January 11, 20196 yr This is a little dated, but Cleveland Heights and the Cleveland Heights CDC, FutureHeights, are working with East Cleveland and other partners on a study (and hopefully future investment) in the Noble Road neighborhood between Mayfield Road and Euclid Ave. http://heightsobserver.org/read/2018/10/23/noble-road-study-kicks-off-oct-29 There is currently a survey being done to ask visitors and residents for their input and it looks like there will be a community meeting at the Cleveland Heights Community Center at 7pm on January 17. http://www.futureheights.org/noble-planning-study-online-survey-is-now-live/
January 26, 20196 yr Cleveland Heights plans office, technology Job Creation Grant program Updated Jan 16; Posted Jan 16 By Thomas Jewell, special to cleveland.com CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- A new Job Creation Grant program would offer extra incentives for businesses moving into the Mayfield Innovation and Technology Corridor. As presented to City Council on Monday (Jan. 14), the proposal would provide up to a 75 percent reimbursement on withholding taxes along stretches of Mayfield Road, as well as along South Taylor and Noble roads outside the corridor. MORE: https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2019/01/cleveland_heights_plans_office.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 11, 20196 yr So new site plans and renderings dated Jan. 22, 2019 were uploaded to the Top of the Hill development page: https://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill The good news is that the development will top out at 10 stories.... Edited February 11, 20196 yr by KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 11, 20196 yr Wow it looks much larger than I expected, especially along Euclid Hts. Parking garage looks very big and upfront though. I think it would look nice if they put some type of outer metal slate-like cladding on it with a similar look to the Beacon. A living wall would pretty cool too in the portion with the green space along cedar Edited February 11, 20196 yr by kevincle
February 11, 20196 yr I prefer the previous renderings that were posted in October. That design was much more elegant. This new iteration is a bit clunky. Edited February 11, 20196 yr by jeremyck01
February 11, 20196 yr Changes were made after the December 27,2018 Design review meeting and attempt to incorporate the comments and criticisms of the 3 member board made at that meeting, You can read of the minutes of the meeting on line and view their comments. These changes were presented at the recent Feb. 6 design review. I could not stay for the whole meeting and do not know if they voted although the developer was clearly looking for final approval at that gathering. Does anyone know if a vote was taken? By the way, the public comment portion of the meetings are incredible revealing and mind altering. Apparently mostly people against the design attend and their inarticulate and ill informed ramblings are a sight to behold. The NIMBYS in the audiences (which were packed at both meetings) especially scream about the height and the "modern design". It is agony to watch the Board politely listen to the speakers. Edited February 11, 20196 yr by Htsguy
February 11, 20196 yr I was at the meeting as well and left after about two and a half hours -- apparently, the meeting lasted another hour after that. I also thought that lots of residents said things like "I don't like it. We deserve a better design." without any suggestions of what they thought a better design would be. Also interesting to see so many architects speak on both sides of the issue. Particularly ironic to have members of the historic preservation committee of the architects association read their letter and solemnly and insistently declaim the lack of historic context as damning the project entirely (all very serious and expecting to be taken seriously as the ultimate experts on the matter), to be immediately followed by the president of the Cleveland architects association who made it clear that they weren't taking a position as an organization, but that he personally loved the project. 9 hours ago, kevincle said: Parking garage looks very big and upfront though. I think it would look nice if they put some type of outer metal slate-like cladding on it with a similar look to the Beacon. A living wall would pretty cool too in the portion with the green space along cedar The developer said that they considered some sort of cladding on the garage, and would be willing to revisit the issue, but they need a certain amount of open space around the garage to vent fumes or they have to provide active venting, and closing off much more would get them close to that point. Another speaker suggested that an open sight line to the pedestrian exit from the garage was a good thing for safety reasons. So there may be some further consideration and design changes in this area, but maybe not. We'll see. We'll have to wait for the minutes of the meeting for confirmation, so take this as the unconfirmed rumor that it is -- but I heard that the ABR generally approved the height, shape, and placement of the parking garage and the buildings that wrap around the garage, and further design work on additional details (more specific cladding materials, etc.) will now proceed administratively between the city planning office and the developer/architect. But the ABR asked the developer to revisit the large building that faces Cedar -- they aren't satisfied with the large unbroken curved face and the corner that faces the Cedar-Glen hill. But they did not object to the 10-story height, despite some residents' complaints about it. I don't know what they are looking for, but maybe some portions stepped back or some decorative elements to break it up a bit. I assume that means that there will be another ABR meeting (whether another special meeting or just another presentation as part of a regular ABR meeting I don't know) to revisit that curved building, but the smaller buildings around the garage probably will not have another hearing before the ABR other than a final approval after the city planning office and the developer/architect finalize the building plans, and that will happen at a regular ABR meeting and will most likely be a rubber stamp event. I think that is about the best outcome that we could have received from this meeting. The general site plan is approved and the developer can move forward on the garage and wrap-around buildings there. And the residents who were unhappy about the larger building's design will now get the developer to go back and give that some further thought -- which probably means we'll get something even better there. (Fingers crossed.) Hopefully that does not slow the project down too much.
