1/9/2012 - Planning Study underway for E. 55th St. & Euclid Ave. intersection

MidTown Cleveland, Inc. is undertaking a planning study for the area surrounding the East 55th and Euclid intersection and we need your input. We ask that you click the link below and please take a few minutes to complete the survey. Your answers will help determine future improvements to our neighborhood!

 

(Please feel free to share with friends, too. Every opinion counts!)

 

East 55th / Euclid Crossroads Planning Study Survey

 

www.surveymonkey.com

 

Your link isn't working to the specific survey.

1/9/2012 - Planning Study underway for E. 55th St. & Euclid Ave. intersection

MidTown Cleveland, Inc. is undertaking a planning study for the area surrounding the East 55th and Euclid intersection and we need your input. We ask that you click the link below and please take a few minutes to complete the survey. Your answers will help determine future improvements to our neighborhood!

 

(Please feel free to share with friends, too. Every opinion counts!)

 

East 55th / Euclid Crossroads Planning Study Survey

 

www.surveymonkey.com

 

 

Your link isn't working to the specific survey.

 

Thanks, here is the link.

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MidTownCLEImpactSurvey

 

 

Let the dominoes continue to fall!

 

Columbus company plans data center development on city-owned land in Midtown Cleveland

Published: Monday, January 23, 2012, 2:00 PM 

Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city of Cleveland has its first potential buyer for land that state officials rejected last year for a regional psychiatric hospital project.

 

Superior Technology Partners LLC, based in Columbus, hopes to buy 2.25 acres of the nearly 14-acre site and build a data center there.

 

Cleveland City Council will consider legislation today to give the company an option on land along Chester Avenue between East 61st and East 63rd streets.

 

Now Superior Technology Partners could buy a slice of the property and build a $35 million to $40 million facility, which might comprise 80,000 square feet and create 40 "high-paying jobs," said Tracey Nichols, the city's economic development director.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/01/columbus_company_plans_data_ce.html

^ Just beat me to it!

Obviously good job news, and I of course would rather see a building on that windswept land which is just collecting liter at this time.  Still, why is it that I am picturing a one story bunker surrounded by a parking lot?

^ Just beat me to it!

 

Well let's still share in the excitement!

 

Much better than subsidized housing for our main blvd. 

Great to hear, but the end of the story really lays it down on how this company is limited in their operations: they have only existed for 1 year and have not yet built anything, anywhere yet, even though they "plan to" build in multiple second tier cities. Cleveland.com has made it their headline story. Generalized proposals shouldn't be headline news. I work in MidTown and have seen one too many deals fall through, and most have been more finalized than this. Nonetheless, it's great to hear of the possibility of a new business moving in.

 

"The year-old company, run by executives with experience in the data-center business, aims to own and run facilities in secondary, Midwestern cities. Kowal said Superior Technology Partners is focused on markets that need more data centers, as companies look to outsource server storage, credit-card processing and other services.

 

The company has yet to open a data center but is pursuing several opportunities, including new construction, acquisitions of existing buildings and joint ventures. The timeline for the Cleveland project is unclear."

^Are you suggesting that a $500 purchase option doesn't mean the deal is locked up??? 

 

I'm happy this, so far, is just a proposal for a stretch along Chester, because 40 employees in 80,000 of data center doesn't sound like the best use of Euclid Ave. frontage.

Doesn't the Euclid Corridor TOD zoning overlay require this to be "on the sidewalk" with first-floor mixed uses?

I actually got the feeling from the article that the specific 2.5 acre portion of the 14 acre parcel they are planning to build this on fronts Chester, not Euclid.

 

"Cleveland City Council will consider legislation today to give the company an option on land along Chester Avenue between East 61st and East 63rd streets."

^KJP was just responding to my relief that this project isn't proposed for Euclid.

 

^^Not if you get a variance.  Which, I'm guessing, is how Geis was able to build only two stories for the Midtown Tech Park.

 

From a quick read, the MMUD1 district (which covers Euclid from 55th to 79th) has a 10 foot max setback from the public ROW, requires buildings to be at least 3 stories high and occupy at least 80% of the street frontage, and requires residential buildings to devote 60% of ground floor to retail space or neighborhood amenities, like day care.  And actually, without a variance, it's not even clear a data center would be permitted on this part of Euclid, unless it's considered "Professional or administrative office."  The Chester frontage is covered by more permissive regulations.

