PDF

To request an accommodation for a person with disability, call the City’s ADA Coordinator at 216-491-1440, or Ohio Relay Service at 711 for TTY users. Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 7:00 PM

1. Roll Call.

2. Approval of Minutes from the July 2, 2019 meeting.

Documents:

DRAFT BZACPC MINUTES 2019 0702.PDF

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Documents:

18524 LOMOND.PDF

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Documents:

19600 NORTH PARK.PDF SUPPLEMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE.PDF

To request an accommodation for a person with disability, call the City’s ADA Coordinator at 216-491-1440, or Ohio Relay Service at 711 for TTY users.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7 P.M. Council Chambers

Members Present: Rob Zimmerman, Council Member, Acting Chair John J. Boyle III, Member Joanna Ganning, Member

Others Present: Joyce Braverman, Director of Planning William M. Ondrey Gruber, Director of Law Daniel Feinstein, Senior Planner

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Zimmerman at 8:00 p.m.

* * * *

Approval of the June 4, 2019 Meeting Minutes

It was moved by Mr. Boyle and seconded by Dr. Ganning to approve the minutes.

Roll Call: Ayes: Zimmerman, Boyle, Ganning Nays: None

Motion Carried

* * * *

#2022. GAGLIANO/SLATER RESIDENCE – 3161 HUNTINGTON ROAD:

A Public Hearing was held on the request of Keith Slater and Gregory Gagliano, 3161 Huntington Road, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the fence location and height regulations on a corner lot. The applicant proposes to replace an existing wood picket fence with an aluminum ornamental fence on this corner lot at Huntington and Woodbury Roads. The fence is proposed to be located in the same place as the existing fence, which is 4 feet off the Woodbury Road sidewalk at its closest, behind the existing hedge. The fence is proposed at 5 feet tall. The existing fence was granted a variance in 1992 for two sections, one at 4 feet and one at 5 feet tall. Code requires that fences located in corner side yards not extend in front of the setback line of the principal building on the adjacent lot. The adjacent house is set back 50 feet from Woodbury Road. Code allows a fence height in a corner side yard of 3 feet tall. The fence is proposed to enclose the Woodbury Road yard and return to the house, as it does currently.

Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for a variance to the fence location and height regulations on this corner lot at Huntington and Woodbury Roads. The applicant proposes to replace the existing wood picket fence with a new ornamental aluminum fence in the same location. The existing fence is 4 and 5 feet tall and was approved in 1992. The new fence is proposed to be 5 feet tall in its entirety. Existing bushes and landscaping screen the fence from view of Woodbury Road. Staff supports a 4 foot tall fence in the Woodbury Road front yard.

Mr. Slater said they purchased the house late last year. The current fence was installed in 1992, with a zoning variance from the city. They would like to replace that fence, in the same location, with a new ornamental aluminum metal fence. Currently, a portion of the fence is 4 feet tall and other portions are 5 feet tall. They would like to make the entirety of the new fence 5 feet tall as a barrier to people crossing their property. They live across the street from the high school. They would like the new fence to be uniform around the yard instead of at two different heights. The new fence will be completely buried in the landscaping that exists at the edge of the property, making it practically invisible. They do not want people tempted to jump the fence into their yard. They do not want their dogs, or other dogs, to be tempted to jump the fence either.

Mr. Zimmerman asked for clarification of the location of the various sizes of existing fence.

Mr. Slater showed the difference between the fence heights and locations on the property.

Mr. Gagliano indicated the existing fence is behind the bushes. You will not be able to see the new fence. The old zoning variance did allow an option to make the entire fence 5 feet tall if it was hidden by significant landscaping. They think that landscaping exists at this time.

Mr. Zimmerman opened the Public Hearing. No one was present to speak in regard to this application.

Mr. Zimmerman said there was a variance given in 1992. He sees the only real changes here is to whether the fence is raised to 5 feet tall in all locations.

Dr. Ganning said she certainly supports a 4 foot tall fence. Code allows a 3 foot tall fence. Precedent is skewed more toward allowing 4 foot tall fences in other corner side yards, especially this close to the street.

Mr. Boyle asked the reason to really want a 5 foot tall fence.

Mr. Gagliano said security on a very busy corner is the main reason. Their lot is pie-shaped. He believes that for function it would be best to have the entire fence at 5 feet tall. It is completely hidden by the landscaping currently in place, which is taller than 5 feet. This type of fencing is even less visually intrusive than the type of fencing currently installed. They think it is a better solution than the current fence.

Ms. Braverman indicated this is a very busy corner. There is some very mature landscaping. Those two elements differentiate this application from others in this neighborhood.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5398

Mr. Zimmerman said there are facts to be considered. In 1992 fences were allowed to be 4 feet tall. There is certainly precedent to keep it that way. He is impressed with the investment that these new homeowners are making. He is supportive of their investment.

Dr. Ganning said she could support a 4 foot tall fence. She thinks this is more in line with precedent and what was already approved and installed on this specific property. The existing heights in the existing locations should remain.

It was moved by Dr. Ganning and seconded by Mr. Boyle to approve the request based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet with the condition that the fence is held to 4 feet tall in the Woodbury Road front yard.

Roll Call: Ayes: Zimmerman, Boyle, Ganning Nays: None

Motion Carried

* * * *

#2023. DEWEY RESIDENCE – 18301 SOUTH WOODLAND ROAD:

A Public Hearing was held on the request of Christopher Dewey, 18301 South Woodland Road, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the fence location and height on a corner lot. The applicant proposes to install a 4 foot tall scalloped wood open picket fence on this corner lot at Brighton and South Woodland Roads. The open picket fence is proposed to extend 16 feet in front of the house and be located 53 feet off the South Woodland Road sidewalk. Code requires that fences located in corner side yards not extend in front of the setback line of the principal building on the adjacent lot. The adjacent house on South Woodland Road is set back 70 feet 3 inches. The fence is proposed to connect the house to an existing fence on the side property line in order to enclose an existing gazebo. Code allows a fence height in a corner side yard of 3 feet tall. The fence is proposed to be screened with new azalea and boxwood bushes, while existing landscaping is proposed to screen the fence from street view closer to the side property line.

Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for variances to fence height and location regulations in order to install a fence at the corner of South Woodland and Brighton Roads. The applicant proposes a 4 foot tall scalloped picket fence. The open picket fence is proposed to extend 16 feet in front of the house to be 53 feet off the South Woodland Road sidewalk. Code requires a 70 foot setback. The view from South Woodland is screened by existing and proposed landscaping. Staff supports this proposal.

Mr. Dewey said there are several reasons to extend their fence into the South Woodland yard. There is an existing patio and gazebo that are within the perimeter of the proposed fence. If they follow the code then a fence would bisect the gazebo and not make this area of their yard accessible. Their neighbors already have a fence which gets much closer to South Woodland Road than their proposal. They propose a 4 foot tall scalloped wood fence in order to keep their children and dogs in the yard. They will put up a 5 foot tall fence in their rear yard, which will not be visible from the street. They will be adding azalea and boxwood bushes to screen the section of fence which will be

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5399

visible from the street. The other section of fence closer to the side property line will be completely screened behind existing landscaping.

Dr. Ganning asked about the neighbor’s fence. How close is it to the sidewalk? Why does it come out further toward South Woodland?

Mr. Feinstein said that fence was given a variance to extend further out in the yard toward South Woodland at two different times.

Mr. Boyle said he went past this house and could not see the gazebo from South Woodland Road. He does not see how this fence will be visible or make an impact on the neighborhood. He asked if the height is a maximum of 4 feet. Where is the scallop?

Mr. Dewey said yes, there is a scallop. The drawing demonstrates how the fence begins at 4 feet high and scallops down to 3 ½ feet tall between each peak.

