who votes on this?

This definitely has Cranley's hands all over it.  If they don't let residential units go on the largest remaining site they are complete idiots.  

5 minutes ago, seaswan said:

who votes on this?

 

Cincinnati Planning Commission and then City Council. It will probably go through since city council already approved a music venue to go on that lot. 

 

There objection was about the hilltop relocation, but since that's not part of the equation anymore council will probably approve the zoning change that was needed regardless. 

Like, what’s the logic behind eliminating residential uses for Lot 24? Surely the city had to provide some reasoning for this change, however flimsy? 

When Cranley is involved, it's always about setting up a sweetheart deal for one of his cronies.  Period.  

Portune to Cranley: ‘Stop what you’re doing’ on music venue, Banks

 

Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune said Thursday that Mayor John Cranley should quit trying to obstruct the construction of a music venue at the Banks, and, instead, the city should work collaboratively as it has done previously to redevelop the balance of the riverfront project.

 

“This declaration of war by the city against the county at the Banks has got to stop,” Portune said. “This illogical focus on destroying all of that that is coming out of City Hall … is nothing short of unconscionable. As long as I’m here, this project is so important to our future.”

 

The county believed that approval of the needed zoning change was all but a formality after a unanimous 2018 council vote OKing the project. But the city’s latest shot across the county’s bow came Wednesday night at a city staff zoning conference. Such conferences typically precede a planning commission meeting to consider zoning changes. The county has asked for a special planning commission meeting for Nov. 8 to keep construction of the venue on schedule.

 

Instead of moving forward on rezoning of Lot 27, where the music venue is set to be to be developed by Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra subsidiary Music and Event Management Inc., the city proposed rezoning the existing vacant lots at the Banks in a way that would bar the music venue and remove residential zoning from Lot 24. A mixed-use project that includes housing has been proposed for Lot 24. Lots 24 and 27 are owned by Hamilton County, as is every other vacant lot between Freedom Way and Mehring Way. It would be highly unusual for the city to rezone property against the wishes of the property owner.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/10/31/portune-to-cranley-stop-what-you-re-doing-on-music.html

Does john cranley have a mental disorder? I'm being serious.

3 minutes ago, troeros said:

Does john cranley have a mental disorder? I'm being serious.

No. He has an over-inflated competitive spirit, especially for politics. He doesn't like to "lose" and he has continually lost to Todd and Denise on this from the beginning. Not his preferred music venue operator, not his preferred lot, tried to kill it with the hilltop nonsense and couldn't. So, he keeps going. Same as we saw and continue to see with the streetcar. 

6 minutes ago, brian korte said:

No. He has an over-inflated competitive spirit, especially for politics. He doesn't like to "lose" and he has continually lost to Todd and Denise on this from the beginning. Not his preferred music venue operator, not his preferred lot, tried to kill it with the hilltop nonsense and couldn't. So, he keeps going. Same as we saw and continue to see with the streetcar. 

 

Hes about to leave office soon though...why does he care so much? Is he that bored with day to day real important city politics that he has to continue to entertain himself with his new favorite pet monkey? I think he might have a personality disorder and obsessive compulsion disorser. Seems very odd and he should probably seek help.  

 

 

Edited October 31, 20195 yr by troeros

City proposes scuttling major part of ’07 Banks cooperation agreement with the county

 

 

Mayor John Cranley and City Manager Patrick Duhaney want to sever two of the seven remaining undeveloped lots on the western side of the Banks and put them solely under city control while also barring residential development at another lot where an apartment project already is proposed.

 

The plan is a major departure from the landmark 2007 agreement that ended city-county fighting on the project for more than a decade. It requires the city and county to agree on plans for each phase of the city’s central riverfront.

 

It could be the latest battle in what’s become an all-out war between Cranley and the county over the future of the city’s riverfront.

 

What’s unclear is whether Duhaney and Cranley intend to hold up a needed zoning change for a Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra-developed music venue if the county will not agree to the city’s terms.

