Discuss and debate Cleveland zoning code issues in this thread.

Guys... The setback is usually from the roadway... I.E. Your sidewalk.

 

Are you sure about that?  I'm not familiar with Cleveland's zoning code, but I'd be really surprised if that 5 foot requirement was measured from the street line as opposed to the property/public ROW line.

325.61    Setback Building Line

"Setback building line" means a building line back of the street line.

 

325.67    Street or Alley Line

"Street or alley line" means the lot line dividing the lot from, respectively, a street or an alley.

 

325.44    Lot Line

"Lot line" means the boundary of a lot separating it from adjoining land, public or private. It may or may not be the boundary line of a lot in a recorded subdivision.

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_325.html

 

 

It's called a "front yard setback" and there's also a side yard requirement.  Apparently taller buildings require bigger side yards.  No density allowed!

A bigger side yard for bigger buildings is probably to allow emergency crews, vehicles and equipment (ladders!) access to all sides of the building. I think the density in University Circle is actually pretty decent. Street presence? That's another matter...

325.61     Setback Building Line

"Setback building line" means a building line back of the street line.

 

325.67     Street or Alley Line

"Street or alley line" means the lot line dividing the lot from, respectively, a street or an alley.

 

325.44     Lot Line

"Lot line" means the boundary of a lot separating it from adjoining land, public or private. It may or may not be the boundary line of a lot in a recorded subdivision.

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_325.html

 

 

 

Thanks!  Pretty much what I thought: it's measured from the lot line/public ROW, not from the edge of the roadway.  Which means it mandates a front lawn.  I actually don't have a big problem if building owners want to provide that small a setback in that setting, but do we really want to demand it? 

 

Really, its those 25 foot side yards that are nuts.  KJP, you are very generous in your explanation- unless you think downtown workers are at grave risk without their precious side yards :).  I'd bet good money Htsguy is right and that this is just a legacy of UC as residential neighborhood...which may mean it's time to update.  It's possible that the city and UCI still view these restrictions as useful, because they require more developments to affirmatively seek variances, giving the public a greater say in design.  "Holding zones" are the norm in a lot of suburban communities for this reason.

As I recall, the Schofeld bldg hotel project also had to get a variance for having no lawn buffer.  At E9th and Euclid downtown.  There's no excuse for it, our zoning codes are psycho and they need to change.

This is an interesting discussion about zoning.  Can someone create a thread solely for a discussion on CLE Zoning?

 

I have largely understood zoning as a restriction/guideline for intended use and less as a restriction of building form, but this discussion regarding the UC/LI Hotel and Schofield Bldg seem to be about building form.  My only knowledge of zoning in Cleveland that restricted form was the code adopted (but not always enforced) by Midtown Cleveland. 

 

Education on this topic would be appreciated. (at least by me)

Really, its those 25 foot side yards that are nuts. KJP, you are very generous in your explanation- unless you think downtown workers are at grave risk without their precious side yards :).  

 

 

I just remember my days at Sun Newspapers covering planning committee meetings for suburban projects (including dense ones like Crocker Park) and hearing fire chiefs raise valid arguments for things I never would have thought of like the placement of ladders far enough away from buildings to reach upper floors, or ventilation issues, or having access to all sides of a building by an emergency vehicles. I realize these are suburban issues, but I consider that safety issues are much more prevalent in present-day suburban zoning than they were in unbridled urban design philosophies from 100 years ago or more. And while urban design needs are clearly different from suburban ones, when it comes to safety the urban city is probably going to incorporate those new, suburban provisions in its zoning code to cover its ass and let the developer and the board of zoning appeals hang themselves in a disaster-motivated lawsuit for awarding a variance that may have led to a worse disaster.

 

So that's probably what's involved here. Not saying it's right or wrong. But the old saying goes: "laws are often written in blood and motivated by tragedy."

 

And yes, this probably should be split off into a zoning code discussion.

^Fire departments definitely weigh in on development proposals, particularly site plans and interior roadway designs- I can certainly imagine all the stuff you saw.  But I still don't think that's what's going on here.  I think this is just a relic of lower density development when zoning was used to protect residences from shadows and noise from neighboring properties and to ensure, for aesthetic reasons, uniform setbacks.  Which is why the BZA has no problems granting variances now when there aren't neighbors to object.  It's just another silly hoop developers (including the hospitals) have to jump through in a setting like Cornell.

