Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Views 195.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Judge rules in favor of city, Little Italy development By Ken Prendergast / October 6, 2021   A Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge has ruled that two residents of Cleveland’s Litt

  • The Woodhill Site Redevelopment goes before Landmarks tomorrow. 80 apartments, 80 parking spaces, and 17 townhomes along with a dog park, playground, and sculpture garden.

Posted Images

The Perotti's had previously proposed a six-story condo building next to where the new Mayfield RTA station was ultimately built: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,6542.msg280397.html#msg280397

 

Now they're eyeballing this site on the East Cleveland side of Lakeview Cemetery, but still barely inside the city of Cleveland...

3da64b2c2c82484fa3e45cccdad7dd5e.jpg

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2016/03182016/index.php

 

EUCLID CORRIDOR DESIGN REVIEW

 

EC2016-008 – Euclid Lakeview Apartments New Construction: Seeking Conceptual Approval

Project Address: 12408-12418 Euclid Avenue

Project Representatives: Bob Reighard, RDL Architects

Tim Perotti, Perotti Development

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I actually like the building to the right of that white building, but it'll probably come tumbling down. Nice to see development continue pushing east.

I agree!

CdxCSyEXIAU2abD.jpg:large

 

Cleveland may gain another apartment community at University Circle

March 17, 2016

By STAN BULLARD   

 

Plans for development of a three-story market-rate apartment project adjoining Lake View Cemetery will go before Cleveland Planning Commission on Friday, March 18, according to the commission’s agenda.

 

The proposed $7 million complex of five buildings at 12408-12418 Euclid Ave. would replace a two-story retail-apartment commercial structure and two industrial buildings.

 

The site’s south and west sides border the cemetery, which dates from 1869 and includes the James A. Garfield Monument, the tomb of the 20th president of the United States.

 

The project is proposed by Perotti Development Co. Plans by RDL Architects of Shaker Heights indicate the project would consist of 57 suites, including a mix of efficiencies, studios and two-bedroom suites.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160317/NEWS/160319829/cleveland-may-gain-another-apartment-community-at-university-circle?platform=hootsuite

 

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I was just about to mention this project in the U.C. thread, after seeing the renderings in the CPC agenda.  The bad news is that this project would replace the old two story retail/apartment building currently on the Euclid frontage of the site: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5159603,-81.5968589,3a,75y,101.09h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dmwjgwyGTb0OL_VRDCEEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Ah, I just noticed this is the same project KJP mentioned above. From that pic of the rear building, I didn't recognize the site.

 

EDIT: and we should probably move this to the University Circle thread. It's on the other side of the cemetery from LI.

^ Ugh. There's so much vacant developable space in this city and people are still tearing down charming old buildings that could easily be renovated.

Ugh, what is it with all the fence in that area?? It's not a good look to me. Hopefully, planning has them upgrade the look a little. It's very meh in those pics. Now after seeing the site plan, I hope they ask them to build up to the street. I swear...the developers in this town.

I was just about to mention this project in the U.C. thread, after seeing the renderings in the CPC agenda.  The bad news is that this project would replace the old two story retail/apartment building currently on the Euclid frontage of the site: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5159603,-81.5968589,3a,75y,101.09h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dmwjgwyGTb0OL_VRDCEEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Ah, I just noticed this is the same project KJP mentioned above. From that pic of the rear building, I didn't recognize the site.

 

EDIT: and we should probably move this to the University Circle thread. It's on the other side of the cemetery from LI.

 

I had lived in the townhomes across the street for two years, so I can say with confidence, there is nothing charming about the building that will be lost along Euclid here. The tenants are very undesirable, and there were constant problems which involved shouting matches between the balcony and the sidewalk. There was also a chop shop operating in the back and don't even get me started on that. The building itself is just not in great condition either. The storefronts have been empty forever, expect for when a business would open for a month, then close.

 

Ugh, what is it with all the fence in that area?? It's not a good look to me. Hopefully, planning has them upgrade the look a little. It's very meh in those pics. Now after seeing the site plan, I hope they ask them to build up to the street. I swear...the developers in this town.

 

As far as the fencing, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary in this area. If in ten years it changes, take it down. In the townhomes, we had lockable fences around the perimeter. Regardless, I had my chained/locked grill stolen from our patio, and we had people banging on our front door and garage door numerous times throughout the two years in the middle of the night- sometimes just to bang, scream, and jump in a car to drive away like a joke.

