Jump to content
MayDay

Cleveland / Lakewood: The Edge Developments

Recommended Posts

As much as I generally support high density, the whole point of zoning is to provide reliable assurance to land owners about the uses of neighboring holdings. So even if I disagree about the merits of a particular case, I don't find it wholly unreasonable for neighbors to be ticked when a developer proposes a fairly arbitrary zoning change.

 

Fair point.  I guess I can understand the homeowner's reaction to what looks like an arbitrary zoning change.  God knows our zoning code in Cleveland is so outdated that such changes are commonplace when a developer willing to invest in the City is at the table.  Such an effect undermines the stability zoning codes were designed to protect.  This speaks more about our need to update the code, preferably to something more form based in nature.

 

My neighbors and I are not against development, but think it should be done with an eye towards the quality of life of residents, and its fit with the character of the neighborhood.  Twelve units is just too dense for this site.  Neighborhood concerns include quality of life, privacy, peaceful enjoyment, property values and fit with the character of the neighborhood.  While abutting properties will of course be the most dramatically affected, it will also affect the neighborhood as a whole.  How would you feel about a three story wall of townhouses with rooftop stairway penthouses and decks being built along your property line, taking away any privacy, and increasing traffic, noise and other nuisances?  I think everyone would take steps to protect their home, and their quality of life...     

 

I guess I just disagree that such density is out of character for the neighborhood.  Not but a couple lots down is an apartment building that is multiples more dense that the town home project.  There are commercial uses, including a gas station a block away.

 

Also, I personally, wouldn't be put off from being neighbors with this development.  I consider less of a threat to the adjacent neighbors than you do.  And what inconveniences one may face would be set off by the increase in property values that will come with the project.  Of course, I don't own the house next door and this is just my analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a link to the site plan for these townhouses?

 

From here:

Here is the tentative site plan for the townhomes at 9509 Lake (St. Thomas Lutheran Church). I got this in an email blast from Brickhaus. Not sure how I feel about the driveway going around the property. That is a lot of lost greenspace. But they probably didn't have a choice if they were going for lakeviews from all of the houses.

 

This came from an email from Brickhaus marketing last August. I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed since then. I understand why the neighbors wouldn't like this one (assuming it's still accurate). Garage access should be via single shared driveway from the middle. Then the outer area between this property and the others would be green space. The driveway around the exterior of the property looks ridiculous to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the argument of needing mixed income in Cleveland neighborhoods so we don't price out lower income people is not really warranted. As much progress as we have made, the average price for a home in the city is still well below $100,000. Take a second and look at other cities real estate prices on Zillow and realize how low ours really are.

 

We need more newer, higher priced housing to go with our glut of older, cheaper housing to provide more options to everyone.

 

Some think it should all be mixed together, to prevent economic segregation.

 

I would disagree both in principle, and on a practical basis. If you want to infill your neighborhoods, you need to recognize the preferences of those who might move in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharing opinions on UO is good. Sharing them at Planning Commission is even better....

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2015/04172015/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for April 17, 2015

 

PLANNING COMMISSION starts at 9:00 a.m.,

in Room 6 City Hall.

 

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS

Ordinance No. 998-14(Ward 15/Councilmember Zone): Changing the Use and Area Districts of parcels on the south side of Lake Avenue west of Clifton Boulevard from an 'A' Area District and a One-Family Residential District to an RA2 Residential Attached Townhouse District.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This came from an email from Brickhaus marketing last August. I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed since then. I understand why the neighbors wouldn't like this one (assuming it's still accurate). Garage access should be via single shared driveway from the middle. Then the outer area between this property and the others would be green space. The driveway around the exterior of the property looks ridiculous to me.

 

The outer ring drive does look ridiculous, but agreed that the developer was probably going for all unit lake views (at least in the winter when the trees are see through!).