 

This is an interesting discussion about zoning.  Can someone create a thread solely for a discussion on CLE Zoning?

 

I have largely understood zoning as a restriction/guideline for intended use and less as a restriction of building form, but this discussion regarding the UC/LI Hotel and Schofield Bldg seem to be about building form.   My only knowledge of zoning in Cleveland that restricted form was the code adopted (but not always enforced) by Midtown Cleveland. 

 

Education on this topic would be appreciated. (at least by me)

 

Zoning generally regulates four main areas:

 

Allowable type of use (residential, commercial, manufacturing, etc.)

Building size (through FAR, height limits, open space ratios, etc)

Building siting (through yard requirements, open space ratios)

Off-street parking production (through minimum space requirements on a per unit or per/000sf of space basis).

 

Zoning also gets into some other areas too (loading dock placement, curb cuts and on and on), but those four are the biggies.  And even when the "zoning code" doesn't have these restrictions, they are often somewhere else in municipal law.

Proposed changes to laws requiring off-street parking for bars, restaurants, taverns, and night clubs in the City of Cleveland were approved by the City Planning Commission on April 15th.

 

Off-street Parking Space Requirements for bars, taverns, restaurants, and cafeterias:

 

One space for each employee +

one space for each 100 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use or one for each four seats based on maximum seating capacity, whichever is greater, including floor area and seating located on outdoor dining patios on private property.

 

Sidewalks are considered public property, thus, any patios on sidewalks are not included in the parking requirement space requirements.

 

For Nightclubs:

 

One space for each employee +

 

(parking area equal to three times the gross floor area) or

one parking space for each 4 seats based on maximum seating capacity, whichever is greater (including floor area and seating located on outdoor patios on private property.

 

These recommendations will be sent to City Council where it will be later deliberated. It’s still early in the process,

as Tony Coyne (City Planning Commission chair) eloquently put it: “it’s the start of the sausage making process”

 

Current requirements for nightclubs (which were classified as ‘dance halls’ under the code] does not specify any parking for employees. Current requirements for bars and restaurants do not include any additional parking for outdoor patios on private property

 

Personally, I haven’t decided whether to be in favor of it but I’m learning towards no. There is still a minimum amount of land that will need to be taken up by parking. This mandated parking decreases the density of buildings and businesses that makes public transportation, walking, and bicycling as more viable options. The existing off-street parking requirements can be found on http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_349.html, section 4 .

 

Existing code and the revised code include one spot for each employee although there will be very few situations when every employee will be working at the same time.

 

Fortunately, the location for the mandated parking isn’t specified. This allows the parking to be behind the buildings or in a parking garage, instead of in front of the buildings which would separate the buildings from the sidewalk and the street.

 

I’d love to hear fellow UOers weigh in on this, especially transportation planners.

 

Thanks for the head's up.  Do you know how the proposed code deals with existing publicly-accessible parking supplies?  Can unrelated commercial lots fulfill the requirements or do the spaces have to be specific to the establishment?  Can I assume downtown bars and clubs are effectively exempt from the proposed requirements? 

1) I would be surprised if there is no "grandfather" clause, especially for existing downtown businesses.

 

2) Variances are common place with these kinds of ordinances in the surrounding communities.

 

3) I don't think it is a good idea.

^Sorry, I didn't mean for existing businesses (whose rights would indeed be vested as non-conforming uses), I meant for new ones going forward that wished to locate downtown.

 

Yeah, I know variances are often available, but as long as there are Jeff Johnson's out there, I'll always prefer a well crafted ordinance that doesn't require a developer/business to seek out some kind of discretionary approval in cases where there aren't going to be a whole lot of public harms.  I know as-of-right regulation schemes let some crap through the door, but forcing developers to jump through hoops ain't so great either.

 

I pretty much oppose all residential off-street parking requirements, but I can understand how in some cases the parking demands of the dining and drinking hordes could impose some serious negative spill-overs on residential neighborhoods.  Just seems like the goal should be to craft as narrow a bill as possible to address those concerns.  Without reading the new proposal, tough to know if it's over-broad or not.

I went to a Sustainable Heights event this week and one of the speakers was Bob Brown, Cleveland Planning Director.  He talked about all the work the city had done to change the zoning code to allow for chicken coops and bee farms.  So... the corner of E9th and Euclid is zoned for Beachwood-style setbacks and lawn buffers, and University Circle is zoned so rural that apartments require a variance.  And Bob Brown is updating the code for chickens.  Chickens.