Mr. Zimmerman opened the Public Hearing. No one was present to speak in regard to this application.

Mr. Boyle said staff recommends approval. He believes it is appropriate.

It was moved by Mr. Boyle and seconded by Dr. Ganning to approve the request based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet.

Roll Call: Ayes: Zimmerman, Boyle, Ganning Nays: None

Motion Carried

* * * *

#2025. TAPAS RESTAURANT/LOUNGE/BAR – 16704 CHAGRIN BOULEVARD:

A Public Hearing was held on the request of Kenneth Gibson, Tapas Restaurant/Lounge/Bar, 16704 Chagrin Boulevard, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the parking requirements. The applicant proposes to establish a restaurant/lounge/bar in this former retail space. A parking variance is required since the use requires 26 parking spaces by code but has no on- site parking. A shared public parking lot serves the businesses behind the south side of Chagrin commercial area, and there is on-street parking on Chagrin Boulevard.

Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is request for a parking variance in order to establish a lounge/bar in a former retail space. The applicant proposes to establish a lounge/bar which requires the same parking as a take-out restaurant. Code requires 23 parking spaces but no parking is provided on site. A shared city-owned parking lot serves the businesses on the south side of Chagrin Boulevard and there is on-street parking on Chagrin. Staff suggests a continuance for more information.

Mr. Zimmerman asked about the difference in the parking requirements from what was published in the Agenda and what is listed in the staff report.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5400

Mr. Feinstein explained that revised dimensions of the tenant space were submitted which calculated a reduced parking count of 25 required spaces. An additional 2 parking spaces are deducted for the on-street parking spaces in front of the business. This changes the 25 required parking spaces to 23 spaces.

Mr. Gibson indicated that he would like to start a restaurant business at 16704 Chagrin Boulevard. This space was originally a clothing store. He got permits in January in order to renovate this space for a restaurant/lounge/bar. In regard to parking, there are 108 parking spaces on Chagrin and many more within the rear parking lot, which are accessible directly behind the tenant space. The only other business open late is at the other end of this strip of businesses, which is Touch of Italy. That business is approximately 500 feet away. There are about 32 parking spaces in close proximity to the space he has leased.

Dr. Ganning asked why a permit was issued.

Mr. Feinstein responded that a permit was erroneously issued by the Building Department for interior renovation, without completing zoning review.

Mr. Boyle asked why the applicant had not applied for a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Gibson indicated he did not submit the required information. He submitted revised plans and got a permit and work has been done, with money spent. On April 24 there was a Stop Work Order issued. There was an obvious error by the City allowing his contractor to begin work. He finally made application to the City for the parking variance and the change of use. All he needs to do is cross off the box for Conditional Use Permit on the application. This application was not considered complete enough for a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Feinstein explained additional information was needed. The submitted application did not include anything about a Conditional Use Permit. There was no explanation of how the proposed use is similar to any allowable or conditional uses in this zoning district. There was no explanation of the standards of the Conditional Use Permit submitted.

Mr. Boyle indicated that the Conditional Use Permit is required along with the parking variance in order to open. Those two applications should be considered together at another meeting.

Mr. Gruber asked if the applicant had received the letter dated June 6, sent by Mr. Feinstein, to him, his architect, and his attorney regarding the parking variance. Had he received the subsequent letter dated June 14 that indicated the applicant needed to apply for a Conditional Use Permit as well?

Mr. Gibson said he had received the letters, but was not clear that he needed to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. He knew he needed to apply for a parking variance. He asked the difference between the parking variance and the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Feinstein explained the parking variance request is for the number of parking spaces required for a bar/lounge, which is the same required for a take-out restaurant. A Conditional Use Permit is about the type of use being proposed for a commercial space. In order to propose a bar/lounge use he would need to argue that it is similar to a brew pub or wine bar.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5401

Mr. Zimmerman asked if the city-owned parking lot spaces are available for anyone to use. Is there any license agreement or requirements, or set-aside spaces for any particular uses in that parking lot?

Mr. Gruber answered that all of the spaces are public, open and free to use. There is no license required.

Mr. Zimmerman said the zoning variance is due to the lack of on-site parking, but there is a public parking lot behind and on-street parking in front.

Mr. Zimmerman opened the Public Hearing. No one was present to speak in regard to this application.

Dr. Ganning indicated that when considering the parking variance as presented, some information has been given but not as much as is needed. She would like to know a comparison of the proposed use and the types of peak hours. When will peak parking be needed? What other uses are nearby, and their hours of operation?

Mr. Gibson said the business will be open Monday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The kitchen will close at 9:00 p.m. On Friday and Saturday they will be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with the kitchen closing at 1:00 a.m. He expects peak hours to be between 2 and 5 p.m. with 25 parking spaces needed. He expects another peak from 5 to 9 p.m. with 26 parking spaces needed. Later in the evening, between 9:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. they will need 25 spaces in the rear and use much of the front parking spaces as most of the nearby tenants will be closed for business. He thinks the only other business open after 9:00 p.m. is Touch of Italy, which is 500 feet away on the east side of this shopping strip. He expected they might need up to 62 parking spaces all together after 9:00 p.m.

Mr. Gruber indicated the Board typically gets information about hours of operation and existing parking demand for other businesses that are nearby and therefore is able to asses any parking situation.

Mr. Boyle asked if there was a liquor permit for the business as of yet.

Mr. Gibson said there would be. He added there will be additional space for take-out orders.

Mr. Boyle said there appears to be approximately 40 seats with 22 seats at the bar.

Mr. Gibson indicated the number of seats in each area. He said there will be 6 tables in front, a jukebox for music, and some live music on weekend evenings.

Mr. Boyle said in general he does not have too much of an issue with the parking spaces that are available and the request for a parking variance, but it does not seem appropriate to be considering a portion of an application and not the entire request. He asked if staff would explain the reason for their suggestion of a continuance.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5402

Mr. Feinstein said staff feels it is appropriate for the Board to address both a Conditional Use Permit request and the parking variance at the same time, in order to make an appropriate consideration of the application for the proposed use.

Mr. Zimmerman said it is the right of the City to require, and the applicant to provide, the required information in order for the Board to consider both applications regarding the same business at the same time. Substantive questions have been asked that need to be addressed by the applicant. He suggests that the request be continued until such time as an entire package of information is submitted for the Conditional Use Permit request and parking variance to allow review at the same time.

Dr. Ganning said there is more information needed regarding parking as well as documentation of the other nearby businesses hours of operation, as well as the current usage patterns of the existing parking lot. She agreed that the case should be continued.

Mr. Zimmerman said the applicant should reapply with additional information so that this can be reviewed at the next meeting for consideration of both the Conditional Use Permit and the parking variance.

The request was continued based on the following issues:  The Board requested more information to support a parking variance in the available public parking lot. o Provide information on peak parking demand time frame, number of spaces, and a comparison to nearby business’s hours and usage of the shared public parking.  A revised floor and seating plan must be submitted because the floor plan does not match the partially constructed space, as the bar is larger than drawn on the plans. o In addition, the number of seats, now 55, has been revised but not indicated by removing some high top wall ledge seating. An updated seat count must be provided with the revised plans.  The Zoning Administrator has previously advised the Applicant in writing that, based on the information presented by Applicant and available through review of the site and the plans, the proposed business would be a bar use similar to a wine bar. This means that the business may not open without zoning approval of both a parking variance and a Conditional Use Permit. o Applicant has not appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals from this decision of the Zoning Administrator o The Conditional Use Permit and the parking variance should be considered at the same time. o In order to apply for a conditional use permit the applicant will be required to submit: 1. Amended application to include the request for a conditional use permit; 2. Letter of request and explanation of how the proposed use is similar to the listed wine bar or brewpub uses; and 3. Letter addressing the standards for conditional use permits.

