If I'm Perotti, I would propose to buy the lot north of the site of Mayfield Station, to build a long/narrow, two-level parking structure with the structural capability of building residential or offices on top of it, reserve #X spaces in there for Mayfield Station and the rest for the general public, and then turn the ground floor of Mayfield Station into a leasable retail space. If a Starbucks or other coffee shop can't succeed there, I will eat my left foot.

^Census Tract 1188 which captures additional population a little west of the rail bridges but east of Euclid Ave.

 

Not quite sure where this is.  I'll have to consult a map later.

 

 

It basically includes Abington Arms, the Triangle Apartments, the homes on E115th, and just a few homes on the land just near the Cemetery in East Cleveland.

I sympathize with those seeking to maintain the charm of Little Italy (although I'd say we are pretty far beyond 4 story buildings ruining that charm).  Opposition to vertical development when there are an abundance of empty lots in the City can actually lead to more density.  Build out when available and built up only when necessary.  I think a lot of the density in and around Center City Philly can be credited to the previous height 'guidelines' allowing William Penn to keep watch over his forest. 

 

Plenty of cities have built densely without imposing height limits.  I don't think Cleveland needs them.  The only thing we need a limit on is anti-growth activism.  There's no charm in telling others to go away.  This city needs more people and this development will help bring them in.

We need a helluva lot more than what you think is "anti-growth activism".  It is extremely naïve to think otherwise.  And I don't know that we have any height restrictions.  I was just more commenting on the notion that you need height to have great density.  Not true at all..... especially here in Cleveland where are best pockets of density have very little height at all..... such as LI 

I sympathize with those seeking to maintain the charm of Little Italy (although I'd say we are pretty far beyond 4 story buildings ruining that charm).  Opposition to vertical development when there are an abundance of empty lots in the City can actually lead to more density.  Build out when available and built up only when necessary.  I think a lot of the density in and around Center City Philly can be credited to the previous height 'guidelines' allowing William Penn to keep watch over his forest. 

 

Plenty of cities have built densely without imposing height limits.  I don't think Cleveland needs them.  The only thing we need a limit on is anti-growth activism.  There's no charm in telling others to go away.  This city needs more people and this development will help bring them in.

 

Also Perotti's presentation demonstrates that, even at 6 floors in height, Mayfield Station will be shorter than the cupola at Holy Rosary church just a block away due to the slope of the street (to go under the Rapid + train tracks) and the building's lower level foundation.

^11.2 Black!?  Wow, LI really has changed.

I was confused about this comment until I remembered the racial tension from the past when it came to black people in Little Italy.

I see Perotti is coming back to BZA on May 1 with Mayfield Station. Does this mean he's had a chance to talk to community stakeholders and reassured them?

 

I don't see anything different with his request for a variance here:

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2017/crr05-01-2017.pdf

 

 

^Don't know if he engaged with the community but I believe Perotti asked for a continuance until May 1 at the last hearing when he saw things weren't going their way.

In that situation, is it customary to seek a continuance to a later date or to simply ask for the matter to be tabled indefinitely?

Perotti LLC wins zoning variances on controversial project in Little Italy

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2017/05/perotti_llc_wins_zoning_varian.html#incart_river_home

^I'm really glad this project is moving forward, but it strikes me as strange and sad that this small 40-unit building is deemed "controversial" and has elicited such angry comments about as highlighted in the article. Steve Litt notes that the debate over Mayfield Station highlights the "tension over the future" of Little Italy.  He also noted that Perotti downsized the project from 45 to 40 units.  So what is this debate really about?  Size?  Height? ... not really, apparently, for it will remain 6 stories.... Or is the real question what kind of people LI residents believe this type of building so close to a rapid transit station will attract?... As uncomfortable as it is to remember, one of the main reasons it took exactly 60 years go get the Little Italy Rapid station logically located to where it is centered on that very question.

I guarantee you that 90% of the negative commenters moved out to Mayfield, South Euclid and Lyndhurst decades ago.  They still own property there, but don't maintain it--and worry a brand new building is going to attract the wrong type of clientele (facepalm).

I just hope that this signals a small shift towards a better view of TOD by city leaders.

^^ I guarantee that many of them are actually in Chesterland at this point.

How ironic that people who don't own enough parking spaces are requiring their neighbor to build more parking spaces.

I'll bet you guys are right about squawking absentee landlords.  Anybody that knows LI knows that, for the last 2 or 3 decades, some of the most aggressively modernistic residential architecture has been in this tiny neighborhood, in addition to several substantial condo and townhouse projects.   

