New shuttle service connecting Coventry in Cleveland Heights to Little Italy

 

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1115396448413&ca=6fa9148d-8516-49d0-9318-1e546a2316fa

 

Starting October 1 a new shuttle service will begin running routes from Coventry to University Circle and Little Italy.

See www.universitycircle.org/circlelink.

 

 

 

Starting Oct. 1? But I saw one of them while at the intersection of Mayfield and Coventry this past Saturday evening. A training run, perhaps?

New shuttle service connecting Coventry in Cleveland Heights to Little Italy

 

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1115396448413&ca=6fa9148d-8516-49d0-9318-1e546a2316fa

 

Starting October 1 a new shuttle service will begin running routes from Coventry to University Circle and Little Italy.

See www.universitycircle.org/circlelink.

 

 

Starting Oct. 1? But I saw one of them while at the intersection of Mayfield and Coventry this past Saturday evening. A training run, perhaps?

 

It was probably Case Western's shuttle, not UCI's shuttle. Case commissions its own shuttles to the heights for students that specifically connect to campus:

 

https://case.edu/access-services/media/caseedu/access-services/documents/ShuttleMap-2016-17.jpg

 

It looks like the new circle link will be more Little Italy-Coventry route, which I am all for!

Fantastic news, I've often wished LI and Coventry were just a tiny bit closer to each other, hopefully this can bridge that gap. Also better rapid connectivity for CH residents.

Sort of related to that, it's a real bummer there aren't any public staircases linking the Overlook neighborhood of Cleveland Hts down to Little Italy.  As a pedestrian, some of those apartment buildings looming over Mayfield just up the hill from LI are almost as far away from LI as Coventry Village.

Sort of related to that, it's a real bummer there aren't any public staircases linking the Overlook neighborhood of Cleveland Hts down to Little Italy.  As a pedestrian, some of those apartment buildings looming over Mayfield just up the hill from LI are almost as far away from LI as Coventry Village.

 

I recall thinking this again during the feast. 

Inclined railway! ;)

Inclined railway! ;)

I'm sure many UO'rs would be inclined to support that! :wink2:

 

I think it would be cool to see a shuttle that connects Cedar-Lee to Coventry. I don't drink anymore (and in fact, in AA) but I could see a huge benefit in allowing bar hopping from one district to the other. It promotes safe driving. It would also link entertainment like live music/theaters and restaurants, not just bars. I suppose Little Italy and Coventry are a little more culturally similar. There's also Cedar-Fairmount. Cleveland Hts. has all these fragmented gems of business districts!

 

In any case, it's cool that they're doing this.

I think it would be cool to see a shuttle that connects Cedar-Lee to Coventry. . . .  There's also Cedar-Fairmount. Cleveland Hts. has all these fragmented gems of business districts!

 

In any case, it's cool that they're doing this.

 

I agree.  These are all well-established business districts.  We ought to have established bus/shuttle stations at each.  Something larger, nicer, and more permanent-looking than the RTA-provided plastic boxes. 

I think it would be cool to see a shuttle that connects Cedar-Lee to Coventry. I don't drink anymore (and in fact, in AA) but I could see a huge benefit in allowing bar hopping from one district to the other. It promotes safe driving. It would also link entertainment like live music/theaters and restaurants, not just bars.

 

As a resident in Cedar-Lee, I would visit Coventry much more often if I could hop on a direct shuttle outside the Cedar-Lee theatre.

 

 

Inclined railway! ;)

I'm sure many UO'rs would be inclined to support that! :wink2:

 

It can play the most famous song written about inclined railways on the way down! Seems fitting, no?

 

Severance Town Center isn't for sale, despite a report to the contrary

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/11/severance_town_center_isnt_for.html#incart_river_home

 

OK, so here's the thing.  I logged into CoStar this morning and saw an article in the local news section about Severance being for sale.  So I posted it to the Cedar Taylor Development Association Facebook page, which I run.  It was subsequently posted by several other local non-profits.  As I can't imagine the other non-profits get their real estate news from CoStar very often, I think I started the postings by local non-profits.  Not saying it led to mjarboe[/member] writing this piece, but pretty funny regardless. 

