|
Appendix A: Background Data
Population and Housing Data
- Table 1: Total Persons 1980, 1990 & 2000
- Table 2: Total Dwelling Units 1980, 1990 & 2000
- Table 3: Characteristics of Housing 2000
- Table 4: Housing Unit Construction Rates 1997 - 2002
- Table 5: Housing & Occupancy Characteristics 1990 & 2000
- Table 6: Median Single-Family Home Value 1990 & 2000
- Table 7: Home Sales Price Comparison 1989 & 1999
- Table 8: Age of Population 1980, 1990 & 2000
- Table 9: Age Characteristics 1990 & 2000
Tax, Income and Business Data
- Table 10: Comparison of Assessed Tax Valuations: Tax Year 2002
- Table 11: Comparison of Tax Rates: Tax Year 2002
- Table 12: Distribution of Taxes: Tax Year 2002
- Table 13: Median Household Income: 1989 & 1999
- Table 14: Retail Square Footage per Resident 1999
- Table 15: Business Establishments: 1994 and 2000
City Recreation and Housing Project Data
- Table 16: Capital Improvement Plan, 2003-2007
- Table 17: City Recreation Facilities
- Table 18: Cleveland Area Recreation Centers
- Table 19: Condominium Housing Projects (Recent) – Mayfield Heights
- Table 20: Apartment Buildings – Mayfield Heights
Real Estate Market and Development Impacts Data
- Table 21: Estimated Development Impacts of Various Types of Land Uses
- Table 22: Summary of Real Estate Development Market Conditions
|
TABLE 1
TOTAL PERSONS: 1980, 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1980
|
1990
|
Change
1980 - 1990
|
2000
|
Change
1990 - 2000
|
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
|
Beachwood
|
9,983
|
10,677
|
694
|
7.0%
|
12,186
|
1,509
|
14%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
2,236
|
2,508
|
272
|
12.2%
|
2,493
|
-15
|
-0.6%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
5,739
|
6,249
|
510
|
8.9%
|
8,082
|
1,833
|
29%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
633
|
648
|
15
|
2.3%
|
588
|
-60
|
-9.3%
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
18,092
|
15,982
|
-2,110
|
-11.7%
|
15,279
|
-703
|
-4.4%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
21,550
|
19,847
|
-1,703
|
-7.9%
|
19,386
|
-461
|
-2.3%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
3,577
|
3,462
|
-115
|
-3.2%
|
3,435
|
-27
|
-0.8%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
6,177
|
6,185
|
8
|
0.1%
|
6,040
|
-145
|
-2.3%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
10,095
|
9,611
|
-484
|
-4.8%
|
10,944
|
1,333
|
14%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
1,498,400
|
1,412,140
|
-86,260
|
-5.8%
|
1,393,978
|
-18,162
|
-1.3%
|
Source: U.S. Census
|
| |
TABLE 2
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 1980, 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1980
|
1990
|
Change
1980 – 1990
|
2000
|
Change
1990 – 2000
|
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
|
|
Beachwood
|
3,911
|
4,732
|
821
|
21%
|
5,447
|
715
|
15%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
789
|
992
|
203
|
25.7%
|
974
|
-18
|
-1.8%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
1,794
|
2,176
|
382
|
21.3%
|
2,862
|
686
|
31.5%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
234
|
269
|
35
|
15%
|
255
|
-14
|
-5.2%
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
6,647
|
6,729
|
82
|
1.2%
|
6,855
|
126
|
1.9%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
9,909
|
10,300
|
391
|
3.9%
|
10,461
|
161
|
1.6%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
1,337
|
1,416
|
79
|
5.9%
|
1,471
|
55
|
3.9%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
1,891
|
2,170
|
279
|
15%
|
2,296
|
126
|
5.8%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
4,298
|
4,503
|
205
|
4.8%
|
5,060
|
557
|
12%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
596,637
|
604,538
|
7,901
|
1.3%
|
616,903
|
12,365
|
2.0%
|
Source: U.S. Census
|
| |
TABLE 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING: 2000
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1-unit detached
|
1-unit attached(1)
|
2-4 units per building
|
5 or more units per building
|
mobile home, boat, RV, etc.
|
| |
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
#
|
%
|
|
Beachwood
|
2,882
|
53%
|
348
|
6%
|
17
|
1%
|
2,200
|
40%
|
6
|
1%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
945
|
100%
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
2,789
|
97%
|
49
|
2%
|
8
|
1%
|
16
|
1%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
232
|
91%
|
19
|
8%
|
4
|
2%
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
5,630
|
82%
|
139
|
2%
|
51
|
1%
|
1,035
|
15%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
4,993
|
48%
|
380
|
4%
|
185
|
1%
|
4,903
|
47%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
1,176
|
78%
|
41
|
3%
|
13
|
1%
|
270
|
18%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
2,185
|
95%
|
45
|
2%
|
8
|
1%
|
58
|
3%
|
0
|
0%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
2,783
|
55%
|
426
|
8%
|
39
|
1%
|
1,812
|
36%
|
0
|
0%
|
| |
|
Cuyahoga County
|
354,973
|
57%
|
37,591
|
6%
|
85,038
|
14%
|
136,032
|
22%
|
3,269
|
1%
|
Source: U.S. Census
(1) A unit where the walls separating the unit from another unit extend from the ground to the roof.
|
| |
TABLE 4
HOUSING UNIT CONSTRUCTION RATES: 1997-2002 (1)
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
(2)
|
Total 1997– 2001
|
Annual Average #
|
|
Beachwood
|
28
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
40
|
8
|
|
Gates Mills
|
8
|
7
|
10
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
29
|
6
|
|
Highland Heights
|
38
|
43
|
63
|
62
|
51
|
44
|
257
|
51
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
18
|
4
|
3
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
27
|
5
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
3
|
5
|
58
|
3
|
8
|
21
|
77
|
15
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
15
|
3
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
17
|
22
|
8
|
5
|
6
|
1
|
58
|
12
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
43
|
43
|
41
|
36
|
24
|
26
|
187
|
37
|
Source: U.S. Census
(1) Figures based on the number of single-family residential building permits issued in each community.
(2) Reported through November 2002.
|
| |
TABLE 5
HOUSING AND OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS: 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights
| |
Units
|
Percent of Total
|
Average Persons
per Unit
|
|
1990
|
2000
|
1990
|
2000
|
1990
|
2000
|
|
Owner-occupied
|
4,997
|
4,999
|
49%
|
48%
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
|
Rental
|
4,814
|
4,849
|
47%
|
46%
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
|
Total Occupied Units(1)
|
9,811
|
9,848
|
95%
|
94%
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
|
Vacant Units
|
489
|
613
|
5%
|
6%
|
0
|
0
|
|
TOTAL(2)
|
10,300
|
10,461
|
100%
|
100%
|
1.9
|
1.8
|
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census
(1) Persons per occupied unit is the same as persons per household; does not includes persons living in group quarters.