February 11, 20196 yr Apologies for not keeping up with this project, but has the developer proposed a particular phasing sequence for the various components?
February 11, 20196 yr 4 hours ago, StapHanger said: Apologies for not keeping up with this project, but has the developer proposed a particular phasing sequence for the various components? Not that I'm aware of -- but I would be surprised if the parking garage wasn't first. The construction timeline probably won't come out until the plans are nearly final.
February 11, 20196 yr 6 hours ago, Foraker said: I was at the meeting as well and left after about two and a half hours -- apparently, the meeting lasted another hour after that. I also thought that lots of residents said things like "I don't like it. We deserve a better design." without any suggestions of what they thought a better design would be. Also interesting to see so many architects speak on both sides of the issue. Particularly ironic to have members of the historic preservation committee of the architects association read their letter and solemnly and insistently declaim the lack of historic context as damning the project entirely (all very serious and expecting to be taken seriously as the ultimate experts on the matter), to be immediately followed by the president of the Cleveland architects association who made it clear that they weren't taking a position as an organization, but that he personally loved the project. That was kinda fun to watch. Thanks for all the additional information. Hopefully a final vote is conducted soon. I believe they want to get shovels in the ground sometime during the last quarter of 2019 but the longer they drag out the design review process the less likely this will occur. I recall the developer saying at the Dec 27 meeting that construction drawings would take 8-9 months after final approval. I imagine there is then a lag time after the drawings are ready for review and bidding by the various subs. Realistically we are probably looking at an early 2020 ground breaking. That is if the developer doesn't run for the hills before then given everything the city has put them through to date (it is interesting to watch various officials sheepishly admit as much to the developer's reps). Edited February 11, 20196 yr by Htsguy
February 12, 20196 yr 9 hours ago, Foraker said: We'll have to wait for the minutes of the meeting for confirmation, so take this as the unconfirmed rumor that it is -- but I heard that the ABR generally approved the height, shape, and placement of the parking garage and the buildings that wrap around the garage, and further design work on additional details (more specific cladding materials, etc.) will now proceed administratively between the city planning office and the developer/architect. But the ABR asked the developer to revisit the large building that faces Cedar -- they aren't satisfied with the large unbroken curved face and the corner that faces the Cedar-Glen hill. Why is this always a concern that facades need to be broken up? The end result is often disjointed with too many materials and shapes. Would it look better like this?
February 12, 20196 yr 13 hours ago, Mendo said: Why is this always a concern that facades need to be broken up? The end result is often disjointed with too many materials and shapes. Would it look better like this? Going for the Kowloon look I guess.
February 17, 20196 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 20196 yr ^I am really anxious to read the minutes of the Feb 6 meeting (I had to leave very early and it apparently went on for a long time) to get a feel for what actually happen. There was apparently some so sort of "go ahead" vote so that the developer feels confident enough to start construction drawings which will take months to complete. My impression from what I did observe at the meeting is that the developer was seeking final approval and was becoming a bit frustrated by the process (as suggested in the Cleveland.com article). I am speculating that many city officials (planning director, city manager and some members of city council) are starting to appreciate this frustration and are doing their best to get things moving. This hybrid "approval" /changes to be made administratively may be an example of that. Moreover, I think the headline is a bit deceiving. What was presented was way more than conceptual. It was the second time before design review and they made significant changes to the design between the two meetings. They were actually presenting material types and color representations Edited February 17, 20196 yr by Htsguy
February 17, 20196 yr I find it funny Litt thinks the design is too bulky and dense for the site. 275 apartments on 4 acres is too dense? The site plan is great, even if the design is somewhat bland. Edited February 17, 20196 yr by Mendo
February 18, 20196 yr ^^This is what happens when too many architects feel the need to grace the public with their opinions. I apologize and don't mean any offense to the architects who reside on this board, but sometimes, it needs to be left between the developer and planning commission. Ironically, I was a juror on a case where Bill Eberhard was called in as an "expert witness" on an emminent domain case...He is anything but professional
February 18, 20196 yr 15 hours ago, Mendo said: I find it funny Litt thinks the design is too bulky and dense for the site. 275 apartments on 4 acres is too dense? The site plan is great, even if the design is somewhat bland. Litt writes glowing reviews of grassy fields but he seems to hate buildings.