 

Holly Stutz Smith, a spokeswoman for the mayor, and Casey Weldon, a spokesman for the city, declined to directly answer that question. But prepared statements issued by Smith and Weldon in Cranley and Duhaney’s names seemed to link the two. And the city’s draft of changes to the 2007 agreement that would allow the music venue to go forward includes the proposals.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/01/city-proposes-scuttling-major-part-of-07-banks.html

This is what Cranley has repeatedly done the entire time he's been in office. No one should be surprised he's now doing it with The Banks. Watch all of the remaining lots be given to developers who have donated to Cranley's campaign.

For christ's sake Cranley, you LOST, the music venue is going on lot 27.  An office building is already going in on lot 26, a cheaper micro-apartments type building would certainly fill better than the expensive residential options at The Banks now.  What a turd

 

Also, can council stop the mayor and manager from killing a zoning change? Or is this an executive decision?

Edited November 1, 20195 yr by 10albersa

Quote

 

Cranley and Duhaney maintain the potential amendments to the county-Bengals lease will require Banks parcels to remain parking lots to meet the amended agreement’s requirements.

“The only way to reverse that and restore city property rights is to make sure the county can’t stop future development on these lots,” Duhaney said in a prepared statement. “That’s why we are requesting that Lots 1 and 13 be removed from the agreement.”

The county has said repeatedly that the city’s interpretation of the amended lease is incorrect, that the agreement’s express purpose is to complete the Banks, including Lots 1 and 13.

The county should have to explain why they think the city’s interpretation is incorrect. It’s really a math problem about surface parking that should have a yes or no answer. 

 

Quote

In addition to carving Lots 1 and 13, which are north of Paul Brown Stadium, from the 2007 agreement and placing them solely under city control, Duhaney and Cranley proposed constraining redevelopment of county-owned Lot 24 by barring residential structures there.

A developer has proposed to build a mixed-use development on Lot 24 that would include multifamily housing. Cranley had wanted the music venue to be located on Lot 24, an idea the county turned down.

“The county opposed a music venue on Lot 24 because it is the only remaining lot without height restrictions,” Duhaney said in his initial prepared statement. “Since current residential units at the Banks are not full, we should preserve Lot 24 for its highest and best use, which is a major job/office development.”

the legal right to develop residential should have nothing to do with vacancy rates in the rest of the neighborhood 

I don't see why the county would agree to this.  Perhaps Cranley is hoping that Portune's replacement will be one of this stooges.  Then he can sell these lots for pennies to one of his cronies.  

 

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

For christ's sake Cranley, you LOST, the music venue is going on lot 27.  An office building is already going in on lot 26, a cheaper micro-apartments type building would certainly fill better than the expensive residential options at The Banks now.  What a turd

 

Also, can council stop the mayor and manager from killing a zoning change? Or is this an executive decision?

So the timeline on this is that the County submitted a PD Plan amendment that changed the use of Lots 23,27 and 28 for the music venue.

 

At the Pre-hearing conference this week, the city advanced a completely alternative request related to the PD request from the county. An initial story on this referenced the Department of Community and Economic Development being involved in advancing the alternate scheme to remove residential from Lot 24 which was not addressed in the submission at all. If you want to read the submission, knock yourself out, its 209 pages long! 

 

When the Planning Commission meets on this (either the 8th or the 15th) they will make a recommendation to City Council on whether the amendment should be approved or not.

City Council will ultimately make the final decision. It will be sent to the Economic Growth and Zoning Subcommittee before being brought before the full council for a vote.

 

There are a few points were change can occur. 1.) Staff changes their recommendation prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 2.) Planning Commission can recommend with conditions for change. 3.) Council can make changes but may need to override a Mayoral veto if possible/necessary.

 

What is weird is that this not typical zoning practice. Typically the proposal is judged on the merits of the application. This level of horse trading with uses on the staff end is highly unusual and not typically done unless there is some solid foundational backing (i.e. a plan or report showing conditions or public will has changed). Removing Residential as a permitted use has nothing to do with the market. It's usually not the city's prerogative to take a use off the table becuase of vacancy. That's typically the market making that call. 

 

Finally I firmly believe this is legally flimsy (although I am not a lawyer) for a few reasons.

 

1.) Who initiated the zone change? Typically an applicant, city council, or the Planning Commission can initiate a zone change. I think the city could use the PD application from the county as a cover but its pretty weak. As I stated above.