* * * *

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5403

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

#2024. CLEVELAND SKATING CLUB – 2500 KEMPER ROAD:

A Public Hearing was held on the request of Matthew Wymer, WXZ Development Inc., representing the Cleveland Skating Club, 2500 Kemper Road, to the City Planning Commission for resubdivision of land in order to combine and resubdivide a parcel fronting on Fairhill Road. The parcel facing Fairhill Road (736-30-007) is proposed to be combined with a small portion of the main Skating Club parcels (736-30-009 and 736-30-008) and split off from the main parcel. The new parcel is slightly larger than a half-acre and has 100 feet of frontage on Fairhill Road. The new parcel meets the minimum size and frontage required in the A Apartment zoning district

Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for resubdivision of land in order to combine and resubdivide a parcel fronting Fairhill Road. The parcel (736-30-007) is proposed to be combined with a small portion of the combined parcel (736-30-008 and 009) and split off. The parcel is unused land that is behind the tennis courts and faces Fairhill Road. The new parcel meets the minimum size and frontage required in the A Apartment zoning district.

Mr. Wymer introduced the Skating Club Executive Director Alan Feuerman and indicated they have been working with the Skating Club on possible development of a portion of the Skating Club’s property that faces Fairhill Road. They would like to develop a residential use, possibly for some Skating Club members. The project would be for-sale condominium style flats. There would be two buildings with three (3) units in the first building with parking underground and six (6) units, two per floor. He described the site plan and layout that was presented to the Board. This would include a small portion of rear yard that is part of the lot between the proposed buildings and the tennis courts of the Skating Club. The tennis courts would outline the edge of the property of the new residential development.

Mr. Feuerman indicated the small area in the rear is being added to this property in order to give a small portion of green space to the proposed development. That portion of property is not accessible to the Skating Club at all.

Mr. Zimmerman opened the Public Hearing.

Bob Zimmer, resident and realtor, said the Skating Club has wanted to develop the property facing Fairhill Road for some time. There is good precedent for this type of development being successful. Residents of Shaker Heights want to downsize into single floor living. They want a for-sale product rather than a full house or a rental apartment within the City. The subdivision of land would set the stage for that development to move forward.

Mr. Boyle said he supports the resubdivision of land. The development itself will be subject to City Planning Commission review for site plan review at a later date.

It was moved by Mr. Boyle and seconded by Dr. Ganning to approve the request based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet with the condition that the final plat is submitted to the City and filed with Cuyahoga County.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5404

Roll Call: Ayes: Zimmerman, Boyle, Ganning Nays: None

Motion Carried

* * * *

#2026. PROCESS CANINE TRAINING CENTER – 3700 LEE ROAD:

A Public Hearing was held on the request of Amanda Corr, Process Canine, 3700 Lee Road, to the City Planning Commission, for a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate a dog training center. The proposed business will utilize indoor space at the former Quality Security Door property for a dog training facility. A Conditional Use Permit is required for a use similar to an animal hospital/veterinarian office. The applicant proposes to train dogs in interior space only and utilize the existing parking at their dog day care business location at 3710 Lee Road. One to three staff will train dogs inside the space, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The dogs in training will already be enrolled in the dog day care facility.

Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dog training center in space at the corner of Lee and Nicholas Roads. The applicant proposes to utilize the former Quality Security Door interior space for dog training. A Conditional Use Permit is required for a use similar to a veterinarian office or animal hospital. One to three employees will train one to 5 dogs at a time inside the space only. All parking and check in occurs at the Process Canine facility at 3706 Lee Road. Dogs will walk the sidewalk between the two spaces. Training is proposed between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Staff supports this request. Council confirmation is required.

Ms. Corr said she is the owner of Process Canine at 3706 Lee Road. That business has been successful and ongoing for approximately 18 months. They are proud to be a part of the business community on Lee Road. They have gotten one complaint in all the time they have been open, and that was today. It was about the noise from the dogs early in the morning. They have implemented alternate procedures so that will keep the noise to a minimum. The 3700 Lee Road dog training facility would be accessory to Process Canine, which is boarding and day care. Only dogs that are part of the Process Canine program would be permitted to do training. She and an assistant trainer will work with the dogs. They would take them from a controlled space, one to three dogs at a time, to the new training center. They will walk down the sidewalk and only have indoor training. All parking and intake of dogs will occur out of the existing Process Canine facility at 3706 Lee. There could be a Saturday or Sunday training session by appointment. They have hosted open houses with the neighborhood. They have received good input from the neighbors, many of whom stop in to say hello. They have addressed the early morning noise issue. They are restricting the number of dogs outside in the early hours. This new facility will have no outdoor play or training.

Mr. Zimmerman asked the type of training they do.

Ms. Corr said they do not do aggressive behavior modification training. They do more training that involves obeying simple commands and socialization, making for a well-behaved dog.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5405

Mr. Zimmerman asked if any animal waste issues have arisen. There was quite a bit of discussion of that issue when the original application was reviewed.

Ms. Corr said no issues have arisen.

Dr. Ganning said it is encouraging that the noise complaint seems to be getting addressed.

Mr. Zimmerman opened the Public Hearing.

Donald Bailey, 3717 Sudbury Road, said he has moved back into a property he had occupied on and off for 40 years. He was not living here when Process Canine was reviewed and approved. He missed the opportunity to comment during that process. He was the one who complained about the noise first thing in the morning. It is very early, and very close to his house. He is concerned with the strip of property between Process Canine and the rear of his garage.

Mr. Zimmerman thanked him for his comments. He indicated that when the business was originally reviewed there was appropriate neighborhood comment. There was much discussion regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Process Canine. At this meeting they are considering only the dog training facility for a Conditional Use Permit and variance at 3700 Lee Road. It is good to see that there has been input from the neighbors and the neighborhood in the past, and currently. It is also good to have a successful growing business wanting to expand within the city.

Mr. Bailey indicated neighbors are being affected by the existing business of Process Canine. There is some barking. This is going to be part of training also. This does seem to already have been addressed. He would like to know how they care for their property, especially behind their fence. He asked why this facility was being planned at the corner space of this building that used to be the security door company. Why wouldn’t they want it to be closer to the original business?

Ms. Corr indicated there is an existing tenant that has the space directly next to Process Canine. The open space at 3700 Lee Road was vacant and large enough for their needs. They will work to continually keep the barking to a minimum, especially early in the morning. She asked for the neighbor’s cooperation if there are any more issues. They will be doing leash obedience and simple commands with these dogs inside the building only. There should be no exterior or parking issues due to this proposed use.

Mr. Gruber asked who maintains the parking lot.

Ms. Corr said she is not sure. The lease has not yet been finalized as to whether she would be required to maintain the parking lot.

Mr. Boyle asked about the other tenant in the building. Who is it? How much of the building will not be occupied by the dog training facility?

Ms. Corr said Barbara is a long-time hair stylist that works in the space directly north of Process Canine. The other end of the building has the open space they are discussing tonight. There is also another open space between the hair salon and the property before the Board. The salon uses the rear parking lot, but the dog training facility will not use the rear parking lot.

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5406

It was moved by Dr. Ganning and seconded by Mr. Zimmerman to approve the request based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet.

Roll Call: Ayes: Zimmerman, Boyle, Ganning Nays: None

Motion Carried

Council confirmation is required.

* * * *

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next meeting will be August 6, 2019.