February 18, 20196 yr 18 hours ago, Mendo said: I find it funny Litt thinks the design is too bulky and dense for the site. 275 apartments on 4 acres is too dense? The site plan is great, even if the design is somewhat bland. Where did Litt weigh in?
February 18, 20196 yr 8 minutes ago, StapHanger said: Where did Litt weigh in? https://www.cleveland.com/expo/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/02/fce93c41331623/cleveland-heights-deserves-better-than-joyless-top-of-hill-design-steven-litt.html Quote Cleveland Heights deserves better than joyless Top of Hill design: Steven Litt CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio – “Mediocre,” “dull,” “cheap,” “massive,” “gargantuan,” “one of the ugliest, lamest projects.” Those were just some of the epithets hurled at the latest plans for the proposed $75 million Top of the Hill apartment complex during a meeting of the Cleveland Heights Architectural Board of Review at City Hall on Feb. 6. Local architects even picketed the meeting beforehand with signs saying, “We Demand Design Excellence,” “Just Say No to Bad Design,” and “Milwaukee Architects Go Home.” Tough words, but it’s easy to see why Top of the Hill has aroused such passion, and such disappointment. The project, whose design is underwhelming so far, would occupy a highly prominent 4-acre, city-owned site at the heavily traveled intersection of Cedar Road and Euclid Heights Boulevard.
February 18, 20196 yr How many architects does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Only one, but you can be sure several others will show up to complain that the lightbulb isn't "iconic".
February 18, 20196 yr My favorite Litt quote from that article: Quote Apart from its dullness, the design looks too bulky and dense for its site. But it isn’t awful. ?
February 18, 20196 yr Editor: "Hey Steve, you haven't written anything in a long time. Could you please write something?" SL: "Like what?" Editor: "Anything. You know what we do here. Just give me 15 column inches between the ads." "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 19, 20196 yr I disagree with it being too dense, but that metal clad build is horribly ugly. Hopefully that changes through further design review. The density seems to fit in with the area. There’s some fairly large apartment complexes over there. Is 11,000 sq ft retail accurate or is that a typo? Seems kind of small.
March 7, 20196 yr Cleveland Heights (finally) adopts a landmarks ordinance. https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/2019/03/cleveland_heights_landmark_ame.html
April 11, 20196 yr Construction On Edgehill-Overlook Intersection Begins The city is making improvements for pedestrians that pass through the area. https://patch.com/ohio/clevelandheights/construction-edgehill-overlook-intersection-begins "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 23, 20196 yr On 2/17/2019 at 11:38 AM, Htsguy said: ^I am really anxious to read the minutes of the Feb 6 meeting (I had to leave very early and it apparently went on for a long time) to get a feel for what actually happen. There was apparently some so sort of "go ahead" vote so that the developer feels confident enough to start construction drawings which will take months to complete. My impression from what I did observe at the meeting is that the developer was seeking final approval and was becoming a bit frustrated by the process (as suggested in the Cleveland.com article). I am speculating that many city officials (planning director, city manager and some members of city council) are starting to appreciate this frustration and are doing their best to get things moving. This hybrid "approval" /changes to be made administratively may be an example of that. Moreover, I think the headline is a bit deceiving. What was presented was way more than conceptual. It was the second time before design review and they made significant changes to the design between the two meetings. They were actually presenting material types and color representations Next ABR meeting on the Top of the Hill design has been set for May 7 a6 5pm. Here is the agenda (PDF): https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/4908/abr_agenda_05072019 Edited April 23, 20196 yr by Foraker
April 23, 20196 yr Quote CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- The city-owned Meadowbrook & Lee site is back on the market, having grown exponentially to what could be as much as four acres for interested developers. Council on Monday (April 15) authorized City Manager Tanisha Briley to issue a new Request for Qualifications and Proposals for the site, similar to what was done with the one-acre property last year. . . . As for the addition of three acres, Briley said the expanded footprint now includes the existing parking lot behind the businesses facing Lee Road and stretching toward Wendy’s on Cedar Road. "We decided that more city land can be added to make the project more impactful," Briley said, adding that the new RFQ/RFP, including a timeline, was expected to be posted on the city's website this week. The city's development efforts for the previous one-acre version of the Meadowbrook & Lee site go back more than a decade. . . . https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/04/meadowbrook-lee-site-back-on-market-with-expanded-footprint.html
April 23, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/04/meadowbrook-lee-site-back-on-market-with-expanded-footprint.html sigh....I hope something is built before I die. I hope the new RFQ/RFP includes tearing down those buildings on Cedar between Wendys and the theatre.