327 - Did you bring that up, by any chase?  I laughed out loud, but then it hurt a little...

Sadly, there was no Q&A.  I love Q&A.

Carryover from the Detroit-Shoreway thread:

 

by the way... and I don't want to take this any further off topic than necessary... but over and over and over again I see complaints against zoning. As someone who works with the Cleveland zoning code almost every day. I just want to say.... it is really not a very big deal. Is our zoning code ridiculous in many areas? Sure. But you either have zoning or you don't. Having zoning is just a way to keep a check and balance system on making sure you know what is happening and that bad stuff doesn't happen. And it is a pretty easy process. Submit your plans, they get reviewed. The city rejects for whatever reasons and they schedule your hearing. And if as noted above it is a worthwhile project... it passes. It is about a 2-3 week delay which in the overall timeline of developments (which are substantially longer than when people find out about them) its a really insignificant roadbump, and most always often accounted for from the start. Carry on. :)

 

I definitely take your point that in a vast majority of cases it's not a big deal to get a variance or whatever discretionary change the developer is seeking and I don't think this is a major obstacle to development in the city.  But, it's not totally costless for developers (or the city) in time and in money and there's no good reason not to change it to some extent.  Just seems silly to require a hearing for townhouses on Bridge but not for suburban single family housing there, even though the former is more contextual than the latter.

 

Putting aside the merits of Cleveland's control-freak approach, I definitely disagree that you "either have zoning or you don't" (well not literally, but you know what I mean).  Historically speaking, zoning was meant to define ex ante what is "worthwhile" and anything conforming could be built with no further discretionary review by the city.  This is still how it works for the most part in some cities. FWIW, in NYC, only a small fraction of development ever requires any type of hearing or discretionary approval of any kind. With its suburban-style zoning and design review requirements, Cleveland is definitely at the extreme end in terms of the amount of control the city excerpts. I'm not sure this is bad, but certainly there's room for some updates without tossing all of zoning out.

 

And then there's the separate issue of what the zoning code does allow as of right, especially on our sad commercial strips.

Just seems silly to require a hearing for townhouses on Bridge but not for suburban single family housing there, even though the former is more contextual than the latter.

 

Its not so silly when you consider that there are a lot more traps to fall in when the City declares that multi-family structures are a conforming use for an area where land acquisition costs are not at a premium.  I am not familiar enough with Bridge to speak on the subject, but let's use the more common example of Euclid Avenue.  With the BRT, the availability of federal and state grants, and other conditions in MidTown, developers are eager to build low-income mutifamily developments along the corridor.  The land is cheap and plentiful.  Like it or not, for the developer, it can be a real money maker.  But if the City has multifamily as a non-conforming use, it leaves it with more discretion in terms of which of those developments to allow and gives the city leverage at the negotiating table to conform the proposal to something more tasteful.

^I get that under-zoning allows the city to discriminate against the poor, but townhouses are single family properties, not multifamily.  By "suburban" I meant detached.  To my knowledge, there are not a lot of new build subsidized townhouse projects built by non-government developers.  And if this is a real concern, the city could require structured parking, or have minimum lot size, or do something else to "gold plate" the code.  It's what suburbs do for this same reason.

 

As a liberal democrat, I find that approach to be outrageously anti-business.  It should end today.  Every single store has to beg to city hall for the right to operate?  Really?  IIRC from the Playhouse Square thread, this also happens whenever someone tries to reopen a shuttered/vacant/decrepit bar or music venue.  Textbook example of what's wrong here. 

 

As it should if that shuttered/vacant/decrepit bar or music venue is next to residential areas.  I'm all for bars and clubs...I go all the time...but I understand the city's desire to make sure residents, whether they've been there for 10 months or 10+ years, have the right to voice their concerns if a bar wants to open close to them.  Having grown up off of Superior Avenue in Cleveland near a number bars I can tell you every bar owner is a good guy when they want to open.  Some stay true to their word and operate great establishments...but more often than not in the more challenged areas of the city when the crowd thins they begin to play to a younger, drunker, rowdier crowd...and by then it's too late to protect your 2am peace and quiet...there's only years worth of fighting to close a place down.

