Htsguy

It was a longer than normal agenda but they could have probably completed it if they went 5 hours (until 2 in the afternoon) rather than the standard 3 or 3 1/2 hours. The point being is do your job and take some time to review the agenda ahead of time and if you see it is going to be longer than normal do your best to make arrangements to clear your calendar so you can devote a couple of additional hours. This doesn't happen that often so it should not be that great a burden. I can understand one or two being unable to do this but I cannot understand why you lose a quorum in a situation like this. Maybe it was the responsibility of the chair and staff to take the bull by the horn, note the lengthy agenda and address this fact with commission members a week a so ahead of time deal with it. Not only does this failure to complete the agenda delay projects but it also inconvenienced project reps and presenters who made themselves available, probably sat through the other presentations to no avail and now have to make arrangements to come back to the commission. I am sure they have busy schedules just like the commission members who had to leave the meeting for some unexplained reasons.

I may be wrong but I think right now they are only seeking final approval on Fine Arts Parcel A, not the whole scheme. Also, I viewed the presentation before Landmarks and I think the above conceptual rendering of Parcel A is the original plan and it has been modified to a certain extent due to lack of funding.

I have always felt that one of the biggest impediments/challenges with rail between the three Cs is that none of them have sufficiently developed public transportation systems (especially rail which out of towners tend to feel more comfortable using than buses because they definitely know where it is going) compared to other "rail cities". Once you are in town you want to be able to get around quickly and easily. It sort of defeats the purpose of the rail trip if once in Columbus I have to rent a car to get around (why not just drive in the first place) or spend a fortune on Ubers and/or taxis. When I am in Chicago or NYC I use public transportation 90% of the time so I would have no trouble taking a rail trip to either city (except for the fact that it leaves Cleveland in the middle of the night). I don't know if I could say that about Cincy or Columbus,

Looks like the Planning Commission/Landmarks meeting for final approval is November 30.

This is PURE SPECULATION on my part but could it be the developer is trying to value engineer this project to death due to rising costs and is not taking that final plunge until this is done. I seem to recall hints of this in the past.

This should probably be moved to the Ohio City Irishtown Bend Park thread to avoid duplicate posts and discussions. That said, the Port Authority should just go ahead and file the ED action in Probate Court rather than just dragging their feet. Also I hope in this CP action the Port Authority retains a top notch litigator who immediately files a notice of deposition for Tony George. My gut tells me that George is much like his buddy President Trump. Trump's attorneys try to avoid his deposition at all costs because they know he can't help lying, exaggerating and contradicting himself and a good lawyer can get him tied up in knots with little effort negatively effecting the case.

By the way, I forgot to mention in my above rant that it really galled me listening to Bowen justify his no vote. He was doing his best to impress upon us all that his negative vote was simply in the best interest of the city. This while he plots with Tony George at Irish Bend Park.

Two points. First, I am still a bit confused concerning the proposed litigation. A number of times during the meeting Tony Coyne referred to the 2019 common pleas appeal relating to the first development proposal and stated a couple of times that they would simply go forward with that litigation if this new modified proposal was rejected. That appeal in CP court had been voluntarily dismissed (in 2019) supposedly because the parties agreed to mediation which was apparently unsuccessful according to Coyne. In my mind that case cannot be re-filed because it is now time barred unless there is some tolling provision of which I am unaware since it went to mediation. Again, a number of times Coyne referred to that litigation (the 2019 case) saying they would just go forward with it if this new plan was not approved (a gentle threat it appeared to me since that plan was even more dense). Again, however, at this point there is no pending litigation so either Coyne was misinformed, was unintentionally mischaracterizing the situation (as again it is a bit confusing, especially the procedural basis of the appeal if you read the 2019 filings) or simply blowing smoke and fibbing (I don't think it was the later). According to Ken's article Knez now intends to litigate again. Where I am confused, given Coyne's representations before for the committee, is whether Knez is going to try to revive the 2019 litigation and try to get the old denser and even more unacceptable plan approved or whether they are just going to appeal Friday's rejection of the revised less dense plan. Second, I cannot believe the Planning Commission did not give Knez a break given all the money it has spent so far on a troubled piece of property. I know it is comparing apples and oranges but PC basically bent over and said "please sir I'd like some more" when it came to the Sherwin Williams review (again I understand why) but played the big bad wolf in this situation. While I am personally not crazy about the siting or design, PC has approved much worse in Ohio City over the years. Moreover Knez is not a small fry in the city so why piss them off. Again, I am not crazy about much of it's work but there is a clear civic mindedness to the company and it has taken on a number of projects on sites and in areas which most developers would not touch with a ten foot pole. Hasn't it earned at least a little of that Sherwin Williams deference?

