B

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

What a disaster. I am so pissed off at these people. About every single business on Lee Rd. has a sign advocating to build this project. The ballot measure, unfortunately, seems extremely likely to pass since 10% of the city already signed this petition, and turnout on May 3 may not exceed 20%. I want to figure out what I can do about this, but I'm at a loss.

 

Does anyone have the actual petition language? I can't find it anywhere, not even Fran Mentsch's Nextdoor posts.

 

Bill Hanna, the law director, explained to council last night that even if the initiative passes, the developer can and most likely would win in court.  Neither council on its own nor citizens through petition can ex post facto negate a valid contract in which the city has entered into.  The development agreement with F and C was entered into on Dec 7 2021.  What this probably does is given F and C incredible leverage which it did not have before.  If the initiative passes they simply challenge the result as unconstitutional and win (which I am sure city officials are rooting for as well).  However, if for any reason they want to get out of the contract, (say because they determine costs are rising too fast which could happen in our current environment), they may be able to simple point to the initiative-if passed- and have a good argument in court if the city challenges for breach.  I doubt there is much case law surrounding this set of facts.

 

Hanna also explained that city officials did not press the unconstitutional aspect of the initiative while proponents were gathering signatures as they did not want to give the appearance they were interfering with the signature gathering process.

Edited January 11, 20223 yr by Htsguy

Just went to CVS at cedar-lee last night and was thinking how exciting it will be when the north half of the area is linked to the south half across the long dark void.

 

It's horribly disconnected, and i'm still confused why the city maintains that oddly shaped parking lot across the street at meadowbrook.

 

3 hours ago, Htsguy said:

B

Bill Hanna, the law director, explained to council last night that even if the initiative passes, the developer can and most likely would win in court.  Neither council on its own nor citizens through petition can ex post facto negate a valid contract in which the city has entered into.  The development agreement with F and C was entered into on Dec 7 2021.  What this probably does is given F and C incredible leverage which it did not have before.  If the initiative passes they simply challenge the result as unconstitutional and win (which I am sure city officials are rooting for as well).  However, if for any reason they want to get out of the contract, (say because they determine costs are rising too fast which could happen in our current environment), they may be able to simple point to the initiative-if passed- and have a good argument in court if the city challenges for breach.  I doubt there is much case law surrounding this set of facts.

 

Hanna also explained that city officials did not press the unconstitutional aspect of the initiative while proponents were gathering signatures as they did not want to give the appearance they were interfering with the signature gathering process.

Thank you for that explanation.  What a mess. 

 

What's the best path forward?  I assume that they should act quickly and allow the measure to go onto the ballot (and avoid the added expense of a special election), campaign against the measure and hope it fails.  But if it passes, the city could just ignore it -- we have a legal opinion that says the law is unconstitutional, we cannot enforce it.  Let Madam Mench go to court to try to enforce it. 

 

Am I missing anything?

19 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Thank you for that explanation.  What a mess. 

 

What's the best path forward?  I assume that they should act quickly and allow the measure to go onto the ballot (and avoid the added expense of a special election), campaign against the measure and hope it fails.  But if it passes, the city could just ignore it -- we have a legal opinion that says the law is unconstitutional, we cannot enforce it.  Let Madam Mench go to court to try to enforce it. 

 

Am I missing anything?

Right now the city/council is implementing the necessary steps/process required by the charter and state law to move the initiative forward and placed on the ballot.  There are a number of steps including readings just like any legislation, referrals to committee and possible hearings.  Bottom line there is a time line to get this all done so it can appear on the May 2022 primary ballot, not a special election.  The council cannot just say it is unconstitutional and refuse to move it forward so it will be on the ballot in May.

 

The easiest outcome for the city is that the initiative just fails.  If it passes it will be up to F and C to go to court asserting the unconstitutional nature of the legislation and again it would probably win.  I do have a question whether the city could go to court at this point and challenge it.  Don't know but that could really get messy.

 

Just as messy...what if the administration decides it does not want to fight F and C in court and incur the legal costs.  Is it required to support the initiative and fight a court challenge even if it does not believe in the proposal or whether it is indeed constitutional.  I don't know but that could result another big legal fight.  Do the petition supports have to retain their own counsel in connection with the lawsuit and do they have the money?  What "entity" is entering into a contract for legal services to fight a F and C lawsuit.  If the initiative proponents do retain counsel should they or can they be reimbursed by the city.  Again a big mess.

