E. 131st Street Corridor Plan

Environmental DesignGroup

Mt. Pleasant Community Zone NOACA June 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 THE BACKGROUND

02 THE PROCESS

03 THE PLAN

04 THE IMPLEMENTATION

05 THE APPENDICES

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Debra Lewis-Curlee, Executive Director CLIENT 11019 Kinsman Road Debra Lewis-Curlee Mt. Pleasant Community Zone Cleveland, Ohio 44104 Ken Maxwell Mt. Pleasant Community Zone Zachary Reed City of Cleveland, Ward 2 Councilman STEERING COMMITTEE Mahmoud Al-lozi NOACA Melinda Bartizal ODOT District 12 Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells NEORSD Maribeth Feke GCRTA Marka Fields City of Cleveland, Planning Commission Regina Leverrett City of Cleveland, Traffic Engineering John Motl ODOT District 12 Ryan Noles NOACA Debra Prater Union Miles Development Corporation Funding for this project was provided Reverend Mark Smith Sanctuary Baptist Church by The Northeast Ohio Areawide Brenda Tufts Resident Coorindating Agency (NOACA) PLANNING & DESIGN TEAM Environmental Jeffrey Kerr Principle, Landscape Architect, Planner Michelle Johnson Project Manager, Senior Planner DesignGroup Sandy Ely Senior Landscape Architect 450 Grant St Akron, Ohio Kyle Lukes Landscape Architect 1120 Chester Ave Cleveland, Ohio Steven Kolarik Land Planner iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

sharrows parking lots Harvard Avenue roundabout

Mt. Pleasant Community Zone (MPCZ) younger residents in the neighborhood. parallel parking on each side of the street, received a TLCI grant in the spring of 2011 From these meetings, it was determined and curb extensions at 19 intersections was to develop the E. 131st Street Corridor that lighting, overall perception of safety, the preferred alignment for non-signalized Plan. The study area for the plan begins at streetscaping, parking, transit waiting sections of the street. At signalized Kinsman Avenue and East 130th Street to environments, gardens and parks, recreation intersections, as required by the City of the north and ends at Miles Avenue and East opportunities for youth and public arts all Cleveland, a left turning bay will be present 131st Street to the South. need to be improved along the E. 131st Street instead of the parking lane and curb corridor. extensions. Three Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and three Public meetings were held Based on a strong preference by residents Roadway, vehicular parking, and bicycle for the project. A youth outreach meeting and business owners at the public meetings, and pedestrian safety are the main was also conducted to seek input from the one 12 foot driving lane in each direction, improvements focused on throughout

1 curb extensions pocket park Civic Commons the plan. Green infrastructure, land use, A pocket park at the southeast corner of 131st Street corridor while adding a variety economic development, and neighborhood Wakefield Avenue and E. 131st street is of new residential and institutional uses identity improvements were also addressed proposed to add a green space element near to the neighborhood. Apartments and throughout the plan. a busy bus stop. A community garden and townhomes that encourage aging in place park are also proposed at Oakfield Avenue for older residents are recommended, as well Crosswalks need to be repainted following the and East 131st Street to build off of the as a new library and expanded recreation current design standards at all intersections new investment of Fire Station #36 that is center. The intersection of E. 131st Street throughout the corridor. A roundabout currently under construction in the same and Union Avenue is reconfigured to allow at Harvard Avenue and E. 131st Street is area of the corridor. for better traffic flow and the creation of the proposed to alleviate crashes at a regionally Civic Commons Green. high-crash intersection. The Civic Commons Development provides much needed public greenspace to the E.

2

THE BACKGROUND TLCI PROGRAM

In the spring of 2011, the City of Cleveland and Mt. Pleasant Goals of the TLCI program include: Community Zone (MPCZ) were awarded competitive federal funds through NOACA’s (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency) ƔEnhance the economic viability of existing communities Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative (TLCI) program. within the region The TLCI program provides 80% federal funds and requires a 20% ƔEnhance the region’s quality of life local match. The funding is made available to communities and public ƔEnhance a community’s identity agencies to conduct or contract for the planning of transportation ƔFoster compact land use development/redevelopment improvements. Through innovative design concepts and a community- ƔFacilitate accessibility by improving the range of based planning process, TLCI plans lead to more livable communities transportation choices by adding or improving pedestrian, in northeast Ohio. transit or bicycle facilities ƔReduce air and water pollution through best management practices ƔEncourage fuel and energy conservation ƔPromote a healthier community through planning and environmental linkages from an integrated transportation perspective ƔPreserve and enhance farmland, forests and open space ƔAssist the redevelopment of urban core communities ƔResult in projects that can compete at the regional level for capital funds through NOACA’s regional transportation investment process ƔEnhance the historic, archaeological, scenic and environmental elements of the transportation system ƔImprove the safety and efficiency of the existing transportation system

5 NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY

Although first settled in 1826 by British farmers from the Isle of Mann, the area now known as Mt. Pleasant remained predominantly rural until after 1900 when it was subdivided to accommodate European immigrants moving east from the densely developed neighborhoods near Downtown Cleveland. During the mid-1920’s, Kinsman Road became the institutional and commercial center of a growing Jewish Community, and East Boulevard (now Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.) became the site of many stately homes, most of which remain today.

Between 1920 and 1930, the neighborhood’s population tripled, rising from 14,000 to 42,000. Unlike other eastside Cleveland neighborhoods that underwent racial change in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Mt. Pleasant has been home to significant numbers of African- American residents since the turn of the century. It is reported that, in 1893, a contractor unable to pay cash wages compensated his African-American employees with vacant lots in a subdivision near Kinsman Road between East 126th and East 130th Streets. By 1907, approximately one hundred African-American families had settled in Mt. Pleasant. By 1970, over 95% of the neighborhood’s residents were African-American.

Through the years Mt. Pleasant has remained a working class community with families who tend to live in their homes for generations. It is a well-established African-American community with a long history of community organizations, faith-based institutions, local businesses, and human service agencies.

Mt. Pleasant is the most residentially developed neighborhood in the City of Cleveland with almost 64% of its land use devoted to housing. (The average for Cleveland is 34%.)

source: http://www.mpcz.org/residents 6 Until recent years, population loss and an exodus of middle-income families had led to property deterioration and business vacancies, particularly along Kinsman Road and Union Avenue.

Today, although deterioration persists, middle-class and high-income families are moving back into Mt. Pleasant thanks to the development of a new shopping plaza at East 143rd and Kinsman, and East 110th and Kinsman, the presence of many well- maintained homes, and the construction of market-rate single-family houses in the Kingsbury Run and Reservoir Place area.

source: Library of Congress

7 NEED FOR A PLAN

On August 3, 2010, a community meeting potential for a new fire station and new clean-up, and an overarching concern that was conducted by Councilman Zack Reed library to be built on or near the corridor. green buildings and energy conservation was and MPCZ to gather input on community Some of the major concerns from the same not being embraced in the community. stakeholders’ thoughts on the E. 131st Street stakeholder meeting were centered around Councilman Reed and Mt. Pleasant Corridor. Some of the positive input that the lack of investment or reinvestment in the Community Zone applied to NOACA for was received regarding the corridor included area, specifically in the Black communities the E. 131st Street TLCI Plan to create a the excitement around the investment of the of Cleveland, the lack of greenspace, playing community-driven planning study that new Charles Dickens @ Corlett School that fields or any type of outdoor recreational could address the issues and concerns, as had just been constructed, the easy access to facilities, the lack of aesthetic standards for well as highlight the positive input, that were Interstate 480, the presence and involvement surface parking lots, building facades or brought up at the community meeting that of active street and block clubs, and the maintenance, the lack of lighting and litter was held in 2010. 8 REGIONAL CONTEXT

Cleveland is a city in the state of Ohio and is the county seat of Cuyahoga County, the most populous county in the state. It is located on the southern shores of Lake Erie in Northeast Ohio. Cleveland has a population of 396,815, is the second largest city in the state, and has a total area of 82.47 square miles (US Census). I-90, I-71 and I-77 all run directly through or to the City of Cleveland and is served by I-490, I-480 and I-271 as outer-ring interstates.