 

I agree, but not in the case of an abandoned bar seeking to reopen.  I'm not sure we can force all abandoned bars to reopen as ice cream parlors, and for those who prefer living near a vacant building, there are plenty of available options.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/02/parking-minimums-promote-driving-even-transit-friendly-new-york/1331/

 

Parking Minimums Promote Driving, Even in Transit-Friendly New York

 

For 30 years now Manhattan has imposed parking maximums on its core — a rule that limits the number of spots residential developers can create. The idea behind parking maximums is that by removing an incentive to own an automobile, cities will promote the use of more sustainable forms of transportation. For all its soundness of theory, though, the effects of residential parking on travel behavior hasn't received its due attention from the empirical research world.

 

A guaranteed parking spot "makes use of the automobile a more attractive option"

 

Planning professor Rachel Weinberger of the University of Pennsylvania addresses this gap in the literature in an upcoming issue of Transport Policy. To demonstrate how parking maximums might deter driving, Weinberger studies how parking minimums influence commuting behavior in three outer New York City boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. These areas served as a logical testing ground because residents have good transit access to Manhattan while off-street parking remains quite scarce.

 

Weinberger's analysis proceeded in two steps. First she estimated the chances that any property in these boroughs had a private parking spot by gathering as much data on off-street parking as she could. Her resources included city data kept on residential garage space for buildings with four or more families, and aerial images from Google Earth (later confirmed by field tests) for smaller buildings. She concluded that Brooklyn hatd the fewest buildings with on-site parking (57 percent), following by the Bronx (71 percent), then Queens (79 percent).

 

so the proposed changes are bad not good.

It's about damn time!!

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/schedule.shtml

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for December 5, 2014

 

Ordinance No. 1536-14(Citywide): To supplement the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland, Ohio, 1976, by enacting a new Section 348.01, relating to the Urban Overlay District; and to name Chapter 348 "Form Based Districts."

Crain's update on 'form-based zoning' and city council.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150118/SUB1/301189975?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

This really is fantastic news.

Damn right it is.

BTW, it seems this guy is having a hard time understanding why a used car lot is not a use consistent with a pedestrian retail overlay district. Perhaps he thought zoning is merely a suggestion??

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr02-02-2015.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

9:30

FEBRUARY 2, 2015

Calendar No. 14-249: Appeal of

Thomas Papouras from the

decision of the City Planning

Commission

Ward 3

Thomas Papouras appeals under the authority of Section 76-6(b) of the Charter of the City of Cleveland and

Section 329.02(d) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances from the decision of the City of Cleveland Planning

Commission rendered on October 17, 2014 to deny his conditional use to establish a used car sales lot in a

Pedestrian Retail Overlay District at 4157 Lorain Avenue.

 

Crain's update on 'form-based zoning' and city council.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150118/SUB1/301189975?template=mobile&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

 

 

“Anything that contributes to walkable streets" sayeth the city planning director. well hop about that? awesomeness.

Through my work I come in contact with the people working in the City Planning Commission and Design Review folks quite frequently, and this commitment to creating walkable, dense neighborhoods really is their driving force.  They aren't just throwing canned quotes out there to the newspaper.  They are at times a bit rigid in their viewpoints, but by and large they are helping create a better City.  Also, most of them are well below 45 years old, with most being in their early 30's so there's an excellent chance that this mindset will be the standard for many years.

Good, then have their building inspectors enforce cleared sidewalks in wintertime! You can't walk in Cleveland (and many other NE Ohio cities) in winter because NO ONE cleans their sidewalks!!

 

OK, rant off.

Good, then have their building inspectors enforce cleared sidewalks in wintertime! You can't walk in Cleveland (and many other NE Ohio cities) in winter because NO ONE cleans their sidewalks!!

 

OK, rant off.

 

I was just thinking about this the other day. Is there a Cleveland code requiring residents to clear their sidewalks? This was always something we had to do in DC

Good, then have their building inspectors enforce cleared sidewalks in wintertime! You can't walk in Cleveland (and many other NE Ohio cities) in winter because NO ONE cleans their sidewalks!!

 

OK, rant off.

 

I was just thinking about this the other day. Is there a Cleveland code requiring residents to clear their sidewalks? This was always something we had to do in DC

 

Before they worry about snow clearing, they city needs to enforce actual sidewalk regulations.  City of Cleveland has code requiring cracked or heaved sidewalks greater than 1.5" be replaced at property owner's expense.  Zero enforcement. 