 

What all this does guarantee is a slowing down of the development.  While I believe the city and the developer will continue to move forward with its timeline in the coming months, this whole thing can only have a chilling effect on a city that already moves at two speeds-slow and stop-when it comes to development projects.

29 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

If it passes it will be up to F and C to go to court asserting the unconstitutional nature of the legislation and again it would probably win. 

 

I agree with everything you said but this.  F&C would only have to go to court IF the City tried to enforce the ballot initiative.  If the city lawyer issues a legal opinion that the initiative is unconstitutional, that suggests that attempting to enforce it would create a liability for the City, and the Mayor could take the position that he cannot enforce it for that reason.  Council could pass legislation overturning the ballot initiative (although I don't know whether legislation can overturn a ballot initiative) or a resolution supporting the Mayor's decision not to enforce.

 

Yes, if the ballot initiative passes the mess only gets deeper and smellier.

 

35 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

While I believe the city and the developer will continue to move forward with its timeline in the coming months, this whole thing can only have a chilling effect on a city that already moves at two speeds-slow and stop-when it comes to development projects.

 

That's an understatement.  Any rumors on the Taylor-Tudors RFP/RFQs?

9 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

What a disaster. I am so pissed off at these people. About every single business on Lee Rd. has a sign advocating to build this project. The ballot measure, unfortunately, seems extremely likely to pass since 10% of the city already signed this petition, and turnout on May 3 may not exceed 20%. I want to figure out what I can do about this, but I'm at a loss.

 

Does anyone have the actual petition language? I can't find it anywhere, not even Fran Mentsch's Nextdoor posts.

 

 

Not sure if this has been shared yet, but the park petition/ordinance language can be found in last night's council agenda on page 8. 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10309/City-Council-Packet-January-10-2022?bidId=

 

I can say that residents and business owners who support of the project are starting to organize in preparation for this being on the May 3rd ballot.

 

My partner and I created the signs (Build Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook) and helped distribute them to local businesses and interested residents. We live just east of the project site on Cedarbrook. This whole thing is a mess. 

Edited January 11, 20223 yr by cityEscape

1 hour ago, cityEscape said:

 

Not sure if this has been shared yet, but the park petition/ordinance language can be found in last night's council agenda on page 8. 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10309/City-Council-Packet-January-10-2022?bidId=

 

I can say that residents and business owners who support of the project are starting to organize in preparation for this being on the May 3rd ballot.

 

My partner and I created the signs (Build Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook) and helped distribute them to local businesses and interested residents. We live just east of the project site on Cedarbrook. This whole thing is a mess. 

Thank you for sharing. The resolution is incoherent. A park must be created and all construction activities must cease? Well then how does the park come to be?
 

I’ve got a serious suggestion. There is going to be a park on part of this property anyway under the F&C plan. The proposed ordinance does not say the park must occupy the full 1.07 acres. So even if the ordinance passes, if the city (a) declares a 1-day work stoppage on the property, and then (b) allows work to continue provided that it includes a public park (which it does), the ordinance has plausibly been complied with. It may not be the most natural reading of the ordinance, but it seems like it’s the only reading that doesn’t violate the development agreement. There are canons of textual construction that suggest potentially contradictory laws should be construed as consistent with each other to the extent possible. @Htsguy do you think I’m missing something?

Everyone here seems to be looking at this from a legal perspective. I think the political perspective is far more important in this case. (Am I missing something?)

 

If any issue passes through a voter referendum it will be very difficult for any elected representative who wishes for a future in politics to be seen to be working contrary to the expressed interests of the people. To my mind, that will force them to try to enact the best faith reading of the motion, and fighting for it in court (even if it is futile to do so). I don't know the local politics of Cleveland Heights, but generally speaking, attempting to undermine a passed referendum would be political suicide. 

Here is an even bigger reality to chew on.  If passed is the city going to be forced to spend 2 million dollars (probably more) to build this park (that will basically sit empty).  I sure this will be brought up time and time again during any campaign by the opponents of the initiative as it was during the comment period at the city council meeting.  If the construction of the park is mandatory per the initiative will the city be forced to divert scarce recreational funding from other parks and facilities.  So many unanswered questions and I can guarantee you that the proponents don't have the answers or if they do they aren't rationale answers.

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

Everyone here seems to be looking at this from a legal perspective. I think the political perspective is far more important in this case. (Am I missing something?)