Cleveland is known for its many diverse neighborhoods. The E. 130th Street/E. 131st Street Corridor is mostly located within the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood, which is located in the southeast corner of the City of Cleveland. It borders the Buckeye-Shaker, Woodland Hills, Union Miles, Corlett, and Lee-Miles neighborhoods within the City of Cleveland as well as the City of Shaker Heights.

9 The E. 130th Street/E. 131st Street Corridor serves as one of the few north/south &211(&7,2172 connections on the east side of Cleveland and directly connects motorists from 6+$.(5648$5( I-480 to Shaker Square. Kinsman Road, Harvard Avenue and Miles Avenue serve as the main east/west connections in the /XNH(DVWHU neighborhood and along the study corridor. 3DUN By car, the study area is about 15 minutes from Downtown Cleveland. By bike, the commute to Downtown Cleveland is roughly 35 minutes.

Northeast Ohio is known for its many parks and greenways, including the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and the Emerald Necklace, a linkage of Cleveland Metroparks greenways, trails and reservations that surrounds the City of Cleveland and many suburban communities. The E. 130th Street/E. 131st Street Study Area and Mount Pleasant neighborhood is noticeably void of any greenspace.

10 EXISTING LAND USE

11 Per the land use maps on the left and the existing land use pie chart to the right (source: City of Cleveland), there was a mixture of existing land uses along the corridor that included residential, institutional, government and commercial. There are also many vacant structures and lots scattered throughout the corridor.

The E. 131st Street corridor was truly a mixed-use corridor. Parcels with commercial and retail uses represented a little over a third (34.2%) of the corridor, while there was an average split (~15% each) between institutional, single-family residential, two- family residential an vacant parcels. There were very few parcels that had land uses of source: City of Cleveland light industrial, open space or multi-family residential within the study area. were labeled in the GIS data as ‘commercial’ or ‘institutional’, likely because of the ownership and adjacent use of the lot. This made the data slightly deceiving. Unless an accessory commercial or When comparing the GIS data to the existing institutional use, like parking, is up to code, it should not be labeled as its adjacent use. Because conditions in the field, there were quite a few of this, the percentage of parcels with commercial uses, institutional uses and vacant uses are vacant lots that were being used as business skewed and there should be an increase of vacant parcels and a decrease in commercial and and church parking lots. Most of those lots institutional parcels.

12 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL

EXISTING COMMERCIAL

EXISTING CHURCHES

13 EXISTING SCHOOLS

EXISTING ROADWAY

EXISTING CIVIC FACILITIES

14 EXISTING ROADWAY

The roadway area studied for this plan was located between Kinsman Avenue and E. 130th Street and Miles Avenue and E. 131st Street and was roughly 1.44 miles in length. Along the corridor there were 31 intersections, 12 of which were signalized, 4 GCRTA (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority) bus routes and 25 GCRTA bus stops. The existing roadway pavement was 40 feet wide with one to two driving lanes in each direction and varied parking restrictions along the corridor. The center-line along the corridor was painted, but there were no lane (INSERT IMAGE HERE) markings to clearly indicate the two lanes of traffic going northbound or southbound. Sometimes parking was allowed along the corridor and sometimes it was restricted, either with an all-day parking restriction, mostly due to GCRTA bus stops, or peak- hour restrictions during the morning and evening rush hours. There were no center turning bays or lanes striped at any of the signalized intersections along the corridor.

walking times (from center of corridor) GCRTA Routes

15 Corridor by the Numbers

E. 130th Street Kinsman Avenue to Union Avenue Sidewalks were present for the entire length of the corridor on the east and west side ~735 feet ( ~0.139 miles) of Kinsman Avenue, E. 130th Street, Union Avenue and E. 131st Street. Many people Union Avenue that lived in the area were dependent on transit as their main form of transportation, so E. 130th Street to E. 131st Street the condition of the sidewalks was very important to the neighborhood because at some ~200 feet (~0.038 miles) time during any transit trip, all transit users are also active pedestrians. The corridor and E. 131st Street neighborhood in general was very walkable. Most of the sidewalks in the commercial Union Avenue to Miles Avenue areas were at least 6 feet wide and most of the sidewalks in the residential areas were 5 feet ~6,690 feet ( ~1.267 miles) wide. The sidewalks themselves were in an overall good condition throughout the entire study area. From end to end, an able-bodied person could walk the corridor in about a 31 intersections half an hour with an average speed of 5 minutes per quarter mile. (see ‘walking times’ map 24 T – intersections on left page) 7 4-way intersections

12 signalized intersections Kinsman Avenue Angelus Avenue E. 130th Street Benwood Avenue Union Avenue Harvard Avenue Horner Avenue Maston Avenue Corlett Avenue Miles Avenue

4 GCRTA Bus Routes #14 #19 #15 #48 The study area was well covered by Of the 31 intersections located along the E.

GCRTA bus routes. Passengers had access 130th Street and E. 131st Street corridor, 25 GCRTA Bus Stops to the #14, #15, #19 and #48 routes along 12 were signalized and there were 24 T - 8 bus shelters the corridor. Of the 25 bus stops, 8 had intersections and 7 4 - way intersections. 17 signed stops shelters and 17 were signed stops.

16 HARVARD CRASH DATA HARDVARD ADTS

source: NOACA 2006-2009 Traffic Counts: NOACA

Intersection crash data is typically analyzed in pedestrian crashes. Because of the number According to NOACA traffic count data three year increments. The crash data available of crashes and the type and severity of those taken between 2006-2009, E. 131st Street at the time of this study was 2009 through crashes, the Harvard Avenue/E. 131st Street had an ADT (Average Daily Traffic) count of 2011. The intersection of Harvard Avenue intersection is considered, by NOACA and 12,965 north of Harvard Avenue and 11,817 at E. 131st Street is a high-crash intersection. the Ohio Department of Transportation south of Harvard Avenue. This data was 60 vehicular crashes were recorded during (ODOT) to be a regionally significant within the most recent count data available from that time period and the most severe crashes the NOACA region. The region includes five NOACA at the time of the study. included 23 turning/angled, 2 head-on and 4 counties: Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina.

17

THE PROCESS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A key component of the project was public and stakeholder involvement. This involvement provided important insight and feedback to the needs and recommendations for the plan. The groups met at different points during the project to solicit information, feedback, and input to the development of the plan and recommendations. The public was also kept informed by periodic communication from MPCZ.

A technical advisory committee (TAC) was established to inform and respond to technical issues related to general design and infrastructure. Participants included the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA), Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), City Council representatives, City of Cleveland traffic engineering and planning staff, and several community based organizations. Three TAC

21 STAKEHOLDERS

committee meetings were set during critical corridor – including transportation and road April 12, 2012 and November 15, 2012. All points in the project timeline and were conditions, economic/business environment, three public meetings were well attended. A conducted on December 1, 2011, March 29, crime and perceptions of the neighborhood. written survey and comment sheet was also 2012 and November 1, 2012. Both concerned citizens and business part of the first public meeting which allowed owners attended the meetings and provided for an alternative way to communicate A critical part of the planning process was vital information on the conditions as well comments and concerns. Many phone calls to solicit information from the public on as proposed improvements. Three public and emails were also received with various the current uses and deficiencies of the meetings were held on December 8, 2011, public comments during the process.