^I'm really glad this project is moving forward, but it strikes me as strange and sad that this small 40-unit building is deemed "controversial" and has elicited such angry comments about as highlighted in the article. Steve Litt notes that the debate over Mayfield Station highlights the "tension over the future" of Little Italy.  He also noted that Perotti downsized the project from 45 to 40 units.  So what is this debate really about?  Size?  Height? ... not really, apparently, for it will remain 6 stories.... Or is the real question what kind of people LI residents believe this type of building so close to a rapid transit station will attract?... As uncomfortable as it is to remember, one of the main reasons it took exactly 60 years go get the Little Italy Rapid station logically located to where it is centered on that very question.

 

NIMBY and / or gentrification worries.

This is pretty big news. This is on Mayfield in the former Club Corbo spot that was demolished a few years ago.

 

2. Case 17-029

Little Italy Historic District

Apartment Building 12302-04 Mayfield Road

Dominick Durante

LDA Architects

Michael Panzica

Hemingway Development

 

Lot more pics here: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2017/05112017/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

Wow... I did not expect infill there for a while.  I am pleasantly surprised!  I would think the demand for this kind of apartment living in Little Italy must be huge, as there is so little supply

I can hear the heads exploding in Little Italy from here.

I had the exact same thought....."Oh No...more growth" 

It doesn't have enough parking, it's too tall, and it doesn't look "Italian enough"

With enough residents, the restaurants and shops don't need as many visitors (and thus less parking) to sustain Little Italy's businesses.

^... and before you know it you have a sustainable local economy...

Outstanding. But we may have to drop the "Italy" from the name if old line LIers continue to feel they are losing their little enclave.

I just assume at this point that developers  over-ask as an opening offer and expect (maybe even to prefer) something 1/3 smaller than their initial rendering. "In the spirit of compromise I agreed to go up only four stories."

Outstanding. But we may have to drop the "Italy" from the name if old line LIers continue to feel they are losing their little enclave.

 

Not many Greeks left in Detroit's "Greektown".

Outstanding. But we may have to drop the "Italy" from the name if old line LIers continue to feel they are losing their little enclave.

 

Not many Greeks left in Detroit's "Greektown".

 

Only the restaurants and, then, not all of them.

I'm all for in-fill, but why do developers keep hiring the LDA to do this work?!  This substandard level of design will stand out in 5-10 years in an unfortunate way.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to stroke the developer's ego here, but I think it's huge that they want to do 4 floors of residential over ground floor retail. It is easier and usually more lucrative to just do apartments, but I think it is crucial to have a retail component in a development at this location.

 

It might go without saying here, but some appreciation for the added complexity of a more vibrant project will probably be lacking at the community meetings...

Apartments proposed on former Golden Bowl site in Cleveland's Little Italy

By  Michelle Jarboe, The Plain Dealer 

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on May 11, 2017 at 3:36 PM, updated May 11, 2017 at 4:33 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Another apartment proposal has cropped up for Mayfield Road in Cleveland's Little Italy, a tightly-packed neighborhood where developers are grabbing scarce sites to accommodate demand for brand-new housing in the city.

 

Hemingway Development and real estate investor Brent Zimmerman have struck a deal to buy the onetime Golden Bowl site at 12312 Mayfield Road, just east of the vacant Mayfield Theatre building and Corbo's Bakery. They're proposing a five-story, 32-unit apartment project, with retail or offices on the first floor and underground parking accessed from the rear.

 

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/05/apartments_proposed_on_former.html

 

Outstanding. But we may have to drop the "Italy" from the name if old line LIers continue to feel they are losing their little enclave.

 

Not many Greeks left in Detroit's "Greektown".

 

Only the restaurants and, then, not all of them.

 

Best cajun place I ever ate at (never quite made it to NO) was there.

Quote from Michelle's article today: To the north, between Coltman Road and East 123rd Street, a 200-plus-unit apartment plan has been stymied by litigation involving one nearby homeowner for two years.

 

So this other huge, promising apartment plan is being held up for the last 2 years by one homeowner!?  Anybody know any details about this?

^I saw that and for the second time (the last time a few months back when Michelle mentioned the litigation in passing in another article) did some docket research for Cuyahoga CP Court and came up with nothing.  Searched under Visconsi and even took a stab using Little Italy Re-development  Corp and Woodhill Supply.  Nothing.  Can't imagine the litigation would be in federal court. 

^I saw that and for the second time (the last time a few months back when Michelle mentioned the litigation in passing in another article) did some docket research for Cuyahoga CP Court and came up with nothing.  Searched under Visconsi and even took a stab using Little Italy Re-development  Corp and Woodhill Supply.  Nothing.  Can't imagine the litigation would be in federal court.

 

I found the case. Suit was brought by a David D. Watson. He lives at 1876 E. 120th Street, across from the Woodhill supply site. David Watson sued saying the BZA decision for woodhill supply was arbitrary, capricious, etc. Common Pleas found for the City. He has appealed. The case is working through the appeals court:

 

https://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/COA_CaseInformation_Docket.aspx?q=KTF6d_Iaw_ZPR1sWSiAlFw2

 

 

Is this the guy??