 

Of course, the current property with the church also has a drive way that wraps around to a parking lot in the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This came from an email from Brickhaus marketing last August. I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed since then. I understand why the neighbors wouldn't like this one (assuming it's still accurate). Garage access should be via single shared driveway from the middle. Then the outer area between this property and the others would be green space. The driveway around the exterior of the property looks ridiculous to me.

 

The outer ring drive does look ridiculous, but agreed that the developer was probably going for all unit lake views (at least in the winter when the trees are see through!).

 

Of course, the current property with the church also has a drive way that wraps around to a parking lot in the rear.

 

the could achieve the same purpose by putting the "point" of the townhomes at Lake instead of the back then feather out to the edge,  put the drive up the middle..  BUT that means they have to dig up that existing driveway instead of use it... and now the internal courtyard is the driveway/parking.  So more cost/ less "exclusive" means less $$.

 

But much better for the neighbors... they get to look at the front of the place and not the driveway/garage/garbage cans.

 

AND you could probably run 3-4-5 units across the back with a wedge of landscaping to break up the parking.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, tough crowd. 

 

Tough crowd?  Read the room, and take a look outside your front door.  Heck, maybe talk to some people out there.  And when you speak of neighbors, please realize that there are thousands of us, most of whom have a view on this matter that is very different from yours.

 

This is a waterfront area, along a primary thoroughfare, which is scarcely 5 miles from a major city's downtown, and which is already among the most dense in the region.  To apply an anti-density mindset here is patently ludicrous.  But more importantly, that position is openly hostile to the interests of everyone else who lives nearby.  Lord only knows how much business, how many new neighborhood services, it has already chased away.

 

With all due respect, please stop.  Please stop now.  You are harming the quality of life for literally thousands of your neighbors who chose this core urban neighborhood precisely because of its density.  While we work to attract more population and more walkable retail, you pursue policies that are aggressive and destructive to those goals.  If you prefer quiet isolation, I can respect that... but our region offers you practically unlimited options for that manner of living, so why must you try to force it upon others, in a neighborhood that has its own skyline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Can I get an A-MEN!

 

In all seriousness, I feel the "concerned citizens" in this instance are one or two houses on either side of this proposed development.  IMO they should have two choices: 

 

1.  Buy the church and develop/leave it to their own liking.

 

2.  Move to Avon Lake and enjoy own private zen garden, complete with vinyl fencing and adequate separation from the neighbor prying glances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leadership.  If it had existed at the Edge, the lovely Fifth Church would likely have been saved... too bad.

 

I agree with your entire post, but it fundamentally boils down to this line.    Jay Westbrook and the Cudell CDC leadership were holdovers from the 70's/80's just cruising along, collecting a check and not wanting to "lead." 

 

Westbrook is gone, replaced by Zone who is slowly unraveling the mess with the CDC, the Edgewater Homeowners and other interested parties (note that Dona Brady is intentionally left out since no one ever hears from or sees her). 

 

Up next:  a changing of the guard at Cudell is necessary.   

 

Yeah, Dona does nothing but be divisive and all she cares about is her ward which is mostly S of Detroit.

 

Zone is doing a pretty good job and yes, Cudell needs new leadership. 

 

Their are efforts underway to move Cudell and Edgewater into the future present.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread needs to realize that the church was dead from the outset of this latest project.  Too much money involved and ZERO serious interest by monied parties.  It's over, the fat lady has sung, and there were NO viable options for redevelopment.

 

In addition to that, any NC needs to run new utilities under that Church.

 

As for the residential over retail I feel your pain.  Two things here, the owners of the parcel have no interest in doing residential.  In fact they don't own any residential.  The majority of their Real Estate profile is strip malls.  Their cited reason for not being interested in RORetail is the federal ADA guidelines and the cost that an elevator would require. 

 

Personally I think it's a shame that apparently their is no pathway for a Federal Appeal so as to get a variance on accessibility.  If your only going to build say 9 units because of zoning height restrictions and available surface area of said project do we really need to ensure that disabled people have an elevator? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread needs to realize that the church was dead from the outset of this latest project.  Too much money involved and ZERO serious interest by monied parties.  It's over, the fat lady has sung, and there were NO viable options for redevelopment.