22 PREFERRED DESIGN ELEMENTS

23 24 YOUTH OUTREACH On May 22, 2012, a meeting was held specifically with some of the youth that were involved in the neighborhood to discuss their ideas and concerns about the neighborhood and corridor. There were three main themes in which the youth group wanted to see improvements: public transit and related amenities, recreation, greenspace and overall aesthetics, and an increase of destinations. Overall safety was an overarching theme that applied to all desired improvements.

Most of the youth that participated in the outreach meeting took public transit regularly, whether it was by choice or dependency. The group preferred the solar powered bus shelters that the general public and neighborhood stakeholders also preferred, but they wanted more amenities at the bus stops and shelters. There was an overall concern that the neighborhood was not safe, more specifically as it started to get dark outside, and the youth group all wanted to see emergency poles installed near all

25 bus shelters and major destinations along and the emergency poles next to the shelters. corridor and that if one (or more) was built, the corridor like the schools, the Boys and Because of the frequent use of the bus that the new parks should provide activities Girls Club, and at any future improvements shelters, the group felt that the Wi-Fi and for kids of all ages. Some of the amenities including the future library and parks. One charging stations should be available 24/7 that were desired within a park included of the strongest recommendations that came and not turn off, specifically as it related to volleyball courts, a splash park or splash out of the youth outreach meeting was the curfew. pad, playgrounds for younger kids and desire to have free Wi-Fi and charging older kids that were separated, shaded areas stations available at all bus shelters. The The youth group felt that there was not with benches for reading or playing chess, group desired a pilot program that used the enough greenspace or recreation facilities picnic areas with built-in charcoal grills, and solar power collected from the panels on the and that the overall aesthetics of the corridor generic open fields that kids could use for bus shelters and harnessed that energy to needed improving. It was noted that there soccer, football, playing tag, etc. The group power charging stations within the shelters was not a single park along the entire desired free Wi-Fi at all future parks, but felt

26 that the Wi-Fi in the parks should be disabled at the start of curfew. As for aesthetic improvements along the corridor, the only strong preference that the group had was a strong desire for more trees to be installed as many places as possible, more pedestrian scale lighting, public art installations, and banners to be installed on existing and future poles that said “Welcome to Cleveland’s Mt. Pleasant Neighborhood”.

It was pointed out many times during the youth outreach meeting that there was not a Subway, Wendy’s, Burger King, or McDonald’s within or near the study area. It was also pointed out that there was a major lack of desirable places for teenagers to go, like a nice library or recreation center and a lack of general neighborhood retail to buy items like books, school or arts and crafts supplies. While the group liked the

Common themes that came up in Fi hot spots at as many public locations discussion with the Mt. Pleasant Youth possible, including bus shelters, was a Group were safety, lighting, the desire for very popular suggestion as well as using age appropriate facilities and the need for alternative energy like solar power at bus greenspace along the corridor. Free Wi- shelters to provide charging stations for

27 idea of having fast food accessible like the places for mentioned, they also wanted a place that sold healthy food including a specific store or stand that sold local produce and flowers and herbs that were grown in the neighborhoods’ community gardens. The group liked the idea of a new library that had better technology options and did not mind that the two smaller libraries currently located within the study area would have to close. They had specific requests as to the function of a new library for areas that catered to children and teenagers, including: a separate teen area that included loud and quiet areas to do group-work or individual homework, a children’s’ reading area that had interesting places/nooks and crannies for smaller children to read or do homework, an outdoor reading area or garden that provided seating and shade, and of course, free Wi-Fi.

the growing list of personal electronics general improvements to the corridor such such as cell phones, tablets, and mp3 as additional trees, lighting for safety and players. Parks with a splash pad and aesthetics, emergency poles, additional separate areas for smaller children and neighborhood retail, community gardens teenagers were strongly desired as well as and a new library.

28 THREE “C” ANALYSIS

On March 7, 2012, three project stakeholders and two members of the consultant team walked from Miles Avenue and E. 131st Street to Kinsman Avenue and E. 130th Street to conduct a “windshield” survey by foot for the entire length of the corridor. A visual assessment of every parcel that fronted the corridor was made by each of the participating team members. All five team members individually rated three different criteria for each parcel: character, compatibility and condition. Character was based on the quality of the aesthetics of the site and/or building, compatibility was based on the appropriateness of land use for that particular location, and the condition was based on the overall physical condition of the site and/or building. A rating of negative one (-1), zero (0), or positive one (+1) was given for each criteria for each parcel. If the site/ building was “neutral”, it received a score of zero (0). If the site/building really stood out in a positive way for any of the three criteria, it received a score of positive one (+1). If character compatibility condition overall

29 a site really stood out in a negative way, it received a score of negative one (-1).

After all parcels were evaluated by the survey team, the data was compiled in a spreadsheet. The three ratings for the three criteria were then averaged together from the five scorers and compiled to create four averaged scores for character, compatibility, condition and an overall averaged final score. That data was converted to GIS and maps were made for all four averaged criteria. On the maps, the dark red color represents an average score of -1 to -0.5, red represents -0.49 to -0.01, white represents an average score of 0, light green represents an average score 0.01 to 0.49, and the dark green represents an average score of 0.5 to 1.0.

Three focus areas appeared grouped through the GIS mapping: the North (Kinsman Avenue to Benham Avenue), Central (Melzer Avenue to Lenacrave Avenue), and South (Harvard Avenue to Miles Avenue). character compatibility condition overall

30 NORTHERN FOCUS AREA

character compatibility condition overall

The Northern focus area was the area between Kinsman Avenue and E. 131st Street were still standing, so there was a mix of ratings for the 130th Street to Benham Avenue and E. 131st Street. The overall scores residential properties from Union Avenue to Benham Avenue due to for this area was a mix of positive and negative. the mix of vacant land versus houses that were still standing and waiting for demolition. The existing institutional uses present along Kinsman The character of the northern focus area scored well mainly because Avenue were rated a mix between positive and neutral scores. of the architecture of the Alexander Hamilton and Charles Dickens Schools. Even though these schools had great architectural integrity, Because of the overall poor rating for the northern focus area and their compatibility compared to their surrounding uses was not rated its importance of location within the study area and neighborhood, well and their overall conditions were rated even worse due to their the northern focus area stood out as being an area that should be dilapidation and vacancy. During the time of the survey, some of redeveloped. The base of existing strong institutional uses and available the houses that were scheduled for demolition on the east side of E. vacant land also supported redevelpment for the area.

31 CENTRAL FOCUS AREA

character compatibility condition overall

The central focus area was defined as the area between Melzer Avenue in 2010, so both were rated with the highest scores in all areas of the and Lenacrave Avenue and was identified as being a focus area because it survey. Most of the churches within the central focus area were well had the highest scores between all three criteria and the overall averaged kept, so other than a few parking lots that were not up to code, the score. church properties were generally rated very high.

The Boys and Girls Club, Charles Dickens at @ Corlett School, Olchovy’s Instead of being explored for redevelopment like the Northern and Hardware store and multiple churches were all located within the southern areas, the central area was selected to build off of improvements central focus area. While the Boys and Girls Club lacked in condition, that were already made, such as storefront renovations, to this area and its character and compatibility within the neighborhood were rated to ensure the continued positive trend of character, compatibility and positively overall. Olchovy’s Hardware had recently renovated its entire condition throughout the plan and in future improvements. storefront and Charles Dickens @ Corlett had recently been constructed

32 SOUTHERN FOCUS AREA

character compatibility condition overall

The southern focus area was generally defined by a cluster of low- and the overall averaged score. The other area that scored very low is scoring parcels between Harvard Avenue and Miles Avenue with a mix the light industrial area in the southwestern portion of the focus area. of a couple high-scoring retail areas. Much of the area is vacant, unkempt, overgrown and underutilized. Other than a church building and its well-maintained side yard that were High scoring parcels included the Miles Supermarket, multiple churches rated well for condition, the entire area on the west side of the corridor and a TrueValue Hardware store. The remainder of the southern between Marston Avenue and Miles Avenue had very poor scores. focus area scored relatively low mainly due to vacancies, overall poor conditions of buildings and sites, and underutilization of land. Miles Supermarket serves as an asset and retail anchor in the southern focus area, but the surrounding parcels were underutilized. The Most of the parcels on the northeast corner of the southern focus area availability of property next to the supermarket made redevelopment a had great character but scored very poorly in compatibility, condition, priority for this focus area.