(2) Persons per unit is based on both occupied and vacant units. This figure therefore contains a vacancy factor that is necessary when estimating future population based on projected housing units.
|
| |
TABLE 6
MEDIAN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME VALUE: 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1990
|
2000
|
Annual Average % Change
|
|
Beachwood
|
$165,200
|
$244,700
|
4.8%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
$309,800
|
$427,000
|
3.8%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
$128,200
|
$217,500
|
7.0%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
$500,001
|
$868,600
|
7.4%
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
$87,600
|
$134,600
|
5.4%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
$77,000
|
$125,900
|
6.4%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
$139,200
|
$201,200
|
4.5%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
$97,600
|
$140,800
|
4.4%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
$289,200
|
$355,500
|
2.3%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
$71,200
|
$113,800
|
6.0%
|
Source: U.S. Census
|
| |
TABLE 7
HOME SALES PRICE COMPARISON: 1989 & 1999
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Cuyahoga County Jurisdictions
| |
1989
|
1999
|
Annual Average % Change
|
|
Beachwood
|
$181,100
|
$244,900
|
3.5%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
$276,600
|
$451,700
|
6.3%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
$178,800
|
$266,000
|
4.9%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
$745,800
|
$1,062,300
|
4.2%
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
$98,500
|
$133,000
|
3.5%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
$85,600
|
$125,500
|
4.7%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
$143,500
|
$224,300
|
5.6%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
$276,600
|
$359,600
|
3.0%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
$116,800
|
$156,600
|
3.4%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
$85,200
|
$125,570
|
4.7%
|
|
Cleveland
|
$38,700
|
$66,892
|
7.3%
|
Source: Cuyahoga County Auditor
|
| |
TABLE 8
AGE OF POPULATION: 1980, 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights
|
Age Group
|
1980
|
1990
|
2000
|
Change
1980 - 2000
|
|
#
|
%
|
|
65 plus
|
4,878
|
5,664
|
5,335
|
457
|
9.4%
|
|
45-64
|
5,591
|
4,153
|
4,063
|
-1528
|
-27%
|
|
18-44
|
7,264
|
7,179
|
6,911
|
-353
|
-4.9%
|
|
Under 18
|
3,817
|
2,851
|
3,077
|
-740
|
-19%
|
|
Total Population
|
21,550
|
19,847
|
19,386
|
-2,164
|
-10%
|
Source: U.S. Census
|
| |
| |
TABLE 9
AGE CHARACTERISTICS: 1990 & 2000
Mayfield Heights
| |
Percentage of Households with
Children Under the Age of 18
|
|
1980
|
1990
|
2000
|
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
34%
|
16%
|
19%
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
47%
|
32%
|
32%
|
|
Northeast Ohio Region(1)
|
37%
|
35%
|
31%
|
| |
Percentage of Households with
Individuals 65+
|
|
1980
|
1990
|
2000
|
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
c
|
41%
|
41%
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
c
|
29%
|
27%
|
|
Northeast Ohio Region
|
37%
|
38%
|
37%
|
| |
Persons per Household
|
|
1980
|
1990
|
2000
|
1980-2000
% Change
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
2.17
|
2.06
|
1.95
|
-10%
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
2.51
|
2.46
|
2.39
|
-4.8%
|
|
Northeast Ohio Region
|
2.90
|
2.69
|
2.57
|
-11%
|
Source: U.S. Census
(1) Includes Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Stark and Summit Counties. c Information not readily available.
|
| |
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF ASSESSED TAX VALUATIONS: TAX YEAR 2002
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
(Sorted highest to lowest by % of Commercial/Industrial Valuation)
|
COMMUNITY
|
REAL PROPERTY
|
TOTAL
|
|
Agricultural/Residential
|
Commercial/Industrial
Public Utility
|
|
Beachwood
|
$289,642,860
|
45%
|
$355,707,750
|
55%
|
$645,350,610
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
$249,047,330
|
53%
|
$222,082,280
|
47%
|
$471,129,610
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
$88,892,340
|
60%
|
$60,161,680
|
40%
|
$149,054,020
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
$171,013,230
|
67%
|
$85,926,950
|
33%
|
$256,940,180
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
$305,469,140
|
80%
|
$75,104,420
|
20%
|
$380,573,560
|
|
Highland Heights
|
$240,801,490
|
80%
|
$60,132,380
|
20%
|
$300,933,870
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
$298,408,580
|
89%
|
$36,729,560
|
11%
|
$335,138,140
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
$102,133,650
|
96%
|
4,172,170
|
4%
|
$106,305,820
|
|
Gates Mills
|
$181,597,960
|
97%
|
$5,595,110
|
3%
|
$187,193,070
|
| |
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
$17,434,757,770
|
68%
|
$8,390,113,301
|
32%
|
$25,824,871,071
|
Source: Cuyahoga County Auditor’s Office
|
| |
TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF TAX RATES: TAX YEAR 2002
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
|
Taxing Jurisdiction
|
Full Tax Rate
|
Effective Rate
|
|
Residential/ Agricultural
|
Commercial/ Industrial
|
|
Beachwood
|
99.1
|
54.65
|
60.84
|
|
Gates Mills
|
94.6
|
55.1
|
59.78
|
|
Highland Heights
|
87.7
|
49.52
|
53.78
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
103.8
|
60.46
|
64.67
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
118.9
|
73.13
|
77.06
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
93.7
|
55.52
|
59.78
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
91
|
49.79
|
54.55
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
108.2
|
64.61
|
68.54
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
104.9
|
61.21
|
67.77
|
Source: Cuyahoga County Treasurer
|
| |
TABLE 12
DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES: TAX YEAR 2002
Mayfield Heights
| |
Schools
|
County
|
City
|
Library/ Metropark
|
|
Residential
|
54.99%
|
22.44%
|
18.01%
|
4.56%
|
|
Commercial/Industrial
|
57.48%
|
21.54%
|
16.73%
|
4.25%
|
Source: Cuyahoga County Treasurer
|
| |
TABLE 13
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 1989 & 1999
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions
| |
1990
|
2000
|
% Change
|
|
Beachwood
|
$54,340
|
$65,406
|
20%
|
|
Gates Mills
|
$94,219
|
$133,605
|
42%
|
|
Highland Heights
|
$44,777
|
$69,750
|
56%
|
|
Hunting Valley
|
$125,598
|
$200,000+
|
N/A
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
$40,491
|
$52,272
|
29%
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
$28,688
|
$37,236
|
30%
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
$46,610
|
$66,048
|
42%
|
|
Pepper Pike
|
$100,131
|
$133,316
|
3.3%
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
$34,402
|
$43,625
|
27%
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Cuyahoga County
|
$28,595
|
$39,168
|
37%
|
Source: U.S. Census |
| |
TABLE 14
Retail Square Footage per Resident
Mayfield Heights and Adjacent Jurisdictions--2000
|
Municipality
|
Population 2000
|
Total Square Ft.