______Rob Zimmerman, Acting Chair Dan Feinstein, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals City Planning Commission City Planning Commission

Board of Zoning Appeals & City Planning Commission 07/02/2019 Minutes Page 5407

From: Todd Bafus [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 10:16 AM To: Robert Zimmerman; David Weiss; Joyce Braverman Subject: HB expansion

Mayor Weiss, Mr. Zimmerman and Ms. Braverman,

Thank you for your interest in the HB expansion. We live 3 houses away from HB on South Park and are not satisfied with the process of their “beatification” expansion. I am requesting that you slow this process down to allow for adequate due diligence and the development of alternative solutions that do not seem to have been fully vetted in this process. As mentioned to Mayor Weiss at the HB social, many of my neighbors in opposition to the plan will be out of town for the upcoming city meeting and not able to voice their concerns. Additionally, last Thursday was the first opportunity I had to review the proposals. Even though I live as close as I do to HB, no prior information had been provided to me. I was unaware this process was going on. I am very disappointed. The rush through variances without greater public involvement casts a negative light on the process and concerns me and many of my neighbors.

It is still not clear to me what the goal of the expansion is and why it necessitates waiving of any setback requirements or the use of public lands. What is the overall goal? What is the target number of parking spaces? What is the dollar number HB is willing to contribute to the process? Paving over parkland for a parking lot is the opposite of the way urban development is going. It is clear that we, the greater neighborhood, do not benefit from a mixed use parking lot in the middle of a low density neighborhood of urban estates. Who, other than HB, is going to use it? Would it be open during the day for our landscapers to use? Could I have my father park his RV in the lot during the day when he visits? I think you can see that the argument is not as simple as presented on Thursday but yet the decisions seem to have already been made.

Lastly, opinions of HB alumni and staff not living in our neighborhood have no role in the process. They have nothing at stake here. Nothing they an offer offsets what the beauty of this neighborhood contributes to Shaker Heights and the greater Cleveland area. Nor is there any objective data that the current situation is unsafe or subjects the HB commuter families to undue hardship. HB enrollment is not suffering as a result of this situation. Let’s keep this a local issue.

In summary, I urge caution. I am requesting an immediate hold on any further advancement to allow for further process review. Two months seems to be a reasonable amount of time for all parties to meet with council, discuss this issues openly, and draft opinions. Rushing through variances and paving public lands into parking lots rarely result in anything other than long term regret even if they seem appealing at the time.

There is no urgency here.

Todd Bafus

From: Victoria Bell Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:40 PM To: David Weiss ; [email protected]; Joyce Braverman ; Daniel Feinstein Subject: HB Parking Proposal

To: Mayor David Weiss Councilman Rob Zimmerman Planning Director Joyce Braverman Planner Dan Feinstein

Re: Opposition to the Proposed Hathaway Brown Parking Plan

We have been neighbors of HB since 1998, first on Sherbrooke and, more recently, on North Park. Our eldest daughter graduated from HB and we have been, and continue to be, leadership donors to the school’s annual fund. We feel we must, however, express our opposition to the proposed parking plan.

We believe that the addition of more than 50 parking places to an already congested area will destroy the nature of the neighborhood by decreasing green space and tree canopy and increasing traffic. At present, student traffic is spread throughout the neighborhood in parallel parking places. By localizing more traffic into a dedicated parking area, the residential nature of our neighborhood will be compromised as the amount of pavement is increased and grassy areas reduced. Further, we do not believe it is the city’s responsibility to provide parking for HB students. Increasing parking will only discourage carpooling and encourage more individuals to drive to school.

Currently there is a tremendous traffic around the school at drop off and pick up times, including a line of cars on westbound North Park waiting to turn left into the school’s driveway. Once 50 more cars are crammed near this already busy space, more safety issues will arise with the increased traffic. Exiting the proposed lot into the street traffic will lead to fender benders. Additionally, the proposed plan shows a line of head in parking on both sides of the street. We cannot imagine that this arrangement will not lead to young drivers backing into each other as they pull out of their spaces.

We urge you to not allow this plan for increased parking to go forward.

Victoria and James Bell 20101 North Park Blvd., #202 Shaker Heights, OH 44118

August 7, 2019

Dear Mayor Weiss, Members of the Planning Commission, Joyce Braverman, and Dan Feinstein, Originally, I had not expected to send you a letter detailing my opposition to the current Hathaway Brown plans as I have verbally conveyed my concerns to you on several occasions. However, I find myself in an unexpected work predicament and now may not be able to attend tonight’s meeting. So, for that reason, I wish to express my concerns regarding the proposed Hathaway Brown parking proposal. My concerns as they relate to the proposed parking lots on North Park are as follows:

• The areas proposed on North Park are already extremely congested during the morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up times with lines of cars backing up on North Park. Adding an additional parking lot to this area will only create further safety concerns for cars and pedestrians as the plan does not involve rerouting of traffic or diminishing overall street and lot parking. • An area that once held approximately 50 on-street cars from the main entrance of Hathaway Brown to the school’s natatorium will now swell to approximately 100 cars between the on-street and parking lots. • North Park already has a convoluted traffic pattern with two-way streets breaking off into divided one-way streets. Adding a large parking lot and thereby increasing overall car congestion will only make this situation worse and reduce overall safety for all parties. • The curved shape of the existing road in the triange area on North Park is already problematic as there is known visibility issues (particularly when cars are parked). While Shaker Heights Police Department may not show a significant number of reported traffic accidents, the neighbors can attest to a number of fender benders in this very area. I personally witnessed one the week after the May 7th Planning Commission meeting. • In addition to the poor visibility caused by the natural curvature of the road, the merging of two roads at the head of the triangle and the exit of HB’s current parking lot create a very dangerous traffic pattern. • Hathaway Brown has stated that this parking lot would be used by their student drivers. However, we all know that these student drivers are inexperienced and we are asking them to navigate a complex traffic pattern and to pull out safely onto a curved road with poor visibility. In prior meetings, many members of Shaker’s Public and Safety Works noted these same concerns and requested that the head-in parking be changed to angled parking. These proposals from Hathaway Brown show no angled parking options as the resulting safer configurations do not generate sufficient additional parking to be meritorious for consideration. • North Park along the soccer field and the triangle area are prone to flooding. Please see the attached video my husband took in June 2019. Does it really make sense to build parking lots on an area that is known to flood? • Poor supporting materials: Neither HB nor the City of Shaker have provided any environmental studies, statements of support or concern from the Doan Brook Partnership, a valid robust traffic study (a 1 day traffic study is insufficient), or studies indicating the effectiveness of pervious payment and other selected materials in an area prone to flooding and extremely close to protected streams. I do not believe that the Planning Commission should support any proposal until such time as the right studies have been performed. • Sufficient on-street parking. Residents on Chesterton will state that they have few if any HB related cars during normal school hours. Additionally, most days there is open street parking on North Park by the soccer field where HB is proposing a parking lot. Except for major events like graduation, there is available street parking. The problem we have is a society that does not like to walk. They expect that because they have the means to pay for the high tuition cost of Hathaway Brown (approximately $30,000 a year) that they are entitled to have on-site or practically on-site parking options. • Negative impact to property values. Sherbrooke and North Park have a high concentration of Shaker’s most valuable homes and high property tax payors. If HB’s proposal is passed, Sherbrooke’s 7 homes aggregating over $7 million in accessed market value and generating over $280,000 in annual property taxes will have 4 parking lots in a one block section. If we expand this area to the homes from Chesterton to Courtland bordered by North Park and South Park those values increase to $29 million in accessed market value and $1.16 million in annual property taxes. Hathaway Brown pays no property taxes; however, I recognize they pay the city 2.25% of their total payroll. Assuming $16 million in total payroll, I estimate Hathaway Brown pays the city approximately $360,000. This doesn’t seem fair or right for Shaker Heights residents to be contributing significantly to city revenue but to be unfairly penalized by Hathaway Brown’s desire for additional parking on residents’ green space. • Condemnation of public land for private use. In the early 1880s Jephtha Wade, William Gordon, John D. Rockefeller, Laura Rockefeller, Nathan Ambler and other philanthropists donated land along Doan Brook to create the line of parks along the stream from Lake Erie to Horseshoe Lake in Shaker Lakes. The purpose of this donation was to allow the land to remain green space dedicated to the pleasure of the people who came after them. This forward thinking of the Rockefellers, et. al created the beauty that Shaker is known for today. So much so, Shaker Heights has been written about and portrayed in both books and in movies for its beauty and idyllic community. As such, this beautiful green space was not intended to be developed and it certainly wasn’t intended to be developed in a way that doesn’t benefit the residents of Shaker. Our neighborhood is not asking for a parking lot. A private institution is asking. I do not see why the residents of Shaker must solve Hathaway Brown’s parking issues by giving protected green space just because Hathaway Brown is asking. • Even if the Planning Commission agrees that Hathaway Brown’s preferred option of 53 spaces is not ideal due to the many reasons stated above, the alternate 2 option does not generate sufficient new net parking to be a viable solution to Hathaway Brown’s stated parking problem. Alternative plans 1 and 2 just don’t generate enough new parking spaces to be good solutions. At best they are a band aide to Hathaway Brown’s stated problem, and it will only be a matter of time before Hathaway Brown is seeking another parking lot. Let’s take the time to find a solution that fixes Hathaway Brown’s stated problem.

