Congratulations, Josh!  You guys are doing great things!

Three new townhouses proposed for the 2500-block of Thurman:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr01-05-2015.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

JANUARY 5, 2015

 

Calendar No. 14-233: 2501 Thurman Avenue - 6603 Cedar Inc., owner, proposes to erect a new 18’-8” x 38’ single family townhouse on a parcel located in a B1 Two-Family Residential District.

 

Calendar No. 14-234: 2503 Thurman Avenue - 6603 Cedar Inc., owner, proposes to erect a new 18’-8” x 38’ single family townhouse on a parcel located in a B1 Two-Family Residential District.

 

Calendar No. 14-235: 2505 Thurman Avenue - 6603 Cedar Inc., owner, proposes to erect a new 18’-8” x 38’ single family townhouse on a parcel located in a B1 Two-Family Residential District.

Clark Fields to Get Total Rebuild Starting in Spring

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/02/03/clark-fields-to-get-total-rebuild-starting-in-spring-cleveland-dog-kennels-to-move-to-detroit-shoreway

"climb zion" gym, unique community center, coming to historic tremont church

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/climbzion020915.aspx

 

 

I should add, this is the duo that wanted to put a climbing gym in the Fifth Church of Science church at Detroit and w117th.  Kudos on their perseverance.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/climbing-up-the-walls-a-rock-climbing-couple-from-tremont-wants-to-bring-vertical-fun-to-an-ancient-church/Content?oid=3846585

Wow, this is awesome!  I hope the do well and I have been wanting to try climbing because lifting weights is getting very old and boring. I certainly will be doing my best to support this new business as a very amateur climber.

Yay! I was wondering when this would go public. I've been working with Niki and Chick on this project for a few months. They didn't get the historic tax credits last round, but hopefully they can get it next round. Even so, I'm sure they can do this project without the tax credits. I've toured the space with them, and I'm confident it could be a really cool and iconic project. I could see tourists from outside Northeast Ohio driving to Tremont to see this place.

One aspect of the project that separates it from the handful of other renovated church/climbing gyms across the country is that the parishioners of Zion United Church of Christ will still convene in the main sanctuary on Sundays, just like they have since 1885 when the church was dedicated (the congregation is older still, dating back to 1867).

 

Once numbering in the thousands, there are now less than 20 church members.

 

I'm glad the church will find a new life. That is a pretty sobering reminder of why so many churches have been demolished over the years.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/pdf/NW_Meeting_Agenda2-25-14.pdf

 

Near West Design Review District

Agenda

(8:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 25th, 2014)

Dollar Bank, 3115 West 25th Street

 

NW 2015-002: Tremont Black Townhouses ©

1003-1009 Fairfield Avenue & 2170-2180 West 10th Street

Project Representatives – Aaron Taylor, Vision, Inc.; Jesse Grant, JRoc

Development; Bill Neburka & Carrie Strickland, Works Partnership

Architecture

Proposed construction of two wood-framed, 3-story residential buildings containing

a total of 8 townhouse units, attached parking and roof decks.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/pdf/NW_Meeting_Agenda2-25-14.pdf

 

Near West Design Review District

Agenda

(8:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 25th, 2014)

Dollar Bank, 3115 West 25th Street

 

NW 2015-002: Tremont Black Townhouses ©

1003-1009 Fairfield Avenue & 2170-2180 West 10th Street

Project Representatives – Aaron Taylor, Vision, Inc.; Jesse Grant, JRoc

Development; Bill Neburka & Carrie Strickland, Works Partnership

Architecture

Proposed construction of two wood-framed, 3-story residential buildings containing

a total of 8 townhouse units, attached parking and roof decks.

 

Awesome! Was waiting for the shoe to drop. This is where the old gas station sits at Fairfield and W 10th. Sixcity posted about the property transfer last October:

 

So...here's a nice lil' nugget.

 

2 high-ish profile parcels in Tremont changed hands on 05-AUG-14:

004-12-108 & 004-12-001 were acquired by 1001 FAIRFIELD LLC from Gillota Fuel Products, Inc..  Each sold for $197,500.

 

1001 FAIRFIELD LLC was incorporated 4/08/2014 by an attorney at Walter Haverfield LLP who specializes in real estate development/real estate law.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:2285157

So...here's a nice lil' nugget.

 

2 high-ish profile parcels in Tremont changed hands on 05-AUG-14:

004-12-108 & 004-12-001 were acquired by 1001 FAIRFIELD LLC from Gillota Fuel Products, Inc..  Each sold for $197,500.