Doesn't the Euclid Corridor TOD zoning overlay require this to be "on the sidewalk" with first-floor mixed uses?

 

No, it does not.  The page in the plan that lists actual zones (I gave page cites somewhere upthread) calls for straight industrial/commercial along most of Euclid, with mixed-use down toward E71st-E79th st (only).  This zoning conflicts a bit with the "MMUD" stuff.  The Geis structure pretty much fits the zoning plan.

^I think you're conflating the zoning with the master plan.  The zoning expressly prohibits industrial development along Euclid between East 40th and East 79th.  It permits residential/retail mixed use buildings and commercial buildings at least 3 stories high and with setbacks between zero and 10 feet from the ROW.  Limited industrial is allowed on the southern side of Chester west of 63rd, but only in, roughly, the northern half of the blocks b/w Euclid and Chester.

 

The MMUD requirements are summarized in this little doc: http://www.midtowncleveland.org/data/pdf/MTC%20master%20plan-zoning%20summaries.pdf

You can download the actual code here: http://www.landuse.law.pace.edu/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=1528

Yes, I'm referring to the zoning given in that same midtown.org doc.  My understanding is that as an "overlay" it was meant to supersede the previous actual code.  Recent developments suggest that it has, whether directly or through a pattern of variances.  It specifies mostly industrial/commercial from 55th to 71st.  With a couple of odd and tiny exceptions, residential and mixed-use are limited to the area bordering CCF.  We went through this in detail a few months ago... I guess it's worth figuring out which zoning plan actually applies there now, since they seem pretty radically different from each other.

^I'm trying to tell you that your "understanding" is incorrect.  As far as I can tell, there is no actual "overlay;"  The underlying zoning districts are the midtown mixed use districts 1 through 4 (MMUD1 - MMUD4).  The MMUD1 district covers both sides of Euclid Ave from East 40th to East 79th, permits mixed residential/retail and office/lab buildings throughout (with the requirements I described above) and prohibits industrial throughout.  I agree with you that variances can end up gutting that code to some extent (like the Geiss project). 

 

But the pretty pictures Midtown Inc draws in its master plan, the ones you are referring to, have zero impact on the zoning code or otherwise have any force of law.

Not certain I'm reading you correctly... are you saying the MMUD material in the document does have meaning, but the plot-by-plot zoning does not?  The MMUD material seems to paint in broad strokes and is worded in aspirational terms.  I'm not sure why they would go to the bother of producing all those meticulous zoning diagrams if the four MMUD's alone were sufficient to comprise "underlying zoning districts." 

 

Either Midtown Inc had the authority to override the previous zoning there or they didn't, I'm not sure either way, but in any event I doubt they would have "zoned" E40th to E79th as one giant chunk.

MMUD is the full zoning, here is the full ordinance:

 

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/cleveland_oh/codifiedordinancesofthecityofcleveland?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:cleveland_oh

Not certain I'm reading you correctly... are you saying the MMUD material in the document does have meaning, but the plot-by-plot zoning does not?  The MMUD material seems to paint in broad strokes and is worded in aspirational terms.  I'm not sure why they would go to the bother of producing all those meticulous zoning diagrams if the four MMUD's alone were sufficient to comprise "underlying zoning districts." 

 

Either Midtown Inc had the authority to override the previous zoning there or they didn't, I'm not sure either way, but in any event I doubt they would have "zoned" E40th to E79th as one giant chunk.

 

EDIT: X already re-posted the full MUDD code, but I had already typed out this long boring email so...

 

The MMUD stuff in second doc I linked to is the actual code and has legal authority: http://www.landuse.law.pace.edu/SPT--FullRecord.php?ResourceId=1528  The boundaries of the four different MMUD zones, each of which covers dozens/hundreds of parcels, is shown on page 3 of the Midtown doc (though it's not easy to see clearly) or is available on the city's GIS web site.  You can put "zoned" in quotes or doubt it, but as far as I can tell, that is the only zoning.

