HAPPY NEW YEAR: WHAT’S GOING ON?

I escaped the cold and snow in December---for a little while at least.
Instead of snow drifts and snowplows, I saw this:

CATALANO’S REDEVELOPMENT (FINALLY) BEGINS

The first piece of the redevelopment process (finally) fell into place almost five months after Council rushed to approve (minus any substantive public input) an $800,000 economic development package for the Catalano’s project.
The timing was somewhat ironic given that the rush to approve the package was purportedly necessitated by developer Lance Osborne’s pressing redevelopment timeline.

Do you suppose the sense of time and urgency is different for developers---and Council?

The Catalano’s property----which was legally divided into 2 parcels a few years ago---was sold by a Giant Eagle-affiliated company on December 10^th.
BRAINARD CROSSING HOLDINGS, LLC is now the record title holder of the front parcel (adjacent to Wilson Mills).
BRAINARD CROSSING HOLDINGS, LLC and OSBORNE CAPITAL CORP. own the back parcel---where the old grocery store building sits.

Demolition of the front part of the old grocery store building has begun.
All of the additions---including the glass dome displaying the neon “Catalanos”sign---have been removed.
It's rumored that Fitworks---which will do its own interior build-out--- is hoping for a grand reopening an early April.

I've also heard rumors that a Chipotle restaurant may be a possible tenant.

That leaves one very thorny issue remaining to be resolved….

STILL UNRESOLVED: SIGNAGE

There are several well-established businesses at the Bishop/Brainard/Wilson Mills intersection---all of which were limited, by the city, to erecting modestly-sized ground (“monument”) signs.

Existing commercial sign at Bishop & Wilson Mills

It remains to be seen whether Osborne will receive similar treatment or whether the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) will give him carte blanche----i.e., whether Osborne will be allowed to erect bigger and flashier signs than surrounding businesses.

The economic development agreement seemed to indicate that might be the case.
It explicitly states that:

“…signs in accordance with the Signage Plan previously approved by the City and attached as Exhibit F to the (9/14/12) Development Agreement…will be permitted upon approval thereof by the City Planning and Zoning Commission.”

 “Exhibit F”  displays a huge 18’ x 5’10’’ monument sign--a much larger sign than existing commercial properties were allowed to install at the Bishop/Brainard/Wilson Mills intersection.

Exhibit F

According to Law Director Tim Paluf, P&Z will have the last word on signage.

Interestingly, a Highland Heights commercial property owner recently asked the P&Z for permission to install an electronic sign on his property.

A resident told me that Osborne indicated at that meeting that he was interested in installing electronic signs too.

Even more interesting is the fact that P&Z’s December 9th agenda listed the request simply as a generic request for a “variance to sign requirements”---the agenda didn’t say anything about electronic signs.

I've been told that Council caught wind of what the request really entailed and, at the last meeting of 2013 , responded by adopting a six month moratorium on electronic signs, thereby preserving the status quo--- at least for the time being.

Even though the city installed two partially electronic signs in front of the Community Park and the Municipal Complex several years ago, it doesn’t appear that the city’s sign ordinances actually allow electric signs.
Highland Heights Ordinance 1145.03(c) states:

Light sources to illuminate signs, where illumination is permitted, shall not be of excessive brightness, shall not be of a flashing, moving color, bare bulb, neon tube or intermittent type and shall be shielded from adjacent residential streets and vehicular traffic. ( emphasis added)

And there’s the rub.

Electronic signs theoretically aren’t allowed under the city's sign ordinances, but the city installed some anyway.

If I was the commercial property owner I’d sure think that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

And if I was Osborne, I’d definitely want to be a gander too.

HOLIDAY LIGHTS

I consider myself lucky because I live across from one of the most spectacular Christmas lights display in the city.

Anyone driving by Hawthorne Drive needs to only look down the street to see what I mean.

You couldn’t miss it if you tried.

This was taken early in the process and doesn't reflect the full final display.

My neighbors-- Ivan and his son Andrew--- outdo themselves, keeping the electric company in business each December.

Obviously I’m not the only one who’s impressed by their handiwork.

Santa himself has been a regular nighttime visitor---visitors to the street could watch (and listen to) Santa as he conducted music and moved around in front of a large downstairs picture window.

Even the Grinch made an occasional visit when Santa was off taking care of business.

My neighbors didn't provide the only show in town.
Far from it.

There were lots of lovely, if not, spectacular displays in the city.

It makes hard work for the Lions Club, whose members are tasked with selecting lighting display winners in each ward each year.

Although my own neighbors didn’t win an award this year, they were happy for a Hawthorne alum who did, for a lovely Miner Road Ext. white lights display.

Congratulations to John and his bride, Eszti!

WORD OF ADVICE: KEEP YOUR TEMPER AND WATCH YOUR TONGUE

Council recently repealed portions of the city’s weapons ordinances at the recommendation of Law Director Tim Paluf.

Council took that action after an outside group contacted the city, complaining that the city’s ordinances---which, for example, banned carrying concealed firearms---conflicted with Ohio law.

The city’s ordinances now comply with state law---

Which means that licensees can now legally carry concealed firearms in the Community Park.

That’s something residents should keep in mind before losing their temper and saying things they might regret at baseball games, tennis matches and swim meets this summer.

Let courtesy and common sense prevail!

SHOULDN’T PUBLIC RECORDS BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC?

On November  12^th Council President Cathy Murphy reported that Council records—which are public records---have  been digitally scanned and “can be viewed online”.

She added one caveat, however: the records are available by “internal access only”.
What does that mean?

Only Council members and city employees have access to the online public records.
No provision has been made to give the public access to them.
Which raises the question:

Are records really public when they are available online but the public is not given access to them?

LOTS OF WATER--- IN PLACES IT DOESN’T BELONG

Council is pursuing state grant (“Issue One”) money as a way to replacing the Highland Road water main.

A good thing too.
That water main runs to our west, through the City of Richmond Heights.
A significant number of Richmond Heights residents went without water for some 36 hours this week after the main ruptured.

The water main under Highland Road isn’t the only one that needs some attention though.

In the past few years the water main under Kenbridge Road has also developed some major leaks.
The most recent one---near the intersection of Kenbridge and Esther Roads---occurred before Christmas.

Water has been gushing up from the seams in the cement road--- and the cold weather turned parts of Kenbridge into a skating rink.
It made the street unsafe for cars and pedestrians alike.

The Cleveland Water Department is supposed to fix the leak…but didn't get to it until January 4th.

Enough said?