 

http://www.thompsonhine.com/professionals/watson-david

Is this the guy??

 

http://www.thompsonhine.com/professionals/watson-david

 

Could be. The name certainly matches, and he could probably afford a nice Coltman home.

 

Could be. The name certainly matches, and he could probably afford a nice Coltman home.

 

Yes, and he can have his high-density housing but others cannot, right? I guess he'd rather have a vacant, run-down property across the street from his home than a nice apartment building. But, to some snobs, "nice" and "rental apartment" are oxymorons.

Doesn't this guy understand that he bought a place in an urban environment and density and development are typically a good thing? IMHO, he should be cheering for a new apartment building that adds more eyes on the street and more activity for the retail in the neighborhood. Pretty much anything else would hurt the value of his house. More townhouses would compete with his if he ever wanted to sell. Leaving it as a vacant lot certainly isn't preferable to new construction. Does he think someone will buy it and turn it into a nice park or something? I'd love to know his reasoning for spending so much time and tens of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit.

Excellent sleuthing guys... This guy should be exposed publicly for this. I know court records are per se public, but obviously in this case it's not enough...it should not be the mere secret that it currently is...his narrow self interest is hurting both the neighborhood and the City.

I suspect he's not opposed to density, but to the rental apartments. Some people associate rentals with crime and noise and letting in the wrong people.

 

Furthermore, do a street view of what's across the street from the Coltman townhouses. Use the address 1850 Coleman Road. How is what's there now better than a new apartment building?

I bet if they proposed condos there would be no opposition.

Yep. Notice that there was no opposition to the Random Road condos next to Tony Brush Park period but the Mayfield Station apartments got significant pushback.

but apartments are for "those people"

Mam178....thanks for the detective work and the find.

 

I briefly perused the record and briefs.  My take is that everybody in the neighborhood is on board including Little Italy Re-development Corp. (after lots of input and changes to the project by Visconsi) except Watson and a couple of other Coltman owners.  The purported "objection" is the size of the development.  Interestingly, Coltman residents  right next to the project have no objections while these dimwits do.

 

The good news is that the city has won so far and seems well represented by counsel and appears (to my uneducated eye) to have a good case.

 

The bad news is that the litigation appears to have a while to go.  It has been in the court of appeals for almost a year and was fully briefed and ready for oral argument when the court remanded it back to the Common Pleas court due to a technical error with the final judgment.  That was fixed and it is back with the appellate court but it looks like it will have to be briefed again.  I cannot imagine the briefs will change much (from what was originally submitted) but I imagine they are now behind other cases (that they were ahead of) in terms of oral argument so it might be another 6-8 months before a decision.

 

If Watson loses he can of course appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  The Court has the discretion to accept the appeal, but even this process requires extensive briefing so it could be another 8-10 months in the Supreme Court even the court decides not to accept the appeal.

 

My big concern is that Visconsi loses interest or the delay might make the project less viable in terms of financing if interest rates go up in the meantime.  Maybe that is what Watson is hoping for.  Delay might be his ultimate weapon.

 

 

 

 

Just a periodic reminder that requiring developers to get discretionary approvals for pretty much every project opens the door to this kind of thing.

Just a periodic reminder that requiring developers to get discretionary approvals for pretty much every project opens the door to this kind of thing.

 

Like x 1,000,000

 

My big concern is that Visconsi loses interest or the delay might make the project less viable in terms of financing if interest rates go up in the meantime.  Maybe that is what Watson is hoping for.  Delay might be his ultimate weapon.

 

This is the crux of it, especially if he is an attorney. Also, to the comments of others saying the opposition is because of apartments, I believe that to be 100% the issue. Woodhill supply is a dump. Who wouldn't want it cleaned up? But if you say renters will live here (renters who, by the way, will likely be college or med/graduate students), no thank you. I see it in Tremont. Unfortunately, it is usually dog whistle racism, the same kind of racism that hurt Cleveland back in the '50s, '60s' and '70s.

Is this the guy??

 

http://www.thompsonhine.com/professionals/watson-david

 

Could be. The name certainly matches, and he could probably afford a nice Coltman home.

 

I'm about 99% sure I knew him at Case, pretty well actually.  His dad was Dick Watson, who was the Gund's attorney and was key to the purchase that kept the Cavaliers in town.  He had (has?) the huge house on North Park Lane in CH.

 

People can change in 30 years (I knew Jeff Johnson at the same time) but he was a pretty good guy then, not really arrogant at all, maybe a little smug on a low key basis.  I suspect he has his reasons, perhaps some inside information.

 

If you want wealthier people to live in denser city locations, you have to expect them to try to impact their surroundings.

^His Thompson Hine profile has him earning a BA from Harvard (1986) and his law degree from Georgetown.