Summary
- The Cleveland Landmarks Commission considered both large civic investments like the Marian C. Seltzer School and Transformative Arts Fund murals as well as more routine changes like signage updates and siding replacement in historic districts.
- The commission consistently prioritized historic integrity, material quality and neighborhood impact – decisions that sometimes conflicted with the desires of the clients (business owners and homeowners).
- The commission welcomed public art and creative reuse but emphasized the importance of following formal approval processes, as seen in the siding and signage debates. Public comment — especially for the beer garden — highlighted the tension between broad community support and direct neighborhood concerns.
Follow-Up Questions
- After reading the public comments about the proposed beer garden, a clear pattern stood out. Most supportive letters used similar language and came from the broader Ohio City area or nearby businesses, while longer, more detailed letters of opposition came from immediate neighbors concerned about noise, parking and how the project would affect daily life. The commission noted that the majority of comments were in favor, which raised some questions for me about how we weigh the number of responses versus their relevance. Visitors to the beer garden will likely outnumber nearby residents—so, how does the city balance broad enthusiasm with the concerns of those most directly affected?
- How does the commission communicate longstanding policies — like the restriction on vinyl siding in historic districts — to applicants and contractors? The exchange with the contractor who challenged the vinyl ban highlighted the need for clearer, more accessible guidance upfront as well as consistent enforcement to avoid confusion and frustration during hearings.
Find the agenda for this meeting here.
Find more information about the Cleveland Landmarks Commission on its website.
Cleveland Landmarks Commission members
- Michele Anderson
- Mark Duluk
- Chris Loeser
- Calley Mersmann, director of City Planning
- Allan Dreyer
- Robert S. Strickland, vice chair
- Raymond Tarasuck Jr.
- Julie Trott, chair
- Deborah A. Gray, Ward 4 Cleveland City Council member
- Regennia Williams
- Michael Sanbury
For more detailed criteria and guidelines regarding landmark designation and the approval of alterations, refer to Chapter 161 of the Cleveland Zoning Code: Landmarks Commission Ordinance.
Note: The Cleveland City Planning Commission Zoning Viewer is an interactive tool that displays all zoning districts across the city.
Certificate of Appropriateness presentations
Case 25-046: Shaker Square Historic District
Shaker Square SW median signal box wrap
Ward 4: Council Member Deborah Gray
Project representatives: Mark Bailin, Diamond Signs & Graphics
Bailin: “Over 30 Shaker Heights traffic signal boxes have been wrapped through a juried process. The art ranges from storytelling to abstract to augmented reality. It is a creative endeavor that is being duplicated in several cities and neighborhoods.” (See current and proposed signal box views from the presentation materials below).
The commission approved the project unanimously.
Case 25-047: Lorain Avenue Historic District
“Crystal Bird” mural at 2014 W. 53rd Street
Ward 15: Council Member Jenny Spencer
Project representatives: Ariel Vergez, artist
Artist Ariel Vergez requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a mural on the side of a building on West 53rd Street entitled “Crystal Bird.” Vergez was awarded $393,700 from the Transformative Arts Fund (TAF) in 2024. Since then, he has used these funds to support his project “Murals to Uplift the Human Spirit,” in which he partners with other artists, including youth, to revitalize sections of the West Side of Cleveland with murals, mini-sculptures, and landscaping.
The project was approved, with some minor conditions regarding small details of the artwork. Chair Julie Trott acknowledged that they are often hesitant about painting on unpainted brick – but in this case, since there were no significant masonry features or features of historical significance, it was acceptable. Robert Strickland also acknowledged that they would usually ask that the murals include some framing features, but in this case it looked acceptable. (See photos from the project presentation below.)
Join the movement for transparency
Civic power can start with you! We train and pay Documenters to take notes at local government meetings and share them here. Learn more about becoming a Documenter.
Case 25-042: Ohio City Historic District
Flannery Georgalis Offices, 1452 W. 25th St. Renovations (originally tabled on June 26, 2025)
Ward 3: Council Member Kerry McCormack
Project representatives: Clifford Brown, DS Architecture
The commission previously tabled this project on June 26, 2025. Gabrielle Benson of design firm DS Architecture led the presentation for this project. Benson described the changes they had made based on comments and suggestions made during the last meeting. His presentation included photos of what building used to look like, which serves as inspiration for the rehabilitation project. The building will serve as offices for Flannery Georgalis Law Offices. This project was approved by the commission. (See presentation photos below.)