 

The MMUD stuff in the Midtown doc (on page 4) is just a very brief summary of what the MMUD districts allow to save people the trouble of reading the actual code, and the rest of the doc and the other master planning work by Midtown is just aspirational vision stuff, not zoning.  I'm not sure what you mean by "ploty-by-plot zoning" diagrams, but if you're referring to things like page 45 of the Midtown master plan pdf (http://www.midtowncleveland.org/data/pdf/MidTown%20Master%20Plan%202005%20Update.pdf), then (1) it s not a "zoning" diagram so shouldn't be called that :), and (2) has no legal authority at all, unless there's some vague design review guideline somewhere that mentions consistency with a master plan or something general like that, in which case, the legal authority is nebulous and second order at best.  But if you were thinking that those land use diagrams and master plans were legally binding land use restrictions themselves, I now understand better your angst about this area.  You'll be delighted to know they are not.

 

Even so, the master plan stuff isn't totally meaningless, because, in theory, in conveys to developers something about the expectations of local stakeholders, like Midtown, which controls some subsidies and has sway at design review.  Why do planners go to all the trouble to develop such elaborate plans when they don't have any legal force?  Because that's what planners like to do, and they get funding to pay for it.  Why does the city and local foundation community fund so much local master planning when so much of it gathers dust?  That's not a bad conversation to have.

The zoning was established to be in accordance with the master plan.  It would not exist without it.  That is part of the reason that master plans are made.

I'm actually not anti master plan, just tired of trite renderings of skinny people in suits sitting at outdoor cafes under blue skies.  Too many plans are lazy puff pieces that generate unreasonable expectations (and fat fees for middling design firms).  I'm happy to hear that this one was important for drafting the MUDDs, though it's also kind of sad that it took a 50 page master plan to get such modest form-based requirements off the ground.  It's also a bummer that the requirements weren't implemented further east.  That drug score on the SE corner of Euclid and 79th makes me irrationally angry.

Me too.  I guess that's a matter to take up with the Fairfax people, since it's on their side of 79th.

City Planning Commission

Agenda for February 3, 2012

 

Ordinance No. XXX-12(Ward 8/Councilman J. Johnson): Authorizing the Director of Economic Development to enter into a loan agreement for $600,000 with UDAG repayments to allow the City to hire a design firm to create specifications and construction estimates for a proposed new facility at 4501 Chester Avenue to house both the Third District Police Station and the Police Department’s Central Communications Facility.

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2012/02032012/index.php

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/09/cleveland_has_tight_deadline_t.html

 

Here is the plan from 1.5 years ago.  This might mean two new office buildings in University Circle.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/developer_drops_plan_to_remake.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A private developer has dropped plans to turn a blighted building into a business incubator in Cleveland's health and technology corridor.

Disappointing, but not really so surprising.  At this point I'd be OK if RTA/FTA just sucked up the giant loss their going to take and sold it for even less to Dunham.

Yep, that sucks. And yes I'm sure a park would bring as much economic dynamism and new ridership to RTA as a business incubator.  :roll: Pretty soon this area is going to have more in common with a wildlife refuge than a major urban center.

Yep, that sucks. And yes I'm sure a park would bring as much economic dynamism and new ridership to RTA as a park.  :roll: Pretty soon this area is going to have more in common with a wildlife refuge than a major urban center.

 

As soon as I read this on my phone and saw park, I started thinking Detroit.  I think the eastern side of Cleveland is not going to look too pretty in the next decade, and I am not just talking about all the dilapidated houses either.  Maybe the zoo can open up an exhibit on the east side where bears and lions can roam free.

BTW, I meant to say "business incubator" -- not "park" twice. I corrected my post above but not the quote by MissinOhio.

I'm not upset by this.  I think Dunham can create an interesting central park for the area, which ties to the early history of Euclid as a stagecoach line.

.... I don't.  I suppose it depends on what you consider 'interesting' and not to say that I have anything against the idea of a "central park" for MidTown.

I agree with X.  There are already huge tracts surrounding the Dunham Tavern city block that no one is currently fighting over.  In theory, they could provide the desired density (if there were demand), while allowing the Dunham block to be come a refuge and recreation area, not for lions and bears, but for workers and residents in the surrounding areas, should they ever be developed.  That shell of a building* clashes badly with the tavern, so lol, one of the two should come down.  Anyway, there is that other smaller building just east of the Tavern with an empty lot fronting Euclid and some sort of a preservation sign - not sure what is happening there.