My concerns as they relate to the proposed parking lot on South Park are as follows:

• As noted by Hathaway Brown in the package of material supplied on Shakeronline, due to the location of this additional lot, they expect that the main use of this lot will occur during athletic games. The games are traditionally played after school hours when street parking is more available. • If students and faculty won’t currently park on North Park by the soccer field or on Chesterton, why would anyone believe they would park even further away on South Park. This option makes absolutely no sense. • Hathaway Brown and the city have failed to consider the impact to traffic patterns that will result from the proposed and expected changes at the Warrensville intersection. While these changes will predominately impact the proposed lots on South Park and potentially the North Park lots, it is not advisable for Shaker to vote on approval of any lots until such time as all parties understand how these changes will impact the traffic flow to and from the HB campus. • Many of the objections notes above regarding the proposed North Park lots also apply to South Park. For brevity, I won’t repeat them.

While unrelated to my direct concerns on the specific proposed parking lots, HB’s and the City’s actions have intentionally or unintentionally made many neighborhood residents feel that their opinions don’t matter, which has only exacerbated the opposition to HB’s overall plans. Take for example, the selection of August 7th to hold this very important Planning Commission meeting. August is notoriously linked with vacation as residents try to enjoy the last few weeks of summer before school resumes. Many of Shaker’s residents are currently away and feel that the city and HB selected this particular day to minimize the number of potential opposition voices. This outrages people further. What many neighbors have said to me is “Why can’t Hathaway Brown and the city wait until September when families are back in town?” I would like to help Hathaway Brown solve its stated parking problem. I want to be a good neighbor. However, the only way that I can see an outcome that most neighbors will support is one in which they have been involved in the design and location from the start. We have several neighbors whose expertise is design and construction. I would like to ask the city and Hathaway Brown to “take a pause” on these current HB plans and help build a team consisting of members from HB, neighbors who support HB, and neighbors who are in opposition to HB’s current proposed plans. Ideally those who have expertise in these relevant areas should be part of this team. If this group could collectively look at new options or even improve on existing options, I think we could find a solution that is more acceptable to the neighborhood. I do not expect we will make everyone happy, but I do believe the result will be better than what we have in hand. Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy letter. As you know, I am passionate about this project and would like to find a solution.

Sincerely,

Courtney DuPaul

From: Amit Garg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:34 PM To: David Weiss Cc: Robert Zimmerman; Joyce Braverman Subject: Re: Hathaway Brown's Construction Plans

Hi David It was great talking with you during the Open House held by HB on August 1. As I mentioned to you during our conversation, we have not heard directly from HB (Principal or whoever has authority to speak on their behalf) on their rationale for using public lands for a private enterprise and also to construct parking lots on their property that affect our neighborhood.

The event on August 1 was not a good use of our time. Format of this event was not conducive to engaging with residents of the neighborhood on a mutually acceptable solution to whatever problems HB is trying to address. On that day, the Principal refused to hold a town-hall format meeting to explain the problems HB is facing, their plans to address these problems, impact on the neighborhood, and address our concerns and inputs. Many residents felt it was HB’s attempt to divide and conquer and get their way. It was insulting to the neighbors and has made residents less amenable to compromising with HB – unlike the mood during the initial meeting at Steve Miller’s home.

During the meeting at Millers’ home you had expressed a preference for HB presenting a proposal that has its neighbors’ inputs and addresses their concerns. Unfortunately, the open house conducted by HB did not result in such an outcome. Instead there lingers a widespread concern and opposition to HB’s plans. This may result in some residents resorting to litigation and / or letting the City of Cleveland know that Shaker city council’s decisions can affect the land they (the City of Cleveland) own – unnecessary additional costs to all parties involved.

It would be best if you could use your influence with HB to initiate a proper engagement with its neighbors and for you to postpone the hearing scheduled on August 7 until HB has come up with a proposal that is mutually acceptable to it and its neighbors.

Cheers Amit

2770 Chesterton Rd Shaker Heights OH 44122

-----Original Message----- From: Randall Gordon Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 2:34 PM To: David Weiss Subject: Hathaway Brown School

Dear Mayor Weiss: I have lived at 19501 North Park Boulevard since 2002 and dearly love our neighborhood. I have grave concern for what is being proposed by Craig Cawrse , CT Consultants in the Overall Master Plan dated April 15, 2019. First I have strong objection to using public land for private purposes at the triangle of North Park Boulevard and Sherbrooke Road. That change in the open space next to Doan Brook negatively affects the existing residential scale I so much admire . Second I object to the destruction of the existing Walker and Weeks maintenance barn on South Park Boulevard. Building a 30 ft x 40 ft maintenance shed to replace it on Courtland Boulevard is a severe mistake in the Master Plan. A utility structure surrounded by bushes is totally in appropriate for a major Boulevard. Third I have strong objection to the Master Plan, which is very poorly designed within the context of a premier Shaker Heights neighborhood. I recognize the issues Hathaway Brown is struggling to resolve, but the Campus Improvement Plan proposed falls far short of a successful solution. There are better alternatives to the Master Plan being proposed. Unfortunately I am out of the city during the August 7 meeting, but wanted to express my dissatisfaction with the direction Hathaway Brown is taking. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns for the negative impact these proposals will have on the properties in our neighborhood.

Sincerely Randall Gordon 19501 North Park Boulevard Shaker Heights, Sent from my iPad

Dear City of Shaker Heights, Mayor David Weiss, Shaker Heights City Council Members, and members of the Shaker Heights Planning Commission:

My wife Christine and I have lived at the corner of Sherbrooke Road and South Park Boulevard (2781 Sherbrooke Road) since January 1985. During this time, we have been good neighbors to Hathaway Brown School. We never have complained about the traffic, the numerous HB students and parents turning around in our driveway, cars running over our tree lawn, or worse. Both of us value higher education and support HB’s mission to educate and nurture its students.

In turn, until literally just these last few months, HB always has included us and other neighbors in the consideration and discussion of the various projects it has developed over the past 35 years. As an example, in 2003, we were, from the start, vitally involved in the development of the plans for the natatorium, including important details like the specific design of its roof-line and the selection of the lights in the parking lot just south of the pool.

Until now, HB always included all of us in its planning. These last few months have been completely different.