Severance Town Center isn't for sale, despite a report to the contrary

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/11/severance_town_center_isnt_for.html#incart_river_home

 

Since the Home Depot at Severance just renewed their lease this year, and the owners of Severance are marketing the Home Depot portion for sale,  I suspect that someone got carried away with the listing.  Looks like a simple error.

 

 

 

Cleveland Heights has never had a preservation tax-credit project - federal or state. The College Club will be the first: https://t.co/r3spunjlvK

Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets aren’t all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairnounr?

Council, developer to meet with CH-UH school board on Top of the Hill

http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/01/council_developer_to_meet_with.html

I really hope this project works out for Cleveland Heights. They need some legit mixed use construction. The density would look great there.

Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets aren’t all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairnounr?

I now understand the decorative, "pedestrian" light poles are no longer to be installed in the Cedar Fairmount district, though I'm sure this type of additional (or replacement) lighting had been in the publicized plans.  As for Cedar Lee, I'm told there is still the plan for the tall (and often bent, etc.) streetlights to be removed except the few considered essential, but City staff cannot predict when.  Ideally there'd be none of these but more of the new ones - at least twice as many.

Does anyone know what happened to the plan for the older, taller streetlights along Lee Road in the new streetscape stretch?  I was told about this by a workman many months ago -  all those poles (many of which are unattractively tilted) except for a few that are essential for the functioning of the new lights. Actually, I wish there were more of the decorative fixtures installed, as even with both sets of lighting currently used, the streets aren’t all that bright. Also, what gappenedvto the planned new decorative light poles fir Cedar Fairmount?

I now understand the decorative, "pedestrian" light poles are no longer to be installed in the Cedar Fairmount district, though I'm sure this type of additional (or replacement) lighting had been in the publicized plans.  As for Cedar Lee, I'm told there is still the plan for the tall (and often bent, etc.) streetlights to be removed except the few considered essential, but City staff cannot predict when.  Ideally there'd be none of these but more of the new ones - at least twice as many.

 

Originally Published: February 23, 2018 2:59 PM Updated: 24 minutes ago

Top of the Hill deal lands approval from Cleveland Heights

By Stan Bullard

 

A pact with Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins for a $75 million project to develop the city of Cleveland Heights-owned Top of the Hill site has cleared a key hurdle.

 

The suburb's city council approved legislation authorizing city manager Tanisha Briley to sign a development agreement with the developer, according to a news release the city issued Friday, Feb. 23.

 

The move, the city said, means the project may proceed to the design and construction planning phase.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20180223/news/152981/top-hill-deal-lands-approval-cleveland-heights

From the article:

 

 

Indianapolis developer Flaherty & Collins told Cleveland Heights city leaders that this project in Fisher, Indiana, is similar to what it might be able to construct on the 4-acre site in the suburb.

 

Something like this would be great on the site. Hopefully though some part can have some real height. A 3 story building only would be a little anticlimactic.

Opportunity Zones proposed for Cleveland Heights redevelopment

http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/03/opportunity_zones_proposed_for.html

From the article:

 

 

Indianapolis developer Flaherty & Collins told Cleveland Heights city leaders that this project in Fisher, Indiana, is similar to what it might be able to construct on the 4-acre site in the suburb.

 

Something like this would be great on the site. Hopefully though some part can have some real height. A 3 story building only would be a little anticlimactic.

 

It also wouldn't take advantage of the views of the city and lake over the trees lining Cedar Hill.

Sad to read that there was an eight-story building on the Top-Of-Hill site, originally an apartment building. It would be even sadder if they could not find a way to construct a modern version of it.