 

If any issue passes through a voter referendum it will be very difficult for any elected representative who wishes for a future in politics to be seen to be working contrary to the expressed interests of the people. To my mind, that will force them to try to enact the best faith reading of the motion, and fighting for it in court (even if it is futile to do so). I don't know the local politics of Cleveland Heights, but generally speaking, attempting to undermine a passed referendum would be political suicide. 

 

The political perspective is an important one, but it's not at all clear how that would impact this particular issue.  The pro-park group was spearheaded by one person who was very, very committed and determined to get this issue on the ballot.  When a potential petition-signer couldn't be convinced of the virtues of the park over the development this person would say "signing the petition just puts it on the ballot and lets voters decide" -- and this person was very persistent.  (In my opinion this person could be an asset to the community if all that energy were put toward a more productive goal.) 

 

This situation stands in contrast to the situation where there is a groundswell of popular opinion across a diverse cross-section of a community that leads to the ballot initiative. 

 

I would bet that a lot of people do not know the ramifications of this initiative and haven't been paying much attention to it at all -- but I fully expect the City and other groups will be ramping up the presses now and the public is going to be hearing a lot more about it between now and the election.

4 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

The political perspective is an important one, but it's not at all clear how that would impact this particular issue.  The pro-park group was spearheaded by one person who was very, very committed and determined to get this issue on the ballot.  When a potential petition-signer couldn't be convinced of the virtues of the park over the development this person would say "signing the petition just puts it on the ballot and lets voters decide" -- and this person was very persistent.  (In my opinion this person could be an asset to the community if all that energy were put toward a more productive goal.) 

 

This situation stands in contrast to the situation where there is a groundswell of popular opinion across a diverse cross-section of a community that leads to the ballot initiative. 

 

I would bet that a lot of people do not know the ramifications of this initiative and haven't been paying much attention to it at all -- but I fully expect the City and other groups will be ramping up the presses now and the public is going to be hearing a lot more about it between now and the election.

It only impacts anything is the issue passes. If it passes the legislators will have to assume that the majority of people agree with that one person who spearheaded the ballot initiative. True or not. Or else they will face the wrath of those same voters next cycle.

 

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of public groundswells started with one person. Even if you don't agree with 'em it is really cool to hear that one person can still make a difference in this democracy!

 

Anyway, here's hoping that whatever happens is the best things for the local residents!

Another article about the ballot initiative.

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/cleveland-heights-residents-fight-for-park-on-site-of-proposed-development/article_c1df4ffa-73a8-11ec-b9b9-9f2110072157.html

I was dismayed to read that a sufficient number of signatures had been gathered for this effort. I don't think anyone who really thought about this proposal would think it is a good idea, but that doesn't mean it won't pass if put on the ballot in May. If the promoters successfully use the feel-good-about-yourself populist approach that the Citizens for an Elected Mayor used very skillfully in their 2019 power play, they could persuade enough voters to think that casting a vote in favor of this park was really doing something, in the same way that many people thought that voting to change our form of government was really doing something: Finally, we have a voice after 100 years of being forced into silence, servitude, desperation, and despair by a council-manager form of government! How heartwarming and compelling, etc. I love Cleveland Heights and think that Greater Cleveland would have to come up with something like it if it didn't already have it, but it has certainly disappointed me of late.

22 hours ago, cityEscape said:

 

Not sure if this has been shared yet, but the park petition/ordinance language can be found in last night's council agenda on page 8. 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10309/City-Council-Packet-January-10-2022?bidId=

 

I can say that residents and business owners who support of the project are starting to organize in preparation for this being on the May 3rd ballot.

 

My partner and I created the signs (Build Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook) and helped distribute them to local businesses and interested residents. We live just east of the project site on Cedarbrook. This whole thing is a mess. 

@cityEscapeThere's a facebook group called BuildCLM and someone asked about how they can get a sign?  Any plans to get more?  I'd be willing to contribute to the cost.  

23 hours ago, smith said:

@cityEscapeThere's a facebook group called BuildCLM and someone asked about how they can get a sign?  Any plans to get more?  I'd be willing to contribute to the cost.  

 

Hi! I'm involved with that facebook group and the BuildCLM twitter account. We still have signs. Anyone interested in a one can send me a message with their address for one to be dropped off. We're working to formalize into a PAC in preparation for the initiative being on the ballot to keep any future contributions above board. At this point we still have plenty so I'm happy to provide them.

 

Thanks!