Retail (1999)
|
Sq. ft Retail/per Resident
|
|
Beachwood
|
12,186
|
1,864,599
|
153
|
|
Highland Heights
|
8,082
|
485,967
|
60
|
|
Lyndhurst
|
15,279
|
461,580
|
30
|
|
Mayfield Heights
|
19,386
|
1,778,193
|
92
|
|
Mayfield Village
|
3,435
|
269,435
|
78
|
|
Richmond Heights
|
10,944
|
1,329,393
|
121
|
|
South Euclid
|
23,537
|
932,742
|
40
|
|
University Heights
|
14,146
|
585,618
|
41
|
|
|
Source: NOACA Northeast Ohio Regional Retail Analysis, Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, August 2000. (Does not include Legacy Village which opened in 2003)
|
| |
TABLE 15
Business Establishments for 1994 and 2000
Mayfield Heights (zip code 44124)
|
Business Establishments
|
1994
|
2000*
|
% Change
|
|
Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing
|
39
|
2
|
|
|
Construction
|
91
|
83
|
|
|
Manufacturing
|
32
|
20
|
|
|
Transportation, Public Utilities
|
21
|
11
|
|
|
Wholesale Trade
|
72
|
78
|
|
|
Retail Trade
|
310
|
195
|
|
|
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
|
188
|
206
|
|
|
Services
|
621
|
802
|
|
|
Information
|
N/A
|
13
|
|
|
Unclassified
|
7
|
12
|
|
|
Total Establishments
|
1,381
|
1,402
|
1.5%
|
|
Total # of Employees
|
18,756
|
27,973
|
49%
|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Zip Code Business Patterns
*Categories changed for 2000; some consolidation of categories was necessary |
| |
TABLE 16
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, City of Mayfield Heights
2003-2007
|
Project Name/Description
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
|
|
Roads
|
|
Bonnie Lane (East/West Portion) and Bonnie Place Repair and Resurface
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Byron/Gilbert Repair and Resurface
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedar Road Resurfacing from Landerbrook Drive to Lander Road
|
$6,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth Avenue Repair and Resurface
|
|
$700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elmwood Avenue Repair and Resurface
|
|
|
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
Genesee Avenue Repair and Resurface
|
$700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Giesse Drive (South of Ridgebury) Repair and Resurface
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Longridge/Marshfield Area Streets Repair and Resurface
|
|
|
$1,300,000
|
|
|
|
|
Marsol/Sunningdale/Westerham Resurface
|
|
|
|
|
$550,000
|
|
|
Mayberry/Mayflower Repair and Resurface
|
|
|
|
$250,000
|
|
|
|
Mayfield Road/I271 Improvement from Lander Road to East Corporation Line
|
|
$5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peeper Hollow Drive Stream Enclosure
|
|
|
|
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
Ridgebury Blvd. Repair and Resurfacing
|
|
|
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
S.O.M. Center Road Resurfacing from Marsol to North Corporation Line
|
|
$100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vallevista/Queens Park Area Streets Repair and Resurface
|
|
|
|
|
$900,000
|
|
|
Water Distribution System
|
|
Cedar Road Water Main (Phase III)
|
$220,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larchmont Drive/Stafford Area Streets Water Main Replacement
|
|
$550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wastewater Collection
|
|
Chelmsford Road Sanitary Relief Sewer (2,030 L.F.)
|
|
|
|
$400,000
|
|
|
|
East & West Miner Roads Sanitary Relief Sewer (2,200 L.F.)
|
|
|
$430,000
|
|
|
|
|
Eastwood Avenue Sanitary Relief Sewer (1,216 L.F.)
|
|
$250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iroquois Avenue Sanitary Relief Sewer (870 L.F.)
|
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lander Road Sanitary Relief Sewer (1,720 L.F.)
|
|
|
|
$350,000
|
|
|
|
Longridge Road Sanitary Relief Sewer (1,040 L.F.)
|
|
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
|
Marsol Rd. Sanitary Relief Sewer from Crestwood to Chelmsford
|
|
|
|
|
$100,000
|
|
|
Mayfield Road Sanitary Sewer Replacement from Lander Road to East Corporation Line
|
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayflower Avenue Sanitary Relief Sewer (400 L.F.)
|
|
|
|
$370,000
|
|
|
|
Ridgeview and Marsol Roads Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
|
|
|
|
|
$230,000
|
|
|
S.O.M. Center Road Sanitary Sewer Lining
|
|
$100,000.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summit Drive Sanitary Relief Sewer (290 L.F.)
|
|
$60,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunset Road Sanitary Relief Sewer (1,300 L.F.)
|
|
|
$350,000
|
|
|
|
|
Stormwater Collection
|
|
Lining of Sanitary and/or Storm Sewers in Sections of Edgewood, Lander, Sunset and Mayfield Ridge
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lining of Sanitary and Storm Sewers in Sections of Various Streets Within the City
|
|
$200,000
|
$200,000
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$1,726,000
|
$8,460,000
|
$2,480,000
|
$1,570,000
|
$4,190,000
|
|
|
Source: Fisher and Associates, Consulting Engineer to City of Mayfield Heights
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
Table 17
Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities
|
|
|
Name/Size
|
Location
|
Year Built
|
Year Improved
|
|
City Park/19.5ac
|
1533 Chelmsford Road
|
|
|
|
Charles Dragga Municipal Pool
|
1533 Chelmsford Road
|
1958
|
1980
|
|
Wading Pool
|
Next to Municipal Pool
|
2000
|
|
|
Concession Stand
|
Next to Municipal Pool
|
2000
|
|
|
Skatepark
|
City Park, near pool
|
2001
|
|
|
Basketball Courts (2)
|
City Park, near pool
|
|
2001
|
|
Totland Playground
|
City Park, near pool
|
2002
|
|
|
Permanent Restroom Facilities
|
City Park, near pool
|
2003
|
|
|
Bocce Courts (4)
|
City Park, near pool
|
|
|
|
Gazebo
|
City Park, off Marsol Road
|
|
2003
|
|
Blue Playground
|
City Park, near Gazebo
|
1999
|
|
|
Picnic Pavilions (2)
|
City Park, near Gazebo
|
|
|
|
Tennis Courts (4)
|
City Park, near Gazebo
|
|
|
|
Ball Fields
|
City Park
|
|
|
|
Fornaro Field
|
City Park
|
|
|
|
Kobe Softball Field
|
City Park
|
|
|
|
Dragga Softball Field
|
City Park, near Tennis Courts
|
|
|
|
Permanent Restroom Facility
|
City Park, near pool
|
2003
|
|
|
Ross C. DeJohn Park/Community Center
|
6306 Marsol Road
|
1977
|
|
|
Ball Fields
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto Softball Field
|
|
|
|
|
Hoehnen LL Field
|
|
|
|
|
Nagel LL Field
|
|
|
|
|
Concession Stand
|
|
|
|
|
Community Center, 6,840 square feet
|
|
|
|
|
Oakville Park/1.5ac
|
5875 Oakville Road
|
|
|
|
Oakville Field
|
Oakville Park
|
|
|
|
Oakville Pavilion
|
Oakville Park
|
|
|
|
Oakville Playground
|
Oakville Park
|
1998
|
|
|
Oakville Bocce Courts
|
Oakville Park
|
1998
|
|
|
Shared Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
Lander Elementary/3.0ac
|
1714 Lander Road
|
|
|
|
Mayfield Middle School/10.0ac
|
1123 SOM Center Road
|
|
|
|
Mayfield High School/5.3ac
|
6116 Wilson Mills Road
|
|
|
|
| |
TABLE 18
Cleveland Area Recreation Centers
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently Constructed Recreation Centers in the Cleveland Metropolitan Area
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Size in
|
|
Yearly
|
|
|
City
|
|
Opened
|
square feet
|
Cost to build
|
operating cost
|
Open to non-residents•
|
|
Brecksville
|
1992
|
49,000
|
$6.6 million
|
$1.8 million
|
No
|
|
Macedonia
|
2000
|
55,000
|
$6.8 million
|
$920,000
|
Yes
|
|
Medina
|
2002
|
107,000
|
$15 million
|
$1.5 million*
|
Yes
|
|
Middleburg Heights
|
2000
|
83,000
|
$17 million
|
$2.4 million
|
On a limited basis
|
|
Seven Hills
|
2003
|
50,100
|
$7.3 million
|
N/A
|
No
|
|
Strongsville
|
1998
|
157,000
|
$18.1 million
|
$2.5 million
|
Yes
|
|
Twinsburg
|
1999
|
97,000
|
$12 million
|
$1 million
|
Open to school district
|
|
SOURCES: THE PLAIN DEALER 4/28/03 (from data provided by the cities' recreation departments)
|
|
|
|
|
*Projected
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE 19
New Attached and Cluster Housing Projects in Mayfield Heights (as of Fall 2003)
Name and Location of Project |
Developer
|
Zoning
|
Status
|
# and type units
|
Average Square Ftg.