 

2.) Is this is a regulatory takings? Eliminating residential is a takings within the PD. Typically the applicant makes changes to PD's or a zone change for applicable property, not adjacent property. It would be like if I rezone my house multi-family so the city randomly decides to rezone adjacent properties commercial. They have the power to do that, but it's outside of my initial application so there is no standing to do that. The way the city's zoning code treats amendments to final PD's is the same as a zone change so these rules apply.

 

TLDR: The Mayor is making a hail mary pass to stop the music venue, punishing the rest of the Banks in the process. It's designed to punish the county at the expense of the overall development and/or engulf the music venue in a legal and political quagmire thus further delaying construction start and costs all around.

 

Sounds like a win/win to me. ?

https://www-bizjournals-com.research.cincinnatilibrary.org/cincinnati/news/2019/11/05/portune-cranley-strike-a-deal-on-developing-the.html

 

Quote

The city and county will work together on options to place decks over Fort Washington Way.

 

This is the first time in a LONG time I've heard this mentioned. In the end everything seems to have worked out pretty well. 

37 minutes ago, seaswan said:

https://www-bizjournals-com.research.cincinnatilibrary.org/cincinnati/news/2019/11/05/portune-cranley-strike-a-deal-on-developing-the.html

 

 

This is the first time in a LONG time I've heard this mentioned. In the end everything seems to have worked out pretty well. 

 

This would be AMAZING ❤️

Wow, this news went from bad to great...  The county only gave up lots 1 & 13, which they were just going to make greenspace anyway.  The city sounds like they'd do more with them.

8 hours ago, 10albersa said:

Wow, this news went from bad to great...  The county only gave up lots 1 & 13, which they were just going to make greenspace anyway.  The city sounds like they'd do more with them.

 

Lots 1 and 13 are the ones just west of Phase II, they were going to be mixed-use, office and hotel:

 

This agreement is great. I'll be a bit more relieved when its formally adopted and things start moving forward again.

 

One weird thing about this deal is the "potential" development of the third and central lot. My impression this is the former dunhumby HQ that was demo'd a few years back. If so, it's not the first place I'd select to build anything due to all the highway ramps. It was a peculiar bargaining chip but the Mayor played it well.

 

It does seem like DCED and the rest of the city administration has plans/developer interest for other parts of the Banks. If this accelerates good mixed-use at the site its a huge win. We'll see!

So is the music venue somehow not going on lot 28?  It's not mentioned at all in that article. 

54 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

So is the music venue somehow not going on lot 28?  It's not mentioned at all in that article. 

 

The article does say that the venue will continue as currently planned, on Lot 27:

 

"A majority of the county commission would get what they want in the near term: A music venue and park on Lots 27 and 23 and the sole right to develop a mixed-use structure on Lot 24, including residential. "

Yeah so is lot 28 somehow not going to be used for the music venue or park?  Are they going to build the garage parking deck only on lots 27 and 23 then leave the little corner of lot 28 not built?  I find that hard to believe.  

Yeah from the renderings, you can tell that not much is going to be put on that lot. 

7 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

Yeah from the renderings, you can tell that not much is going to be put on that lot. 

Lot 28 could be the perfect spot for a gondola to Covington: 

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/gondola-at-the-banks/

 

perhaps the Covington terminal could be further west as part of the IRS infill project 

Edited November 6, 20195 yr by thebillshark

I've always thought it would be better to do a Gondola closer to the Reds stadium and have one line go to Covington and one line to Newport. 

All gondola proposals will now be fought by the all powerful Big Ferris Wheel lobby 

Edited November 6, 20195 yr by thebillshark

Lot 28 will probably be the west section version of the Moerlein Lager House.

Cranley hopes to start redeveloping city-controlled Banks lots before leaving office

 

 

With the city obtaining development rights for two lots at the Banks via a deal struck between Mayor John Cranley and Hamilton County CommissionerTodd Portune, the city now has exclusive control of two prime pieces of real estate.

 

Cranley told reporters after City Council’s Wednesday meeting that it’s unclear what will happen with Lots 1 and 13 north of Paul Brown Stadium or what process the city will use to develop the lots.