 

Two development projects move Cleveland Heights master plan forward

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/breaking-ground/TopoftheHill031318.aspx

Two finalists pitch development proposals for Meadowbrook & Lee

https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/06/two_finalists_pitch_developmen.html

So many impediments for this site including the easement which supposedly put the nail in the coffin of the last attempt to develop this lot.  Glad to see they are still trying but reading between the lines so many issues have to be worked out that by the time this happens we could be in a down cycle which could dash the development once again. 

 

I am going to try to attend the scheduled Top of the Hill community meeting next week which is mentioned in the article.  Hopefully that is much further along.  The last community meeting was Sept 2017.

So many impediments for this site including the easement which supposedly put the nail in the coffin of the last attempt to develop this lot.  Glad to see they are still trying but reading between the lines so many issues have to be worked out that by the time this happens we could be in a down cycle which could dash the development once again. 

 

Seems like the smart thing to do would be to split the site around the easement.  Two smaller projects provide fewer consequences of one failing to work out.  Trying to do Big Projects and hoping for a home run is riskier.  And the rumor I heard last time is that the owner of the easement wouldn't allow any construction above the easement either.  So you might as well put a sidewalk over the easement and call it a day.

 

While I'm also excited to see what is going on with Top of the Hill, I would prefer to see separate developers execute smaller projects within the overall plan, or have the plan executed in smaller phases than having one giant project.  (And I'd love to see wider sidewalks and a Euclid-Heights or Fairmount-type median along Cedar in the Cedar-Fairmount business district -- Cedar is too wide for a pedestrian-centered neighborhood)

Hey all - I, along with some partners, will be buying the old firehouse at Silsby and Lee and it is available for lease... PM me if you know anyone interested.

 

The fire pole is still in there!

^good luck, it is a wonderful building in a great location

I attended the Top the Hill Development community meeting last night.  About 100 people in attendance.  The format was an hour or so long quick presentation by various people involved with project (nothing really in depth by anybody-city development director, principal from the developer, parking expert, traffic expert etc) and then there were 4-5 stations dealing with different aspects of the development where one could then go and ask questions.  I only stayed for the first part.  Should have stayed for the break out session since I probably could have uncovered more detailed information and also gleamed the thoughts and concerns of the residents.

 

I am pretty disappointed at this point.  This is an iconic location in Cleveland which should have been developed years ago.  What they are proposing (about an 80 mil dollar development) is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

 

In a nutshell:

 

They just finally signed the development agreement and emphasized that they still had not even came up with a conceptual design (although they seemed to have given a lot of thought to siting) let alone a final design for review.  They diplomatically kept saying they wanted community input in regards to the design which was one of the purposes of the meeting.

 

That said, it appears the highest it will go is 5 stories (4 floors of apartment over retail).  I am very disappointed in this.  This location should have a 12-14 story building at the point to take advantage of the superior views of UC and downtown.  My impression is that cost is driving this decision rather than neighborhood objections  (although I could be wrong)

 

The concept on paper right now is 250-275 apartments (no condos), 15,000-20,000 square feet of retail along Cedar, a 550 space parking garage in the middle (5 stories) with a number of courtyards.

 

They could not talk enough about parking.  I could tell it is a major concern.  Almost 50% of the presentation dealt with it.  I don't know if this "pressure" is coming from the city, neighbors or the developer.  They want to replace the 200 or so current spaces as well as deal with the needs of the new development.  Depressed that there is such a focus on parking in a dense neighborhood within a 5 minute walk of a rapid station and on a coupe of bus lines.  In fact, while they have not come up with a design yet (just some preliminary siting) the are already talking about moving the parking garage closer to the point where most of the apartments will be because residents wont want to walk that far (maybe 30 yards-REALLY).

 

Again no design, but for purposes of the presentation they flashed some pictures from their development portfolio.  What was really funny is that they kept emphasizing that this was just for visualization purposes and said please don't start to go nuts over what you see.  It was like they were almost ashamed of what they have built around the country.  For good reason if you take a look at their website.  I am wondering if they haven't already got some subtle blow back about the quality of their work.  Just speculation.