33

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

2011/2030 LEVELS OF SERVICE TMS Engineers was hired to develop the traffic analysis for this ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV study. In order to develop the existing and future traffic analysis 2011/2030 LOS 2011/2030 LOS LOCATION MOVEMENTS (AM PEAK) (PM PEAK) as required by NOACA, nine hour, weekday turning movement (DVWTH6WUHHW .LQVPDQ5RDG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  counts were performed at the following intersections: (DVWERXQG %  %  E. 130th Street and Kinsman Road :HVWERXQG %  %  E. 130th Street and Union Avenue 1RUWKERXQG %  %  E. 131st Street and Union Avenue 6RXWKERXQG %  %  E. 131st Street and Bartlett Avenue TH (DVW 6WUHHW 8QLRQ$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  E. 131st Street and Harvard Avenue (DVWERXQG %  % 

:HVWERXQG %  %  The traffic surveys were taken on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6RXWKERXQG %  % 

(DVWST6WUHHW 8QLRQ$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  and Thursday, November 17, 2011 and were conducted in

(DVWERXQG %  %  fifteen minute intervals between the hours of 7AM – 10AM, :HVWERXQG %  %  11AM – 2PM and 3PM – 6PM. Hourly totals were calculated 1RUWKERXQG %  %  from the data collected. Vehicle classifications to determine the (DVWST %DUWOHWW$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  number of trucks and buses going through the corridor were :HVWERXQG %  %  also performed. 1RUWKERXQG %  %  6RXWKERXQG %  %  Design of new roadways, or improvements to existing roadways, (DVWST$YHQXH +DUYDUG$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  should not be based on current traffic volumes alone, but should (DVWERXQG %  %  :HVWERXQG %  %  consider future traffic volumes expected to make use of the

1RUWKERXQG %  %  facilities. It is believed that the maximum design period is in the 6RXWKERXQG %  %  range of 15 to 24 years. A period of twenty years is widely used (XX.X) = Average vehicle delay in seconds per vehicle as a basis for design. Therefore, it was necessary to determine The analysis indicates that conditions at the study area intersections are currently operating with a historical growth rate in order to establish the future year acceptable levels-of-service during the AM and PM peak hours under the 2011/2030 with Existing traffic volumes on the roadways within the study area for the conditions under traffic signal control. 35 year 2030. 2030 traffic volumes were requested through the 2011/2030 LEVELS OF SERVICE Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA). 3URSRVHG5RDG'LHW 2011/2030 LOS 2011/2030 LOS LOCATION MOVEMENTS (AM PEAK) (PM PEAK) A growth rate to determine the future traffic volumes in the study (DVWTH6WUHHW .LQVPDQ5RDG ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  area was requested from NOACA. NOACA recommended that (DVWERXQG %  %  the existing traffic and peak hours be used for the basis of the :HVWERXQG %  %  analysis since the future traffic alysisan indicated that overall traffic counts will decrease over time and the existing traffic 1RUWKERXQG %  %  data will be the highest volume of traffic the area will have in 6RXWKERXQG %  %  TH through the regional model year 2030. (DVW 6WUHHW 8QLRQ$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  (DVWERXQG %  %  The chart on the left page summarizes the existing and future :HVWERXQG %  %  Level-of-Service (LOS) for the roadway as it exists and is 6RXWKERXQG %  %  ST configured today. The analysis shows that all intersections (DVW 6WUHHW 8QLRQ$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  along the corridor have an LOS of “B”, which means that they (DVWERXQG %  %  currently function well and will continue to function well in the :HVWERXQG %  %  year 2030 with the existing roadway alignment. According to 1RUWKERXQG %  %  ST the Highway Capacity Manual, a Level-of-Service B describes (DVW  %DUWOHWW$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  reasonable free-flow operations. Free-flow (LOS A) speeds are :HVWERXQG %  %  maintained, maneuverability within the traffic stream is slightly 1RUWKERXQG %  %  restricted. The lowest average vehicle spacing is about 330 feet 6RXWKERXQG %  %  or 16 car lengths. Motorists still have a high level of physical (DVWST$YHQXH +DUYDUG$YHQXH ,QWHUVHFWLRQ %  %  and psychological comfort. (DVWERXQG %  %  :HVWERXQG %  %  A second traffic analysis was then performed for the same 1RUWKERXQG %  %  roadway, but instead of calculating the LOS for the existing 6RXWKERXQG %  %  (XX.X) = Average vehicle delay in seconds per vehicle 36 roadway alignment, the LOS was performed for the years 2011 and road diet configuration. 2030 traffic volumes under roada diet condition that included only one driving lane in each driving along the entire length of the corridor. A road diet is a commonly used term that is a technique in transportation The analysis indicated that conditions at the study area intersections planning that reduces the number of travel lanes, or narrows the lane were expected to operate with acceptable Levels-of-Service during widths, along an existing street. The most common road diets convert the AM and PM peak hours under the 2011/2030 proposed road diet a 4-lane or 3-lane roadway into 2-lane roadway or 2-lane roadway with conditions with traffic signal control. The analysis determined that a center turn bay or turn lane. The remaining space within the roadway a two-lane roadway with no exclusive turn lanes at the intersections is then typically used for expanded sidewalks, outdoor eating areas, bike under study should adequately serve the anticipated peak hour traffic lanes, parking lanes, all-purpose trails, or other multi-modal functions. conditions and that a Level-of-Service B will be maintained with the

road diet before roadd dietd afterft

37

THE PLAN

ROADWAY PLAN

At the first TAC and public meetings, five different roadway configurations were presented. Because of the cost associated with moving and reconstructing curbs, these five configurations all fit within the existing curb-to-curb 40-foot right-of-way (ROW). The first roadway configuration presented was the existing roadway configuration as it existed at the time of the study: one 12-foot driving lane in each direction with unstriped restricted parking available in some areas. The second configuration included one 14-foot driving lane in each direction with an 11-foot center turn lane, no parking, and sharrows with accompanying bicycle signage. The third roadway configuration displayed one 14-foot driving lane in each direction with a 6-foot bike lane in each direction with accompanying bike lane signage and no parking. The fourth configuration shown included one 13-foot driving lane in each direction and a 10-foot all-purpose-trail on the east side of the roadway with a 4-foot landscaped buffer, and no parking. The fifth and final roadway configuration included one 12-foot

roadway configuration #1 - existing

42 driving lane in each direction, a striped 8-foot parking lane on either side of the road except in bus stop areas, curb extensions where appropriate, and sharrows with accompanying bicycle signage.