We initially became aware of what HB likes to call its current "Beautification Process" second- hand, by word of mouth, from one of our neighbors in late April. At that point, we had not heard from HB directly during what we now know were the many months of its planning. It also became apparent that some of the neighbors are regarded as more important to HB and preferred by HB than others. Those neighbors, some of whom are HB alumnae or parents of current HB students, or both, were informed of HB’s plans much earlier, possibly from the outset. We were not and others who are affected by, and deeply care about, those plans were not either.

When we finally saw the plans for the first time it was because we came to Shaker Heights City Hall to review them. It was apparent that the plans had been in development for quite some time. We were told they were a result of an HB survey of HB parents and alumnae, that the survey results identified some HB "sacred cows" that were not to be altered in any way no matter what, and that a desire for additional on-site parking another full-sized soccer field were apparently identified as well, despite the fact that, according to Dr. Bisselle, the HB enrollment has been declining for years. Thus, HB’s misleadingly called "Beautification Process" was born, but talked about with only some of the neighbors, not with all of us.

HB’s plans include a second full-sized soccer field, a flip-flop of its tennis courts, enlargement of its parking lot along Courtland Road, creation of a parking lot along South Park Boulevard, and now the request for further parking lots on the public roadways at North Park Boulevard and Sherbrooke Road. That would create traffic congestion at the North Park and Sherbrooke intersection, with students trying to fill 53 new parking spaces where 13 cars presently can parallel park, and with the inflow and outflow of parents in the mornings and afternoons, as they rush up and down Sherbrooke Road and across North Park Boulevard to drop-off or pick-up their loved ones.

The plans that HB has proposed – some of which were quickly acted upon with only very limited and narrow community notice and involvement; and others of which are still before the City for approval – severely damage the thoughtfully and carefully designed neighborhood, and create serious safety risks and hazards and problems. For those reasons, and because of the poor process that HB has undertaken to inform, listen to, and partner with its neighbors, we strongly oppose what HB has requested and urge the City to deny those requests, at least in favor of a slower, broader, neighborhood engagement process that can lead to truly safe and beautiful results for all of us.

We sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.

Paul Janicki 2781 Sherbrooke Road Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

To: Mayor David Weiss, Councilman Rob Zimmerman, Director of Planning Joyce Braverman and Senior Planner Dan Feinstein

My wife Debra Leizman and I are Shaker Heights residents. We have lived at 2760 Chesterton Road for more than 20 years and raised three daughters here. Deb grew up in Shaker Heights and is a physician at University Hospital and a faculty member at Case Medical School.

We strongly oppose the current request for new on-street parking areas on both sides of the public thoroughfare at the North Park Boulevard / Sherbrooke Road triangle. In the spirit of working together to find a better resolution, we urge the Planning Commission to recommend to the City, Hathaway Brown School, neighbors and nearby residents that we slow this process, form a working group to better understand issues and explore options, and submit a recommendation demonstrating real community engagement and consideration.

With respect to the current request, we believe these new parking areas will eliminate vital public greenspace, make driving in the neighborhood less safe (especially for young drivers), pave a portion of the Doan Brooke Watershed, and significantly damage the aesthetic of our community. North Park Boulevard and South Park Boulevard are among Shaker Heights’ most beautiful historic and natural assets. We should be working to preserve and improve those assets, not to pave or crowd them with additional parking.

The school’s proposed new on-campus soccer field exacerbates its existing shortage of on-campus parking. The school has land for new uses, such as the new soccer field, but is actively choosing to use its land for playing fields and then externalizing its parking issues to the surrounding neighborhood. Functionally, the school has requested that the City give the school the right to use public land to address its private parking deficit.

The proposed parking areas at the North Park / Sherbrooke Road triangle, a proposed new parking lot on school property adjacent to South Park, the new soccer field, and public road changes the City is considering for the intersection of South Park and Warrensville Road, all will impact neighborhood traffic volume, patterns, and aesthetics. Rather than considering these proposals in isolation and granting piecemeal approvals, we believe it will generate a better process and a better result to consider these changes in an integrated fashion, assessing functionality, school and neighborhood concerns, and broader community impact.

Over the past few weeks Hathaway Brown has worked with its neighbors and the City to more effectively engage and to hear concerns. This has taken considerable time and effort on all of our parts – City officials, Head of School Dr. Fran Bisselle, and involved neighbors. We want to thank everyone who has worked recently to improve this dialogue. I want also to register my disappointment with the school’s planning consultants whom I would have expected to start by encouraging engagement rather than avoidance or circumvention. At the May meeting of this Commission, when many of us were not aware school plans were even under consideration, the school and its consultants requested a zoning variance to put paved parking 5 feet 3 inches from the sidewalk, rather than adhering to the community standard of 25 feet. It is difficult not to assume strong disregard for the neighborhood and preservation of greenspace. Many of us remain skeptical the current plan will accommodate adequate landscaping and mounding, and we note the set-back is significantly less than the precedent established when the school built its tennis courts along Sherbrooke Road. The Board of Zoning Appeals Decision language on this issue is very unclear and does not specify a setback distance or zoning variance. This approach has engendered significant skepticism, mistrust and confusion, and adds to our concern about the request for new on-street parking areas to be built on both sides of the public road at the North Park Boulevard / Sherbrooke triangle.

Again, we urge the Planning Commission to recommend to the City, Hathaway Brown School and concerned neighbors that we slow this approval process, form a working group to explore options, and submit a recommendation that demonstrates real community engagement and consideration.

Thank you.

Keith Kerman 2760 Chesterton Road Shaker Heights, OH 44122 [email protected] c: 216.225.4224

Dear Sirs and Madam:

I am a resident of Shaker Heights. This is my second communication regarding the issue of parking on the Sherbrook and North Park roadway adjacent to Hathaway Brown School. I have attached my first communication. I never received ANY communication back from anyone regarding my letter.

I have reviewed the information which was posted by the City Planing Committee.

For your background, my address in 19701 North park Blvd. where I have lived since 1992. I have sent a relatives to HB from Milano, Italy for a brief period and I have donated to the school in the past. HB is an excellent School which previously had maintained excellent relations with its neighbors.

I continue to have serious concerns on the proposal.

1. While the information mentions landscaping, I have not seen any detailed plan on how this area will be improved once these, what I refer to as ‘strip center parking lots’, spaces are created.

2. The taking of public land for a private purpose seems to me unjust to the citizens of Shaker Heights. Our lovely town has numerous public areas. Is the taking of our public spaces for private purposes commonly done? Is is legal? Is there a City Policy on such a taking?

3. The safety of the proposal has been incorrectly assessed. During School opening hours, closing hour and for all the special events, the roads are VERY CROWDED with cars driving into the School in the morning and cars waiting all over the area for children to be picked up at school closing time. At times, I cannot get into my own driveway as cars are parked waiting to enter the School entrance. This has recently improved with the addition of a Shaker Heights policeman to help control all the traffic. At the same time, North Park is a two way street and cars come down the street at significant speeds with frequency. In my view, the street is dangerous as it currently stands. Obviously the City realized this as they post a policeman to help control the traffic.

Let me reiterate, that I live in this area. I walk my dog in this area. IT IS VERY CROWDED at times during the day. Cars are waiting to get pick up children. Cars are parked on the South side of the street and the road is a two way road with traffic coming down off of Shelburne, often at high speed.

Creating a parking area where cars are backing into the newly named “North Park Blvd.” is very dangerous. Creating a parking area where cars are backing into the street is very dangerous as outlined in Alternatives 1 and 2.

Also, the plan shows that the new “North Park” going to Sherbrook with be a one way street. When did this happen? Right now it is two way. So the plan calls for cars backing into a two way street. Perhaps I missed it, but how can this make sense? Even if you do in fact change the road to a one way street.