 

They talked about perhaps doing a transitional design-a more historical look closer to Nighttown that slowly got more modern as you proceed down Cedar towards the point.  Not really a bad idea if they could pull it off.  My fear as this particular firm, given cost restraints, won't be able to. 

 

Time line:  Final design towards the end of 2018, start construction second quarter of 2019 with completion 1st quarter of 2021.  All these date were said with a wink.  Add 6 months to a year. 

 

All the agreements are signed including that which is necessary with the school board but no discussion whether financing was in the bag.  Did not seem to be an issue but who knows.

They could not talk enough about parking.  I could tell it is a major concern.  Almost 50% of the presentation dealt with it.  I don't know if this "pressure" is coming from the city, neighbors or the developer.  They want to replace the 200 or so current spaces as well as deal with the needs of the new development.  Depressed that there is such a focus on parking in a dense neighborhood within a 5 minute walk of a rapid station and on a coupe of bus lines. 

 

I always try to raise my hand and ask about transit connections in those situations, just to remind everybody that it exists.

I am pretty disappointed at this point.  This is an iconic location in Cleveland which should have been developed years ago.  What they are proposing (about an 80 mil dollar development) is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

 

Thanks for the summary.  I was there as well and the other thing that I heard was that they have now ruled out trying to woo a hotel to the site in view of what they expect to be intense competition from hotels "down the hill" in University Circle.  And I think financing is still up in the air and is expected to be finalized at the "Closing" in early 2019.

 

The slides from the presentation are now on the website.

http://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill

 

I stuck around after the presentation to visit each of the stations.  I think the city people are pretty excited about getting all the initial agreements signed.  The architects were talking to people about what they would like to see, so they were gathering some input.  They think that they will finalize the massing and have some initial design ideas to show the community in the fall for more input before the design is finalized.  Lots of residents in the area (including at the Buckingham Apartment Building (now condos) in the middle of the development) worried about parking, both during and after construction.  The side streets already are seeing a lot of overflow parking from the Euclid Heights Building's filled parking lot (Barrio's success, plus The Fairmount, and BW3 and Aladdin's across the street).  The parking consultant seemed very knowledgeable.  I also overheard some concern that the development should include some public green space. (I can't imagine where on this site -- but maybe the city can find somewhere else in the neighborhood that could be set aside as a public park.)

 

I managed to spend more time talking to the traffic planners and I liked them; they seemed to have some interesting ideas that they were still planning to model to see how they would work.  I made some suggestions for pedestrian and public transit amenities -- but we'll have to wait and see.  From the outline of the site that the developer is focusing on, my impression is that anything outside of that development boundary may be coming out of the city's budget for this project. As usual, that might not be as generous as we'd like.

 

I didn't think to ask about a taller tower at the point, but I did hear some people telling the architects that they were glad that the buildings weren't going to be so tall right next to the existing buildings. 

Your comment about the desirability of a taller building at the point led me to look for a statement from the city about height restrictions in this area and I found it -- from the Staff Report at the bottom of the website linked above:

 

Below are building height guidelines, though (A) is flexible to promote creative and unique designs:

A. portions of building within 50' of adjacent multi-story building should generally not exceed adjacent building height by more than 15'

B. maximum building height shall not exceed 150'

C. maximum building height shall not exceed 1/2 the distance to any “A” Single-Family district property (including property across Cedar Road from the site).

 

So I think it would be fair to provide some feedback to the architects requesting that the "creative and unique design" needed at the entrance to Cleveland Heights at the point should include additional height.  The city may be reluctant to let the building go too high since the Buckingham building is only 4 stories, but maybe we could get another floor or two of height right at the point, stepped up from whatever is adjacent the Buckingham.

 

 

PD's report:

https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/06/top_of_the_hill_designs_shown.html#incart_river_index

 

^thanks for the additional information and input.  While I believe that there should be something iconic and moderately tall at the point, I don't think that even if some city officials believe it would be a good idea they are up for such a battle (even if it is only a vocal minority in the neighborhood) and are just happy that the parking lots are finally being developed.