Case 25-041: Shaker Square Historic District
2634 Haddam Road siding replacement (previously tabled on June 26)
Ward 4: Council Member Gray
Project representatives: Robert Hoge, The Home Corp. of Ohio
This project was a proposal to replace the wood siding on a residential property with vinyl siding. Robert Hoge, a contractor with The Home Corp. (also known as Garfield 1-2323), presented the request on behalf of the homeowner.
The project had previously been tabled on June 26, pending additional evidence to justify full replacement rather than repainting. After reviewing updated photos, the commission remained unconvinced that replacement was necessary and firmly opposed the use of vinyl on the front facade due to the home’s location in a historic district.
Before the commission could proceed with a motion, Hoge asked for clarification on the restrictions put forward by the commission. He emphasized that the homeowner felt strongly that painting was not the solution and was willing to compromise by paying more to more closely replicate the appearance of the existing facade. Trott said they do not approve vinyl for the fronts of homes in historic districts but make exceptions for the sides and rears of homes.
Herb Schoen, owner of The Home Corp., appeared on Hoge’s video feed to share his comments. He expressed confusion over the commission’s decision, arguing that there is significant precedent for approving vinyl siding on the front of historic homes in the area. He stressed how much his client was willing to compromise at significant expense to preserve the historic appearance of the home, and he urged the commission to clarify what made this particular case different, asking:
“Please help me understand — because I am advocating for the customer, who is a very reasonable woman and has already agreed to spend additional dollars to get the material that replicates the size and shape and color of the existing dilapidated, deteriorated wood siding that would not hold up to paint well over continual time on the front elevation or any other elevation of her home.”
Trott expressed appreciation for the homeowner’s care and investment in the property, but reaffirmed that vinyl is not an acceptable material in historic districts. She clarified that other properties with vinyl siding had not received approval and had bypassed the proper procedures. Trott commended Hoge, Schoen and the homeowner for following the correct process and bringing the proposal before the commission.
Schoen promised to prove to the commission that other homes in the district had received approval for vinyl siding and asked for the formal guidelines the commission relied upon in making its decisions. At that point, Patricia McGinty Aston, assistant director of the city’s Law Department, addressed the chair and noted that if there was no further discussion, the commission could proceed without answering any more questions.
The project passed 5-3 with the condition that no vinyl siding be used on the front facade of the home.
Suggested Reading
Case 25-048: Clifton/West Boulevard Historic District
Signage at 11118 Clifton Boulevard
Ward 15: Council Member Spencer
Project representatives: Aldo Dure, Be Next Awnings & Graphics
Brook Livingston presented the project as a representative of Be Next Awnings and Graphics, which had been contracted by Clifton Suites Apartments to update and enhance the building’s front signage. A prior request for approval had been denied by the commission. Livingston returned with revised plans and a request for clarification on the reasons behind the initial denial.
The design under review had already been installed on the building, and the commission’s decision would determine whether the client could retain the existing signage or would be required to replace it with an alternative design.
Livingston stated that Clifton Suites had approached the company to create a sign that was safer, required less maintenance, and would “stand the test of time.” He discussed how his company generally steers clients away from fabric awnings and canopies that jet out into the sidewalk, for safety and maintenance reasons.
The Near West Design Review Advisory Committee noted that the proposed signage appeared out of sync with the building’s overall design, particularly due to the lighting and the shiny, vinyl-like canvas material. They recommended using a more natural-looking fabric and suggested a rounded fabric awning over the entrance, similar to the example shown in the presentation photo (see below).
Commission Member Michele Anderson said that this is a very “elegant classical building” and the previous awning had enhanced the look of the building, while the current design is “a distraction.”
Trott expressed support for refreshing the signage on this building but said the current proposal does not “mesh well” with the purposes of the building. She stated it was too modern of a design for a classical-looking building, and the internally lighted letters were inappropriate for a residential building. She rejected the proposed design and also expressed support for a fabric, arched awning.