Through discussion and the red dot/green dot exercise, the preferred roadway configuration, roadway configuration #5, was made very clear. The only proposed configuration that people strongly disliked roadway configuration #2 - center turning lane was the alternative that included the bike lanes. In addition to having the most red dots on the presentation board, there were many verbal and written comments made stating that even though people liked bicycles, they did not want to sacrifice parking along the corridor for bike lanes. That sentiment wasn’t as strong for an all-purpose- trail instead of bike lanes, but most people were not excited about the idea of having a trail instead of parking either. Some people liked the configuration that included a center turn lane throughout the corridor, but there were many people that felt that vehicular travel speeds were already too high on E. 131st Street and providing a center turning lane would just encourage higher travel speeds along the roadway configuration #3 - bike lanes corridor and that this configuration had too much asphalt and was not aesthetically or environmentally pleasing. The red dot/green dot exercise is a public involvement tool that lets public meeting participants vote on proposed improvements, design ideas, materials, alternative roadway configurations and other potential improvements being discussed as part of the planning process. Participants are given two different types of stickers, red and green in color, to physically place on the design boards.The placement of a red sticker means that the participant really does not like a concept, while a green sticker represents that a participant really likes a concept shown. Each sticker placed counts as a “vote” roadway configuration #4 - trail for or against a particular concept. 43 The fifth roadway configuration that included one 12-foot driving owners in the area, included bicycle facilities in the form of sharrows lane in each direction, a striped 8-foot parking lane on both sides of and signage for people who chose to ride their bikes on the road and the road except at GCRTA bus stops and driveways, curb extensions provided vegetation, reduction of asphalt, and traffic calming with and sharrows with accompanying bicycle signage was the preferred the presence of curb extensions. It was stressed by residents and alternative. There were no red dots placed on the presentation board neighborhood stakeholders at the first two public meetings that the for this alternative and many comments made in support of this parking lanes should be striped, as shown on the presentation board, to configuration included the notion that this configuration was “the clearly identify and distinguish the difference between the driving lanes best of both worlds”. This configuration allowed for on-street parking, and the parking lanes. which was a frequently stated major priority for residents and business

roadway configuration #5 - parking & curb extensions 44 SHARROWS Shared-lane markings, commonly referred to as “sharrows”, are pavement markings that are useful in locations where there is insufficient width to provide bike lanes. The markings also alert road users to the lateral position bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, therefore encouraging safer passing practices (including changing lanes, where needed). Shared-lane markings may also be used to reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.

The installation of sharrows is being recommended along the entire E. 131st Street and East 130th Street Corridor from Kinsman Avenue South to Miles Avenue. As indicated throughout the public meeting process, improved bicycle facilities are important to the residents and stakeholders of the neighborhood, but the preferred

roadway configuration included parallel parking on both sides of the street where space allows. Because the existing right-of-way does not have enough room to include both bike lanes and parallel parking, sharrows, or shared-lane markings, are being recommended as bicycle facility improvements that can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way.

data & image sources: FHWA and MUTCD 45 According to the MUTCD (Manual of after every intersection. by side within a lane. Drivers in the front, Uniform Traffic Control Devices), on streets whether on a bicycle or in a motorized with on-street parallel parking, shared-lane “Share the Road” signage is intended to alert vehicle, have the right-of-way. For the E. markings, or sharrows, should be placed at motorists that bicyclists may be encountered 131st Street corridor, the “Bicycles May least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or edge and that they should be mindful and Use Full Lane” and “Share the Road” signs of the traveled way where there is no curb. respectful of bicyclists. Another sign that are recommended to be installed along the On streets without on-street parallel parking, may be used in shared lane conditions is entire length of the corridor. shared-lane markings should be placed at the “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign. This least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or edge sign may be used on roadways without bike source acronyms: of the traveled way where there is no curb. lanes or usable shoulders, such as E. 131st FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) Sharrows should be installed immediately Street, where travel lanes are too narrow MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control after every intersection and every 250 feet for bicyclists and motorists to operate side Devices)

data & image sources: FHWA and MUTCD 46

OFF-STREET PARKING Many comments were made at the public meetings about the lack of parking, or the perception of lack of parking, along the corridor. The parking along the corridor is actually quite plentiful (see the yellow areas in the map to the right), but many of the parking lots are church lots that were gated when they were not being used. Most churches along the corridor were very active on Wednesday evenings for Bible Study and on Sunday mornings for church services, which leaves five days a week that the church parking lots are not being used, or being used very little. Shared parking was discussed at the public meetings and TAC meetings and residents and neighborhood stakeholders were very receptive to this idea. It is recommended that local businesses and/or institutional facilities have conversations with nearby church congregations to discuss shared parking arrangements. Most businesses and institutional facilities have different operating hours than when churches are active and bustling with people, so in many cases, the shared parking between the uses would not overlap.

Shared parking is a tool in which adjacent or Not every congregation is going to be open to nearby property owners share parking lots or the idea of having non-church members use parking spaces in order to reduce the number of their parking lots, but for the ones who are, parking spaces that each property would have to shared parking facilities are an easy way to provide on their own. prevent unnecessary additional surface parking

exisiting parking lots 48 lots to be built in the neighborhood. Shared parking lots can be aesthetically pleasing and are good for the environment by preventing additional impervious services and reducing additional stormwater runoff.

There were also many complaints from the residents and neighborhood stakeholders that the parking lots along the corridor were not maintained, were an eye-sore to the neighborhood, and in some cases, were even unsafe to walk by because of dilapidated fencing encroaching the public right-of- way along the sidewalks. This being said, most parking lots within the study area have chain link fencing and lack the required 4’ vegetative buffer strip. This means that most parking lots within the study are not in compliance with Chapter 349, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 358, Fences in Residential Districts, of the City of Cleveland Zoning Code. As they relate to parking, these codes require a “strip of land at least four (4) feet wide and densely planted with shrubs that form a dense screen year- round” and “in Residential Districts, only existing parking lots

49 BUSINESS PARKING LOT CHURCH PARKING LOT

ornamental fences, as defined herein, shall be for pedestrians and also creates a perception or operating license. It is recommended that installed in actual front yards and in actual of lack of investment from the street-view. the Council representative and Mt. Pleasant street side street yards if located within four (4) While it is not common for the City to issue Community Zone work with property feet of the side street property line.” The lack non-complaint driven zoning code citations, owners to update their parking lots so that of a planting strip and the presence of a chain if a property owner wants to update or they are in compliance with the zoning code link fence between the ROW and parking change their building in any way, they are and help the property owners find grant lot are not only aesthetically displeasing, it required to bring their parking lots up to sources, when available, to help defray the creates an undesirable walking environment code before they are issued a building permit improvement costs.

50 Roundabouts reduce the severity of crashes, eliminate head- on crashes, reduce conflict points within the intersection, and serve as a traffic calming measure.

51 HARVARD ROUNDABOUT

The intersection of Harvard Avenue at E. 131st Street is a high-crash intersection. Intersection crash data is typically analyzed in three year increments and the crash data available at the time of this study was for 2009 through 2011. 60 vehicular crashes were recorded during that time period and the most severe crashes included 23 turning/angled, 2 head- on and 4 pedestrian crashes. Because of the number of crashes and in this particular case, the type and severity of those crashes, the Harvard Avenue/E. 131st Street intersection is regionally significant within the NOACA region which includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina Counties.

With any high-crash intersection, safety is a major concern. Because of the types and severity of the crashes at Harvard Avenue and E. 131st Street, a roundabout is being recommended as a future improvement for the intersection if the location is still a regionally significant crash location in the next set of crash data that is released.

