Mayfield Station to be apartments. http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2016/12/mayfield_station_project_in_cl.html#incart_river_home_pop

Kristosik also expressed reservations about the building's appearance, including balconies over the sidewalk, and its parking garage, which would be accessible from Mayfield. Plans prepared by Dimit Architects show that Perotti plans to build only 16 indoor parking spaces, based on the assumption that many renters will use public transportation instead of cars.

 

Cleveland's zoning code requires developers outside of downtown to provide one parking space for every apartment.

 

What's the issue? It's TOD in a dense area, with extreme walkability, situated next to a train station (literally) in a city. This statement irks me.

I don't have a problem with the statement in bold text. I don't think any ill meaning was intended here. I actually have a bigger problem with Kristosik's concern about having balconies over the sidewalk. It promotes social interaction and eyes on the street.

I don't have a problem with the statement in bold text. I don't think any I'll meaning was intended here. I actually have a bigger problem with Kristosik's concern about having balconies over the sidewalk. It promotes social interaction and eyes on the street.

 

I agree.  Cleveland doesn't have a lot of 'sexy' modern apartment buildings ... but we're getting there (ie FEB, One-Univ Circle, etc).... Apartment buildings with balconies are sexy.  While I would move the garage door from the front to the side, if possible, Mr. Kristosik's concerns about 'sidewalk balconies' seems, I'll be kind, woefully out of date.

Kristosik feels balconies over the sidewalks are a little too much Italy for Little Italy?

Yesterday the website ArchDaily (one of my favorite ways to waste time) posted an entry about this house in Little Italy designed by Robert Maschke architects:

http://www.archdaily.com/802759/little-big-house-robert-maschke-architects

 

The ArchDaily site profiles a wide variety of projects from all around the world, so its nice for an individual house in Cleveland to get some exposure.

Now it's Landmarks' turn at Mayfield Station....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2017/01122017/index.php

 

6.

Case 16-071

Little Italy Historic District

Mayfield Station  11913 Mayfield Road

New Construction of Apartment Building

Ward 6

Mitchell

Paul Glowacki

Dimit Architects

Tim Perotti

Developer

 

 

Yep, have to refer to a parking availability study even though this development is on the other side of a driveway from a Red Line station, and served by RTA and CircleLink buses. Why does parking adequacy matter to a planning agency? Buffalo has eliminated parking minimums from its zoning code. If the site is good enough for financiers to part with their money, then why should the city question if there's enough parking??

 

 

 

 

 

 

The almighty Tin Lizzie rules this town.

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:

 

 

 

A little more progress....

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

JANUARY 23, 2017

9:30

Calendar No. 16-315: 2044 Random Rd. Ward 6

Mamie J. Mitchell

18 Notices

Bluewater Capital Partners, owner, proposes to erect a five story, 26 dwelling unit building with 2,400

square foot retail space on first floor, and an accessory 52 space parking garage in a B2 SemiIndustry

District. The owner appeals for relief from the strict application of the following sections of

the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04 which states that in a ‘B’ area district the gross floor area is limited to ½ the

lot area. In this case, 15,705 square feet are permitted and 90,357 square feet are

proposed. A lot area equal to 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit, or 62,400 square feet, is

required and 31,409 square feet are proposed.

2. Section 357.09 which states that an interior side yard equal to ¼ the height of the building,

or 14 feet, is required and an interior side yard of 10 feet is proposed. Interior side yard area

of 3,864 square feet is required and an interior side yard area of 1,569 square feet on the

north side yard is proposed

3. Section 357.08 which states that a rear yard equal to ½ the height of the building, or 28

feet, is required and a rear yard of 17 feet is proposed. (Filed December 14, 2016)

 

That's pretty impressive; considerably larger than I anticipated.  Nice TOD.

I wish they'd do the same with 2066 Random Rd. (the makeshift parking structure next door).

I wish they'd do the same with 2066 Random Rd. (the makeshift parking structure next door).