 

* I had once fancifully suggested that the building shell be converted into a transparent building housing the Museum of Urban Infrastructure and Construction showing off its "innards" in much the same way that Juno the Transparent Woman, once showed off her insides down the street at the Health Museum, but now I think they should just put the building out of its misery and demolish it.

I could not be happier with this outcome. That is if RTA doesn't screw this up somehow and continue to be the slum landlord that it has been with 6611. Without Dunham this property will continue to be the focus of despair in Midtown for years to come. The neighborhood needs to move on. One massive eyesore down,  many more to go.

I could not be happier with this outcome. That is if RTA doesn't screw this up somehow and continue to be the slum landlord that it has been with 6611. Without Dunham this property will continue to be the focus of despair in Midtown for years to come. The neighborhood needs to move on. One massive eyesore down,  many more to go.

 

Then we can call Dunham Tavern the Little House on The (Urban) Praire

 

I'm not upset by this.  I think Dunham can create an interesting central park for the area, which ties to the early history of Euclid as a stagecoach line.

 

I don't mind a park for the Midtown Area, but is Euclid the best place for it?  I suppose if it is done right and people buy into it and develop around the area it might work.  I also feel between Stanard Farm, League Park, and various other "green areas" in this area, there's going to be a lot of "pasture."  I suppose that goes back to what KJP said about Little House on the Prairie.  If they can make it a Perk Park/Public Square type plaza, I'm all for it.  Alpaca farmland I think we can do without.

There's a lot of pasture in the area already from demolished commercial buildings, apartment buildings, cathedrals and single-family homes.

^Truth.  Remember the corner of E. 55th and Euclid before the Healthline came through?  We lost a lot of urbanity in this section of town just within the last decade.  Though the argument could be made that the bulidings needed to come down anyways, it's too late to have a conversation about saving them after they're demolished.  We have a district which is inbetween downtown and University Circle, with a building which has the potential to be repurposed and put to use as offices which would add foot traffic to this stretch of Euclid.  I would say that would be better than putting a park on Euclid.  It's ok to have density, and it's ok to seek an urban environment.  I've argued this before, but the Healthline's multiple stops in Midtown should call for more density- not less. 

 

As for the Dunham Tavern- it's a nice place to visit and to hold an event.  But I really hope that they don't get the building so it could be demolished for a park.  We have enough open space right now on what is supposed to be our main urban throughfare as it is.

Cleveland does not need another park, at all, anywhere.  Too much of the city has been reduced to pasture already.  Coals to Newcastle as they say.  What Cleveland needs is density.  Recognizable urbanity.  I might be OK with a truly massive park for the east side, something on the scale of Central Park or at least Mill Creek in Youngstown, which would be mostly forest and not open grass.  But even then, that shouldn't be along Euclid.  Euclid Avenue must be the city's primary showpiece thoroughfare.  It must be and it can be.  Any move away from that goal is a move in the wrong direction. 

 

Redeveloping this building would be a great idea.  Tearing it down for appropriate redevelopment would also be a great idea.  Tearing it down for nothing would be moving in the wrong direction.  Lack of city is the last thing we should want to showcase on our main street.   

^Totally agree! This is Cleveland's main street.... look at High street two hours to the south in Columbus. Continuous vital urbanity. Filled with institutions, shops, restaurants, housing, hotels etc.. That's what Euclid should be. A park on another street in the area is fine, but not here.

Cleveland does not need another park, at all, anywhere.  Too much of the city has been reduced to pasture already.  Coals to Newcastle as they say.  What Cleveland needs is density.  Recognizable urbanity.  I might be OK with a truly massive park for the east side, something on the scale of Central Park or at least Mill Creek in Youngstown, which would be mostly forest and not open grass.  But even then, that shouldn't be along Euclid.  Euclid Avenue must be the city's primary showpiece thoroughfare.  It must be and it can be.  Any move away from that goal is a move in the wrong direction. 

 

Redeveloping this building would be a great idea.  Tearing it down for appropriate redevelopment would also be a great idea.  Tearing it down for nothing would be moving in the wrong direction.  Lack of city is the last thing we should want to showcase on our main street.   