There are many benefits of roundabouts when compared to a stop- controlled intersection. Roundabouts reduce the severity of crashes, eliminate head-on crashes, reduce conflict points within the intersection and serve as a traffic calming measure. In the United States, it has been found that single-lane roundabouts operate more safely than two-way stop- controlled intersections and dramatically decrease the number of injuries at that intersection (FHWA). According to the traffic analysis conducted

52

Bicyclists have a broad range of skills and experiences, and roundabouts are typically designed to accommodate that wide range. Bicyclists should be provided similar options to negotiate roundabouts as they have at conventional intersections, where they navigate either as motor vehicles or pedestrians depending on the size of the intersection, traffic volumes, theirexperience level, and other factors. Bicyclists are often comfortable riding through single lane roundabouts in low-volume environments in the travel lane with motor vehicles, as speeds are comparable and potential conflicts are low. 53 for this study, the intersection of Harvard through the intersection, while improving audible and tactile cues they use to find Avenue at E. 131st Street functions at a level- safety, compared to a signalized intersection crosswalks. of-service (LOS) B now and in the year 2030. in the same location. Roundabouts do not typically include the According to FHWA, a roundabout that normal audible and tactile cues used by operates within its capacity will generally Pedestrians with vision impairments may pedestrians with vision impairments to align produce lower delays than a signalized have more difficulty crossing roundabouts themselves with the crosswalk throughout intersection operating with the same traffic due to a few key factors: the crossing maneuver. volumes and right-of-way limitations. This Pedestrians with vision impairments may Finally, sound of circulating traffic masks means that a roundabout at Harvard Avenue have trouble finding crosswalks because the audible cues that blind pedestrians use and E. 131st Street will either take the same crosswalks are located outside the projection to identify the appropriate time to enter amount of time, or potentially lower the of approaching sidewalks and the curvilinear the crosswalk (both detecting a gap and amount of time, it takes for a vehicle to move nature of roundabouts alters the normal detecting that a vehicle has yielded).

54 CURB EXTENSIONS

Curb extensions, which are also known as bump-outs and bulb-outs, are areas that physically extend the curb, and in many cases the sidewalk, into the roadway. Curb extensions cannot block driving lanes or bike lanes, so they can only be built in parking lanes or “no stopping zones” or “no parking zones”. If a curb extension is built in a parking lane, it does take away one to two parking spaces.

Curb extensions have three major benefits: they shorten pedestrian crossing distances, serve as a traffic calming measure and provide opportunities for stormwater management.

Through the red dot/green dot exercise at the first public meeting and small group discussions at the second public meeting, residents and neighborhood stakeholders strongly preferred having curb extensions at appropriate intersections throughout the corridor with a parallel parking lane. Participants liked that the curb extensions curb extension at Melzer

55 Proposed Curb Extension Locations

Oakfield Benham Lambert still allowed for parking in the neighborhood, acted as a traffic calming measure and shortened pedestrian Holborn (north side) crossing distances, but the main reason for the overall support of the curb extensions was that it provided Melzer opportunities for green infrastructure and to green up the neighborhood and corridor with vegetation and Farringdon landscaping without having to install a new streetscape throughout the entire corridor. Barlett Gay (north side) Two major themes and concerns throughout this planning process that were consistently brought up were Svec maintenance and sustainability. Residents and neighborhood stakeholders were concerned that an overall Aulcash streetscape installation throughout the corridor would not be maintained by the city and and liked that Southview the curb extensions were smaller than a streetscape. They thought that maintaining the curb extensions Chapelside (south side) was more realistic than the maintenance of a larger streetscape with opportunities for neighborhood block Glendale clubs, churches and youth programs to help and lead the maintenance efforts. Lenacrave Dove Durkee Watterson Edgewood Crennell Ferris

The curb extensions should be built in phases based on funding availability and other improvements happening in the area. The first phase of curb extensions should be built source: Abby Hall at the following locations: Oakfield, Residents and neighborhood stakeholders liked stormwater management and reduce impervious Benham, Holborn, Melzer, Gay, Svec, the fact that curb extensions can often provide surface while also calming traffic. and Glendale.

56 (INSERT IMAGE HERE)

57 Terms like “sustainability”, “green”, “LEED” Curb extensions shorten pedestrian crossing a drivers’ line of site that naturally slows the (Leadership in Energy and Environmental distances by extending the sidewalk and driver of the vehicle down. Design), “renewable” and “recycled” were physically narrowing the roadway. The continuously brought up throughout extension of the sidewalk also enlarges the Stormwater management is another major the planning process. The fact that curb view of approaching traffic for pedestrians, benefit that curb extensions can provide. extensions reduce runoff while serving and makes pedestrians about to enter the Curb extensions capture runoff from nearby as a stormwater control measure, reduce crosswalk visible to motorists sooner. paved surfaces and treats and infiltrates the impervious surface while adding much runoff while providing volume and flow needed forms of vegetation to the corridor Curb extensions serve as a traffic calming control and water quality benefits. Most really excited the residents and neighborhood measure by physically narrowing the of the runoff is managed onsite within the stakeholders during the plan. roadway and in turn, provide visual cues in curb extension, instead of through the storm sewer system.

58

POCKET PARKS

Throughout the planning process, residents and neighborhood stakeholders adamantly stressed that there was not enough greenspace along the corridor or anywhere close to the neighborhood, especially within walking distance. Knowing that this was a major concern, the concept of pocket parks was presented at the first public meeting. In addition to the use itself, multiple types of pocket parks were on the display boards for attendees to vote on via the red dot/green dot exercise and give opinions on the survey. The support and positive reactions and responses for having a pocket in the neighborhood was made clear early on in the process, but the residents and stakeholders made it known that they wanted pocket parks within their neighborhood to have an active use and be something special. The pocket park concepts that were widely supported were active parks, not passive parks. Residents and stakeholders wanted to be able to sit in the parks, play chess, read the paper or just have a nice conversation with a friend outside.

60 The notion of having a walk-through park with no place to sit or even just a nicely vegetated plan within the neighborhood could be greenspace on an empty lot was not desired. established. To address this concern, three major green spaces were recommended Continued maintenance of a pocket park, or any greenspace along the corridor, was a concern as part of this plan: a pocket park on the that was brought up at the first and second public meetings. It was decided through the public southeast corner or Glendale Avenue and process that even though there were plenty of vacant parcels for pocket parks and gardens to be E. 131st Street, a community garden across built on, the residents and neighborhood stakeholders wanted to be selective as to where the parks from the new fire station between Oakfield and gardens were placed and limit how many were being proposed so that a realistic maintenance Avenue and Benham Avenue, and an active recreational park behind the new fire station.

Glendale Avenue was selected as the first pocket park site along the corridor because of its location in the southern part of the corridor, was a vacant site, and the presence of a very active bus stop with a shelter on the corner. Residents and neighborhood stakeholders wanted to make sure that improvements, where possible, were being explored and recommended in the southern portion of the corridor where the condition of the buildings and overall general appearance of the neighborhood were a little more deteriorated compared to the rest of the corridor. Glendale Avenue pocket park

61 The function and form of the pocket park was the first public meeting and very lengthy people to sit and enjoy the outdoors while the important to the participants of the public discussions at the second public meeting, conceptual design of the park intentionally meetings. In contrast to the traditional it was determined that red was the desired has an openness that allows for “eyes on the style that was desired for the improvements color for the pocket park amenities. Red street” and “eyes from the street” to create a in the rest of the corridor, people wanted a tables, chairs, benches, trees and public safe and comfortable environment for users. bright splash of color in their pocket park. art are being proposed for the pocket park Through the red dot/green dot exercise at on Glendale Avenue. There are places for

62 63 CIVIC COMMONS PLAN

Through the Character, Compatibility and Condition analysis that was The Civic Commons redevelopment plan included the realignment of conducted for each parcel throughout the study area, the area between E.131st Street and E. 130th Street between Union Avenue and Kinsman E. 130th Street, Kinsman Avenue and Union Avenue stood out as having Avenue, a full streetscape, a Civic Commons Green that will host outdoor the most potential for redevelopment in the area. With major input from community events and farmers’ markets, provide new, open greenspace, residents, neighborhood stakeholders and the TAC, a redevelopment and a strong presence of civic and social service amenities and uses. plan was created for the very northern portion of the corridor. This A new fire station, expanded recreation center, new library, and a mix redevelopment area was named the Civic Commons, and was further of new multi-family residential developments were recommended as developed as part of this study. part of the plan. A new park and community garden were also being recommended near the new fire station.