|
Price Range
|
Acreage
|
Density
|
|
Pheasant Woods
SOM/Marsol area
|
Snavely
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
Complete
|
56 condos
|
2,000 sf (plus)
|
N/A
|
10 acres
|
5.7 du/acre
|
|
Wildflower I
Lander/Cedar area
Parcel 2
|
Kingdom
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
In development
|
18 Attached
Single Family Triplex Cluster
|
2,500
|
$350,000+
|
3.91
|
4.75 du/acre
|
|
Wildflower II
Lander/Cedar area
Parcel 1
|
Kingdom
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
Approved, not yet started
|
12 Attached
Single Family Triplex Cluster
|
2,500
|
$350,000+
|
2.70
|
4.75 du/acre
|
|
Wildflower III
Lander/Cedar area
Parcel 3
|
Kingdom
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
Approved, not yet started
|
27 Attached
Single Family Triplex Cluster
|
2,500
|
$350,000+
|
5.76
|
4.75 du/acre
|
|
Bridgeport
|
Kingdom
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
Approved
Site Work Started
|
47 Detached SF units
Single and Duplex Cluster
|
3,000 –
3,500
|
$500,000 –
$600,000
|
14.25
|
3.3 du/acre
|
|
Stone Creek
SOM/Ridgebury area
|
Four Seasons
|
Rezoned to
U-2(a)(1)
|
Approved
Site Clearing Started
|
125 Total Units
S.F. Triplex + Duplex Cluster
|
2,600
|
$250,000 –
$325,000
|
27.5
|
4.55 du/acre
|
|
Woodhawk
|
N/A
|
U-3
|
Completed
|
236
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Woodhawk
Apartment Conversion (4 Buildings)
|
Capreit
|
U-3
|
48 Converted 144 in the process
|
192
|
1,100
|
$124,000 –
$185,000
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Landerhaven Court
Lander/Cedar area
|
N/A
|
U-2(a)(1)
|
Completed
|
14
|
2,500 sf (plus)
|
N/A
|
4 acres
|
3.5 du/acre
|
Source: City of Mayfield Heights Building Department information, supplemented by other data. |
| |
TABLE 20
Apartment Buildings in Mayfield Heights
|
Complex Name
|
Address
|
|
# Units
|
|
Ranchland Gardens
|
1400 Ranchland Drive
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
16
|
|
Mayland Manor
|
1575-1583 Mallard Dr.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
40
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Mayland Towers
|
1585-1587 Mallard
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
80
|
|
Hawthorne Park
|
1560-1617 Hawthorne Drive
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
72
|
|
Mayfair Park
|
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
N/A
|
|
Golden Gate Gardens
|
6300-6334 Maplewood Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
144
|
|
Gates Mills Villa
|
6755 Mayfield Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
191
|
|
Pepperwood
|
1420-1458 Golden Gate Blvd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
132
|
|
Plymouth Park
|
6484-6643 Maplewood Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
300
|
|
Blake House
|
1165 SOM Center Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
36
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Hamilton House
|
200 & 250 Chatham Way
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
400
|
|
Howard Robbins Tower
|
6755 Mayfield Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
191
|
|
Luther House
|
1221 Drury Ct.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
119
|
|
Schnurmann House
|
1223-27 Julius Weil Dr.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
198
|
|
(A and B)
|
|
|
|
|
Villa Serena
|
6800 Mayfield Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
231
|
|
Grandview Towers
|
6805/09/11 Mayfield Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
1,077
|
|
Gates Mills Club
|
6759 Mayfield Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
120
|
|
Medbridge
|
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
|
Wynwood
|
6700 Larchmont Dr.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
116
|
|
Marsol
|
6501-6511 Marsol Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
986
|
|
Coppertree Apartments
|
1414 & 1422 SOM Center Rd.
|
Mayfield Hts., Ohio 44124
|
342
|
|
Sources: City of Mayfield Heights, Building Department, Apartment Inventory 2000.
|
|
"Affordable Senior Apartments," Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging.
|
|
| |
TABLE 21
Estimated Economic Impacts of General Land Use Categories
| |
Floor Area
per acre
(square feet)
|
Estimated Real Estate Value
(per acre)
|
Property Tax Generated
(per acre)1
|
Property Tax Distributed to Village
(per acre )2
|
Jobs Created
(per acre)
3
|
Average Salary
(per job)4
|
Income Tax Distributed to City
(per acre)5
|
Average Daily Vehicle Trips
(per acre)
|
|
Hotel6
|
20,000
|
$1,750,000
|
$36,615
|
$6,225
|
14
|
$11,182
|
$1,565
|
405
|
|
General Office
|
15,000
|
$1,500,000
|
$31,385
|
$5,335
|
45
|
$47,485
|
$21,368
|
165
|
|
Professional/Technical Services
|
15,000
|
$1,500,000
|
$31,385
|
$5,335
|
45
|
$50,573
|
$22,758
|
165
|
|
Commercial/Retail
|
12,000
|
$960,000
|
$20,086
|
$3,415
|
24
|
$19,144
|
$4,595
|
240 – 720
|
|
Personal/Business Services
|
12,000
|
$960,000
|
$20,086
|
$3,415
|
24
|
$20,578
|
$4,939
|
--
|
|
Light Industrial
|
9,000
|
$540,000
|
$11,298
|
$1,921
|
18
|
--
|
N/A
|
63
|
|
Heavy Industrial
|
9,000
|
$540,000
|
$11,298
|
$1,921
|
8
|
$44,923
|
$3,594
|
14
|
|
Manufacturing
|
9,000
|
$540,000
|
$11,298
|
$1,921
|
20
|
$44,923
|
$8,985
|
36
|
|
Warehouse
|
9,000
|
$540,000
|
$11,298
|
$1,921
|
14
|
$35,744
|
$5,004
|
45
|
|
Planned Residential7
|
7,200
|
$900,000
|
$17,489
|
$3,148
|
0
|
$0
|
$0
|
23
|
|
Single-Family Residential8
|
5,000
|
$750,000
|
$14,574
|
$2,623
|
0
|
$0
|
$0
|
19
|
Source: D. B. Hartt, Inc. analysis.
(1) (Real estate value x 0.35)/1,000 x effective tax rate; 2002 effective tax rates for Mayfield Heights = $55.52 (Residential) and $59.78 (Commercial/industrial) per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
(2) Calculated at 17% of total property tax for commercial and 18% of total property tax for residential as the portion that flows to the City of Mayfield Heights.
(3) Source: Development Impact Assessment Handbook (1994), Robert W. Burchell, et al.
(4) Source: US Economic Census Cuyahoga County Business Profile (2000) www.osuedc.org
(5) Mayfield Heights income tax = 1%.
(6) Assumes 45 rooms (444 square feet each) per acre.
(7) Assumes development density of 4 du/acre @ 1,800 square feet per unit (calculated using 5.86 trips per du).
(8) Assumes development density of 2 du/acre @ 2,500 square feet per unit (calculated using 9.57 trips per du).
|
| |
TABLE 22
Cleveland Real Estate Development Conditions
Competition for Retail and Office
With respect to the retail market in the Cleveland region, Colliers International (2002) refers to the major retail area at Mayfield Road and I-271 in Mayfield Heights as “the old standby†that has been able to maintain it popularity in the region by continuing to expand and bring in new stores. But the report gives first mention to the lifestyle center in Lyndhurst’s Legacy Village, opening in Fall, 2003, with 615,000 square feet of retail space. Also scheduled for completion at the end of summer 2003 is University Square in University Heights, which houses such tenants as Tops, Target, Joann Fabrics and more. These new shopping centers, combined with other major nearby retail facilities like Greens of Lyndhurst, Beachwood Place/La Pláce and the Richmond Mall, constitute significant competition for the retail offerings in Mayfield Heights.