 

I think this new project is awesome and it's what the area needs. Unfortunately, I think the solar panel field that was built across the street kills a lot of hope for connectivity and development. That's not a pleasant walk back from Little Italy/UC at 11 o'clock at night along the cemetery and solar field fences. Hope this carries forward, though! Up next, the car dealership at Euclid/Lakeview.

 

Just my thoughts.

^Point taken. I don't begrudge any resident for being happy to see a neighborhood nuisance removed. But FWIW, tenants aren't inherent to the building. In different conditions (like, say, if retail space had value in that area), a gut rehab with new construction behind it would solve your problem just as effectively :).

^Point taken. I don't begrudge any resident for being happy to see a neighborhood nuisance removed. But FWIW, tenants aren't inherent to the building. In different conditions (like, say, if retail space had value in that area), a gut rehab with new construction behind it would solve your problem just as effectively :).

 

Yes, completely agreed. But, like you said, if the retail space had value. I just can't imagine what could have been if a major residential development placed itself where the power plant is now... retail space along Euclid Avenue. It could jump-start East Cleveland's heart, without a doubt. The potential is definitely there, but should of, could of, would of.. #Cleveland :drunk:

Retail space definitely has value in that area.  But how much were they charging for rent in a building they refused to maintain?  And what was the city doing to address the conditions and the vacancies? 

I liked that pretty buff-brick building.  It is one of the few viable mixed-use structures still standing/in use in East Cleveland.  Why tear IT down??

  • 1 month later...

f52d926c3e904120b9fbc514b3038050.jpg

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2016/04282016/index.php

 

 

Case 16-022

Little Italy Historic District

The Plum Market 12016 Mayfield Road

Storefront renovation and signs

Ward 6

Mitchell

Scott Neiswander

Bucchieri Architects

 

The_Plum_03.jpg

 

The_Plum_02.jpg

 

The_Plum_06.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

^ This project confounds me for a few reasons. Primarily, the name as Plum Market is an organic grocery chain out of Ann Arbor.  Plum does have an outpost in Chicago so they could be opening here, either now or down the road. This store doesn't look much like Plum's concept so I'll assume it isn't related. Unless this is related to that Plum, I don't see how they can use the Plum trademark for a market. Kinda reminds me of how Cheddar's on Detroit had to convert to Krazy Mac's due to trademark infringement.

 

Additionally, Plum Cafe just opened on Lorain. Is this Plum project related to that one? If not, I could see how someone could confuse the two concepts.

 

I do wonder how a market will do there and what kind they might go with. Spuzzillo's gave it a go and failed, although that wasnt much of a market. Murray Hill is just around the corner. Constantino's is in walking distance. Maybe it will be a more food hall like since gelato is shown in the plans.

Why did Anthony's close?

I was told that the person that owned it bought it for his wife because she wanted a restaurant, then, she no longer wanted a restaurant, so they closed it. 

NOOOOOOOOO ANTHONY'S WAS MY FAVORITE

The curbside appeal definitely gets and upgrade. I'm anxious to here what plum is all about. Highly doubt it's related to the Ohio city concept, I follow them on all social media outlets, they haven't mentioned it once

  • 2 weeks later...

Landmark Commission:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2016/05122016/index.php

 

3. Case 16-025

Little Italy Historic District

1958-60 East 123rd Street

Demolition and new construction of townhouses

 

Would involve demolition of the single story brick warehouse on the left and the 2 story house on the right.

 

 

At least the stone property is safe (for now).

I like it. Increasing density! And at least from the renderings, the way they frame it and break it up with the trees and islands, the driveways look more like a courtyard.

At least the stone property is safe (for now).

 

Were you at the meeting?  If so, can you recap?

 

So, this project will be stopped because of a 1 story blank walled brick building with a garage door as its only feature?  Excellent!

I'm all for density, but this sort of design sets a bad precedent for demo+new construction in Little Italy. I'd like to see the footprint configured so that the front unit has more street frontage. As is, you look into a big concrete parking lot/driveway. I'm very surprised that such a plan would make it this far. 

Were you at the meeting?  If so, can you recap?

 

So, this project will be stopped because of a 1 story blank walled brick building with a garage door as its only feature?  Excellent!

 

I believe he is referring to the 2 story building with stone facade just on the right edge of the renderings. The single story building with garage door is getting demo'd.

 

That stone looking building sold late last year. I don't know if his comment means the neighbors think it will be demolished at some point too.

Haha...I know nothing. I just meant with this development, the stone building is safe. But who knows about the future.

  • 1 month later...

Landmark Commission:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2016/05122016/index.php

 

3. Case 16-025

Little Italy Historic District

1958-60 East 123rd Street

Demolition and new construction of townhouses

 

Would involve demolition of the single story brick warehouse on the left and the 2 story house on the right.