April 23, 20196 yr 49 minutes ago, Htsguy said: sigh....I hope something is built before I die. I hope the new RFQ/RFP includes tearing down those buildings on Cedar between Wendys and the theatre. I hear that they are winding their way through foreclosure, but the map the City put out currently excludes those properties. And the operating LoanMax building closest to the theater.
April 23, 20196 yr 3 minutes ago, Foraker said: I hear that they are winding their way through foreclosure, but the map the City put out currently excludes those properties. And the operating LoanMax building closest to the theater. Yeah I subsequently reviewed the RFQ and saw the buildings were not included. Interesting some are in foreclosure. Maybe the successful candidate can some how get it's hands on them. I am curious what would be proposed for the parking lot given its location. Cleveland Hts really does not need more retail. It is already littered with vacant spaces that need attention.
April 23, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, Htsguy said: I am curious what would be proposed for the parking lot given its location. Cleveland Hts really does not need more retail. It is already littered with vacant spaces that need attention. The city probably wants to cut down on the parking to make better use of the expensive garage structure. Agree about more retail in this area. Class A office space, maybe some medical laboratory space, would be nice to help give the neighborhood some daytime energy and attract investment from the nearby medical community. Would be nice to find a way to enhance the pedestrian connection to Lee at the same time. I suspect that the prior developer at Meadowbrook-Lee has some ideas and asked for this change (and is hoping that no other developers jump in). Response deadline is in mid-May, so with any luck we'll have some plans we can criticize by June! ?
April 26, 20196 yr Cleveland Heights positioning Cedar Lee site for ‘creative’ redevelopment https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019/04/cleveland-heights-positioning-cedar-lee-site-for-creative-redevelopment.html "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 26, 20196 yr Does this mean the original Snavely proposal fell apart? I wonder why they think a larger, not contiguous, piece of land would be easier to build on.
April 26, 20196 yr 7 minutes ago, Mendo said: Does this mean the original Snavely proposal fell apart? I wonder why they think a larger, not contiguous, piece of land would be easier to build on. That is the great mystery. The city is really not commenting. Foraker has a great "conspiracy theory". He suggested above that it was actually the Snavely Group that asked the additional parcels be added (which required a new RFQ) and they already have a plan and are hoping no new developers weigh in. That would be a great scenario but it is just speculation on his part. Something that supports such speculation is the relatively short response time. I guess we will know for sure next month.
April 26, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, Htsguy said: That is the great mystery. The city is really not commenting. Foraker has a great "conspiracy theory". He suggested above that it was actually the Snavely Group that asked the additional parcels be added (which required a new RFQ) and they already have a plan and are hoping no new developers weigh in. That would be a great scenario but it is just speculation on his part. Something that supports such speculation is the relatively short response time. I guess we will know for sure next month. Sounds plausible. Maybe the AT&T easement killed this proposal as well. It's telling somewhat that Cleveland Heights can't get a small apartment building built with practically no parking required. The original proposal was for over 100 units so the density was definitely there. If the easement wasn't the showstopper, is it the economics of the neighborhood, the city government, or other?
April 26, 20196 yr 34 minutes ago, Mendo said: Sounds plausible. Maybe the AT&T easement killed this proposal as well. It's telling somewhat that Cleveland Heights can't get a small apartment building built with practically no parking required. The original proposal was for over 100 units so the density was definitely there. If the easement wasn't the showstopper, is it the economics of the neighborhood, the city government, or other? Just my personal opinion but I believe the easement has been addressed somehow. It is front and center in the most recent RFQ. Maybe Foraker has more information on the issue. He seems to be on top of things.