Colliers International (2002) reports that vacancy rates in the region’s office market rose slightly in the first half of 2002 due largely to increased vacancies in Cleveland’s Central Business District. Vacancy rates in the suburban submarkets, however, generally declined (despite the departure of TRW corporate offices); but the eastern submarket produced the most marked decreases in vacancy rates, largely as a result of Progressive Insurance Company’s commitment to lease office space in the EastPoint and Landerbrook Corporate Center I and II office complexes.
While the Landerbrook office development holds promise for Mayfield Heights, Office Buildings (2001) notes that about 3,800,000 square feet of office space were either proposed or under construction (as of winter 2001-2002) in nearby places like Signature Square III, Science Park Drive, Chagrin Highlands in Beachwood, and Overlook Court IV in Warrensville Heights. Rent levels in the eastern submarket remain among the highest in the Cleveland region for Class “Aâ€, â€Bâ€, and “C†office space.
Sources: Colliers International, Commercial Real Estate Report, 2002.
Office Buildings
|
| |
| Appendix B: Summary of Current Zoning |
• Table 1: Permitted Uses in Residential Districts
• Table 2: Development Standards in Residential Districts
• Table 3: Permitted Uses in Commercial Districts
• Table 4: Development Standards in Commercial Districts |
| |
| |
|
TABLE 1
GENERALIZED SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
|
| |
U-1
|
U-2
|
U-2-A
|
U-3
|
U-3-A
|
U-3-B
|
U-3-C
|
| |
Single-family(1)
|
Two-family
|
PUD(2)
|
Garden Apt
|
Medium High-rise
|
High-rise
|
Senior Care
|
- Residential
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Single-family detached dwellings
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Single-family attached dwellings
|
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
- Two-family, duplex or double dwellings
|
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Apartment Houses
|
|
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Medium high-rise apartments
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Senior citizen apartments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
- Rest & nursing homes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
|
C. Community Facilities/Institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Churches, temples, child care services (within churches, temples and schools), public libraries, and the city hall, including services rendered by the municipality
|
P
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Public & private schools
|
P
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
|
C. Open Space, Recreation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Public parks, playgrounds, public recreation buildings and the City fire and police stations
|
P
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Public, private and semi-private golf courses
|
P
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
|
D. Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Accessory buildings
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
- Medical & health care facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
- Other uses deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission
|
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
- Restaurants located in an apartment hotel
|
|
|
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
- Lounges, snack bars, coffee shops, health clubs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
A
|
A
|
|
P = Use permitted by right C = Conditional use A = Accessory use
|
(1) There are subdistricts.
(2) There are subdistricts.
|
| |
TABLE 2
GENERALIZED SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
|
| |
U-1(2)
|
U-1 (Estate)
|
U-1(1)
|
U-2
|
U-2-A
|
U-2-A(1)
|
U-3
|
U-3(1)
|
U-3-A
|
U-3-B
|
U-3-C
|
| |
Single-family
|
Single-family
|
Single-family
|
Two-family
|
PUD
|
PUD
|
Garden Apt
|
Garden Apt
|
Medium High-rise
|
High-rise
|
Senior Care
|
|
A. Lot Requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Minimum project area
|
|
|
|
|
40 acres
|
3 acres
|
3 acres
|
3 acres
|
12 acres
|
20 acres
|
12 acres
|
- Maximum density (units per acre)
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
3.5
|
4.75
|
15
|
32
|
54
|
32
|
- Minimum lot size/land area per dwelling unit (in square feet)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Single Family
|
40,000
|
20,000
|
8,500
|
8,500
|
|
|
8,500
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Two-family/per unit
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Multi-family/per unit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,904
|
|
1,351
|
800
|
1,351
|
- Maximum units per structure
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Minimum lot width
|
100 ft
|
100 ft
|
60 ft
|
60 ft
|
|
|
60 ft SF
200 MF
|
300 ft
|
200 ft
|
200 ft
|
400 ft
|
- Required open space
|
|
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 acres of park
|
- Maximum lot coverage
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Buildings and pavement
|
|
|
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Buildings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30%
|
|
30%
|
|
30%
|
-
- Principal buildings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20%
|
|
|
B. Minimum Yard Depth/Building Spacing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Front yard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- From street right-of-way
|
|
|
35 ft
|
35 ft
|
50 ft
|
90 ft+
|
35 ft
|
35 ft
|
|
|
|
-
- From street centerline
|
110 ft
|
100 ft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 ft
|
170 ft
|
150 ft
|
-
-
- S.O.M. & Lander Rd
|
|
|
110 ft
|
110 ft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
-
- Mayfield Rd
|
|
|
120 ft
|
120 ft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Side yard
|
Min. 5 ft; total side yards = 20% avg. lot width
|
20 ft+
|
30 ft
|
25-50 ft based on bldg ht
|
50 ft
|
50 fta
|
50 fta
|
- Rear yard
|
20% of avg. lot depth, or 40 ft whichever is less, but at least 1/2 height of building
|
20 ft+
|
30 ft
|
25-50 ft based on bldg ht
|
50 fta
|
50 ftab
|
50 fta
|
- Minimum building spacing
|
NA
|
Ht of tallest building+
|
15 ft+
|
25-50 ft based on bldg ht
|
Ht of tallest building+
|
Ht of tallest building+
|
Ht of tallest building+
|
|
C. Floor Area Requirements (in square feet)
|
1,500 – 2,000
|
1,300
|
900 – 1,400
|
|
1,200 + 200 per addl.BR
|
|
1,000-1,800
|
|
500-1,050
|
500-1,050
|
490-715
|
|
D. Maximum Building Height (principal building)
|
35 ft
|
|
30 ft
|
30 ft
|
2 stories / 35 ft
|
|
3 stories / 35 ft
|
2 stories / 24 ft
|
70 ft
|
120 ft
|
70 ft
|
Abutting any residential district.
30 ft abutting all other districts.
Depends based on lot width.
Section 1195.05 includes a general regulation for building height when not otherwise stated in the district regulations – 35 feet, except 30 feet for lots with less than 100 feet of lot width.
Two-story buildings prohibited.
|
| |
|
TABLE 3
GENERALIZED LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
|
| |
U-4
|
U-4-A
|
U-4-B
|
U-6
|
U-7
|
U-8
|
|
| |
Local retail and wholesale
|
Development districts
|
Planned office and restrictive service districts
|
Cemetery
|
Headquarters or executive offices park
|
Office, engineering, medical and research building
|
|
|
A. Office
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- General and professional offices
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
|
P
|
P
|
|
- Banks
|
P
|
P
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Retail and Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Stores
|
P
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Restaurants
|
P
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Nightclubs, bars
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Movie theaters
|
P
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Motels and hotels
|
P
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Gasoline stations (with restrictions)
|
P
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Car washes (with restrictions)
|
P
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Automobile services (with restrict.)
|
P
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Automobile agencies (sales)
|
|
P
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
- Other Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Places of assembly
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Museums and libraries
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Recreation including bowling, swimming pools skating, etc,
|
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Cemetery, mausoleum
|
|
|
P
|
P
|
|
|
|
- Day care
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
|
|
- Hospital
|
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
|
- Industry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Engineering
|
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
|
- Research
|
|
|
|
|
P
|
P
|
|
| |
P = Use permitted by right C = Conditional use A = Accessory use NP= Not permitted
|
|
| |
|
TABLE 4
GENERALIZED SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS(1)
|
| |
U-4
|
U-4-A
|
U-4-B
|
U-6
|
U-7
|
U-8
|
| |
Local retail and wholesale
|
Develop’t districts
|
Planned office & res. service districts
|
Cemetery
|
HQs/ Executive Offices Park Districts
|
1179.01 Hospitals
|
1179.02 Office, medical, etc.
|
|
A. Lot Requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Gross Site Area
|
|
|
|
|
45 acres
|
|
|
- Minimum lot size
|
|
3 acres
|
|
|
6 acres; 3 acres for lots in subdiv.