 

“It’s too soon to know,” Cranley said. “I’m hoping we can get started before I leave.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/06/cranley-hopes-to-start-redeveloping-city.html

What about 26? When is the building supposed to break ground?

 

 

9 hours ago, jmblec2 said:

What about 26? When is the building supposed to break ground?

 

 

Sometime next summer. Hopefully sooner. Feel like if they wait too long that it won’t happen knowing how Cincinnati developments go. 

City Council poised to ratify Cranley-Portune deal on the Banks

 

 

Cincinnati City Council probably will approve the first of three ordinances on Thursday that would ratify a deal between Mayor John Cranley and Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune on how to develop the remainder of the central riverfront.

 

Council’s budget committee sent an ordinance to the full council that would amend the 2007 city-county cooperation agreement and divide the remaining undeveloped parcels up for development by either the county or the city.

 

“These are the legislative pieces that will allow the music venue to move forward,” said Luke Blocher, the deputy city solicitor involved in the negotiations.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/13/city-council-poised-to-ratify-cranley-portune-deal.html

Council gives key approval to first of three measures needed to make music venue a reality

 

Cincinnati City Council on Thursday unanimously approved an ordinance making major changes to the cooperative agreement with Hamilton County at the Banks, the first of three ordinances needed to allow a music venue to be built on the riverfront.

 

The amendments divide up the remaining undeveloped parcels up for development by either the county or the city.

 

The deal would allow a Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra-developed music venue on Lot 27, with green space that could be used for outdoor concerts on Lot 23, while the county also would have a free hand in developing lots 24 and 25. Meanwhile, the city will get control of lots 1 and 13 just north of Paul Brown Stadium. CSO subsidiary Music and Event Management Inc. is spending $26 million to build the venue, Mayor John Cranley said.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/14/council-gives-key-approval-to-first-of-three.html

 

Planning commissioner praises music venue design as panel OKs plans

 

The Cincinnati Planning Commission approved changes to the Banks’ concept plan Friday that will allow for a music venue to be built on the mixed-use riverfront development, the second of three city actions remaining to make the venue a reality.

 

Commissioner John Eby urged Music and Event Management Inc. not to alter the design of the venue as it gets closer to construction. MEMI is a fully owned subsidiary of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and will own and program the venue.

 

“This design is bold. I love it,” he said. “Please do not allow them to value engineer out the coolness of this building.”

 

The cost of the music venue has risen from $19 million to $26 million. The indoor seating capacity has gone from 4,000 seats to 4,500, said MEMI CEO Mike Smith. The venue will also feature outdoor concerts at the adjacent park to be built.

 

Cont

 

Oh boo hoo, you can still have the zoning and let the market decide where the space is practical.

 

Major downtown business owners object to more office space at the Banks

By Chris Wetterich  – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

Nov 20, 2019, 2:22pm EST Updated 3 hours ago

 

The owners of major buildings downtown objected to a plan set to receive a City Council vote to expand the amount of office space that would be allowed to be built at the Banks.

Neal Mayerson, owner of the Scripps Center at 312 Walnut St., said there is more than 1 million square feet of Class A office space downtown that is vacant. Meanwhile, rents have been stagnant for nearly three decades while expenses increase. He predicted it would hurt downtown property owners unless they were offered the right of first refusal for the new space.

MORE

Seriously those guys can stfu.  

Let the music play: Banks venue gets final approval

By Chris Wetterich  – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

Nov 20, 2019, 5:59pm EST Updated 20 minutes ago

 

The $27 million music venue set to go at the Banks has received all of the approvals needed from Cincinnati City Council to make the project a reality.

City Council unanimously approved on Wednesday changes to the Banks’ concept plan and a development agreement that will allow for a music venue to be built on the mixed-use riverfront development. On Nov. 14, it approved an ordinance making major changes to the cooperative agreement with Hamilton County dividing up the remaining parcels between the city and county.

 

MORE

I'm suspicious that the city/county land break-up is some sort of preparation for giving The Bengals prime development sites as an incentive to sign a new lease in the late 2020s.  I'm also suspicious that The Bengals will demand a new practice field so that the existing field can be made into a mixed-use development that they likewise will control. 