 

 

Follow-up to the above....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2016/crr06-20-2016.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

JUNE 20, 2016

9:30

Calendar No. 16-120: 1958 & 1960 E. 123 Street Ward 6

Mamie J. Mitchell

16 Notices

1960 LLC., owner, proposes to add 4 new townhouses to existing industrial structure on one lot, in a

C1 Multi-Family Zoning District. The owner appeals for relief from the following sections of the

Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 357.06 which states that a 3’ front yard setback is required and no front yard is

proposed.

2. Section 357.08(b)(1) which states that a 23’ rear yard is required and no rear yard is

proposed.

3. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that 8 feet interior side yards are required on both sides

and none are proposed.

4. Section 353.02 which states that in a ‘1’ Height District 35 feet is the maximum height allowed

and the proposed building height is 45’-10”. (Filed May 17, 2016)

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

  • 2 months later...

Update on the prior posting.....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2016/crr09-19-2016.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2016

 

REHEARING FROM AUGUST 1, 2016

9:30

Calendar No. 16-120: 1958 & 1960 E. 123 Street Ward 6

Mamie J. Mitchell

16 Notices

 

1960 LLC., owner, proposes to add 4 new townhouses to existing industrial structure on one lot, in a

C1 Multi-Family Zoning District. The owner appeals for relief from the following sections of the

Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 357.06 which states that a 3’ front yard setback is required and no front yard is

proposed.

2. Section 357.08(b)(1) which states that a 23’ rear yard is required and an 8 foot rear yard is

proposed.

3. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that 8 feet interior side yards are required on both sides

and none is proposed on the south side.

4. Section 355.04 which states that the maximum gross floor area of building cannot exceed ½

the lot area which is 6,150 square feet in this case and more than 6,150 square feet are

proposed.

5. Section 353.02 which states that in a ‘1’ Height District 35 feet is the maximum height allowed

and the proposed building height is 45’-10”. (Filed May 17, 2016)ON AUGUST 1ST THE BOARD

GRANTED A VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT ONLY 3 UNITS WILL BE BUILT ON THE

SITE. THE APPELLANT HAS REVISED THE PLAN, REMOVED THE REAR UNIT AND IS NOW

PROPOSING 4 UNITS IN THE MAIN BUILDING.

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

  • 5 weeks later...

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2016/10132016/index.php

Cleveland Landmarks Commission

 

Case 16-057

Little Italy Historic District

2044 Random Road

Demolition and New Construction of Condos

 

Ward 6 Mitchell

Bluewater Partners

Kevin Dreyfuss-Wells

RDL Architects

 

A few of the many images at the above link:

 

2044_Random_Road_11.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_12.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_14.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_15.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_02.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_05.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_06.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_07.jpg

 

2044_Random_Road_08.jpg

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Condo building planned in Cleveland's Little Italy, near Murray Hill School complex (photos)

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Local investors are planning a five-story condominium building in Cleveland's Little Italy neighborhood, anticipating demand from downsizing suburbanites who don't necessarily want to jump on the rental bandwagon.

 

Bluewater Capital Partners, LLC, has signed a deal to buy a low-slung industrial building at 2044 Random Road, northwest of the red brick Murray Hill School complex. On Thursday, the Cleveland Landmarks Commission approved Bluewater's request to demolish the older building and replace it with a 26-unit condo project that might open in late spring of 2018.

 

Pricing could start at $475,000 and top out at $765,000, with most of the condos falling in the mid-$500,000s to mid-$600,000s. Units will range from 2,100 to 3,000 square feet.

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2016/10/condo_building_planned_in_clev.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

Ick. It looks like a collage of cheap facades.

Very random and generic.  It could be anywhere.  If you're going to do design review and neighborhood preservation, do it properly.

Finally---condos and not just apartments!

  • 2 weeks later...

Not entirely development related, but does anyone know what movie's being filmed in the old Woodhill Supply lot between Coltman and 123rd? That kind of activity doesn't bode well for further demo or future development on that site unfortunately.

Not entirely development related, but does anyone know what movie's being filmed in the old Woodhill Supply lot between Coltman and 123rd? That kind of activity doesn't bode well for further demo or future development on that site unfortunately.

 

Two Avengers movies were filmed in an abandoned bank. Now it's a stunning grocery store, and part of one of the largest, most amazing adaptive reuses in the country.

 

I don't see one act as a correlation to the timing of the other.

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Not entirely development related, but does anyone know what movie's being filmed in the old Woodhill Supply lot between Coltman and 123rd? That kind of activity doesn't bode well for further demo or future development on that site unfortunately.