 

1001 FAIRFIELD LLC was incorporated 4/08/2014 by an attorney at Walter Haverfield LLP who specializes in real estate development/real estate law.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:2285157

 

Where are these parcels?  They are occupied by the gas station and the adjacent house at the corner of Fairfield and West 10th, a pretty sexy corner of Tremont.

 

Here are some maps:

 

Unless more property than this will be involved, how in the world are they going to get eight townhouses (four are 2,100 sf, four 1,395 sf) squeezed into this site??

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2015/crr03-09-2015.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

MARCH 9, 2015

 

(one example)

1001 Fairfield LLC., owner, proposes to erect a 2100 square foot single family townhouse unit on a

proposed 1,110.5 square foot lot in a C1 General Retail Business District. The owner appeals for relief

from the following sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04 which states that the maximum gross floor area of a building in a “C” Area

District cannot exceed ½ the lot area. In this case 555 square foot maximum gross floor is

permitted and 2,100 square feet are proposed. Also, 4,800 square foot lot is required for a

single family house and 1,121.4 is proposed. This section also requires a minimum street

frontage of 40 feet and 21’-6” are proposed.

2. Section 353.01 which states that the maximum permitted height is 35 feet and 39 feet are

proposed.

3. Section 357.08(b)(1) which states that the minimum required rear yard is 20 feet and a 10

foot rear yard is proposed.

4. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that an interior side yard equal to ¼ the height of the

main is required and no interior side yard is proposed. (Filed January 26, 2015)

 

(another example)

9:30

Calendar No. 15-012: 1001 Fairfield Ave., Lot 5 Ward 3

Joe Cimperman

14 Notices

1001 Fairfield LLC., owner, proposes to erect a 1,395 square foot single family townhouse unit on a

proposed 752.9 square foot lot in a C1 General Retail Business District. The owner appeals for relief

from the following sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04 which states that the maximum gross floor area of a building in a “C” Area

District cannot exceed ½ the lot area. In this case 376 square foot maximum gross floor is

permitted and 1,395 square feet are proposed. Also, 4,800 square foot lot is required for a

single family house and 752.9 are proposed. This section also requires a minimum street

frontage of 40 feet and no street frontage is proposed.

2. Section 353.01 which states that the maximum permitted height is 35 feet and 39 feet are

proposed.

3. Section 357.08(b)(1) which states that the minimum required rear yard is 20 feet and no rear

yard is proposed.

4. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that an interior side yard equal to ¼ the height of the

main is required and interior side yards of 3 and 0 feet are proposed.

5. Section 349.04(a) which states that one accessory off-street parking space is required and no

independent access to on-premises parking is provided (Filed January 26, 2015).

^ Wouldn't the gross floor space include the first floor garage? 2100 sqft gross means 700 sqft per floor (3 floors). That works out to roughly 21.5 ft x 33 ft dimensions. The variance request mentions the 21.5 ft frontage.

 

The gas station parcel is about 90x50 ft. You could easily fit 4 townhomes across, fronting Fairfield.

 

Could the smaller units just be condos in the existing brick building? I just skimmed the variance request.

4, 3 story 20x40 townhouses up to the property line on Fairfield, 18' wide drive running east west, 4, 3 story 20x20 townhouses along south property line of the existing painted red brick building.  No setbacks at any property line.

^ I see. So they intend to demolish the brick building.

^ Yes, they intend to demolish it. They kept mentioning in the block club meeting that it was in terrible shape on the inside and they were shocked that people actually lived in it. I'm sure it was to soften the fact that they wanted to demo an old building but there was really no push back on it. Questions that came up were about drainage, tree lawn landscaping, and snow removal from that small dead end driveway.

^Good info Sammy.  Thanks.

^ Yes, they intend to demolish it. They kept mentioning in the block club meeting that it was in terrible shape on the inside and they were shocked that people actually lived in it. I'm sure it was to soften the fact that they wanted to demo an old building but there was really no push back on it. Questions that came up were about drainage, tree lawn landscaping, and snow removal from that small dead end driveway.

 

Ugh. That's a good looking brick structure. It saddens me that the block clubs are being overrun by people that have little regard for the historic nature of Tremont. The push to replace buildings that have stood for decades, or a century even, are beginning to be replaced with crammed structures that probably won't last much longer than the tax abatements they come with is disappointing. It is far more intelligent to keep solid structures, gut them and make solid apartments that will last another 100 years. I understand building disposable town homes that don't fit my taste on vacant lots, but it's very unfortunate to take down building that can't be replaced or replicated so the builder can sell more units. Today's overpriced townehome will be tomorrow's absentee landlord owned apartments with failing maintenance. The builders only care about initial sales and clearly not the future of the neighborhood. Their disregard of it's past is a clear indicator of that.