 

Regarding Top of the Hill, I’m still in awe at the tremendous impact and gateway statement this development has. What an exciting new entrance into Cleveland Heights from University Circle, and adding all of these new residents will be a boost to the neighborhood. Love this so much!

Agree - and also appears to be great quality.  A cut above a lot of the "disposable" new builds around town. 

Out of curiosity, has construction required blocking a travel lane on Cedar there?  Looks like it in the pic ,but I wasn't 100% sure.  Has traffic backed up to intolerable levels?  These are always such great natural experiments to see how disruptive a permanent lane closure would be (and that intersection could definitely use a diet). 

8 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Out of curiosity, has construction required blocking a travel lane on Cedar there?  Looks like it in the pic ,but I wasn't 100% sure.  Has traffic backed up to intolerable levels?  These are always such great natural experiments to see how disruptive a permanent lane closure would be (and that intersection could definitely use a diet). 

Yes, a lane is blocked off.  No, it hasn't been terrible for traffic.  But then how many people are now (temporarily?) working from home?

 

I do agree that a road diet, some traffic calming features, and wider sidewalks would be great for the business district.

A lane is blocked but there's been no traffic issues.  A know volume is down due to Covid but I still don't think it would create a problem.  That's why some of us have been advocating to keep the outdoor dining on an ongoing basis.

2 hours ago, OldEnough said:

Agree - and also appears to be great quality.  A cut above a lot of the "disposable" new builds around town. 

There is real patterned brickwork with interesting designs. How many developments nowadays have patterned brickwork? Seems like even in the projects that use real bricks they never bother to do anything beyond a traditional lay pattern. Such a nice detail.

New renderings from City Architecture for the Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook project posted in preparation for the 2/9 Planning Commission meeting: https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10394/PC-Plans-21-17?bidId=

 

Some of the included views are below.

 

Whole site:

 

View above Lee and Meadowbrook:

 

Looking east from Boss Dog patio/Cedar-Lee Mini-park:

Approve this thing quickly so they can get shovels in the ground. They oughta pull a Meigs Field-Mayor Daly bit. The primary isn't until May 3, which means there are over three months to get this thing built! Let's see the NIMBYs stop this thing if it's already built!!!

 

(sarcastic, kinda)

So thats a bigger park space than i thought.  Did they increase the size to appease the park people, or?

But again the park people are fighting this because they want a park…?

What a boost this would be for Cedar/Lee.  The main drag of bars and restaurants has done relatively well despite the pandemic and between some (world class) signage and the streetscaping, looks great.  Not leveraging with new construction would be well - so Cleveland Heights.  Hopefully this would also inspire infill development along Cedar where houses have been torn down.

37 minutes ago, willyboy said:

So thats a bigger park space than i thought.  Did they increase the size to appease the park people, or?

But again the park people are fighting this because they want a park…?

This is the same size as before.

 

The park people also know exactly what the plan is. Last year, they had stakes and yellow tape set up to show how much space was planned to be used for a park vs. how much they wish was. It's asinine.

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is the same size as before.

 

The park people also know exactly what the plan is. Last year, they had stakes and yellow tape set up to show how much space was planned to be used for a park vs. how much they wish was. It's asinine.

 

They ostensibly want a park. But we know that means, "no development", which of course does nothing to increase the tax base, neighborhood vitality, or other progress.

 

The park in the last render reminds me a bit of Tony Brush park. A nice urban meeting place. The open space in the middle render is reminiscent of the one by MoCA. Bring it on!

Cedar/Lee/Meadowbrook is moving along!

 

A traffic and parking study has been completed.

Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved the project on January 19, 2022.

Planning Commission expected to approve the project on February 9, 2022 (second meeting on the project).

Architectural Board of Review (ABR) had a first meeting on the preliminary design in December, and will meet to consider and approve the project plans on March 1, 2022.

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/9557/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook-Framework-of-Meetings-Framework_20220126?bidId=

 

It looks like a March groundbreaking might be possible.

 

City Council rejected the petition to put the 1-acre development-killing park on the ballot; ballot proponents say that they are going to ask to have the initiative put on the ballot.  But they did not raise the $18,000 it will cost the city and have not announced any funds raised for construction or maintenance on their proposed park design.  In declining to adopt the petition, City Council noted that the ballot initiative would conflict with an existing city contract with Flaherty & Collins.  Let's hope the ballot initiative goes down in flames so that we avoid any further litigation on that point.

