First Interstate Announces Purchase of Oakwood Property in Cleveland Heights
The development company now owns both the South Euclid and Cleveland Heights land
Photos
First Interstate Properties, Ltd., announced today that it has purchased 92 acres of the former Oakwood Country Club land in Cleveland Heights.
The commercial development company behind Steelyard Commons and Legacy Village purchased the more than 60-acre South Euclid side in December 2010, and since has pursued the Cleveland Heights land.
According to a press release issued today, “The preliminary concept for the Cleveland Heights parcel calls for a campus setting with a variety of living options for older adults, along with therapy and wellness facilities, retail, restaurants and civic use.”
The proposed development will include apartments for “active, healthy adults over the age of 55” and a retirement community with independent and assisted living options.
President of the Lyndhurst-based company, Mitchell Schneider, said in a press release that he has not yet met with Cleveland Heights officials about his ideas.
“We hope to preserve the 1905-vintage clubhouse and other amenities of the former country club and incorporate them for use by the residents, allowing them to enjoy an active lifestyle and age in place successfully on a campus environment,” Schneider said.
The land is currently zoned for residential development. First Interstate’s original plans called for a mix of parkland and residential and commercial properties — 69 acres of green space, 63 acres of retail and 22 acres of "high-end" residential properties. The land must be rezoned for the project to be completed.
South Euclid City Council unanimously granted rezoning its side of the land in June, but residents brought the issue to a referendum. After a back-and-forth battle between Citizens for Oakwood, which wants the property converted into a park, and First Interstate, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that South Euclid residents should vote on Issue 96 and determine whether the land is rezoned.
“A Yes vote on Issue 96 is the first step to launch this mixed-use project and will more than double the green space already set aside in South Euclid,” Schneider said.
If Issue 96 fails, Schneider said 350 homes could be built on the property.
After the South Euclid portion was purchased, Cleveland Heights residents attended a January Cleveland Heights City Council meeting to voice their opposition to the developement.
City officials have not commented on the issue.
Follow the links below for background on this story.
Related articles:
UPDATE: First Interstate's 'Reconsider' Request Denied by High Court
Oakwood Rezoning Issue Now on November Ballot
South Euclid City Council Votes to Put Oakwood Rezoning Issue on Ballot
First Interstate, Citizens for Oakwood Respond to Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
Ohio Supreme Court: South Euclid Should Repeal Oakwood Rezoning or Put the Issue to Voters
Citizens for Oakwood Seeks Court Help to Get Issue on Ballot
Oakwood Rezoning: Document Submitted to Wrong Person
Opinion: Great news! The campaign to put Oakwood on the ballot has started in South Euclid.
Update: South Euclid City Council Votes to Rezone Oakwood
South Euclid Planning Commission Recommends Oakwood Rezoning
South Euclid Planning Commission to Vote on Oakwood Rezoning Thursday
Oakwood Public Hearing in South Euclid Set for May 25
Oakwood Developer Objects to FutureHeights Forum
Majority of Residents Speak Out Against Oakwood Proposal
First Interstate Properties Takes Next Step Toward Buying Oakwood Site in Cleveland Heights
South Euclid City Council to Hear from Public on Oakwood Rezoning Wednesday
Residents Voice Concerns About Plans for Oakwood at City Council Meeting
Oakwood Development Discussed at South Euclid City Council Meeting
Portion of Oakwood Country Club Bought by Developer Responsible for Legacy Village
Adele Eisner
12:21 pm on Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Thanks for posting this article; for continuing to professionally offer a more true and balanced perspective on important issues, than typically found in more mass media who too often without investigation, just give readers government or corporate press-released views ; and for asking that commenters reveal their identities.
I was disappointed that one of your last posts re:Oakwood and the upcoming vote only gave link to the Sunday, 10/9 PD article that did none of the above. I did not want to enter that comment fray, including confusing and somewhat snarky posts from at least one SE council person, not clearly identified, which additionally called a UHts. development "creepy."
The calls and posts re: that article have apparently caused the PD to re-post the article, which far fewer will see; and with key factual errors cured, but not clearly identified. Also the article is titled and pointed to "Oakwood Commons project in South Euclid could proceed, regardless of referendum outcome."
In my view, it is irresponsible for any journalist to use his 1rst Amendment privileges and pulpit to impress voters that their votes won't matter, especially one month before an election.
Thank you for continuing your responsible journalism, aiding the citizenry's educated participation.