 

Correction.  It's 1/2" or more, needs to be replaced.

Good, then have their building inspectors enforce cleared sidewalks in wintertime! You can't walk in Cleveland (and many other NE Ohio cities) in winter because NO ONE cleans their sidewalks!!

 

OK, rant off.

 

Parking garage owners are notoriously bad about this. Most of us know the dead zones between E9 and E12 often resemble not a city, but a foreboding ice planet. Nice to hear zoning is on board with positive changes that could remedy this.

 

Now with retailers, their life blood is reliant on customer safety and access. More of that please!

:-)

NewUrbanism ‏@NewUrbanism

Interesting: "Baltimore is in line for a new zoning code" http://ow.ly/PHFQb

There is some irony here that I find a little too delicious to go unnoticed.  During the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century density was often cited as a driver of crime in urban areas and undesirable in and of itself.  Earlier city planners were often obsessed with trying to dedensify urban areas or at least mitigate density's effects.  The planning profession has done an about face on this issue only in the past couple decades. 

 

I know, I know Cities pre-WWII were very different places but the principle remains: how "good" is density as a value in a vacuum?  Density instead, I think, should be viewed as a manifestation of demand to live in a certain area.  If demand is high, then land prices will rise in turn.  With higher land prices, higher density housing makes sense to recoup land costs.  We are seeing this happen in real time in Ohio City and the near west side in general.

 

This brings me to my larger point - Cleveland is playing a very dangerous game with it's current system of zoning and land use.  Most of the zoning code is based on the original code from the 1920s! (I think I'm right about that, if I'm not, none of you will hesitate to correct me).  Anyways, it's horribly out of date and any project with higher density ultimately must get a zoning variance or go through the longer process of amending the zoning maps.  For those to happen, the developer must win the blessing of the Councilperson and/or the BZA.  Regardless, developers and land owners of any scale must be on the right side of democratic politics - a fickle beast indeed.

 

So, where does this leave us?  In a precarious position.  The near west side has been able to absorb new projects because Cimperman has been generally pro-development and the NIMBYs have been relatively quiet.  But we should not expect this to hold.  A new councilperson could effectively cast a moratorium on anything which requires a change to the zoning code (every new project, essentially) by opposing zoning changes.  Cimperman has only so much political capital to burn before the NIMBYs get their way or he is replaced - I don't think either is imminent for the record.  But we are going to see this defect in our system pop up in other places.  I had the pleasure of being briefed on negotiations between a developer and a certain eastside Councilperson which amounted to the Councilperson attempting to essentially extort the developer in exchange the Councilperson's support for a project that needed administrative approval.  That isn't the first and won't be the last time that happens.

 

The power of zoning and more specifically, the power of an out of date zoning code which requires changes every time a new project is proposed is far far far too powerful.  By and large, land owners should be able to do what they want with property they have purchased (maybe subject to some restrictions on "historic" properties).  Planners and urbanists are usually very friendly to the institution of zoning, generally.  I cannot understand why.  The entire institution was created for and by single family homeowners to categorically block higher density projects - and it has worked greatly.  We often overlook how subtle and effective the common law doctrine of nuisance was before it was essentially replaced with the invention of the modern zoning code.  The former is much better settling land disputes and the jurisprudence was so developed that it allowed land owners/developers to pretty effectively anticipate potentially challenges.

 

All of these problems work as an implicit tax and sometimes an outright barrier to new projects.  If we really want to see land use maximized, we need to consider radically liberalizing our land use system and placing greater emphasis on property rights.

 

I'm not really sure, but I suspect much of the current zoning code reflects post-war changes that even further privileges sf development and uniform set-backs, which is even worse (for these purposes) than the original code. Certainly the parking requirements are post-war.

 

I mostly agree with your overall point, with the one major caveat that using this type of "holding zone" can, in theory, allow enlightened city officials to demand better design as a condition of granting discretionary approval.  [it's not clear this is completely constitutional, but whatever, most developers don't challenge it.] But the tradeoffs you mention are a big deal. It adds cost, uncertainty, and re-opens the political (NIMBY) door for every single project. And it relies on having good public officials. Plus relying on all these discretionary steps to get anything significant built leaves the city vulnerable to the ridiculous Ohio City McDonalds situation.