April 26, 20196 yr 8 minutes ago, Htsguy said: Just my personal opinion but I believe the easement has been addressed somehow. It is front and center in the most recent RFQ. Maybe Foraker has more information on the issue. He seems to be on top of things. Unfortunately, I'm just speculating like everyone else.
May 7, 20196 yr Noticed that the Top of the Hill Architectural Board of Review meeting scheduled for this evening has been cancelled and will be re-scheduled because "the applicant needed more time to evaluate costs and make sure they could deliver an agreed upon design". Interesting wording. Given what has transpired to date I could write a book speculating on what is going on behind the scenes.
May 7, 20196 yr On 2/12/2019 at 10:39 AM, sizzlinbeef said: Going for the Kowloon look I guess. Its good that they demolished Kowloon before a catastrophic fire broke out. Talk about a safety hazard.
June 4, 20196 yr Was just watching the video of last nights Cleveland Hts. council meeting (yes I need to get a life) and learned that the Snavely Group partnership (Cedar Lee Connection LLC), pursuant to the new RFP relating to the expanded Lee/Meadowbrook proposal, was the successful candidate and the city will now attempt to enter into a Memorandum of understanding with the developer. Some of us speculated above that Cedar Lee Connection, the original developer of the project, had actually requested the expanded project be considered and it was almost a given that they would be chosen again in connection with the most recent RFP. Again this is pure speculation but it would be interesting to discover if any other developer responded to the new RFP other than Snavely. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down the new proposal. Anybody have a clue whether it has been made public yet? Also, Top of the Hill will seek final approval from design review some time in July. Apparently lots going on behind the scenes.
June 5, 20196 yr Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook site: Same developer, more land to work with CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio -- City officials plan to work with the same developer on an expanded “Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook site” that now includes property behind the theater. Council on Monday authorized City Manager Tanisha Briley to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with Cedar Lee Connection, LLC, the group that had been selected last July to put together a formal proposal for the one-acre “Meadowbrook & Lee site.” https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/06/cedar-lee-meadowbrook-site-same-developer-more-land-to-work-with.html
June 5, 20196 yr ^Thanks for posting the article. Unfortunately, it leaves me with more questions than ever before. I wish a site plan and some crude renderings, even if hugely preliminary and conceptual, could have been presented The 25-35 million "capital investment" number has me confused. I am assuming, based on the way the article is worded, that this will be the total cost of the project (not jus an equity contribution) which seems kind of low. Does this include the original Meadowbrook Building or is that separate (I am guessing it does include it). Not quite sure where the additional apartments are going. I am glad additional retail is being limited to 20, 000 square feet. I guess for this concept to work some had to be added. This 10,000 square foot plaza/mini park really has to be done right so it just doesn't turn into a hang out space for Heights kids skipping class. Edited June 5, 20196 yr by Htsguy
June 11, 20196 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 12, 20196 yr 4 hours ago, KJP said: 550 Spaces + Surface Parking ?. Wow. How many students are going to live here without cars? Seems fairly common in the area.
June 12, 20196 yr 9 hours ago, imjustinjk said: 550 Spaces + Surface Parking ?. Wow. How many students are going to live here without cars? Seems fairly common in the area. This project is not geared toward students. I doubt many could afford it. NASA could have landed a man/woman on Mars by now if it devoted the number of man hours that the developer, city officials and residents devoted to studying, discussing, fighting over and praying for parking related to this project.
June 12, 20196 yr 14 hours ago, imjustinjk said: 550 Spaces + Surface Parking ?. Wow. Part of the emphasis on parking is a result of the success of existing businesses in the area - including Luna, Barrio, and the Fairmount, leading to lots of parking headaches for residents on the side streets. Thankfully the parking structure is mostly hidden and the surface parking will be fairly small.
June 21, 20195 yr The city has posted the new Top of the Hill renderings on its website. Just in time for all hell to break lose at the community meeting on Tuesday. They look significantly different to me.
June 21, 20195 yr Looks pretty similar/familiar to me. BTW, here's the link just to keep it easier to find... https://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill And adding a couple of pretty renders. Edited June 21, 20195 yr by KJP "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 21, 20195 yr 7 minutes ago, KJP said: Looks pretty similar/familiar to me. BTW, here's the link just to keep it easier to find... https://www.clevelandheights.com/988/Top-of-the-Hill And adding a couple of pretty renders. There are clearly some major differences including materials and the height of the mid block eastern elevation (appears a couple stories taller)
Create an account or sign in to comment