There is also a recently granted joint motion releasing the injunction bond. This is probably further evidence that Watson negotiated something with the opposing side which most likely included a promise not to appeal or I doubt the City of Cleveland would have joined in such a motion.

Return to the old days. 50 years ago this neighborhood was filled with people who walked to the various manufacturing jobs located there or by bus from nearby Maple and Garfield Hts.

You are right, that case was voluntarily dismissed. It can’t be in the court of appeals unless it was refiled. It could’ve been re-filed in common pleas court and assigned a new case number but I don’t see that. Really confused. Also, I read the purpose of the appeal and was slightly confused about the procedure there as well.

I am actually kind of confused as to what the issues on in court (this is of course an appeal of an administrative decision). It was represented that the original plan was approved by PC. They then said something about a disapproval by zoning but at today's meeting they kept emphasizing that the plan was totally to code so I don't know why they would be in front of zoning in the first place. I looked for the court docket but could not find it.

At least the dedicated chairman stuck around. And I heard he had to cancel a meeting with Tony George to do so.😉

Pet peeve. Planning commission only meets twice a month, usually for only 3 hours or so. If members cannot clear their calendars until say 2 in the afternoon for the meetings maybe they should think about finding another gig. Today there were nines agenda items which they could not get to because they lost their quorum at noon. It would have been ten if one item was no voluntarily postponed.

Just a crazy decision. Developer presented a somewhat revised plan (by the way first plan was approved by PC) to meet the spirit of the new townhouse code which still has not passed council) to address some concerns. They are still in court in connection with the old plan so if the developer wins in court the even worst plan will go forward rather than the slightly better new plan. It looks like the developer could win in court since the old plan did meet the zoning code. Hopefully if Knez does win in court they will still make the new changes.

I guess I am less concerned how the delayed demolition of the current MLK will affect Phase 2 on the east side of Stokes as I really don't see that happening for another 3-4 years in any event. It is the most questionable part of the project because of the office component and will be the most difficult to put together. However, in my mind further delay on the west side of Stokes, in a minor way hurts the Artisan. I don't think it will be that big a deal but it may just look slightly isolated for a while which is not a good look when trying to lease apartments. Continuing construction right outside tenants windows also may not be a great selling point. Probably making a mountain out of a mole hill but I just want this to move forward. I am ready to go down there with my own sledge hammer and shovel.

The biggest surprise/disappointment for me from @KJParticle was the quoted from Steve Rubin that "Midwest continues to work on closing financing for 11-story Library Lofts apartments". For what ever reason I never thought financing was still an issue and it was suppose to break ground last July. I have been speculating that the delay in starting has been some minor construction issues. I guess this is not the case. It is additionally frustrating because any delay on Library Lofts delays phase 2 since they cannot demolish the current MLK library branch until the new one is finished.

I wonder how important "shovel ready" is. That would seem to hurt some of the projects if key. One example, the Lakewood project is supposedly still negotiating for property that is necessary for it to hit the required square footage. I am sure there are many similarly in that boat. Also how important is strong financing already in place? Lots of questions. Surprised by the numbers given criteria.

I guess I would be more excited if it didn't seem so far away and moving so slowing. Like you said you have been hinting about it for more than a year but here we are and it is only at the RFQ stage. That is really to early on in the process for me to be doing jumping jacks. I imagine a development partner won't even be selected until the first quarter of next year and then the long boring process of coming to some sort of development agreement. Hopefully Midtown doesn't take a page out of the Cleveland Hts development book or we won't see any conceptual renderings for two years let alone ground breaking.

Clearly this could have gone any where in Northeast Ohio near a freeway so glad-job and tax wise-it is in Cuyahoga County.

anything new regarding Green Rd-Mayfield development?

I would like to see a company that can figure out how to service small cities and towns again.

Does anybody on the forum subscribe to Cleveland.com and can read and summarize an article posted on the website? There is a article with a headline suggesting that those involved in the Irishtown Bend Park project are pissed at the Planning Commissions chairman David Bowen and his role as an architect for Tony George and the "competing project" (yeah right) George is proposing for the site he bought at the corner of Detroit and West 25th. Also curious it the article has any updated information about a possible eminent domain action.

I am still not crazy about this design-especially as a replacement for Swing Hall- but I believe somebody on the forum (or I read somewhere else) that this is the rear of the building and not the side facing Talawanda. If this is true I would like to see the Talawanda elevation.

I would hope that any project which receives once in a lifetime ARPA funds has been vetted well enough that there is an assurance the project will move forward and most likely it was this money that was needed to put it over the top finance wise.