http://www.5thstreetarcades.com

thanks!

 

^ there's also this which is as up-to-date as possible

 

 

http://www.cumberland-development.com/properties/5th/overall-project-leasing-plan-9-25-13.pdf

Lots of new signage coming to the Cumberland arcade, passed by Landmarks today. Sleek new black restaurant will have blade signage consistent with Yum Yums.

 

Lots of new signage coming to the Cumberland arcade, passed by Landmarks today. Sleek new black restaurant will have blade signage consistent with Yum Yums.

 

Do you have access to any mock-ups or pictures?

New signs at 5th St. Arcade.

 

A chain link fence was being put up today, somewhat around the historic 310 bldg and partially into the now-closed small pkg lot, at 310 Prospect (Weston Dvlpmt area, i thought there was a thread for that?)

 

A chain link fence was being put up today, somewhat around the historic 310 bldg and partially into the now-closed small pkg lot, at 310 Prospect (Weston Dvlpmt area, i thought there was a thread for that?)

 

I think I found the permit:

 

https://ca.permitcleveland.org/Public/Report/ShowReport.aspx?Module=BuildingHousing&reportType=PRINT_PERMIT_REPORT&reportID=2

Interesting. County records don't indicate any properties have changed hands, nor has any development plan been submitted to Planning Commission (either Design Review or Landmarks Commission). A building cannot be demolished for parking downtown (especially in an historic district like Gateway) except if the parking is an interim use. In that case, development plan post-parking lot has to be submitted and approved by Planning Commission. And it has yet to be submitted. I watch Planning Commission dockets pretty closely, as do a few reporters in town. They wouldn't written about it had it been submitted to the city for approval.

It has been a while since I checked the docket in the court action and I just did so given the above posts.

 

A Judgment Entry was issued (after months of motion practice) on Jan. 23 2014 and the case is now listed as closed on the docket.  Unfortunately I cannot tell from the docket (Cleveland Muny court dockets suck) what the disposition of the case was and who won.  Since it has been a couple of weeks I would have thought Michelle might have reported on this by now. 

 

I could only guess what the fence is all about.  Maybe the court ordered something that mandated the fence (given the condition of the property).  I can't imagine a demolition permit has been issued so quickly, especially with no publicity.

The Landmark Commission never posted the second agenda for January. Could it have been on there?

Hmm..The project description is interesting. What approved plans?

 

Project Description:

MAKE EXT. ALT TO INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCINING FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. WORK DOES NOT CORRECT UNSAFE BUILDING CONDITIONS.

Got a link to that? Good question on what that means "work in accordance with approved plans." I'd love to know what those plans are, where they are posted and when they were approved.

^

 

https://ca.permitcleveland.org/Public/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=BuildingHousing&TabName=BuildingHousing&capID1=14BHO&capID2=00000&capID3=00291&agencyCode=COC&IsToShowInspection=

My guess is the "approved plans" are the plans for installing the (temporary) fencing for "pedestrian safety."  Also sounds like some alteration of the building exterior is required to install the fencing.

Thanks.

If somebody is really ambitious (and curious) and is near the Justice Center, they can go to the Muny Court Clerks office and obtain the 3 page judgment entry from the court case.  Journal Vol. 415 Pages 108-111.  I bet it contains some kind of answer.

Well lucky for you folks, I am both curious and ambitious.

 

Here is the disposition: http://www.filedropper.com/docfeb062014206pm

 

^ The scan is kind of large so I uploaded it to a free file hosting site.

^Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

I am embarrassed to admit that even though I am a lawyer, I find the opinion somewhat confusing.  I which I could look over the underlying pleadings and briefs in support of the multiple motions to better figure things out.

 

It seems to say they have to demolish the building or repair it but cannot demolish without the approval of the Planning Commission (which apparently they won't get) so that will have to make the repairs.  It seems from the opinion that the city is fighting demolish but again this is not clear to me, especially when the order specifically states the building must be demolished.

^Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

I am embarrassed to admit that even though I am a lawyer, I find the opinion somewhat confusing.  I which I could look over the underlying pleadings and briefs in support of the multiple motions to better figure things out.

 

It seems to say they have to demolish the building or repair it but cannot demolish without the approval of the Planning Commission (which apparently they won't get) so that will have to make the repairs.  It seems from the opinion that the city is fighting demolish but again this is not clear to me, especially when the order specifically states the building must be demolished.