 

This makes no sense. What does filming a movie on an empty lot have to do with whether or not that lot gets developed in the future? Filming only takes a few months at most.

Was the Woodhill Supply building demolished last year after the fire? It's been a couple years since the Visconsi apartment building was proposed. I don't recall hearing anything since then.

^I was wondering the same thing.  The Visconsi apartment buildings proposal was something I was very interested in from a personal standpoint and we have not heard anything in ages.

^^^I didn't mean to imply that the filming would completely prevent future development. I had heard a rumor recently that they were tearing down the remaining portion of Woodhill Supply, so that was either false or it's just being delayed. I was more curious if anyone knew what the movie was (which is why I said "not entirely development related") and if anyone had heard anything new about the site or the Visconsi project in general.

  • 1 month later...

Now arriving next to the new Red Line station:

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2016/12082016/index.php

 

Case 16-071

Little Italy Historic District

Mayfield Station 11913 Mayfield Road

New Construction of Apartments

Ward 6

Mitchell

Tim Perroti (Developer)

Paul Glowacki (Architect)

Dimit Architects

 

But, like the Mayfield Lofts plan that preceded it, why have a garage door next to a driveway next to the station's pedestrian entrance?? It's making a pedestrian experience less safe. The garage floor plan needs to be turned 180 degrees...

 

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

I like the density! Clearly it's primarily student housing (maybe some medical residents as well) given that there are 45 units (40 of which are less than 700sf) and only 16 parking spaces. With only 16 spaces, I'm not too concerned about safety with the garage door fronting on Mayfield - that's not adding a lot of traffic. I agree that it would be better if the parking plan was flipped 180 degrees, but with the grade change from front to back, this is the only configuration that would really make sense. Plus, I'd trade off a little extra car traffic for 45 units in that location any day. :clap:

Finally, honest to goodness, no doubt about it, high-density TOD (if anyone doubts this, consider the building's name).  Fantastic... I do agree with KJP in disliking the driveway right across the sidewalk connecting the Red Line station to the dense/crowded LI retail/residential district but, then again, perhaps a side or rear entrance car access is not available... If I were planning this area, E.119th's entrance onto Mayfield would disappear. I would seek to fill in that space with yet another mixed use building and force everyone to accees the remainder of E.119 from the rear...notwithstanding, Mayfield Station will be a great leap forward which highlights even further why the UC-Little Italy station relocation was RTA's finest project recent times.

This is a lot better than his first proposal.  Does anybody why that never materialized?

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2008/04/little_italy_condos_win_approv.html

 

I believe it had multiple curb cuts and was significantly smaller (~24,000 sqft) after Perotti was urged to cut the height from 70 to 60 feet, although I can't find the renderings anymore.

 

Although it would be nice to have the garage entrance in the back, as mentioned the existing grade would make it very difficult.  I also thought that the parking off E. 119th may be owned by Sidari's all the way south to Mayfield Rd., but I'm not sure of this.  EDIT: Never mind, I was incorrect, it looks like these spots are owned by Little Italy Development, LLC.

BTW, it's too bad the "Mayfield Station" that's printed on the north wall also couldn't be along the blank west wall outside of the garage level, facing the RTA station. Blank walls are evil. :)

"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck

Michelle's article relating to Mayfield Station made a quick mention of the Visconsi apartment project on East 123rd (Woodhill Supply) that has been silent for so long.  It is apparently involved in some sort of zoning litigation, although the article does not elaborate.  I would be interested to know what the issues are and who is opposing.  I did a quick internet search but could not find anything.  There is nothing in common pleas court (only did a search under "Visconsi Companies" and the actual project owner could be another named entity) so it might still be at the administrative level.

 

I have always been interested in this project on a personal level (like the location and interested in seeing how it actually develops for a possible move) and would like to see it move forward.

Michelle's article relating to Mayfield Station made a quick mention of the Visconsi apartment project on East 123rd (Woodhill Supply) that has been silent for so long.  It is apparently involved in some sort of zoning litigation, although the article does not elaborate.  I would be interested to know what the issues are and who is opposing.  I did a quick internet search but could not find anything.  There is nothing in common pleas court (only did a search under "Visconsi Companies" and the actual project owner could be another named entity) so it might still be at the administrative level.

 

I have always been interested in this project on a personal level (like the location and interested in seeing how it actually develops for a possible move) and would like to see it move forward.

 

I'm sorry the Woodhill Supply/E.123 project is hung up.  It is large, substantial residential project replacing an ugly industrial property.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.