The commission recommended tabling the issue to allow time for a direct meeting with the applicant and to collect additional information. When asked, Livingston agreed to the deferral but took the opportunity to voice concerns about the previous awning, describing it as an “eyesore” and noting its questionable structural integrity, which he suggested posed safety risks. There were some audio issues during Livingston’s remarks, which made it difficult to clearly hear portions of his comments regarding the aesthetic and safety challenges of fabric awnings.
The commission tabled this project to allow for more discussion and review. (See presentation photo below.)
Case 24-090: Clifton/West Boulevard Historic District
New construction at Marion C. Seltzer School, 1468 W. 98th St. (schematic review completed Nov. 14, 2024)
Wards 15 & 11: Council Members Jenny Spencer and Danny Kelly
Project representative: Jeff Henderson, TDA Architecture
The commission reviewed the new construction design for the Marian Seltzer School. The demolition of the existing building was approved in May 2025. This meeting focused solely on the proposed design for the replacement facility. The proposed design includes colorful glazed brick and murals inspired by student artwork and cultural patterns, The design uses muted, naturalistic tones over harsh primary colors, to further evoke organic dyes and traditional textiles.
The commission approved the new construction design for the Marian Seltzer School with several conditions and recommendations. Commissioners requested that samples of the proposed colored glazed brick be submitted to staff for review and that a slight change be introduced between the glazed brick and the surrounding masonry to better define the decorative elements. The commission also recommended (but did not require) further refinement of the stair tower mural to make it more architecturally integrated, such as by unifying its segments or incorporating masonry articulation to enhance its presence.
Commissioners encouraged the project team to install interpretive signage acknowledging student contributions to the mural designs, which draw inspiration from cultural and artistic heritage. Final plans for the learning garden — including materials, layout, and any hardscape elements — must also be submitted to staff once finalized. Overall, the commission expressed strong support for the school’s community-focused design and praised the thoughtful incorporation of student artwork. (See presentation photos below.)
Case 25-049 and Case 25-050: Lorain Avenue Historic District
Demolition/addition and renovation at 3801-15 Lorain Avenue
Ward 3: Council Member Kerry McCormack
Project representative: Westleigh Harper, Horton Harper Architects
The final presentation consisted of a conceptual design for the proposed Noble Beast Beer Garden, which includes the renovation of a historic commercial building at 3815 Lorain Avenue, demolition of a former gas station structure on the adjacent lot, and the construction of a one-story kitchen addition, restrooms and a greenhouse-style indoor beer garden. Project architect Westleigh Harper of Horton Harper Architects said the design emphasizes greenery, transparency and an inviting, park-like atmosphere, with a major entry point from West 38th Street and outdoor seating wrapping the corner. While commissioners expressed enthusiasm for the overall concept and praised the creative reuse of a long-vacant site, they encouraged the development team to consider changes to the layout — particularly relocating or reconfiguring the restroom block and greenhouse — to better buffer the residential neighbors to the south.
Public comment was significant on this case, with more than 90 letters received. Of those, 72 were in support of the project, many from residents of Ohio City and surrounding neighborhoods. Supporters emphasized the value of bringing new life to a long-vacant lot, the local ownership and positive track record of Noble Beast, and the project’s potential to strengthen activity along the Lorain Avenue commercial corridor.
Opponents, totaling 24 comments — most from residents living along West 38th Street — raised concerns about the scale and intensity of the use, noise and lighting impacts, the compatibility of the modern design within the historic context, and the lack of early engagement with the immediate residential community.
The commission reiterated that the current review was in the early stages of proposal, with no formal approval or denial issued. They encouraged the applicants to continue refining the design with input from the neighborhood and to explore ways to minimize impacts on nearby homes, such as introducing a solid wall or more enclosed construction along the greenhouse’s southern edge.
Commissioners also supported preserving historic elements of the 3815 Lorain building and noted that a separate demolition application for the former gas station would be considered at a future meeting, following a staff site visit. Overall, the commission expressed optimism about the project’s potential, provided the next steps include meaningful collaboration with the community and thoughtful revisions.
These notes are by Documenter Anna Truax.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at documenters@signalcleveland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.