 

The City bought the former animal hospital property, and is in the process of buying the former beauty school property on Cedar.  (I thought that had already been done, but at the City Council meeting on February 7, 2022, I thought the Mayor said that they were still negotiating on the final price for the beauty school -- can anyone confirm?)

 

13 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

City Council rejected the petition to put the 1-acre development-killing park on the ballot; ballot proponents say that they are going to ask to have the initiative put on the ballot.  But they did not raise the $18,000 it will cost the city and have not announced any funds raised for construction or maintenance on their proposed park design.  In declining to adopt the petition, City Council noted that the ballot initiative would conflict with an existing city contract with Flaherty & Collins.  Let's hope the ballot initiative goes down in flames so that we avoid any further litigation on that point.

 

I did not realize they would need $18,000 to get on the ballot. They basically need to get $5 from each person who signed the petition. I would question whether any of the people at the center of this are really gonna put down thousands in their own money to get the proposal on the ballot. The proposal for funding the park is basically "We're gonna raise the money." If that's the blueprint for funding the $18 grand, I am skeptical because I have a hard time believing they're gonna get 4,000 people to give $5 each and a hard time believing anybody is gonna put down several thousand. I guess we will see.

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I did not realize they would need $18,000 to get on the ballot. They basically need to get $5 from each person who signed the petition. I would question whether any of the people at the center of this are really gonna put down thousands in their own money to get the proposal on the ballot. The proposal for funding the park is basically "We're gonna raise the money." If that's the blueprint for funding the $18 grand, I am skeptical because I have a hard time believing they're gonna get 4,000 people to give $5 each and a hard time believing anybody is gonna put down several thousand. I guess we will see.

 

I think that they SHOULD raise the $18,000 to cover the cost (if they can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a park, surely they can raise that amount, right?) -- but the City will have to pay for it if the petitioners ask for it to be put on the ballot after the City Council declined to do so.  They have some number of days (10? 15?) to make a formal request, and Fran Mentsch has said that they would be doing so.

^yeah the city has to cover the $18,000 even though council voted against accepting the initiative legislation.  And as I understand it council wanted to act quickly to reject the legislation so the petitioners could take the necessary steps (which they will) to put the legislation on May primary ballot.  I think the deadline is sometime in early March.  If council did not act and get the ball rolling on this, the petitions may have missed the deadline and then a special election would been necessary which would have cost the city well in excess of $100,000.00.  Bottom line...even though the council rejected this there is no mechanism for them to prevent it from going before the voters if the petitioners insist.  Best outcome would be a defeat at the ballot box just to end it but if it does pass litigation will be the next step which of course would delay the project.

Edited February 9, 20223 yr by Htsguy

I wonder if anybody could answer these two questions.  What street does Fran Mentsch live on and was she one of the "citizens" who would also stand before council time and time again in opposition to Top of the Hill or was she part of the late forming committee that opposed it?

2 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I wonder if anybody could answer these two questions.  What street does Fran Mentsch live on and was she one of the "citizens" who would also stand before council time and time again in opposition to Top of the Hill or was she part of the late forming committee that opposed it?

1.  Chelsea Dr. (7:00 mark)  (between Mayfield and Monticello)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvDp8Thlvcs

 

2.  I don't know -- but she was a vocal opponent of Top of the Hill, (and almost everything else in the city). 

 

I think the city has done a much better job with community engagement on Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook than it did on Top of the Hill -- much more open process once Eric Zamft took over Planning.

^The reason I asked...could this just be sore grapes after losing/being ignored in connection with Top of the Hill?  And is she slyly using this "park proposal" to whip up dissent to this or any development in general because the less engaged might swallow  this type of rhetoric more easily.  In other words does she really care one way or another whether there is a park here or is it her clever attempt to stick it to the city because they don't follow her leads.  I imagine she was one of those who wanted three story Tudor buildings at Top of the Hill.  She is clearly not a neighborhood resident who would use this waste of urban space and feels strongly about it because it is in her backyard.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

Cedar/Lee/Meadowbrook is moving along!

 

A traffic and parking study has been completed.

Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved the project on January 19, 2022.

Planning Commission expected to approve the project on February 9, 2022 (second meeting on the project).

Architectural Board of Review (ABR) had a first meeting on the preliminary design in December, and will meet to consider and approve the project plans on March 1, 2022.

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/9557/Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook-Framework-of-Meetings-Framework_20220126?bidId=

 

It looks like a March groundbreaking might be possible.