Public/private partnerships will play an important role in the redevelopment of this area. The Civic Commons District Plan depends on public, civic and social service redevelopment and improvements as a catalyst to promote private redevelopment. The notion of public/private investment is particularly important to the proposed private residential development. Major infrastructure work, including the realignment of the roadway, the subsequent relocation of utilities to accommodate the new roadway alignments, and streetscaping that includes sidewalks, decorative crosswalks, lighting and trees will need to be funded and implemented in order for most of the private and institutional redevelopment and expansion to occur.

64 existing The existing intersection at Union Avenue and E. 131st Street forced vehicles to make a left turn and then immediate right turn to continue north onto E. 130th Street. Site lines were difficult with the existing configuration because drivers cannot see in the direction they wanted to go.

option 1 Option 1 extended E. 131st Street through Union Avenue to Kinsman Road. Vehicles are still forced to turn left and then right to continue north past Kinsman Road, but creates a significant greenspace that the neighborhood desired. This option kept a grid pattern but eliminated the K.A.R.E. housing facility on Kinsman Road.

option 2 Option 2 extended E. 131st Street through Union Avenue but then curved back towards the existing E. 130th Street just south of Kinsman Road. This option keeps the K.A.R.E. housing facility, eliminates awkward turning movements, but has a smaller Civic Commons greenspace than Option 1 provided.

65 INTERSECTION REDESIGN

The existing intersection of E. 131st Street at Union Avenue had awkward turning movements when users traveled north or south along E. 130th Street through to E. 131st Street. By reconfiguring this intersection, driving patterns will improve and there is an opportunity for a new large public greenspace.

At first, residents and neighborhood stakeholders preferred Option 1 (see left) because it provided the largest greenspace and kept a grid pattern in the roadway, but once public participants realized that the K.A.R.E. housing facility would have to be torn down and relocated, Option 2 quickly became the preferred alternative. People liked that Option 2 eliminated an unnecessary turning movement that would still be necessary at Kinsman Road with the alignment of Option 1and created a very nice

and open site line to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists that were traveling north or south along the corridor. People felt that the proposed greenspace in Option 2 provided a large amount of greenspace that was still significant enough in size to make a positive and green impact in the neighborhood.

66 CIVIC COMMONS DEVELOPMENT

The Civic Commons District provides much needed public greenspace to the East 131st Street Corridor while adding a variety of new residential and institutional uses to the neighborhood. 67 library (proposed)residential development (proposed) recreation center (proposed addtition)

The new library proposed within the Civic New residential construction is being The existing Alexander Hamilton Recreation Commons district would close and combine recommended within the Civic Commons Center is in serious disrepair. The decision the two nearby existing libraries into this one district. Aging in place will be a main focus on whether or not the facility should remain facility. Both existing libraries need more of this future residential development and it open needs to be determined sooner rather square footage, want better visibility, and is proposed that a mix of rental and owner than later. If the Rec Center is closed or desire more parking. A corner lot, as shown occupied units be provided. There is an over- relocated, the Boys and Girls Club, which in the Civic Commons site plan, is desired abundance of single-family units available desires to expand, has the potential to relocate by the Cleveland Public Library System to within the study area, so townhomes, into this building. If it is decided that the provide the enhanced visibility that neither condominiums and apartments are being Alexander Hamilton Recreation Center is to exiting library building offers. An updated proposed to add variety to the residential remain open, in addition to fixing the much facility is desired to better provide the makeup of the neighborhood and provide needed repairs, it is recommended that the growing technology services and needs of the options to existing and future residents to facility be expanded and updated to provide community the the existing library buildings not only age in place, but provide multiple updated and desired activies and services to just do not have the space to provide. housing options within that place. the community.

68 In addition to the Civic Commons Green, two additional greenspaces are being proposed that are centered around Fire Station No. 36. The first is an active park that is proposed on the same site as the fire station on the remaining land that is not being used by the new fire station building. The second is a community garden located directly across from the fire station on the east side of E. 131st Street. Since the study began, all of the homes on the proposed community garden site have been demolished and are now owned by the City. Both a garden and park were desired by the residents and neighborhood stakeholders involved, but the youth in particular especially desired a recreational park because they felt that there was nowhere that was

Fire Station No. 36 park Fire Station No. 36 park & community garden

69 age appropriate in the neighborhood that they could hang out and “be teenagers”.

Maintenance and safety, or the perception of safety, were emphasized concerns when it came to proposed greenspace along the corridor. Residents and neighborhood stakeholders were concerned about greenspace becoming “turf” and being prone to gang activity. Concerns also included the issue of spray-painted gang symbols, or “tagging”, and the new park amenities being targets for this type of activity. While the conceptual designs of the two greenspaces are cognizant of these issues, it is recommended that the final design of the park and garden are thoroughly thought out and vetted with the residents and stakeholders, including the youth, to make sure that all concerns regarding safety are taken into consideration.

Volleyball courts, picnic areas with Raised planting beds, fruit trees, grape bbq grills, 2 different age appropriate arbors, a gazebo, benches, water hoses, a playgrounds, benches, bike racks and decorative streetfront trellis and multiple plenty of vegetation are proposed for the pedestrian entrances are proposed for the station park. community garden. community garden

70 source: City of Cleveland and RLBA

71 FIRE STATION NO. 36 Cleveland’s first joint fire and EMS facility was in the beginning planning stages when the E. 131st Street Corridor Plan began. Due to route planning, coverage area and response times, the new station had to be located close to the old station that was located at E. 131st Street and Bartlett.

The station, which was being named Fire Station No. 36, was originally proposed for the old Alexander Hamilton School site on E. 130th Street and Union Avenue. Residents were very much in support of the reconfiguration of Union Avenue and E. 131st Street and if Station #36 was built on the old school site, the reconfiguration of the intersection would not be possible.Through meetings and coordination with City officials, the preferred site for Station #36 was moved to E. 131st Street between Oakfield Avenue and Benham Avenue in the northern focus area so that it complied with the Civic Commons Plan, which at that point, had already been thoroughly reviewed and approved by residents and stakeholders. source: City of Cleveland and RLBA

72

THE IMPLEMENTATION CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS EAST 131ST STREET CORRIDOR CURB EXTENSIONS & CROSSWALKS (PHASE 1)

MAY 2013 TOTAL INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

+2/%251 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

0(/=(5 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    Assumptions *$< &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( 1) E. 131st Street will be milled and filled &URVVZDON8QLWV    just prior to crosswalk installations

&XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV   69(&  2) only curb ramps impacted by curb $9(18( extension installation will be replaced, &URVVZDON8QLWV    no new curb ramps will be added where

*/(1'$/( &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    none existed before $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    3) 30LF crosswalks for each crossings

GRAND TOTAL $562,491.00 4) no utility conflicts or adjustments

5) existing curbs can remain except for new curb tie

75 CURB EXTENSIONS

Two phases of construction are recommended for the proposed curb more aesthetically pleasing than paint. extensions. Phase 1 includes Holborn, Melzer, Gay, Svec and Glendale Avenues. The total cost for curb extensions at these five intersections is MPCZ and Environmental Design Group applied for Small Scale $562,491.00. This total dollar amount includes preliminary engineering Stormwater Demonstration Project (S3DP), a competitive grant and design, construction, and decorative crosswalks. (The calculation program funded by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, was made usuing FY 2013 dollars, so an inflation factor will need to and were awarded funds to design and construct the curb extensions be applied in the future once a construction year is determined.) The at Oakfield and Benham Avenues. Construction for the curb average cost per intersection is $112,498.20 for the curb extensions extensions have been coordinated with the City in conjunction with and decorative crosswalks. Instead of paint, a heated thermoplastic the construction of Fire Station #36 and is scheduled to begin in the treatment is the recommended material for the crosswalks. Heated Summer of 2014. Councilman Zack Reed also generously contributed thermoplastic is more expensive to install, but lasts seven to eight local ward money to fund the ADA curb ramps and ADA sidewalk times longer than paint. It is approved by ODOT, is non-slip, and modifications that were needed for the project.