 

Ah yes, the ol' Random Road Business Center. It's still on Loopnet:

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14908288/2100-Random-Rd-Cleveland-OH/

 

Been a long time since this was proposed:

 

 

Now it's Landmarks' turn at Mayfield Station....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/landmark/agenda/2017/01122017/index.php

 

6.

Case 16-071

Little Italy Historic District

Mayfield Station  11913 Mayfield Road

New Construction of Apartment Building

Ward 6

Mitchell

Paul Glowacki

Dimit Architects

Tim Perotti

Developer

 

 

And now it's BZA's turn (again, the outdated, auto-centric zoning code has parking minimums next to rail transit stations when there should be parking maximums instead)....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/bza/agenda/2017/crr03-20-2017.pdf

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

MARCH 20, 2017

9:30

Calendar No.17-042: 11905 Mayfield Road Ward 6

Mamie J. Mitchell

15 Notices

Perotti Co. LLC., owner, proposes to erect a 6 story 45 unit apartment building with 16 accessory

parking spaces in a B2 Semi-Industry District. The owner appeals for relief from the strict application

of the following sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances:

1. Section 355.04(b) which states that the gross floor area of a residence building in a “B” Area

District is limited to ½ the lot area therefore the maximum gross floor area permitted is 3,685

square feet and a 27,265 square foot building is proposed. Also, this section states that a

minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit is required, or in this case a 108,000

square foot lot is required and a 7,370 square foot lot is proposed.

2. Section 349.04(a) which states that one accessory off-street parking space is required per

dwelling unit, 45 spaces required, 16 spaces are provided.

3. Section 325.03 which states that an accessory off-street parking space must be 180 square

feet and 128 square feet spaces are provided.

4. Section 357.01(d) which states that a 40 foot setback from street centerline (10 foot property

line) is shown on the Building Zone Map where a 5’ setback is proposed.

5. Section 357.08(b)(2) which states that a rear yard equal to ½ the height of the building is

required, per Section 357.01©; no rear yard provided.

6. Section 357.09(b)(2)© which states that interior side yards equal to ¼ the height of the

building are required, per section 357.01©: interior side yards of zero and 8” are proposed.

(Filed February 10, 2017)

The best streets in our city would be illegal under today’s zoning, and these residents want to keep it that way? https://t.co/MYShrIi0pt

^Yes, they do for the most part (Duck Island, Clinton/Franklin Block Club among many others). Of course most of their own individual homes are illegal under the current code, but why let the details get in the way of holding up developments that will help the City.

^Yes, they do for the most part (Duck Island, Clinton/Franklin Block Club among many others). Of course most of their own individual homes are illegal under the current code, but why let the details get in the way of holding up developments that will help the City.

 

And if the city inspectors actually worked an 8 hour day and went out and enforced the codes, these people would have WAY less bargaining power. 

^Those houses are grandfathered in under the codes KJP is referring to, so aren't actually illegal. w28th means those houses would be illegal if built today. Not everything bad in this world is the result of city worker laziness...

One of the comments on the article suggested the NIMBY's were actually landlords that didn't want the competition. I thought that was funny and probably true. The few I've seen were not great for the asking price, to put it nicely.

Is this zoning issue an indictment on conservatism or liberalism? When you want to change things back to the way things were?

 

Maybe not everything can be fit into an overly simple definition lol. 

 

But seriously, if this thing is actually being held up by landlords it's kind of depressing. 

Our problem is not an inability to finance nor a lack of developers wanting to build big here.  Our market is just fine relative to other cities and those arguments need to retire.  Our real problem is that every desirable proposal gets attacked by anti-urban activists, some of whom hold public office.  Cleveland will continue to struggle until we stop making flimsy "market based" excuses and address this.  We must first choose, clearly and definitively, to be a major city.  Without that critical first step we have no hope of moving in that direction.  Every detail of what happens here flows from our fundamental choice of plan.

^ Exactly. In this particular case we made the major city decision to finally put this rail station in and now we want to let that investment go to possible waste for some tiny town ideas. I say the city should step up and push this through (can they do that?). Sorry, fellow paesanos but you are wrong here. You will see though, that the neighborhood will be better off in the end if we embrace the density. 