I think you're overselling that building a little.  It's old, and it's brick, and I'm a sucker for both, but it really doesn't have any special detailing or anything that makes it particularly unique or interesting.  I'd be happy if it stayed and got renovated, but I'm not going to shed a tear over it making way for new townhouses.

 

edit- also, and this is just my semi-educated guess, I would imagine that it is probably expensive and difficult to redevelop that gas station lot without being able to build on the lot this building is on, as well.  It allows more to be built and so more profit to be made off of the considerable pain and expense of redeveloping a gas station's lot, and allows the parking drive to be double loaded instead of single loaded, sharing that expense between more units.

If this doesn't qualify as interesting or unique, you must have a much higher threshold than I:

 

Image:

The only reason that building has any semblance of respectability is that it has been there for 75 years.  But just because something is old does not make it significant however.  If a new building was built with the same design as that (which it easily could) this board would be up in arms due to its small windows, blank facade at sidewalk level, and flimsy parapet.

I mourn the loss of old buildings as everyone else does here, and I have reservations on the design and site plan for the new Tremont Black, but getting 16 more people living in the neighborhood is an acceptable trade in my opinion.

But just because something is old does not make it significant however.

 

I completely disagree. Standing 75 years is an achievement in itself and is a testament to the construction--especially when neglect should have shortened the life of the structure. Modern code and materials are making less solid structures. Adding 16 people to the neighborhood who take it personally when you argue for rehabilitation over demolition will only lead to more of these old structures being lost forever.

 

What's pretty is a matter of opinion. Materials are a fact. The loss of this brick building is a loss for the neighborhood.

I really dig the Dutch-style stepped gable, so I'd probably miss this building more than most, but it's all about the trade-off. Getting a gas station site developed is a huge win.  Fingers crossed the townhouse design looks better than most of the meh garag-y stuff we've been seeing.

Wow, I don't remember it having that Dutch-style gable. Sure wish there was a way of incorporating that structure into the new development.

Standing 75 years is an achievement in itself and is a testament to the construction.

 

I'm usually the first to want older stock repurposed and saved because that was the impetus for people to invest in the area. This building, though - if we have to let something go in that vicinity for new construction, I can live with it. As you pointed out, it's been there for quite some time but 75 years old in this area is notable but hardly "an achievement". I live in Tremont and our home is almost 120 years old. Aside from this building's age, it's not remarkable aside from the parapet and even with that, there are finer examples in Tremont and other neighborhoods.

Just an FYI, I don't know exactly how old that building is.  It may very we'll be older than 75.

The building would look fine with large windows along the sidewalk. Would make a good storefront too.

Looks like there was actually a storefront there at some point.

Standing 75 years is an achievement in itself and is a testament to the construction.

I live in Tremont and our home is almost 120 years old. Aside from this building's age, it's not remarkable aside from the parapet and even with that, there are finer examples in Tremont and other neighborhoods.

 

Well, if we're gonna go that way, I live in Tremont too and my home is 140 years old. When I bought in 2004, the neighbors were trying to get it condemned and torn down. I've gutted and rehabbed the entire structure and it's value is more than double what I paid. I have a soft spot for old architecture and don't immediately take the developers word for it that the building is too far gone. I don't portend to be "qualified" to decide what is a finer example, but we can agree that once this building is gone, it is gone...

 

Tremont is almost out of vacant lots--a good thing, no doubt! But we need to be thoughtful in the coming years as the small cottages and boxy storefronts get the developers dreaming of bulldozers and high density for sale units. In the long run, it's the historic quality of the housing stock and the old Cleveland feel of Tremont that will set us aside from other neighborhoods. If you want new and dense, there is Battery Park. Old (or new) and dense, move downtown. You want a pre-war home with a yard, a park and lots of stuff to walk to all within spitting distance from downtown--that's Tremont.

So the CPC Agenda may be inaccessible from the web portal but lucky for all of you, I'm slicker than that and found a work around.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/03062015/

 

The Tremont Black Townhomes

 

NW2015-002 – Tremont Black Townhouses New Construction

Project Address: 1003-1009 Fairfield Avenue & 2170-2180 West 10th Street

Project Representatives: Aaron Taylor, Vision, Inc.