 

OK now I'm rethinking my position! ;) Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to tearing it down if it was to make a piece of land more attractive to potential developers. If getting rid of an eyesore and replacing it with a park here makes the remaining pastures nearby more attractive to development, then I'd be in favor of that too.

 

Thank you 327 for helping me see the error of my ways! :-D

Parks typically aren't open to further development and I'm not interested in making other lots attractive by putting a permanent gap there.  We just spent millions trying to spur non-grassy development on this stretch.  Let's not throw in the towel quite yet. 

I guess I want this building saved, and wouldn't mind it sitting vacant for another few years if something really awesome happened with this place.  The picture in the article from what I can remember was your typical shot from University Circle towards the skyline, you can clearly spot this building in that shot.  It is a huge building that adds a lot to the area.  All the space around this building is already gone, and like others have said, can be built upon if need is there.  This building can be saved, and can really turn into a successful mixed-use development of some sort.  I just think too much has already been lost in this section of the city, something like this really doesn't need to go.  Seemed so positive just a few months ago.

I wish this guy success....

 

MIDTOWN FARMERS MARKET ADDS NEW FOOD AND NEWS STAND

 

Customers entering Midtown Farmers Market on Carnegie Avenue will soon be greeted by the smells of fresh pastries and hot coffee at the market’s new news and food stand set to open in February.

 

Tony Mendolera owns the market and knows a thing or two about the food business.  His grandfather opened a store on Cleveland's east side in 1911 shortly after emigrating from Sicily. He started a family legacy that continues to this day.

 

http://www.neighborhood-voice.com/neighborhood-news/central/midtown-farmers-market-adds-new-food-and-news-stand/

I'm just sad there isn't enough demand for anything but a park for a 2.2 acres site right on the HealthLine and 1.5 miles from downtown Cleveland. (if you consider I-90 the border to downtown)

^Seriously. And very sad that blight removal in Midtown is the essentially the same as blight removal in the Forgotten Triangle: demolition and grass seeds. 

 

So everyone keeps saying "park" to describe Dunham's hope for expanding its property to include 6611.  Does this mean we expect the land to be generally open to the public, even when the museum is closed?  Or just that it will be green space?  I love that the house has been preserved (even if that's not its original location), but I'm still trying to decide how psyched I'll be if we really do end up with a 2.2 acre interpretive museum about early 19th century small town/rural frontier life right in the middle of the corridor.

I love that the house has been preserved (even if that's not its original location),

 

Isn't the whole point of Dunham that it is the oldest building in Cleveland that IS in its original location?

^Yeah, sorry, I think I'm wrong.  For some reason I had thought it was moved at some point in its history (though not far), but doesn't appear to be the case.

If the area around the Dunham continues to turn into empty prairie, then perhaps the Dunham can revert to its original function.  Every other healthline bus could be a stage coach, even!  :wink:

A so-called "park" need not necessarily discourage development on the same site. When several wonderful residential/commercial developments at Lee/Meadowbrook/Tullamore in Cleveland Heights fizzled out, the City took the parcel and made a temporary "park." The decrepit parking lot paving was removed, the foliage trimmed, and a picnic table or two added. Just enough put into it such that there's minimal public expense during the wait for another decent development plan.

 

However, if Dunham actually purchases this property, and demolishes the eyesore, I imagine that's that for the next 25 years. It's just such a shame the highrise was neglected to the point it became so extremely ugly and such a deterrant to the historic appearance of the Tavern. Nevertheless, it could once again look appearling - with big bucks and some imagination - and add a great deal to the vitality of the vicinity - particularly effective were it to spur other development around it.

Sorry that I don't understand, but what makes a building "decrepit"?  Was 668 Euclid decrepit before being rehabbed into a jewel of downtown housing?  Are a broken windows and graffiti the new definition for "eyesore" with "eyesore = cannot be fixed; must demolish"? 

 

If its already been said that the building is structurally unsound or in danger of collapse, then fine, tear it down before disaster occurs.  But I must be missing something here if even UO is for tearing this down?

CleB, UrbanOhio isn't a corporation or any kind of entity capable of expressing a single viewpoint. There are a lot of viewpoints here including yours, as you are a member of UrbanOhio just as everyone else here is. So please, keep sharing your views and moving the discussion forward as you have done. Thanks!