I say the city should step up and push this through (can they do that?).

 

Of course they can.  While they're at it they could update the zoning code and revise their system to eliminate some approval steps.  Unfortunately, we only have twice as many councilpersons as we need... wherever will they find the time?

^Those houses are grandfathered in under the codes KJP is referring to, so aren't actually illegal. w28th means those houses would be illegal if built today. Not everything bad in this world is the result of city worker laziness...

 

The codes also say that housing must be maintained.  As a former LI resident, I can attest that not much of that was going on...

Since the article is already off the main page on cleveland.com, here is the direct link from the above Twitter post and a snippet from the article.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2017/04/developer_asks_zoning_board_to.html

 

Perotti LLC asks zoning board to table vote on controversial Little Italy apartments (photos)

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The city's board of zoning appeals agreed Monday to a developer's request to table a vote on variances needed for a controversial 45-unit apartment building in Little Italy, after it appeared the vote might go against the project.

 

"I'm just trying to keep the project moving along in a positive manner," developer Tim Perotti said after the meeting, explaining his request for a time-out.

 

The board agreed to delay a vote on the variances until its May 1 meeting, giving Perotti and Little Italy residents time to work out a compromise.

 

But based on Monday's hearing, it appears that such an agreement might be difficult, given the firmly negative views of two dozen residents and property owners who spoke out against the project.

^ Exactly. In this particular case we made the major city decision to finally put this rail station in and now we want to let that investment go to possible waste for some tiny town ideas. I say the city should step up and push this through (can they do that?). Sorry, fellow paesanos but you are wrong here. You will see though, that the neighborhood will be better off in the end if we embrace the density. 

 

Unfortunately this article reflects the "old guard" small town, clan-ish nature of some Little Italy residents who, for years, fought CTS'/RTA's relocating the Red Line Rapid station to Mayfield Rd and to keep LI just as it's always been (meaning no outsiders -- especially Blacks).  This mentality is reflected in the comments of Terry Tarantino who is fighting this worthwhile project and, ridiculously, claims to somehow know that future residents of this building will not rely on public transit -- despite literally having a Red Line train stop at their front door....

 

... it is, indeed, laughable that folks like Tarantino are fighting the building's density when density is one of the largest parts of LI's charm. 

^ Exactly. In this particular case we made the major city decision to finally put this rail station in and now we want to let that investment go to possible waste for some tiny town ideas. I say the city should step up and push this through (can they do that?). Sorry, fellow paesanos but you are wrong here. You will see though, that the neighborhood will be better off in the end if we embrace the density. 

 

Unfortunately this article reflects the "old guard" small town, clan-ish nature of some Little Italy residents who, for years, fought CTS'/RTA's relocating the Red Line Rapid station to Mayfield Rd and to keep LI just as it's always been (meaning no outsiders -- especially Blacks).  This mentality is reflected in the comments of Terry Tarantino who is fighting this worthwhile project and, ridiculously, claims to somehow know that future residents of this building will not rely on public transit -- despite literally having a Red Line train stop at their front door....

 

... it is, indeed, laughable that folks like Tarantino are fighting the building's density when density is one of the largest parts of LI's charm. 

 

A certain level of density is.  More would change the character as much as less.

 

Density advocates sometimes forget everyone has their level where it becomes a negative.  It's like temperature, people who are comfortable at 70 may be miserable at 90.

^But I don't see how one 6-story, 45-unit apt building at the edge of LI next to heavy-rail rapid transit station counts as too much density.  This project while great here, would be considered small potatoes for a Chicago, D.C., Boston or ... name the city...If we're talking a 10-12 story tower in this location, perhaps, but the current rants against this project seem podunkish as if Cleveland weren't ready for prime time. 

^But I don't see how one 6-story, 45-unit apt building at the edge of LI next to heavy-rail rapid transit station counts as too much density. 

 

It's an "eye of the beholder" thing.  You're right, on the coasts it would be no big deal, could go either way in Chicago.  But the midwest is what the midwest is.