Jesse Grant, JRoc Development

Bill Neburka, Works Partnership Architecture

 

 

Just a note - I hate the use of corrugated metal on structures.  It makes them look so cheap.  I can't wait until that trend it out of style.

I'm impressed with the density. But yes, I agree that corrugated metal looks cheap. It kind of reminds me of the makeshift homes in shanty villages I saw when I was in Africa.

Nice work digging up the renderings/plans!  I really like the site plan.  Nice to see those garages hidden in an interior court.

I think the renderings are cool. But the way these are situated to the house next door, well, something about it bothers me. Instead of integrating, it gives the impression the house is being walled off.

Those look downright third world.  Like they're made from shipping containers.  Red flags also include the terms "exposed concrete" and "panel."  There's even panels full of holes, which look ideally suited for building your own dirtbike trailer.

There is little modern construction in the historic district in Tremont. This would really stand out at that intersection. I like the modern shape. Not a fan of the ribbed metal panels either.

 

Ugh, I can appreciate a more modern approach when it's done well, but these are dreadful and agreed - I thought "who knew Tremont was getting shipping container homes?". Or "does Cincinnati know someone hacked off part of their new Dunnhumby headquarters and shipped the pieces up to Cleveland?".

Tomorrow's tenements...the four in the back for sure.

I was gonna say those look pretty 'bad ass'...guess I'll just quietly keep that to myself..lol

I was gonna say those look pretty 'bad ass'...guess I'll just quietly keep that to myself..lol

 

I like the general design, I just hate the use of the corrugated metal.  With a change of materials I think these could be top notch.

I was gonna say those look pretty 'bad ass'...guess I'll just quietly keep that to myself..lol

 

I like the general design, I just hate the use of the corrugated metal.  With a change of materials I think these could be top notch.

 

Exactly.  There are some cool elements to the design, like those giant windows.  But living in an industrial city doesn't mean living in tool sheds.  The factories are down yonder by the river, while this is supposed to be a quaint historic neighborhood.  Design standards would be as appropriate here as anywhere in the city.  Are there none at all? 

I think those look pretty damn cool. Why does it matter if they don't integrate with the rest of the style of the houses in Tremont? The pop and contrast makes it even more interesting. I can't believe people already are condemning these as future slums because of the use of some materials. What proof do you have this would even be the case here? Cleveland has great old styles of houses from the past....the past.....but those can live next to new styles just fine.

They'll be future slums, then the yuppies of the 2120's will become enthralled with their historic 21st century architecture, snap them up for cheap, and renovate them.

...

Just a note - I hate the use of corrugated metal on structures.  It makes them look so cheap.  I can't wait until that trend it out of style.

 

I believe they said the corrugated metal was chosen because it went along with "the vertical flow of the neighborhood"... I think that was a runner up neighborhood slogan one year. Tremont - The Neighborhood with Vertical Flow

I believe they said the corrugated metal was chosen because it went along with "the vertical flow of the neighborhood"... I think that was a runner up neighborhood slogan one year. Tremont - The Neighborhood with Vertical Flow

 

Something is wrong if he needs pretentious bullcrap to convince people it looks good. 

With better materials these might fit in nicely, and they wouldn't be the only modernist housing in the northern part of Tremont. 

 

I think the gray color is problematic.  Maybe it's just me, but I prefer warmer exterior colors.  Browns, reds, yellows.  When it's so cold here for so much of the year, I think those colors have a positive psychological impact.  They also blend in better with existing brick and sandstone structures.  Instead, parts of this design blend seamlessly with its own driveway, while other parts are more of an asphalt hue.

i like them a lot, but as was mentioned it all comes down to the materials and quality of construction.

I heard on good authority JRoc has read the boards opinions and is taking the project in a new direction.

 

Here is a model of the new proposal:

 

 

I think these developers need to take a walk around the neighborhood and take some tips from some of the modern new construction in the neighborhood.  Like this:

 

Hope that "inspiration walk" does not pass what appears to be new construction on the right hand side of that pic.  From the rear it looks like an army barrack (and a cheaply constructed one at that).

^That's a back alley multi-family and it's been there for as long as I can remember.  Likely just some new skin on old bones.

 

EDIT - Zillow lists it as being built in 1870.  Not so sure about that, but it's safe to say it wasn't built within the last 25 years.

I think those look pretty damn cool. Why does it matter if they don't integrate with the rest of the style of the houses in Tremont?

 

I think I used the term "integrate." If so, I didn't really mean that it had to look like its surroundings. In this case it seems to ignore the house next door, or at least that's the perception I'm getting from the rendering; that it's not giving enough space to the existing house.