Do you think the Bengals want to actually develop something? It seems like all they care about is surface parking.

On 11/23/2019 at 1:51 PM, jmecklenborg said:

I'm suspicious that the city/county land break-up is some sort of preparation for giving The Bengals prime development sites as an incentive to sign a new lease in the late 2020s.  I'm also suspicious that The Bengals will demand a new practice field so that the existing field can be made into a mixed-use development that they likewise will control. 

 

"Hey...this winning the Super Bowl thing isn't really working out...let's get into land development!"

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

Do you think the Bengals want to actually develop something? It seems like all they care about is surface parking.

 

The LA Rams & Chargers are doing it at their new stadium.  

The Atlanta Braves moves out of DT Atlanta to the suburbs to have a site with development that they control. 

Nashville's soccer team is building development they control on the publicly-owned Nashville Fairgrounds.

FC Cincinnati is doing it here around their stadium.  

 

It's the trend and I think we should expect to give away valuable publicly-owned land in order to keep the team.  

 

So instead of begging for money so much any more it's now land-begging.

20 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

So instead of begging for money so much any more it's now land-begging.

 

I've always suspected that the Bengals insisted on having their practice field physically adjacent to the stadium so that they could build a new stadium there and ctrl-alt-del Paul Brown.  I doubt that Hamilton County voters will tolerate being taxed for yet another football stadium, especially if the land where Paul Brown is now is given to the team for several blocks of hotel and apartment development.  

 

Developing the existing practice fields seems more palatable to me, although whatever goes there will sort-of be tucked around a corner from downtown.  The team, of course, will demand a new practice field somewhere from the county, which is outrageous but a lot less outrageous than building a new stadium or leaving town.  

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Paul+Brown+Stadium/@39.0954471,-84.518698,596m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b14e8e995ab1:0x991715beb84d8bcb!8m2!3d39.0954576!4d-84.5160577

 

 

 

You can't fit a new stadium where their practice fields are.  That isn't nearly enough space.  And yeah any development on that site is going to be completely by itself surrounded by parking lots, bridges and highways.  Not exactly a desirable location.  

Maybe not an entire new stadium, but most of a new stadium. You could maybe do the same thing that they did with Cinergy Field and Great American Ball Park -- build most of the new stadium where the practice fields are today, and then when you get to a certain point, demolish the western part of PBS while you finish the new stadium.

Take a Bite Out of Crime

35 minutes ago, taestell said:

Maybe not an entire new stadium, but most of a new stadium. You could maybe do the same thing that they did with Cinergy Field and Great American Ball Park -- build most of the new stadium where the practice fields are today, and then when you get to a certain point, demolish the western part of PBS while you finish the new stadium.

 

Also, the much-debated "new music venue" - if we ever get to see a final site plan - might be positioned so as to physically block a Race - Madison bridge.  

 

It has been like a 30+ year goal of Cincinnati's blue bloods to minimize access to the Covington riverfront.  The deterioration of the Suspension Bridge is a dream come true.  

5 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Also, the much-debated "new music venue" - if we ever get to see a final site plan - might be positioned so as to physically block a Race - Madison bridge.  

 

It has been like a 30+ year goal of Cincinnati's blue bloods to minimize access to the Covington riverfront.  The deterioration of the Suspension Bridge is a dream come true.  

 

We do not need a Race-Madison bridge. And it isn't a goal of Cincinnati's "blue bloods" to block one because no one is even proposing one.

23 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

We do not need a Race-Madison bridge. And it isn't a goal of Cincinnati's "blue bloods" to block one because no one is even proposing one.

 

One was completely funded in 1994.  The money was shifted to Maysville just as the FWW/stadium/Banks plan took shape.  The FWW rebuild intentionally cut off the I-71S access to the Covington riverfront via the suspension bridge that the Rivercenter development depended on.  The center tube of the Lytle Tunnel originally led directly to Covington with zero or at most one signal.  That same trip now requires 5~ stop lights and a traffic circle.  

This is what got built with the funds originally allocated to a Race-Madison bridge...

 

There are already three bridges that go from Cincy into Covington.  But yeah we totally needed that fourth one....

Edited November 25, 20195 yr by Cincy513