|
|
|
- Minimum lot width
|
100 ft
|
|
200 ft
|
|
300 ft
|
|
|
- Maximum building lot
|
|
30%
|
|
|
15-25% depend on bldg. ht.
|
30%
|
30%
|
|
B. Minimum Yard Depth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Front yard(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Primary streets
|
|
250 ft from centerline
|
|
|
225 ft from centerline
|
250 ft from centerline
|
120 ft from centerline
|
-
- Secondary streets
|
|
|
|
|
140 ft from centerline
|
|
|
- Side yard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Adj. to residential districts
|
25 ft, unless building is 50 ft+ back from street
|
30 ft
|
25 ft, unless building is 50 ft+ back from street
|
|
100 ft
|
100 ft
|
10 ft
|
-
- Adj. to other district
|
|
|
|
|
25 ft from lot line or ht of bldg, WIG
|
100 ft
|
10 ft
|
- Rear yard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Adj. to residential districts
|
20% of lot depth or 25 ft WIG, up to a max of 40', but not < 1/2 building ht
|
30 ft
|
20% of lot depth or 25 ft WIG, up to a max of 40', but not < 1/2 building ht
|
|
100 ft
|
150 ft
|
25 ft
|
-
- Adj. to other district
|
|
|
|
|
40 ft
|
150 ft
|
25 ft
|
|
C. Required Parking Setback/Landscaping Strips
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Front yard
|
|
|
30 ft
|
|
|
60 ft
|
10 ft
|
- Side yard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Adj. to res. districts
|
|
|
10 ft
|
|
|
50 ft
|
30 ft
|
-
- Adj. to other district
|
|
|
10 ft
|
|
|
10 ft
|
10 ft
|
- Rear yard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
- Adj. to res. districts
|
|
|
10 ft
|
|
|
100 ft
|
50 ft
|
-
- Adj. to other district
|
|
|
10 ft
|
|
|
10 ft
|
15 ft
|
|
D. Maximum Building Height (principal building)(1)
|
|
|
2 stories or 25 ft above grade
|
|
3 stories or 40 ft above grade
|
60 ft
|
55 ft
|
(2) Section 1195.04 includes general setback requirements of 110 feet from centerline of SOM, Cedar, and Lander, 120 feet from centerline of Mayfield and 35 feet from right-o-way of all other streets.
(1) Section 1195.05 includes general standard for building height when not otherwise stated in the district regulations – 35 ft, except 30 ft for lots with < 100 ft lot width.
|
| |
Appendix C: Additional Resources
|
• Summary of Transportation Solutions: Institute of Transportation Engineers
• Greater Cleveland RTA: Transit Map for Mayfield Heights Area
• Sources of Funding for Local Governments—General
• Sources of Funding for Local Governments- Greenspace, Parks and Recreation
• Summary of Retail Strategies: Cuyahoga County Planning Commission |
| |
| |
Getting Most Out of the Existing System
|
Building New Road Capacity
|
Providing Public Transportation Services
|
Managing Transportation Demand
|
|
Urban Freeways
- Incident Detection and Management/Information
- Ramp Metering
- High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and Pricing
- Park-n-ride facilities
|
Multi-Modal Corridor Strategies
|
System Service Expansion
|
Alternative Modes
|
|
Arterials and Local Streets—Design
- Directional street alterations
- Access Management
- Traffic Calming
|
New Highways
|
System/Service Improvements
- Fixed Route and Express Bus Service Changes
- Paratransit Service Changes
|
Public/Private Actions
- Staggered Work Hours
- Telecommuting and Alternative Work Arrangements
- Transportation Management Associations (TMAs)
|
|
Arterials and Local Streets—Operations
- Signal Coordination
- Traffic Turn Prohibitions
- Improved Devices
|
Access Control and Management
|
Supporting Actions and Policies
- Fare Structures
- Transit-Oriented Development
- Parking Pricing to Support Transit
- Technology
|
Local Government Actions
- Shared Parking and Parking Management
- Trip Reduction Ordinances
|
|
Arterials and Local Streets—Management
- HOV on Arterials
- Parking Management
- Freight Management
- Bike/Ped Routes
- Traffic Enforcement
|
Geometric Design
|
|
|
| |
Reconstruction and Traffic Management
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Summarized from: “A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestionâ€, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997
|
| |
|
|
| |
General Information on Funding Sources for Development
|
| GENERAL LOCAL RESOURCES |
|
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• A portion of the future increase in assessed valuation of real property from real property taxation is designated as “exempt†from local property taxation.
• A payment in lieu of taxes is made by property owners back to the public body in the amount of the taxes that otherwise would have to be paid on such real property improvements, creating a “cash flow.†The cash flow may be used to pay for public infrastructure improvements connected to a public purpose—either on a “pay as you go basis†or through local debt issuance (where the stream of revenues is used to retire the debt issued).
• Up to 75% exemption for up to 10 years. With school board approval, can extend to 100% exemption for 30 years.
• TIF has been used in Ohio for both large-scale and smaller-scale economic development initiatives.
Community Reinvestment Area (CRA)
• Local tax incentive program for businesses that expand or locate in designated areas.
• Provides up to a 100% exemption of the improved real estate property tax valuation for up to 15 years (as a tax abatement).
• In some instances, local school board approval may be required.
Enterprise Zone Tax Incentive Program (EZ)
• Local tax incentive program for businesses that expand or locate in designated areas.
• Provides up to a 75% exemption on real property improvements or tangible personal property tax valuation for up to 10 years. Local school board approval may be required to exceed these limits.
Payroll Tax Sharing Program
• The City of Parma recently implemented an economic development grant program for the purpose of attracting businesses to locate within the City and to encourage expansion of businesses currently located in the City.
• The City may share up to 50% of the new payroll tax remitted to the City for a period up to 10 years with the new or expanding businesses. Grants are awarded from the net change in payroll tax proceeds of the business with reference to either Real Property or Tangible Personal Property.
|
| |
COUNTY FUNDED PROGRAMS
|
|
Competitive Municipal Grant Program
Cuyahoga County Department of Development(1)
(1) This is a subset of the complete programs available from the Cuyahoga County Department of Development (www.cuyahoga.oh.us/development)
|
| |
|
GENERAL LOCAL RESOURCES
• Up to $150,000 per year.
• Used for major public enhancements such as right-of-way improvements, streetscape enhancements, senior citizen centers and ADA improvements.
• Up to $25,000 per community available for community master planning (when funds are available).
Cuyahoga County Storefront Renovation Program
Cuyahoga County Department of Development
• Grants for architectural services (up to $2,000 or 8% of material costs).
• Loans for exterior and interior building improvements, including building code
improvements and signage (up to $75,000 per parcel at negotiated interest rates for twelve years, with monthly payments beginning six months after closing).
• Up to 20% of total project cost can be applied to parking lots and sidewalks.
• Those property owners that are able to provide 10% equity based on total material and labor cost, current on all taxes at loan closing, and able to complete the improvements within one year.
|
| |
|
Cuyahoga County Economic Development Loan Program
Cuyahoga County Department of Development
|
|
• Assists viable business expansion projects that need County loan funds to secure private financing. Assists projects that have a substantial benefit to the community and positively impacts the County.
• Loans range from $35,000 to $350,000 (not to exceed 40% of the total project cost) up to 15 year term. A minimum of 10% owner equity is required.
• Business must create one full time job for every $35,000 loaned. 51% of all jobs created or retained must be available to persons of low or moderate income.