76 CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS EAST 131ST STREET CORRIDOR CURB EXTENSIONS & CROSSWALKS (PHASE 2) MAY 2013 TOTAL INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST

/$0%(57 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

)$55,1*'21 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

%$5/(77 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

$8/&$6+ &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

6287+9,(: &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV   

&+$3(/6,'( &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    Assumptions $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    1) E. 131st Street will be milled and filled /(1$&5$9( &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( just prior to crosswalk installations &URVVZDON8QLWV   

'29( &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( 2) only curb ramps impacted by curb &URVVZDON8QLWV    extension installation will be replaced, '85.(( &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( no new curb ramps will be added where &URVVZDON8QLWV    none existed before :$77(5621 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    3) 30LF crosswalks for each crossings ('*(:22' &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    4) no utility conflicts or adjustments &5(11(// &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    5) existing curbs can remain except for )(55,6 &XUE([WHQVLRQ8QLWV    new curb tie $9(18( &URVVZDON8QLWV    GRAND TOTAL $1,320,397.20 77

Phase 2 for the curb extension construction includes thirteen Curb Extension Funding Sources: intersections including: Lambert, Farringdon, Barlett, Aulcash, ƔSurface Transportation Program (STP) - NOACA Southview, Chapelside, Lenacrave, Dove, Dukee, Watterson, ƔTransportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - NOACA Edgewood, Crennell, and Ferris Avenues. Just as in Phase 1, the ƔSurface Water Improvement Fund (SWIF) - OEPA cost opinion is based on FY 2013 dollars and includes preliminary ƔClean Water Act Section 319 (319 Grants) - OEPA engineering and design, construction, as well as the installation of ƔSmall Scale Stormwater Demonstration Project (S3DP) - decorative crosswalks using thermoplastic material instead of paint. NEORSD ƔCommunity Cost-Share Account - NEORSD

78 79 ROUNDABOUT

The cost to reconstruct a typical signalized intersection into a single-lane roundabout ranges from $400,000 to $1,000,000. Varying ROW costs create a large price range for reconstruction projects like this one. It is known that the property on the northeast corner of Harvard Avenue and East 131st Street will have to be acquired, and most likely the property on the northwest corner of the intersection will also have to be acquired, or partially acquired, in order for the roundabout to be built at this intersection.

It is recommended that NOACA and the City of Cleveland observe the crash data for the intersection of Harvard Avenue and East 131st Street over the next few years. If this location continues to be regionally significant as a high-crash location, it is highly recommended that the two stakeholders move forward to design and construct the roundabout. Safety money from ODOT is a good source of funding that can be used for this project.

80 81 EAST 130TH & EAST 131ST STREETS

The first phase in implementing the Civic Commons development plan is the redesign and construction of the E. 130th Street, E. 131st Street and Union Avenue intersection. The reconfiguration of the intersection will eliminate awkward and unnecessary turning movements, improve the line of site for the north/south connection between E. 130th Street and Kinsman Avenue and E. 131st Street and Union Avenue and create a large public Civic Commons greenspace that is desperately needed in the neighborhood.

The estimated cost to redesign and construct the E. 130th Street, E. 131st Street and Union Avenue intersection is $1,800,000.00. This cost estimate assumed the use of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 dollars, so an inflation factor would need to be applied to the estimate when designed and constructed in future years after FY 2013.

This intersection should be the first phase of the implementation of the Civic Commons

82 CIVIC COMMONS DISTRICT PLAN CONCEPTUAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS AUGUST 31, 2012 E. 130th Street / E. 131st Street / Union Avenue Realignment

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Site Preparation/Demolition $6DZ&XW  LF   %&RQFUHWH$VSKDOW3DYHPHQW5HPRYDO  SY   &&RQFUHWH&XUE5HPRYDO  LF   Subtotal $18,200.00 2Earthwork $([FDYDWLRQ GHSWK  CY   %%LR5HWHQWLRQ7RSVRLO GHSWK  CY   &$JJUHJDWH GHSWK  CY   '$JJUHJDWH GHSWK  CY   Subtotal $17,441.00 3 Erosion Control $(URVLRQ&RQWURO0HDVXUHV  LS   Subtotal $2,500.00 4 Pavement $6XEJUDGH3UHSDUDWLRQ  SY   %5RDGZD\  SF   &'HFRUDWLYH&URVVZDON0DUNLQJ  SF   '&XUE5DPS  EA   (&RQFUHWH6LGHZDON  SF   )&RQFUHWH&XUE  LF   *&RQFUHWH'ULYHZD\  SF   Subtotal $798,525.00 5 Utilities & Amenities $&RQFUHWH&ROODUDURXQG&DWFK%DVLQ  LS   %3HUI8QGHUGUDLQ Z8SWXUQHG3LSH  LF   &6WRUP6HZHU &DWFK%DVLQ  LF   ''RPHVWLF:DWHU6HUYLFH  LF   (6WUHHW/LJKWLQJ  EA   )3HGHVWULDQ/LJKWLQJ  EA   Subtotal $169,900.00 6 Roadway Vacation/Dedication $3ODWSUHSHUDWLRQDQGILOLQJ  LS   Subtotal $5,000.00 7 Landscape $0XOFK GHSWK  CY   %3HUHQQLDO &RQW#2&  EA   &%XOE 2&  EA   '6KDGH7UHH &DO# 2&  EA   Subtotal $25,740.00 TOTAL $1,037,306.00 $&RQWLQJHQF\   %*HQHUDO&RQGLWLRQV   &%RQGV ,QVXUDQFHV   '0RELOL]DWLRQ'HPRELOL]DWLRQ   (1(3$3URFHVV (QYLURQPHQWDO&OHDUDQFH   )'HVLJQ 'RFXPHQWV   GRAND TOTAL $1,792,464.77 83 plan because the expansion of the recreation center and the new library the Union Avenue streetscape be implemented once the library and its site plan are contingent on the new reconfiguration of the E. 130th Street, adjacent parking lot are designed and funded. The streetscape section E. 131st Street and Union Avenue intersection. between Union Avenue and E. 140th Street should be constructed immediately after the library project to encourage private development The cost estimate (as shown on the left page) includes the preliminary and investment along that portion of the roadway. engineering, design and construction cost for the area immediately affected by the intersection reconstruction. This includes the area south Streetscape amenities directly around the reconfigured intersection of Kinsman Road that is east of E. 130th Street, west of E. 131st Street and are included in the Phase I cost estimate. These improvements include north of Union Avenue. The remainder of the streetscape along Union decorative crosswalk markings, street lighting, pedestrian lighting, shade Avenue that extends to E. 140th Street in the plan is not included in the trees and plantings for the reconfigured intersection. Phase I cost estimate shown. It is recommended that the remainder of

84 85 CIVIC COMMONS

There are many components to the Civic Commons development plan. In addition to Phase I, the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the E. 130th Street, E. 131st Street and Union Avenue Intersection, Phase II of the Civic Commons implementation plan includes the construction of the new library, renovation of the existing recreation center, and construction of the shared parking lots for both the library and recreation center.

In order for the library to be constructed on the northeast corner of Union Avenue and E. 131st Street, 13311 Union Avenue, will need to be acquired, the buildings demolished, and the site remediated. The proposed library building is mostly situated on the old Alexander Hamilton School Site, but the combined parking lots for the library and recreation center are proposed to be constructed on the property at 13311 Union Avenue. The redesign and construction of the recreation center can occur at the same time as (or after) the library construction, but just like the library, the recreation center is dependent on the construction of the parking lot at 13311 Union Avenue.

86