Ok. Why is this building bad but the slightly larger building next to Tony Brush Park was ok'd?

^But I don't see how one 6-story, 45-unit apt building at the edge of LI next to heavy-rail rapid transit station counts as too much density. 

 

It's an "eye of the beholder" thing.  You're right, on the coasts it would be no big deal, could go either way in Chicago.  But the midwest is what the midwest is.

 

What a strange response...this building is hardly coastal density. And the idea that coastal density would somehow negate the character of Little Italy is equally weird. Density can mean so many wildly different things. I live in a census tract with 166,000 people/square mile right now and it's far quieter, laid back, and more family oriented than the 1/10th as dense tract I lived in in OTR in Cincy. Density doesn't have to change anything and this building will hardly make a discernible difference here.

The 80 freight trains a day and the 160 Red Line trains a day past that site make a little more of a disruption to Little Italy than a tiny apartment building.

Ok. Why is this building bad but the slightly larger building next to Tony Brush Park was ok'd?

 

Could it be owner occupied vs rentals? Apts vs condo's?

 

I have to say that if I were an owner of a home in LI, I would most likely prefer condo's over apts at that location. But that's just me.

 

Except many (most?) of the people who own homes in Little Italy don't live in them. They are landlords. They are competitors to this apartment building.

^In fact, doesn't LI have the highest rental-to-RE ratio of any neighborhood in Cleveland?  That said, some of the sexiest modern single family home architecture has arisen in LI in the last 10-20 years.  And the townhouses aren't too shabby either.

I was recently surprised by the new townhomes on Random Rd.  Lot's of new, good looking construction in the area.

I was recently surprised by the new townhomes on Random Rd.  Lot's of new, good looking construction in the area.

 

No question, LI is one of Cleveland's hottest and most desirable areas for millenials was well as for those who like the urban lifestyle of a dense, exciting, walkable neighborhood with lots of restaurants, shops, grocery, the arts and convenient mass transit -- one could comfortably live car free in Little Italy... Despite all this, there appear to be some older residents, like restauranter Terry Tarantino who want to put a moat around the neighborhood and raise the drawbridge, metaphorically speaking.  Mayfield Station is hardly a huge project but would be an attractive addition -- in many ways -- to an already great neighborhood.  Opposition to it is befuddling an antithetical. 

That's some hubris/ignorance by Mayfield Station's opponents to question Perotti's ability to rent the apartments at the price points he proposes (do his lenders question him?), and whether tenants will rent the apartments and not need cars/will ride transit. The world has changed since Mayfield Station's opponents were young.

Ok. Why is this building bad but the slightly larger building next to Tony Brush Park was ok'd?

 

Density is, of course, cumulative.  One may be okay while more become a concern.

I was recently surprised by the new townhomes on Random Rd.  Lot's of new, good looking construction in the area.

 

No question, LI is one of Cleveland's hottest and most desirable areas for millenials was well as for those who like the urban lifestyle of a dense, exciting, walkable neighborhood with lots of restaurants, shops, grocery, the arts and convenient mass transit -- one could comfortably live car free in Little Italy... Despite all this, there appear to be some older residents, like restauranter Terry Tarantino who want to put a moat around the neighborhood and raise the drawbridge, metaphorically speaking.  Mayfield Station is hardly a huge project but would be an attractive addition -- in many ways -- to an already great neighborhood.  Opposition to it is befuddling an antithetical. 

 

It's also the last ethnic neighborhood to retain any of its old character and some of the stakeholders value that.

It's also the last ethnic neighborhood to retain any of its old character and some of the stakeholders value that.

 

What percent of Little Italy is actually Italian? Seems more Chinese to me.

It's also the last ethnic neighborhood to retain any of its old character and some of the stakeholders value that.

 

What percent of Little Italy is actually Italian? Seems more Chinese to me.

 

I'll ask a friend who spends a lot of time there, but it's largely a college area as well.

 

My first guess would be about 45-50%

I'll ask a friend who spends a lot of time there, but it's largely a college area as well.