I wouldn't get your hopes up for any sort of ground breaking until close to the end of the year. I don't think any of the buildings/site have been designed yet. 

Is there an alternative location the city could put a park? The success of this petition suggests a sizeable portion of the community feels they need more park space. The council would be wise to at least attempt to hear the residents' expressed need, even if that doesn't take the form of their preferred plan.

 

A quick look on Google Maps suggests that there are a lot of residents more than a ten minute walk away from a park. Maybe the small green space they are adding will help, but I'm wondering what else could be done. 

37 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

^The reason I asked...could this just be sore grapes after losing/being ignored in connection with Top of the Hill?  And is she slyly using this "park proposal" to whip up dissent to this or any development in general because the less engaged might swallow  this type of rhetoric more easily.  In other words does she really care one way or another whether there is a park here or is it her clever attempt to stick it to the city because they don't follow her leads.  I imagine she was one of those who wanted three story Tudor buildings at Top of the Hill.  She is clearly not a neighborhood resident who would use this waste of urban space and feels strongly about it because it is in her backyard.

 

There is also a troubling poster on NextDoor that keeps screaming “gentrification”.  She has specially stated she is against development of any kind.   Emily S. is her name.  

 

Edited February 9, 20223 yr by willyboy

15 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Is there an alternative location the city could put a park? The success of this petition suggests a sizeable portion of the community feels they need more park space. The council would be wise to at least attempt to hear the residents' expressed need, even if that doesn't take the form of their preferred plan.

 

A quick look on Google Maps suggests that there are a lot of residents more than a ten minute walk away from a park. Maybe the small green space they are adding will help, but I'm wondering what else could be done. 

My God Cleveland Heights has more parks than they know what to do with,

8 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Is there an alternative location the city could put a park? The success of this petition suggests a sizeable portion of the community feels they need more park space. The council would be wise to at least attempt to hear the residents' expressed need, even if that doesn't take the form of their preferred plan.

 

A quick look on Google Maps suggests that there are a lot of residents more than a ten minute walk away from a park. Maybe the small green space they are adding will help, but I'm wondering what else could be done. 

I've been following this all on Nextdoor, etc. and the concerns of residents are EXTREMELY disjointed. Even Fran Mentsch (who now says the park has nothing to do with the rest of the F&C development) has spent lots of time complaining about how hard parking will be behind the theater. I think the bigger problem isn't about the park specifically. It's that a lot of residents don't want Cleveland Heights to be more like Lakewood. They want Cleveland Heights to be more like Chagrin Falls. And all this new development gets in the way of their dream about an auto-centric exurb with lots of open space.

 

I used to live on Meadowbrook, and there is plenty park access. There's a small area on streets like Dellwood where you're slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Cain Park and slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Shaker Lakes. But even then, you're close to Fairfax Elementary which has a playground and a pretty big park/field area adjoining it on Scarborough. I'm a huge park proponent, but pretty much all of Cleveland Heights already has good greenspace access. The 1.07 acre lot on Lee is in the middle of a business district and has no appealing natural features. From a planning perspective, we oughta develop parkland along bodies of water both for the sake of blue-greenspace and to mitigate flood and erosion issues. I'd love to see tons of the Cuyahoga riverfront turned into a park, tons of the lakefront turned into a park, etc. But there's just no compelling reason that this random 1.07 acre lot needs to be ALL a park, instead of only like half of it being a park (which is what F&C proposes).

 

FWIW, there's also a big parking lot at Lee and Bradford which would make at least as good a location for a park as the Meadowbrook site.

10 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I've been following this all on Nextdoor, etc. and the concerns of residents are EXTREMELY disjointed. Even Fran Mentsch (who now says the park has nothing to do with the rest of the F&C development) has spent lots of time complaining about how hard parking will be behind the theater. I think the bigger problem isn't about the park specifically. It's that a lot of residents don't want Cleveland Heights to be more like Lakewood. They want Cleveland Heights to be more like Chagrin Falls. And all this new development gets in the way of their dream about an auto-centric exurb with lots of open space.

 

I used to live on Meadowbrook, and there is plenty park access. There's a small area on streets like Dellwood where you're slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Cain Park and slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Shaker Lakes. But even then, you're close to Fairfax Elementary which has a playground and a pretty big park/field area adjoining it on Scarborough. I'm a huge park proponent, but pretty much all of Cleveland Heights already has good greenspace access. The 1.07 acre lot on Lee is in the middle of a business district and has no appealing natural features. From a planning perspective, we oughta develop parkland along bodies of water both for the sake of blue-greenspace and to mitigate flood and erosion issues. I'd love to see tons of the Cuyahoga riverfront turned into a park, tons of the lakefront turned into a park, etc. But there's just no compelling reason that this random 1.07 acre lot needs to be ALL a park, instead of only like half of it being a park (which is what F&C proposes).