 

Adding to that - it seems Judge Pianka writes a bit of dicta about how property owners may still demolish properties through neglect and it appears the City of Cleveland has no way to stop this practice.  He says the City Planning Commission must allow an emergency demolition if the property poses an "immediate danger to human life or health."  He also mentions a Detroit statute prohibiting such practice, hopefully City Council takes note.

 

I REALLY hope this doesn't go the way of the Stanley Block, however it appears LR 310 is hell bent on making that happen.  I am praying Weston can get this from these bastards.

 

It's still not clear that there is any demo permit issued for the site.  The city records indicate there is permit from 12/06/2013 still "pending."  Curiously, this pending permit doesn't list any information on its purpose - weird.  Other than that we have 1/10/2014 permit for the ballast fencing.  Although I hope this ghost permit is for repairs, it seems unlikely this group is interested in anything other than demo.

 

Does anyone on here work for Building & Housing?  If so, is this building being considered an "immediate danger to human life or health?"  How high is that threshold?

Seems to me that Pianka is telling the City it is SOL absent a change in ordinance.  It actually reads like an advisory opinion... something he is not really supposed to do.  He was able to deny the declaratory judgment action filed by LR 310 simply because LR 310 had not exhausted administrative remedies and (I believe) all 2506 appeals go to the common pleas court, not housing court.

BTW, just down the street, the old May Co. garage that has Tilted Kilt on the ground floor was sold Jan. 24 for $3 million to a new company called Rainbow Garage LLC. This company was incorporated only a month earlier, on Dec. 11, 2013 (see: http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=201334501541). However the filing doesn't give much insight to the company's purpose or mission. Neither do filings on Dec. 13, 2013 for a similarly named company Rainbow Garage Manager with the same organizers involved (See: http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=201334701703 or a amendment filed a week later ID'ing the company's sole shareholder, director and president as Robert Danial (See: http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=201335800726).

 

So I guess we'll have to wait and see what, if anything, comes from the acquisition of this high-profile property.

Mr. Danial is associated with the Morgan Reed Group, which owns this: http://morganreed.com/public_square_tech.html

Stanley Block land scheduled for sheriff's sale, raising prospect of purchase by casino group

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A small strip of land where one of downtown Cleveland's oldest buildings once stood will hit the auction block this month, in the culmination of nearly three years of litigation over the now-demolished Stanley Block building.

 

The Cuyahoga County Sheriff's office has scheduled the property, roughly 0.11 acres on Ontario Street, for a Feb. 18 foreclosure auction. Valued at $300,000, the vacant lot will require a starting bid of at least $200,000.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/stanley_block_land_scheduled_f.html#incart_river_default

Mr. Danial is associated with the Morgan Reed Group, which owns this: http://morganreed.com/public_square_tech.html

 

This might be a great thing.  Now that the owner of the May Company building owns the garage he will have an interest in sprucing up the ground floor retail......which now leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Danial is associated with the Morgan Reed Group, which owns this: http://morganreed.com/public_square_tech.html

 

Thanks. Veddy intahrrresting!

Mr. Danial is associated with the Morgan Reed Group, which owns this: http://morganreed.com/public_square_tech.html

 

Thanks. Veddy intahrrresting!

 

Yes very. All this behind the scene stuff. Good work today guys. And I am pissed at myself for spending 30 minutes today searching for Robert Danial and I just realized I was spelling it as 'Daniel' with an 'e' ...dumbass

That is odd, since Danial is selling most of the May Company Building for the apartment conversion.

Great, the guy that allows plywood infill in windows on The May Company now owns more property...

Prospect:  I really hoping these buildings don't get torn down.  Prospect is actually one of my favorite streets to travel down and seems like it has a lot more untapped potential.

 

May Garage:  Is this transaction going to affect the potential sale and conversion of this building into apartments?  I wonder if this is a speculative move to profit off of the potential apartment development.

 

Stanley lot:  I'm really curious to see what/if anything will be done on this lot.  It is such a small parcel which doesn't leave many options.  Does the casino have plans to incorporate this space into their garage?  Has anyone heard of potential uses with this site?

 

Wasn't the Morgan Reed group the people that proposed converting most of the floors in the May Company building to a parking garage? :roll: His group likely just wants in on the parking game downtown. The structure across from the hotel would be a good start.

Isn't this garage the 11 story garage mentioned on the Public Square Tech Center website posted above?  It sounds to me like the garage is being shuffled around between entities-not truly changing ownership.