^thanks for the additional information and input.  While I believe that there should be something iconic and moderately tall at the point, I don't think that even if some city officials believe it would be a good idea they are up for such a battle (even if it is only a vocal minority in the neighborhood) and are just happy that the parking lots are finally being developed.

 

It actually really bums me out that this is the kind of view that will be missed out on if the project is not taller (credit: @aerialagents via instagram)

^ Hmm, maybe those tennis courts hold some future potential.

Most of those courts are in the city of cleveland, are owned by Case, and are going to remain as open space uses after Case transitions most dorms down the hill. :-/

I have heard from C/F business owners that the apartment section of development is planned to be 10 stories

Cleveland Heights is trying again to develop the vacant lot on Lee Rd. between Meadowbrook and the new parking garage off Tullamore.  Two proposals were finalists in response to the City's RFP, Cedar Lee Connection and Newland Development (see proposals at the link)

https://www.clevelandheights.com/981/Meadowbrook-Lee

 

City council just authorized the city manager to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the "winning" developer, Cedar Lee Connection.

 

Cedar Lee Connection’s mixed-use proposal includes more than 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail and between 75,000 and 95,000 square feet of upper floor apartments all contained in a “V”-shaped building meant to promote public gathering. The team’s proposal specifically calls for spaces utilized for “public art and arts programming.”

http://heightsobserver.org/read/2018/07/31/ch-city-council-vote-authorizes-mou-for-the-meadowbrook-and

 

Forumers here will remember that the downfall of prior attempts to redevelop this site was in part the result of an AT&T easement that runs diagonally across this property, and AT&T wanted an exorbitant amount of money to move their buried lines and refused to allow construction over the easement.  So maybe that's why this proposal has that diagonal walkway through the project in the preliminary sketches. 

 

The proposed timeline has groundbreaking scheduled for January 2019 and a grand opening in August 2020.

 

 

I wish the design of the Top of the Hill development incorporated more of an English Tudor style to go with the rest of the neighborhood. Shaker Square has a consistent Georgian theme that is part of its charm, likewise with Cedar/Fairmount village in its predominant Tudor architecture. This project destroys that in my opinion.

^^ Who is Cedar Lee Development?  Obviously just an LLC, but I'm curious who is behind it.  I heard it might be Snavely. 

 

Also, I'm not a pessimist, but ZERO chance this breaks ground in January.  ZERO ZERO ZERO.

^^ Who is Cedar Lee Development?  Obviously just an LLC, but I'm curious who is behind it.  I heard it might be Snavely. 

 

Also, I'm not a pessimist, but ZERO chance this breaks ground in January.  ZERO ZERO ZERO.

 

Yes Cedar Lee Development is the Snavely Group with LDA as architect. Here is their proposal.

 

https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/3676

 

I have heard from C/F business owners that the apartment section of development is planned to be 10 stories

 

If that is true, it is a significant change in terms of what was being discussed at the recent community meeting (5 floor max) and I applaud it.  More important is the need for some quality architecture and no skimping on the materials.  I like the idea, as suggested at the meeting, that the east portion of the new construction have a more traditional look (in the vicinity of Nighttown) and then transition to a more modern look as the development proceeds down Cedar towards the point.

I know it's underwhelming to hear an "extended stay," but the area needs much more furnished, temporary housing.

 

Top of the Hill project may reach new heights over University Circle

 

Updated 12:55 AM; Posted 12:37 AM

By Thomas Jewell, special to cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- Top of the Hill developers are looking at adding more height -- possibly nine stories in all -- on the corner of Cedar Road and Euclid Heights Boulevard.

 

That would be primarily residential on the upper floors, in the form of about 285 luxury apartments being proposed in the "detailed design phase" of the project underway, along with further traffic and parking studies.

 

The proposed approval phase for the "Planned Development Overlay" district -- also including a parking garage for 550-600 cars and a reduction in retail space to 13,000-14,000 square feet -- should get underway in the fall.