 

FWIW, there's also a big parking lot at Lee and Bradford which would make at least as good a location for a park as the Meadowbrook site.

Thanks! This is a very good response!

6 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I've been following this all on Nextdoor, etc. and the concerns of residents are EXTREMELY disjointed. Even Fran Mentsch (who now says the park has nothing to do with the rest of the F&C development) has spent lots of time complaining about how hard parking will be behind the theater. I think the bigger problem isn't about the park specifically. It's that a lot of residents don't want Cleveland Heights to be more like Lakewood. They want Cleveland Heights to be more like Chagrin Falls. And all this new development gets in the way of their dream about an auto-centric exurb with lots of open space.

 

I used to live on Meadowbrook, and there is plenty park access. There's a small area on streets like Dellwood where you're slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Cain Park and slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Shaker Lakes. But even then, you're close to Fairfax Elementary which has a playground and a pretty big park/field area adjoining it on Scarborough. I'm a huge park proponent, but pretty much all of Cleveland Heights already has good greenspace access. The 1.07 acre lot on Lee is in the middle of a business district and has no appealing natural features. From a planning perspective, we oughta develop parkland along bodies of water both for the sake of blue-greenspace and to mitigate flood and erosion issues. I'd love to see tons of the Cuyahoga riverfront turned into a park, tons of the lakefront turned into a park, etc. But there's just no compelling reason that this random 1.07 acre lot needs to be ALL a park, instead of only like half of it being a park (which is what F&C proposes).

 

FWIW, there's also a big parking lot at Lee and Bradford which would make at least as good a location for a park as the Meadowbrook site.

I completely agree with this perspective. I live on Cedarbrook Road near this development site. Not only is there ample green space from my neighborhood -- Cain Park, Shaker Lakes, etc. -- there are also the open green spaces of Heights High and Fairfax Elementary. I attended one of Fran's Pro-Park meetings last fall to understand their arguments (yes, it's largely parking-based and anti-development), but the most "there should be a park here" argument was based on the Trust for Public Land maps which do not include publicly-accessible school open-areas. She interpreted these maps as indicating a public need for green space.

 

It should be stated, and is currently being presented in the Planning Commission meeting, although we are certainly not lacking for green space in this area, the proposed development is not lacking for public green areas. The open space behind the garage will be enlarged with additional green area (from the current surface lot) and there will be a green space on the Meadowbrook-Lee corner. Together these equal more public green space than the 1.07 Fran and the petitioners are requesting. 

Edited February 10, 20223 yr by cityEscape

7 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I've been following this all on Nextdoor, etc. and the concerns of residents are EXTREMELY disjointed. Even Fran Mentsch (who now says the park has nothing to do with the rest of the F&C development) has spent lots of time complaining about how hard parking will be behind the theater. I think the bigger problem isn't about the park specifically. It's that a lot of residents don't want Cleveland Heights to be more like Lakewood. They want Cleveland Heights to be more like Chagrin Falls. And all this new development gets in the way of their dream about an auto-centric exurb with lots of open space.

 

I used to live on Meadowbrook, and there is plenty park access. There's a small area on streets like Dellwood where you're slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Cain Park and slightly more than 15 minutes (walking) away from Shaker Lakes. But even then, you're close to Fairfax Elementary which has a playground and a pretty big park/field area adjoining it on Scarborough. I'm a huge park proponent, but pretty much all of Cleveland Heights already has good greenspace access. The 1.07 acre lot on Lee is in the middle of a business district and has no appealing natural features. From a planning perspective, we oughta develop parkland along bodies of water both for the sake of blue-greenspace and to mitigate flood and erosion issues. I'd love to see tons of the Cuyahoga riverfront turned into a park, tons of the lakefront turned into a park, etc. But there's just no compelling reason that this random 1.07 acre lot needs to be ALL a park, instead of only like half of it being a park (which is what F&C proposes).

 

FWIW, there's also a big parking lot at Lee and Bradford which would make at least as good a location for a park as the Meadowbrook site.