 

My first guess would be about 45-50%

 

My question was more rhetorical. If I really cared, I would look up the Census tract data myself.

It's also the last ethnic neighborhood to retain any of its old character and some of the stakeholders value that.

 

But that mentality is problematic and leads to bigotry and factionalism.  There's nothing wrong with ethnic pride, including having a neighborhood that showcases this ethnicity's culinary, arts and cultural quality and pride.  But it's quite another thing to say this neighborhood is 'ours' to the exclusion of others or, in the case of obviously Asians, we as the primary ethnic group will pick and choose who we will allow to come in.  Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Native Americans, etc., ... look elsewhere.

 

Cleveland's Little Italy, unlike other little Italy's in other big cities, has a particularly ugly history of bigotry and even violence against 'outsiders', especially African Americans.  But I know a number of Italians living there now eagerly want to move past that unfortunate past; relish welcoming all people into their shops and all the people and families crowding into the Feast of the Assumption every summer.  It's morphed from a working-class Italian neighborhood to a middle-upper middle class enclave of professionals -- still largely Italian, but highly attractive for a wide swath of students and professionals who enjoy a diverse urban experience.  Nothing in the latter implies usurping the area's Italian culture and traditions. 

In undergrad I used the Census and the American Community Survey 5 year estimate to study race and ethnicity in Little Italy for Urban Geography. Little Italy is about 100% within Census Tract 1188 which captures additional population a little west of the rail bridges but east of Euclid Ave.

 

 

In 2010

Race - Top 3

White - 61.5%

Asian - 24.7%

Black - 11.2%

 

Ethnic Origins - Top 5

Italian - 24.5%

German - 19.7%

Irish - 16.9%

English - 5.4%

Polish - 4.1%

 

30.9% of the residents were foreign born, of that 30.9%, 66.2% were foreign born from Asia, 17.2% Africa, 13.2% Europe.

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

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

I think building out 119th with higher density stuff would not mess with the character. A public garage/mixed-use could be built along here which could alleviate parking concerns. Building on the western side of 119, along the tracks could add a lot to the neighborhood, creating another corridor without changing the feel of the LI core. Train noise could be an issue here but that didn't stop the new stuff going up in Battery Park.

^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.

 

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. 

I think building out 119th with higher density stuff would not mess with the character. A public garage/mixed-use could be built along here which could alleviate parking concerns. Building on the western side of 119, along the tracks could add a lot to the neighborhood, creating another corridor without changing the feel of the LI core. Train noise could be an issue here but that didn't stop the new stuff going up in Battery Park.

 

It does, on the surface, seem like a problem but people seem to adjust to trains.  Keep in mind Centric is going up on the other side, which is adjacent to the freight tracks and away from the quieter Rapid tracks which will be across the street/driveway from Mayfield Station.  Also keep in mind that renters are paying big bucks to live down at Flats East Bank which close to those extremely busy RR tracks crossing the "Iron Curtain" across the river -- and then there's the horns from both the ore ships and the bridge... it's extremely noisy down there, ... but residents deal with it.

I think building out 119th with higher density stuff would not mess with the character. A public garage/mixed-use could be built along here which could alleviate parking concerns. Building on the western side of 119, along the tracks could add a lot to the neighborhood, creating another corridor without changing the feel of the LI core. Train noise could be an issue here but that didn't stop the new stuff going up in Battery Park.

 

It does, on the surface, seem like a problem but people seem to adjust to trains.  Keep in mind Centric is going up on the other side, which is adjacent to the freight tracks and away from the quieter Rapid tracks which will be across the street/driveway from Mayfield Station.  Also keep in mind that renters are paying big bucks to live down at Flats East Bank which close to those extremely busy RR tracks crossing the "Iron Curtain" across the river -- and then there's the horns from both the ore ships and the bridge... it's extremely noisy down there, ... but residents deal with it.

 

Speaking as someone who lives 20 yards from freight tracks... people adjust remarkably quickly. I don't even consciously notice trains going by anymore unless I have the window open and the tv volume set too low.