• Loans can be used to finance capital equipment, land, buildings, construction and building renovation.
|
| |
|
Strategic Initiatives Fund
Cuyahoga County Department of Development
|
Same as above, except market rate loans up to $1 million for up to 20 year term. |
| |
|
Brownfield Redevelopment Fund
Cuyahoga County Department of Development
|
• Provides financing and subsidies to acquire land, perform Phase I and Phase II environmental testing, remediation, site clearance and demolition to obtain full use of underutilized commercial/industrial properties within Cuyahoga County that require environmental remediation such as the removal of underground gasoline tanks, asbestos or other environmental hazards.
• Sites eligible for the Voluntary Action Program (VAP) of Ohio qualify for the program.
• Municipal corporations, non-profit development corporations and private developers/businesses may apply for loans up to $1 million per project for up to 15 years. Subsidies, up to $500,000, may be granted to municipal corporation applicants that take ownership of the property. |
| |
STATE PROGRAMS(2)
State Capital Improvements Program (Issue 2)
Ohio Public Works Commission
(2) Additional funding programs available from the Ohio Department of Developent can also be found at www.odod.state.oh.us/cdd/ohcp
|
• The SCIP funds are derived from the issuance of State of Ohio debt referred to as “Issue 2†funds.
• Eligible projects: bridges and culverts, roads, solid waste disposal facilities, stormwater and sanitary collection/storage and treatment facilities, water supply systems, and wastewater treatment systems.
• Costs eligible for fund: acquisition of property and facilities, engineering and design, construction, equipment and related financing costs.
• Types of funding available: up to 90% of project’s total cost if it is a repair or
replacement project and up to 50% of a project’s total cost if it is a new or expansion project.
A. Grants: 80% of program’s allocation is awarded in grants, with a
minimum requirement of 10% provided in local matching funds.
B. Loans and local debt support: 20% of program’s allocation must be awarded in the form of interest free loans or in the form of local debt support. Applicants can request up to 100% funding in the form of a loan. Two types of local debt support funding are available:
1. Loan assistance: Loan assistance funds are awarded in the form of a grant to pay the interest costs associated with a loan from either a public or private lender or a bond/note issuance.
2. Credit enhancement: Credit enhancement funds are awarded in the form of a grant that can be used to cover the up-front purchase of a private bond insurance policy.
• In Cuyahoga County, this program is administered through the District One Public Works Integrating Committee (DOPWIC) via the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission; approximately $21 million is available countywide on an annual basis. |
| |
|
State Capital Improvements Revolving Loan Fund
Ohio Public Works Commission
|
• Eligible projects: bridges and culverts, roads, solid waste disposal facilities, stormwater and sanitary collection/storage treatment facilities, water supply systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.
• Costs eligible for funding: acquisition of property and facilities, engineering and design, construction, equipment, and related financing costs.
• All awards are in the form of loans covering up to 100% of the total project cost. |
| |
|
Clean Ohio Funds (Issue 1)
|
• The Clean Ohio program funds are provided by the issuance of State of Ohio debt referred to as “Issue 1†funds.
• Eligible projects: open space, riparian corridor and watershed preservation, greenways and similar projects.
• In Cuyahoga County, this program is administered by the County’s Natural Resources Assistance Council (as appointed by the DOPWIC referenced earlier) via the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission. |
| |
|
Local Transportation Improvement Program (LTIP)
Ohio Public Works Commission
|
• Eligible projects: roads, bridges and culverts.
• Costs eligible for funding: acquisition of property and facilities, engineering and design, construction, and equipment.
• All awards are in the form of grants covering up to 100% of total project cost. |
| |
|
Water and Sewer Rotary Commission
|
• Eligible projects: water and sewer lines.
• Interest-free loans. |
| |
|
Ohio Water Development Authority
|
• Eligible projects: drinking water, wastewater, construction projects, planning.
• Loans at market interest rates with a 10-25 year payback; borrower maximum $75 million. |
| |
|
Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
|
|
• Eligible projects: publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities/non-point source water pollution control projects.
• Loans are below market rate.
|
| |
|
319 Program
Ohio EPA
|
|
• Funding supports Ohio’s Nonpoint Source Management Program to protect and/or restore water resources affected by nonpoint sources of pollution.
• Projects funded (lasting up to three years) include education, technical assistance,
financial incentives, and other voluntary action.
• Applicants can apply for up to $300,000 for projects and $100,000 to develop a
Watershed Action Plan; requires 40% match.
|
| |
|
NatureWorks
|
| • Funding is available for nonpoint source pollution prevention projects protecting riparian areas along streams through the purchase of perpetual conservation easements. |
| |
FEDERALLY-FUNDED PROGRAMS
|
|
TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century)
U.S. Department of Transportation
|
• Funding for highways, highway safety and transit through fiscal year 2003.
• Safety improvements include road and rail highway grade crossing safety.
• Environmental improvements include transportation enhancements improving community quality, transit benefits, pilot program for sustainable communities, National Scenic Byways Program, bicycle and pedestrian paths (Ohio recreational Trails Program) and recreational trails.
• Funding for access to jobs (i.e., Welfare to Work), disadvantaged business enterprise program, workforce training.
• Expanded highway programs include interstate, bridges and congestion and air quality improvements. |
| |
|
Miscellaneous
|
• Economic Development Administration Loans and Grants.
• Land and Water Conservation Fund for park and outdoor recreational development. |
| |
|
NON-GOVERNMENTALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS
|
|
Business Improvement District (BID)
|
| • Business owners and merchants within the BID are permitted under state laws to use the city’s tax collection system to tax themselves; these funds, collected by the municipality are returned in full to the BID and are used for the physical and service improvements previously mentioned. |
| |
|
Charitable Foundation Grants
|
• Charitable foundation grants help “sponsor†certain community development projects such as landscaping, streetscaping and technical assistance in the maintenance of community facilities (examples of the largest local foundations include the Cleveland Foundation and the George Gund Foundation).
• There are more than 1,000 local family and community foundations in Ohio. |
| |
Sources of Funding for Greenspace, Park and Recreation
|
The matrix below includes a list of existing sources of greenspace funding available from federal, state, and local government agencies, and from non-profit organizations. The column headings indicate the primary use for the program’s funds and are intended as a quick source for identifying programs that may be applicable for specific greenspace-related activities. Many programs have web sites that provide more detailed descriptions of the program, along with information on where to apply for funds.
Ohio Greenways also publishes a hardcopy summary of various state and federal sources of funding for greenway projects. The U.S. EPA maintains a Catalog of Funding Sources for Watershed Protection. In addition, there are a number of organizations such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, The Trust for Public Land, and The Nature Conservancy that work with communities to assist in finding funding for projects. |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Other Potential Sources of Support
|
• National Park Service
• State Parks
• Development Impact Fees
• Developer Dedications
• Dedicated Taxes (i.e. sales, property transfer)
• Special Improvement Districts
• Trail Sponsorships
• Fundraisers
• Pay to Use - revenue generating venues |
• Sale of Easement for Utilities (i.e. cable, optic)
• Tourism Agencies
• Local Conservancy Groups - Land Trusts
• Public Arts Programs
• Organizational Support - Volunteers
• Scientific Research Programs/Schools
• Local Businesses
• Churches
• Recreation Clubs
• Pro Bono Professional Services (legal, financial) |
|
| |
2000 Northeast Ohio Regional Retail Analysis
|
|
Original Report by: Cuyahoga County Planning Commission for NOACA
(Summary of Strategy Recommendations, prepared by D. B. Hartt, Inc.)
|
IMPLICATIONS OF MAJOR RETAIL PROJECTS
|
Issue 1: Regional Impacts vs. Local Decision Making
• Local communities should understand the “true costs†of major retail development and its impacts on neighboring communities.