CLE Heights would be wise to follow Lakewood's lead. I am not saying one is better than the other. Even though I am a Lakewood resident, there are plenty of things I am envious of in the Heights. The architecture of the Heights is absolutely gorgeous. I love Lakewood's old homes, but the Heights will always win the architecture award. All I am saying is I think Lakewood wins in the city planning dept and hopefully the Heights takes notice of that. Lakewood is even working on legislation to LEGALIZE ADU's! I think the developments in the heights as of late are a sign of trending towards the right direction. Hopefully the minority of residents don't F it up

23 hours ago, Ethan said:

Is there an alternative location the city could put a park? The success of this petition suggests a sizeable portion of the community feels they need more park space. The council would be wise to at least attempt to hear the residents' expressed need, even if that doesn't take the form of their preferred plan.

 

A quick look on Google Maps suggests that there are a lot of residents more than a ten minute walk away from a park. Maybe the small green space they are adding will help, but I'm wondering what else could be done. 

As others have noted, there is a lot of greenspace in this area (Cain Park, high school, Fairfax Elementary, Shaker Lakes, not to mention that the development also includes added green space and public gathering space, just not what the park proponents want).  If CH is going to invest in a new park, it should be north of Mayfield.  There's not as much green space between Forest Hills and Denison.

 

But also, the city has been struggling to maintain the parks that it has -- there is no money to invest in something that is going to increase their maintenance budget.

Did the Planning Commission give the thumbs up last night?  I gave up after 2 1/2 hours.

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

Did the Planning Commission give the thumbs up last night?  I gave up after 2 1/2 hours.

Yes, unanimously.

 

I like this condition specified in the approval:

Quote

The final Development Plan drawings shall be revised to remove the privacy gate/fence between the southern end of the Cedar-Lee Building and the Parking Garage to allow for east-west public
access and connectivity through the Site that would honor the historic street pattern of Cedarbrook Road . . . .

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/10494/Planning-Commission-Actions-February-9-2022?bidId=

 

Also note that the approvals require construction to be complete within 36 months -- so we have the beginnings of a timeline -- approximately 2/2022-2/2025!

Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook -- looks like the public approval process is complete -- Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Architectural Board of Review approvals are all complete.  (I didn't attend and haven't seen a video of the final ABR meeting on Tuesday, March 1, so I don't know whether there were any conditions attached or what questions ABR had, but I'm told that it was approved. Further details TBD and I'll pass along anything more that I hear)

 

EDIT:  ABR hearing video is now up if you're interested in design details and discussion --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzkBu4UW4V8

 

There is an anti-park/pro-development group, Build CLM on Facebook, and apparently they are meeting on Sunday, March 6, at The Wine Spot on Lee Road to organize the opposition to the anti-development ballot initiative.

Quote

Join us Sunday afternoon at The Wine Spot to kick off our Vote No campaign for the ballot initiative being voted on this May.
Sunday, March 6th, 3-6pm at The Wine Spot, 2271 Lee Road. We'll be collecting donations to buy yard signs and cover other expenses, handing out information about why it will be bad for our city if the ballot passes, and gathering names of people who would like yard signs and/or would like to volunteer in the future.
Once we have a website up and running, including ways to donate online, we'll post it here.

 

If you want to volunteer and help on the committee, please let us know and we'll create an email list to communicate that way. If you aren't able to attend sunday and still want to help, please email us at [email protected] or message me here!

https://www.facebook.com/events/331452032260768

 

 

Edited March 4, 20223 yr by Foraker

From today's Cleveland Heights city news email (emphasis is mine):

Quote

Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook Update

On March 1, 2022, the Architectural Board of Review granted the final design approvals for the Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook redevelopment. Besides the project's architectural and urban design approval this week, Flaherty & Collins had previously received the necessary Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission approvals in January and February of this year. The project will now continue with the development of building plans and the approval of the project’s financial details, including the review of any public incentives.

 

The exteriors of the low-rise apartment buildings that make up the Euclid Heights Blvd. portion of the Top of the Hill development are pretty much done, and look pretty nice.  These pics are from over the weekend, looking on the north-ish sise of Euclid Hts.  The light beige brickwork, by the way, will also be part of the facade on the high-rise tower that faces out on Cedar Hill.  Pretty handsome design all around, I’d say.

Totally agree. I live right around the corner and have enjoyed watching this development progress.  This part really integrates will with existing structures in both scale and character.  Love the rest of it as well.  The final product will inject more life into an already vibrant district.  Fingers crossed for Cedar-Lee.