 

After going before the City Planning Commission and council, permits could be issued next spring, with construction of the $75-$80 million development in the summer of 2019 on the four acres of city-owned property.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/08/top_of_the_hill_project_may_re.html

When CWRU moves its housing from Top Of The Hill to its South Residential Village, it will open up more land for potential development (and recreation).

Cleveland Heights gains state approval for citywide CRA abatements

https://articles.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2018/10/cleveland_heights_gains_state.amp

If a forum member attended tonight's Top of the Hill meeting could you please briefly report on it.  Hopefully they have reached a stage where the design is close to being finalized (so we viscously can tear it apart )

17 hours ago, Htsguy said:

If a forum member attended tonight's Top of the Hill meeting could you please briefly report on it.  Hopefully they have reached a stage where the design is close to being finalized (so we viscously can tear it apart )

 

There are some images up on the city website, but the developer is still tweaking the design and finish materials.  I think the massing is pretty close to final.

https://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill

-- retail space has been reduced to 15,000 sq (from 20,000 sq previously)

-- a space on Cedar at the point has been converted from retail space to amenity space, with a community room (maybe fitness) on the ground floor with windows, and a pool and deck above [this seems like a wise change -- they noted that advisors said no one would walk all the way to the point, and they're probably right]

-- approx. 275 apartments and 275 parking spaces in the garage

-- in response to objections to the long continuous massing along Cedar in previous plan, they now have an elevated walkway over the "laneway" to the parking garage [I don't like the skywalk]
-- developer is expecting the total cost of this project at around $80million, city is estimating that the value of the building and property after construction at about $44million

-- city and schools gave a 30-year property tax abatement, and some people were pretty upset about that.  Supposedly the schools currently receive about $20k a year in property taxes, and will receive just under $400k per year during the abatement in "service payments" on the TIF.

-- Final design work should be done in another month, but the project still has to go through the Architectural Review Board after that.  I think they were estimating a closing for the project  in February-March 2019, with construction to begin in by the 3d Q 2019, completion anticipated by 3d Q 2021.

 

 

The public comments included more griping about parking, griping about the tax abatement, and griping about how the design looks "too modern" for Cleveland Heights.  Someone said that the project looks like it could be in any "lifestyle center" development in the country -- and I can't disagree.  Others, including Brendan Ring, the owner of Nighttown, gave enthusiastic kudos to the city and developers for listening to and addressing their previously-raised concerns.  The city and developers are very pleased with progress so far, and I think rightly so.  Both sides have made compromises which bodes well for this project actually coming to fruition.  

 

Someone asked about core samples and water runoff and I thought the answer was pretty funny -- they just started doing core samples and the developers haven't received the results yet but "they're finding rock" -- ha!  And they will dig underground retention basins if needed to address runoff.  There are places in that area where the basements were originally blasted out of bedrock, and now the basements flood.  It's a difficult problem to solve. So they may find solid rock uncomfortably near the surface for this project.

 

Overall I think everyone involved, from the city manager and economic development and planning teams to the city council, the Cedar-Fairmount SID, and the developers, are all very very excited about this project.  The nearest residents may not be convinced yet.  But the solution to Cleveland Heights's high taxes has to include development of vacant land in the city to increase revenue, and on that front this project looks like a winner.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed information

Would like to see more renderings but certainly not hating it at this point.

 

Glad to see a bit of height.  Like the step up as you proceed down the hill and the design of the amenity space at the point, especially the pool looking over Cedar,  Also like the use of different materials which helps break things up.

 

Hard to tell from a single rendering but might not be crazy about the windows on the higher building.  Kinda look like those in Centric which I think look cheap.  Also wish they would have included the parcel on the other side of Nighttown where the bank is.

 

Hopefully the timeline is solid and they will break ground in a year.  F and C's project in Cincy seems to be taking forever to start although I don't think it is their fault.

 

 

 

How's this? 

Edited October 11, 20186 yr by KJP