 

I'm not quite as ready as you are to throw out the whole institution of zoning. It does have advantages over common law nuisance, and I think there are places where form-based zoning makes sense to create synergies and prevent a sort of free-riding.  But I think there is a lot of room to make it work better in Cleveland.

 

[EDITED for typos, clarity, and to be more responsive to the preceding post.]

^ I generally agree.  I am very very skeptical that the theoretical "enlightened city official" really exists though.  One may even call that an oxymoron! (sorry, I had to).  Placing that level of discretion in the hands of government can go wrong fast and usually does.  Sorry, my cranky libertarian side is showing.

 

Anyways, I predict this is only going to hold for so much longer.  Once you get the growing anti-gentrification faction riled up, the whole thing is going to collapse.  More and more I come across bearded progressive types kvetching about phantom gentrification on the near west side.  What's worse is they are always applying the rhetoric and bombast they read in articles written about the housing crunches in the coastal cities to the nascent growth here without even a cursory knowledge of the market.  Pretty soon they will be organized and vocal.  And they are Cimperman's constituency and very much his ideological companions (at least as stated so).  He's going to cave one day and it will be ugly.

 

The fact that a councilperson has that level of control over real estate decisions is a per se failure to me.

^ I generally agree.  I am very very skeptical that the theoretical "enlightened city official" really exists though.  One may even call that an oxymoron! (sorry, I had to).  Placing that level of discretion in the hands of government can go wrong fast and usually does.  Sorry, my cranky libertarian side is showing.

 

Anyways, I predict this is only going to hold for so much longer.  Once you get the growing anti-gentrification faction riled up, the whole thing is going to collapse.  More and more I come across bearded progressive types kvetching about phantom gentrification on the near west side.  What's worse is they are always applying the rhetoric and bombast they read in articles written about the housing crunches in the coastal cities to the nascent growth here without even a cursory knowledge of the market.  Pretty soon they will be organized and vocal.  And they are Cimperman's constituency and very much his ideological companions (at least as stated so).  He's going to cave one day and it will be ugly.

 

The fact that a councilperson has that level of control over real estate decisions is a per se failure to me.

 

I generally agree.  My solution is not to eliminate zoning codes but to modernize them.  Discussion upthread suggests that is already starting to happen.  Once we have a code that encourages density and walkability, we won't have to rely on benevolent discretion.  And the NIMBYs will find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

^ Yeah, I realize I have almost zero support for the removal of zoning codes.....so I'll settle for a very broad form-based overhaul.

^ I generally agree.  I am very very skeptical that the theoretical "enlightened city official" really exists though.  One may even call that an oxymoron! (sorry, I had to).  Placing that level of discretion in the hands of government can go wrong fast and usually does.  Sorry, my cranky libertarian side is showing.

 

I'm probably a bit less cynical than you (and not out of naiveté, I swear), but in any case, as you point out, even if you like today's officials, there's no guarantee about the next generation. Ad hoc land use discretion is a dangerous tool in the hands of public officials. It's a bad system for the people who want primarily low rise detached development, because they can't rely on the zoning to be stable, and it's a bad system for developers who have no certainty about how much they can build till after they've agreed on an option price for their site.

 

Coming soon--October 21:

 

Best Practices in Zoning

Symposium

Featuring Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City

 

 

Join ULI Cleveland and the City of Cleveland for a one-day symposium exploring how the needs of building and development have changed since the current zoning code was enacted in 1929.

 

The evolution of zoning presents the City of Cleveland with the opportunity to adopt a new 21st century code that draws from the best in today’s planning, promoting development that creates attractive, walkable, healthy, sustainable communities.

 

http://cleveland.uli.org/event/building-21th-century-city/

BUMP

 

I think it's finally time to adjust our city ordinances to stop trying to make Cleveland look so suburban...from the Uptown thread replacing Mi Pueblo/Pinatas:

 

The owner appeals for relief from the strict application of the following sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04(b) which states that in a “C” area district, maximum gross floor area cannot

exceed ½ the lot area. 3,850 square feet of floor are permitted and 38,704 square feet of

area are proposed.

2. Section 357.01(d) which states that a front yard setback is required when specifically shown

on Building Zone map. 10 foot front setback is required and 1’ to 0’ foot front setback is

proposed.

3. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that an interior side yard of not less than ¼ the height

of the main building is required (in this case is 15’) and a 10’-11” interior side yard is

proposed.