4. My property value will be negatively affected.

5. Oddly, the materials mention that enrollment at HB is expected to decline in the next several years. Given that, why are they creating all these parking spaces?

I appreciate your concerns and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

John D. Koch, owner 19701 North Park Blvd. Shaker Heights, Ohio

Objection to Hathaway Brown’s Parking Lot on Sherbrook Extension

Mr. David E. Weiss, Mayor, Shaker Heights Ms. Joyce G. Braverman, Director of Planning, Shaker Heights Mr. Dan Feinstein, Senior Planner, Shaker Heights Ms. Helen Rankin Butler, President Board of Trustees, HB Dr. Mary Frances Bisselle, Head of School, HB

Dear Sir and Madam:

My address is 19701 North Park Blvd where I have resided since 1992. I object to the proposed parking lot on the Northern end of Sherbrooke Road where it intersects with North Park Blvd. My objection is based on the following.

1. Esthetics: This plan ignores the beauty of the common green areas of Shaker Heights. You will turn our lovely residential area into looking like a strip center parking lot. You are going to cut down several trees in the process. No plantings are on the proposal to make this parking lot look decent. I am shocked by the bare and uncreative proposal. Most towns would never allow such a bare strip center parking lot on even a commercial space on a major thoroughfare, let alone a quiet residential neighborhood.

2. Safety: Your plan calls for head-in parking along a two way street. This is, in my view, a negligent proposal. The vast majority of parkers will be students. Your proposal then anticipates student drivers backing into a two way street. Do you really think that this is a good idea??? Also, 22 feet seems quite a narrow width to allow for two way traffic on a public road while cars are backing into it.

3. Economics: My property values will be negatively impacted. It is already very difficult to navigate these streets during the rush in the morning and the rush in the afternoon. The addition of this strip center parking lot will reduce my value. As it is, I have significant difficulty departing or entering my driveway during rush hours.

As the plan now stands, I will investigate pursuing legal action if this proposal is approved.

I love Shaker Heights and HB has been a good neighbor, in the past. I enrolled my wife’s cousin from Milan, Italy several ago and I have donated to the school.

I hope that Shaker Heights and HB re-consider what they are doing to what HAD BEEN good neighbor relations. In the past, considerable care was taken with the neighbors in this residential area. I am dismayed that such a plan has been undertaken especially without apparent regard to esthetics, safety nor the neighbors.

Sadly,

John D. Koch 19701 North Park Blvd. Shaker Hts., Ohio 44122 Dear all, Please see the below communication we sent to Dr. Bisselle regarding our intent to support our neighborhood's challenge to the proprosed projects. We will be present at tomorrow night's meeting. Sincerely, Colleen Lance, MD Marcos de Lima, MD 19601 N Park Blvd Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

------Forwarded message ------From: Colleen Lance Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 12:59 Subject: Community engagement Aug 1st To: [email protected]

Dr. Bisselle,

Thank you for the invitation, but we will not be able to attend the Aug 1st open house. Unfortunately our family will be out of the country. Our input after careful review of the school's plans with the mayor is as follows:

The neighborhood was taken by surprise at how fast, and without consultation, this project had advanced when notice was given. Most of those potentially affected did not receive any notice - and certainly not advanced notice. We do not support the building of parking decks.

We certainly do not support the use of our city's green space for additional parking in an already congested area. We do not consider parking decks and lots to be beautification projects, and they should not be referred to as such.

The proposed parking area in the 'triangle', outside of school grounds is likely to cause more problems instead of solving the parking issue.

To date, we have not seen any environmental impact studies as the school is adjacent to an environmentally protected area that is vital to the community. Nor have we seen an evaluation of traffic flow patterns during the school year.

We will support all measures proposed by the neighborhood group to challenge the HB plans.

Sincerely, Colleen Lance, MD Marcos de Lima, MD 19601 N Park Blvd Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 8:42 AM To: David Weiss; Joyce Braverman Subject: Fwd: HB parking

-----Original Message----- From: catcatw To: robert.zimmerman Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2019 8:39 am Subject: HB parking

Robert,

I am against any plan that Hathaway Brown School has to use public space for parking or other uses. I have been to the city meetings regarding this and to both of the school's open houses. I have met the mayor too. Aside from private enterprises using public space, it is not safe for new drivers to back into traffic. It is not beautification ( as the school stated in their letter to residents) to mow down several trees and asphalt green space. We live in Shaker Hts not a parking lot.

The school as not looked at all other parking possibilities. They could put a semi underground parking garage in their backyard and place the soccer field on top. They could rent parking space elsewhere such as Malvern or the Baptist church on Eaton and Fairmount and then shuttle to students. The school could buy the property on North Park and Cortland and use the house as a President's home and parking.

Since they have failed to look at other possibilities and are determined to ram this proposed project through without thought, the entire project should be put on hold. There is no need to rush. I urge you to table this project. Really I urge you to vote against it. This will destroy the neighborhood.

Our homes on Sherbrooke and North Park pay more in taxes than the school employees. So if common sense does not prevail then dollars and cents should. Stop this now!

Sincerely,

Cathy Lincoln 19715 North Park BLVD

------Forwarded message ------From: Margaret Margolis Date: Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 5:53 PM Subject: Parking at the Triangle To: Keith Kerman

We believe the plan to have cars park around the triangle is a bad idea.It will cause a great deal of congestion in that area. It will lead to accidents with cars colliding with each other and perhaps even people. Thank you, Margaret and Dick Margolis

STEVEN MILLER AND SUZANNE FISHER 2741 CHESTERTON ROAD SHAKER HEIGHTS, OHIO 44122

August 7, 2019

Dear Mayor Weiss, City Council, and Planning Commission:

This is a brief and concise note to express our strong opposition to the requests, plans, and proposals by Hathaway Brown School for additional parking lots, including those that would not comply with standard Shaker Heights zoning requirements (excluding variances) and especially those that would occupy public road rights-of-way at North Park Boulevard and Sherbrooke Road, both because of the process that HB has pursued and because of the substance of the requests that HB has made.

In terms of HB’s process, HB unfortunately used a very narrow, limited, and late- in-the game approach to notice and engagement of neighbors, stakeholders, and other interested parties, and restrictive formats for its open houses that precluded the opportunities for everyone to hear what people had to say and for everyone to have to chance to speak to those in attendance.

In terms of the substance of HB’s proposals, so many neighbors and others – though only belatedly apprised and minimally informed of HB’s wishes – now are voicing their opposition and concern that we will not here try to express the many reasons and objections. The beauty and careful planning and thought of the neighborhood; the traffic patterns, congestion, and risks and threats to public safety; the preservation of historic and dedicated green space; and the preservation of Doan Brook – these are just the beginning.

As well, the imminence of changes to the Shaker/Warrensville intersection and the traffic flows both directly to and from HB and on the surrounding streets should be taken into account, so that the various changes are integrated rather than fragmented.

There are of course more details, but this brief note captures the essence of our immediate concerns.

Thank you for your service and thank you for your careful consideration and stewardship of our important legacy.

Sincerely,

Steven Miller and Suzanne Fisher Comments by Irwin Lowenstein, Resident of 19000 South Park Boulevard in the City of Shaker Heights, Ohio, on Hathaway Brown’s currently proposed on-street parking plan at the intersection of North Park and Sherbrook as well as the overall Hathaway Brown Master Plan, August 7, 2019.

Members of the Planning Commission:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak AGAINST the currently proposed parking plan proposed for the intersection of North Park and Sherbrook. That project is, I believe, ill conceived and poorly planned. I’d like to briefly share a bit of my personal and professional background to put my comments in context.