• Widening of major regional arterial roads takes away from the “main street†environment that many communities desire.
Issue 2: Consumption of Large Parcels vs. Other Needs
• Inventory of these properties is needed.
• Communities with these types of sites need to have appropriate zoning in place.
• Should open space be desired, strategies for preserving should be pursued such as Trust for Public Land and other preservation techniques.
Issue 3: Competition for Public Incentives
• Communities are in a bidding war for new development.
• State leadership is needed to assure revenue/cost sharing so that communities are discouraged from competing to attract new development.
Issue 4: Cocooning of Sites from Competitors
• Citizen and government pressure on corporate officials.
• Local government strict enforcement of building codes. |
| |
LAND USE AND ZONING
|
Issue 5: Community Assessment of Retail Needs
• Maintain updates comprehensive development.
• Identify an opportunity to create a town center or main street atmosphere as opposed to auto-oriented districts.
Issue 6: New Retail in Support of Existing Retail
• Encourage national chains to locate in older retail districts (i.e. main streets); retain local businesses whenever possible.
• Identify functionally obsolete industrial/retail sites and establish a land bank program that can assist developers to secure sites large enough to utilize in older, densely developed areas.
• Avoid the use of public subsidies (infrastructure assistance) for retail projects that provide direct competition for existing retail districts.
• Conduct a retail market analysis for the existing retail districts to determine retail uses that would complement established businesses and promote clustering of such establishments.
Issue 7: Using Land Use Regulation for Retail
• Carefully assess development proposals requiring a rezoning or other legislative actions.
• Impose a moratorium on rezoning actions until a comprehensive plan update is complete.
• Identify areas within the community that are anticipated to receive pressure for rezoning to retail use and assess implications in the plan update process The Courts are receptive to communities that proactively assess land use alternatives.
• Require an impact analysis to assess impacts of new retail on traffic, employment, tax generation, city services, land use compatability, infrastructure, stormwater run-off, parking and the environment (including regional level service agencies such as NEORSD, etc.).
Issue 8: Outdated Retail Strips
• Communities should cluster retail uses around existing major intersections through zoning (density bonuses) and infrastructure investments.
• Where there is considerable retail present in a community, consider rezoning vacant retail property to other uses or to a district that permits a mix of uses.
• Permit mixed-use development by right along major arterials and assure that the retail component is proportional and does not overwhelm the other uses.
Issue 9: Meeting the Retail Needs of Exurban Areas
• Outlying communities should carefully plan locations for retail stores so as to prevent the haphazard development that occurs when land is purchased speculatively around freeway interchanges.
• Support the retail zoned areas with infrastructure investments to facilitate development in the targeted areas.
• Consider rezoning commercial land to less intensive uses if that land is likely to be developed as strip retail developments.
Issue 10: Big Box Stores
• Communities can impose maximum size restrictions on new stores and tighten restrictions in areas that are currently comprised on smaller stores (50,000 square feet could be considered as a size cap).
• Utilize “design standards†for commercial developments, including big box retail stories, to achieve the type of development desired.
• Encourage national retailers to locate to existing downtown or “city center†locations, preferably as adaptive re-use projects where existing buildings are vacant.
• Should a big-box retailer close in your community, immediately assess potential alternatives—including non-retail uses—and take action to implement the desired type of development.
Issue 11: Parking in Older Retail Areas
• Monitor the active utilization of parking areas over different times of the day.
• Should more parking be required, assess a variety of options including transit.
• Designate specific areas for employee parking that leave choice parking for customers.
• If metering is used, allow 30 to 60 of free time for convenience shoppers.
• Promote shared parking arrangements.
Issue 12: Parking for Large Developments
• Adopt a 1 space/250 sq. ft. standard (as opposed to 1/200).
• Where transit serves an area, establish maximum parking standards.
• Enforce handicapped parking regulations.
Issue 13: Screening Parking from View
• Improve signage and lighting at rear entrance parking.
Issue 14: Marking Parking Lots Pedestrian Friendly
• Reduce parking requirements.
• Discourage massive front yard parking areas and encourage side and rear yard parking.
• Prohibit center block teardowns.
• Adopt zoning provisions that use landscaping in parking.
• Require parking lot setbacks of 5 or 10 feet with appropriate landscaping.
• Work with property owners to establish pedestrian safe routes.
• Incorporate environment supportive management practices.
Issue 15: Traffic Congestion
• Retail stores generate more traffic than any other type of land use.
• Require traffic impact studies to be provided by an independent traffic engineer before approving major retail.
• Encourage retail to locate in existing retail districts.
• Discourage retail strip development in undeveloped areas with zoning.
• Consider marginal road construction in areas of severe congestion to eliminate access.
• Working with property owners and developers to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to adjacent neighborhoods.
Issue 16: Post-Development Congestion
• Link transit centers with retail to reduce car traffic.
• Work with property owners to offer transit, bike and pedestrian alternatives.
Issue 17: Maintaining Healthy Retail Districts
• Market and promote the business district as a single entity.
• Consider using business overlay zoning to assure compatibility.
• Promote the uniqueness of community historic retail districts located n the neighborhoods of older cities and small downtowns.
• Reestablish storefront retailing in downtown Cleveland and larger cities in area counties.
• Use Business Improvement Districts to provide additional revenues for improvements and security.
• Promote linkages of the retail to traffic generators such as schools, courts, other municipal functions); require new government office to locate in or near an existing retail area.
• Work with merchants to provide for upkeep of retail areas.
• Evaluate build-out scenarios for retail and plan for that level; work with County planning commissions and MPOs to achieve.
• Promote buy-local programs.
• Provide for a strong police presence in retail areas.
• Promote retail mix to encourage visitors to stay longer.
• Prohibit temporary signs and the temporary sales in vacant lots in retail areas. |
| |
PHYSICAL DESIGN
|
Issue 18: Combating Poor Design
• In areas that are built out to the sidewalk, require infill development to do the same.
• Encourage foundation plantings.
• Work with merchants to secure storefront renovation funds where available.
Issue 19: Promoting Regulations for Better Design
• Develop detailed design guidelines to promote compatibility.
• Review and enhance sign regulations in zoning code.
• Improve buffering standards between commercial and residential.
• Discourage the use of paper and boards to cover vacant store windows.
• If big box is permitted, encourage design details that would make for reuse should they become vacant. |
| |
BUILDING REUTILIZATION, MODIFICATIONS AND REDEVELOPMENT
|
Issue 20: Conversion of Residential to Retail
• Work to permit converted use of historic homes where needed.
• Discourage front yard parking.
• Where there are concentrations of historic structures on major arterials, consider converting to residence/professional office use or traditional use in the zoning code.
Issue 21: Preserving Existing Buildings
• Conduct an inventory of historically and architecturally significant buildings to consider preserving; adopt an ordinance listing these properties and impose regulations on their use.
Issue 22: Keeping Local Businesses Competitive
• Work with businesses on façade programs, promotional strategies and other ways of making them more attractive to shoppers.
• Streetscape improvements to enhance the area |
| |
RETAIL SITE SELECTION
|
Issue 23: Avoid the “One Size Fits All†Syndrome
• Discourage national retailers from imposing a single design in every location that they build.
Issue 24: Retailing Opportunities in Central Cities
• Central city and inner ring suburban communities need to be advocates of their communities providing data to developers to support market demand and lobbying legislators for tools to make them more competitive.
Issue 25: Avoiding Retail Property Tax Reductions
• There appears to be an excessive number of requests made and granted for tax reduction, and a regional study and policy is needed. |
|
| |
|