4. Section 357.08(b)(2) which states that a rear yard of not less than one-half the height of the

building (or in this case 30’) is required and a 1’ rear yard is proposed.

5. Sections 352.08 through 352.12 which state that an eight foot wide landscaped transition strip

with 75% year round opacity is required where property abuts Multi-Family Residential District

to the rear and no landscaped transition strip proposed.

6. Section 349.04(a)(f) which states that accessory off-street parking is required at the rate of

one space per dwelling unit, plus one space per 500 square feet of retail space. 48 accessory

off street parking spaces are required and none are provided. (Filed September 25, 2015)

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,11359.1680.html#ixzz3oVtaV3k2

 

Best Practices in Zoning

Symposium

Featuring Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City

 

Join ULI Cleveland and the City of Cleveland for a one-day symposium exploring how the needs of building and development have changed since the current zoning code was enacted in 1929.

 

The evolution of zoning presents the City of Cleveland with the opportunity to adopt a new 21st century code that draws from the best in today’s planning, promoting development that creates attractive, walkable, healthy, sustainable communities.

 

http://cleveland.uli.org/event/building-21th-century-city/

Mayor Jackson speaking at the #CLEZoningSymposium. How does everyone, including the least of us, benefit? #Equity https://t.co/x4dfCWmKU2

Best Practices in Zoning

Symposium

Featuring Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City

 

Join ULI Cleveland and the City of Cleveland for a one-day symposium exploring how the needs of building and development have changed since the current zoning code was enacted in 1929.

 

The evolution of zoning presents the City of Cleveland with the opportunity to adopt a new 21st century code that draws from the best in today’s planning, promoting development that creates attractive, walkable, healthy, sustainable communities.

 

http://cleveland.uli.org/event/building-21th-century-city/

 

 

Ugh... totally forgot about this. I was really wanting to convince my employer to pick up the tab for me to go.

blah

I attended yesterday.  It was very well done!  Jeff Speck is an urban genius, and did a very good job speaking.  The discussion centered around a transition to form based code, something that Cleveland is working toward, but will take a while to fully implement.  I would say there was about 300 to 400 people in attendance.  What I will say is, the speakers, all but 1 not being from Cleveland, didn't have much good to say about our current code, nor street grid.  Really don't feel as though the way we are currently set up is conducive to a urban walkable city. 

Interesting.  Can you elaborate on the street grid aspect?  I had not thought of this as a major problem.  As I see it, Chicago and Pittsburgh are at opposite ends of the "grid" spectrum with Cleveland somewhere in between.  Those cities manage to have decent walkability.

Interesting.  Can you elaborate on the street grid aspect?  I had not thought of this as a major problem.  As I see it, Chicago and Pittsburgh are at opposite ends of the "grid" spectrum with Cleveland somewhere in between.  Those cities manage to have decent walkability.

More so the width of all our roads, and the speed in which they allow people traverse them.  They made the comment that it was obvious Cleveland felt it was going to continue on a linear pattern of growth in the 1940's and 50's, hence the size of roads we have.  They said you can feel emptiness on Cleveland when you walk it because physically, the city is huge, and able to accommodate many more people than you see on the streets.  They displayed that traffic studies done for the downtown area show that our roads are way over designed for the amount of people that use them daily.

By crunching 4 lanes roads down to 2 lane would add about 1.5 minutes of travel time from one end of downtown to the other. 

Interesting.  Can you elaborate on the street grid aspect?  I had not thought of this as a major problem.  As I see it, Chicago and Pittsburgh are at opposite ends of the "grid" spectrum with Cleveland somewhere in between.  Those cities manage to have decent walkability.

I should not have used the word "grid" rather road design.  Pittsburgh does not have large avenues bisecting the city, hence creating better walkability.  Chicago, yes, it does.  Similar to Cleveland.  However Chicago also see's a heck of a lot more traffic then Cleveland, and needs those lane widths. 

I guess we need to build things up like Chicago then.  To the extent there's any empty feeling here, I would attribute it more to a lack of density in the built environment than to the width of the streets.  The streets just give us more reason (and long term ability) to build bigger. 

PD's @steven_litt looks at discussions re: updating #CLE's antiquated zoning code, possible impacts on #realestate: http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/10/would_a_new_zoning_code_make_c.html#incart_m-rpt-1