I have lived four doors away from the southwest corner of the HB property for almost fifteen years – this is my third successive home in Shaker Heights -- and I love having the school as my close neighbor. Professionally I am architect and urban designer with more than 35 years of professional experience. In my professional work, I advise anchor institutions like schools, hospitals, museums and governments on planning and design. My current anchor institution clients, for example, include Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Hospital, and the City of Lakewood, Ohio. I have also served, during my career, on various boards and commissions including the Shaker Heights Landmark Commission.

I missed the May 7, 2019, meeting of this Commission since, although I live four doors away from HB, I was not notified of the meeting via mail. I did however attend an Open House at HB on August 1, 2019, even though I received the invitation for that Open House from HB by mail the day before the meeting. Nevertheless, Many in the neighborhood warmly welcomed the Open House where HB displayed both the plans for the subject on street parking lot and the overall current Master Plan for the campus. My comments here are both specific and general, as I would like to make comments at both levels for the public record. I will keep my comments brief and to the point focusing on only my three primary concerns with both the subject project and the Master Plan overall: parking, planning and public participation.

Parking: When I develop a master plan for an institution it has to meet that institution’s goal and objectives, of course. But, in my view, a master plan should and does clearly represent for all to see what an institution loves and values. When I look at the currently proposed HB Master Plan, I can tell that the institution loves and values at least two things. The first is women’s athletics. I applaud that important imperative and agree wholeheartedly with HB that creating an additional soccer field will promote health and wellbeing, camaraderie and community, teamwork and leadership. The second thing I see HB loves and values is cars. I get that. But while I wasn’t at the meeting on May 7, I did listen to the audio recording and read the minutes. This Commission accepted the applicant’s request for additional on site and off site parking without any questions whatsoever and no data was presented or provided to support the need. Furthermore, this plan should, in my view, be looked at in the context of current trends in urban design most notably the view that private automobile use is detrimental to our cities, our health and contributes to climate change. The most progressive and future looking cities and institutions are establishing Climate Action Plans and, to that end, seeking to lower private automobile use by establishing maximum parking requirements rather than the past two generations of minimum parking requirements. Study after study shows that adding parking increases the demand for cars, creates more traffic and congestion, more air pollution and more energy consumption. Parking eats up huge amounts of land, degrades urban design, increases impervious surfaces and encourages the overuse of cars. If anyone thinks that creating more parking will decrease the current on street parking around HB, you are wrong. Current research indicates it will increase. 21st century cities and institutions seeking to be sustainable and respond to the climate crisis are seeking reducing vehicle miles traveled by ride share, car share, incentivizing public transportation – we do have a light rail station nearby – and incentivizing walking and biking. If we seek to “inspire the students of HB – indeed inspire all of us -- to rise boldly to the challenges of our times”, let’s model the behavior and approach necessary to do so.

The issue of the personal safety of young women mentioned by HB is an important one. I don’t take that lightly and neither should you. But you all seem to have accepted without question the assertion that adding more parking closer to the front door of the school will promote safety. The fact is, the young women of HB are much more likely to – God forbid – be injured or killed in an automobile crash than to be injured in a person on person crime in one of safest neighborhoods in NE Ohio. I would suggest that the safest place to park around HB is the on street parking on Sherbrook where the attentive and engaged neighbors have their eyes on the street all hours of the day. That’s the value of locating an anchor institution like HB in a residential neighborhood. We are all looking out for each other. And there are many other ways to promote public safety through environmental design.

Planning: Shaker Heights is blessed with a legacy of careful and thoughtful planning and high quality development, one of the most well known garden suburbs in the nation. In 1984, the Shaker Village Historic District in which Hathaway Brown and all of our homes are located was added to the National Register of Historic Places. We must protect that legacy since it offers enduring value. We protect that enduring legacy using, among other means, careful regulation through application of our zoning ordinances. In the reports I reviewed on this application, this Commission came to the conclusion – a “conclusion of law” nonetheless – that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be effected by these parking proposals and among various findings of fact that, because there are no houses across the street on South Park, no one will be effected. Those conclusions are outrageous. Our public lands and natural systems are among our greatest assets and we must protect them at all costs. Furthermore, the beauty and character of Shaker Heights is attributable, to a large degree, because we value and protect the commons, which is the public realm we all share. That is why the original plan for the city and our zoning ordinances place such a major emphasis on parks and parkland, waterways and, in particular, front yards. In Shaker Heights, although we each own our own front yard, we, through agreement and ordinance share them with everyone. It is for good reason that an institutional use like HB is considered to have four front yards. Tearing down large hundred-year-old trees in a front yard to pave the ground for parking then screening it with unnatural looking mounds and shrubs is a disgrace. Furthermore, you granted variances for parking lot location requirements in a front yard, which is, for good reason, prohibited by Section 1251.08 of the zoning code. And you granted significant variances to minimum landscape setbacks around an institutional property required by Section 1240.08 of the code. And, adding insult to injury, you approved all these variances and others without discussing or applying your own legal standards for variances clearly described in Section 1213.04. There are six very specific standards in that code section designed to protect the wider community and this Commission did not even pause to discuss them let alone apply them. Shame on all of us.

Public Participation: I’ve been using the term anchor institution so it’s good, I think, if I clarify the term and how I am using it. The Democracy Collaborative defines anchor institutions as enterprises such as schools, universities and hospitals that are rooted in their local communities by mission, invested capital or relationships with the community. While HB clearly serves communities outside Shaker Heights, it has been located in Shaker Heights since 1927. And, like all or most anchor institutions, HB is in a fixed location without plans to move. In fact, I was heartened to learn at the recent Open House that the HB Trustees committed decades ago to the One Campus Model of education for all grades thereby solidifying it’s enduring place in our community for the future. Placed-based anchors, because of that enduring, long tern community relationship, have a special role to play in building community and trust as well as seeking collective benefits for all. At the August 1 Open House, HB told some of us that the they were surprised at the significant concerns of neighbors further asserting that they followed the City’s guidance on how and when to hold community meetings. Holding an Open House a few days prior to the May 7 meeting with invitations sent out less than a week in advance to a very small circle of neighbors, is disrespectful and disingenuous to the neighborhood. Furthermore, it appears from the meeting minutes and audio recording I listened to, this Commission merely and only briefly asked if the applicant had met with neighbors and, while the school indeed confirmed it held an Open House, you asked few or no questions about the nature of the Open House nor the concerns raised y neighbors.

In conclusion, we all want Hathaway Brown School to succeed; that is in our best interest as neighbors, too. But, the City is green lighting this important project, one that will change the campus and the neighborhood forever, in a piecemeal fashion and without proper protocol, care and due diligence. I urge you to slow down and seek a more collaborative and careful approach to achieve mutual benefits. We, your neighbors, would welcome an opportunity to be a part.

Thank you.

From: Heather Stefanski Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 5:02 PM To: David Weiss; Robert Zimmerman; Joyce Braverman Subject: Hathaway Brown School Parking lots

My name is Heather Stefanski and I am a long time resident of Chesterton Rd. Grew up on the street at 2731 and recently moved back to 2711. The purpose of this not is to formally log my concern regarding the HB parking lots. The area around HB is one of the most beautiful in the city, if not all of Cleveland and part of the reason for the beauty is that we have so much green space and magnificent trees. I am completely opposed to the new requested 53 parking spaces and disappointed that the city planning commission already approved variances to the parking lot requirements on the school property as both of these decisions will reduce green space, cut down trees and make the neighborhood look more "commercial" and "cheap." I would much prefer students to park on the street and for HB to offer some incentives for carpooling. As parking on the street is temporary. Taking down trees and building parking lots is permanent.

Thank you for your consideration,

Heather Stefanski 2711 Chesterton Rd