It has been a while since I checked the docket in the court action and I just did so given the above posts.

 

A Judgment Entry was issued (after months of motion practice) on Jan. 23 2014 and the case is now listed as closed on the docket.  Unfortunately I cannot tell from the docket (Cleveland Muny court dockets suck) what the disposition of the case was and who won.  Since it has been a couple of weeks I would have thought Michelle might have reported on this by now. 

 

I could only guess what the fence is all about.  Maybe the court ordered something that mandated the fence (given the condition of the property).  I can't imagine a demolition permit has been issued so quickly, especially with no publicity.

 

Sorry for the late reply on this one. It's my understanding that the case isn't closed - that's a bizarre notation thing that happens on the Housing Court docket, and it doesn't mean anything. I have seen Judge Pianka's recent decision, and I'm monitoring this situation. There's more going on behind the scenes. I don't have anything to write about yet, but I expect that I will soon.

 

Michelle

There's more going on behind the scenes. I don't have anything to write about yet, but I expect that I will soon.

 

Michelle - are these good things going on behind the scenes?  :wtf:

 

Also, thanks for the update.

Thanks Michelle!

There's more going on behind the scenes. I don't have anything to write about yet, but I expect that I will soon.

 

Michelle - are these good things going on behind the scenes?  :wtf:

 

Also, thanks for the update.

 

I don't know yet whether they're "good" or "bad." I guess it will depend on your definition of "good." As a reporter, I can't really weigh in on that. But I promise I'll write an update story as soon as there's enough reliable information to support one.

 

Michelle

Isn't this garage the 11 story garage mentioned on the Public Square Tech Center website posted above?  It sounds to me like the garage is being shuffled around between entities-not truly changing ownership.

 

That's usually true when there's a quit-claim deed transfer. There's usually no dollar amount attached to it. But this transfer showed a $3 million sale amount, along with a $12,000 conveyance fee.

I don't know yet whether they're "good" or "bad." I guess it will depend on your definition of "good." As a reporter, I can't really weigh in on that. But I promise I'll write an update story as soon as there's enough reliable information to support one.

 

I can dig it - thanks.  I'm nervous.

I don't know yet whether they're "good" or "bad." I guess it will depend on your definition of "good." As a reporter, I can't really weigh in on that. But I promise I'll write an update story as soon as there's enough reliable information to support one.

 

I can dig it - thanks.  I'm nervous.

 

Agreed.  That response made me more nervous. ha

I don't know yet whether they're "good" or "bad." I guess it will depend on your definition of "good." As a reporter, I can't really weigh in on that. But I promise I'll write an update story as soon as there's enough reliable information to support one.

 

Michelle

 

Will this board (the general consensus, at least) consider it "good" or "bad"?  You can reveal that without showing any bias or lack of objectivity as a reporter ;)

I don't know yet whether they're "good" or "bad." I guess it will depend on your definition of "good." As a reporter, I can't really weigh in on that. But I promise I'll write an update story as soon as there's enough reliable information to support one.

 

Michelle

 

Will this board (the general consensus, at least) consider it "good" or "bad"?  You can reveal that without showing any bias or lack of objectivity as a reporter ;)

 

Not trying to make anyone nervous! I just don't have enough information yet to draw an informed conclusion.

 

Michelle

^Darn reporters!  Putting speculation aside and waiting on the facts.  Can someone give me some baseless speculation please!

Demolition, followed by construction of a Dollar Store, set back from the street, plenty of parking.  How's that?

Demolition, followed by construction of a Dollar Store, set back from the street, plenty of parking.  How's that?

 

Since you asked ...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/lr_seeks_demolition_of_herold.html#incart_river_default

 

L&R is seeking demolition. Plans show a single-story retail building, topped by digital billboards, on the Herold Building site and the neighboring parking lot.

Is this a "placeholder" land use plan that a property owner submits with a demo request only because they have to submit a land use plan? Or is there a signed tenant they will disclose?

Tacky and doesn't fit well with the other buildings, I vision prospect to be retail row (actual shopping), feeding off of the energy from Euclid Ave. and E. 4th street, but only through redevelopment or building substantial buildings on the paring lots.

Disgusting

Single story?  Really?  So much for density.  There should be zoning restrictions for a minimum of 3-4 stories in the City Center.

One word for the 1-story Herold Building proposal... DIE!!