 

In addition to that, any NC needs to run new utilities under that Church.

 

 

Dean I think you're talking about 117th/Lake, when the commenter above was bringing in a new discussion about the old St Thomas church on Lake between Clifton/West Blvd.   

 

BTW Agree 100% on the lack of variance for disabled folks.  This town has hundreds of 2 and 3 story residential buildings that never needed elevators, but now new construction requires it.  Definitely runs up costs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, tough crowd. 

 

Tough crowd?  Read the room, and take a look outside your front door.  Heck, maybe talk to some people out there.  And when you speak of neighbors, please realize that there are thousands of us, most of whom have a view on this matter that is very different from yours.

 

 

LOL, I took it as a compliment to the forum, and I'm not really the one he's arguing with here.

 

We've got a relatively small group of regulars, but whatever you say that's germane, someone's going to have a different take and expect you to defend yours.

 

Remember that guy that was all up in arms about the casino skywalk?  I think that thread was lost in the crash, but I would say we took him by surprise.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Mixed-income housing developments are at least a place to start, instead of actively trying to force lower-income people away from the neighborhood.

 

The problem with "mixed income" developments is they end up including the subculture that chases away people with options.  It ends up being "low income".

 

As long as this happens, middle and higher income people will separate themselves, and there's not a hell of a lot the government can do about that without overstepping bounds and getting de-elected.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not it even should.

 

You can facilitate them doing it in your city, or they will go to other cities.  Or the suburbs.

 

To throw the Jane Jacobs argument at you here, there are plenty of high income people who don't mind, or might even prefer, living in an economically mixed area as long as they have the safety of their person/property. If you throw a mixed-income development in a strictly residential, low density area, it's not going to go well. But density and mixed uses increase safety because they increase the chances of people being out and about at all hours of the day. Point is, it's not the mere presence of poor people that drives rich people away, it's danger.

 

Unfortunately in most of Cleveland there is currently nowhere near the levels of density and mixed uses to support this. Even the great West 25th Street seems pretty dead to me during workdays. They should try to get some office space over there. Although that would probably cannibalize downtown so I guess it just is what it is.

 

In Cleveland, however, there is plenty of low income housing, low rents, and vacant land, that I don't think we need to be worrying about the gentrification forcing people out thing. It's a city that has less than half of the population it was built for, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New sign up at the site of future Lucky's grocery at W117/Clifton. The old plan for a Giant Eagle Market District/Starbucks built out the retail (Clifton) side of the block. With this sign appearing, does that mean that Lucky's will be smaller or Starkbucks won't be a part of the project, thus availing more leasable retail space(s)?

 

CCtpviUWIAA0MeC.jpg:large


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, I just found the answer to my question above. There's one retail space left in the development, based on the site plan below. This is what they had in the Passov listings....

 

http://www.passovgroup.com/listings/cleveland-the-shoppes-on-clifton/

 

CLEVELAND – THE SHOPPES ON CLIFTON

Property Highlights:

Exciting new construction – Fall 2015

New grocery anchored shopping district

Serving the Gold Coast Area

Convenient to Downtown Cleveland

15,000 VPD on W 117th & 20,000 VPD on Clifton Blvd

Ample parking

 

The flyer:

http://www.passovgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cleveland-The-Shoppes-on-Clifton.pdf

 

17142241816_938875dfbb_b.jpg

 

16980587320_bd086c1b9d_b.jpg


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went from 2 stories to just 1. And I see the archway from the church that was in the Brickhaus proposal is now gone. :whip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's an AWFUL LOT of parking. Who would want to look out their back door at this sea of windswept asphalt?

 

I wish Carnegie would sell their property to someone who knows about pedestrian-friendly urban design -- not a token, single-level structure at the corner. I think Brickman would do a much better job with this whole block.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly as disappointing as the new strip mall-looking Quaker Steak complex in Downtown Lakewood.

 

*** By the way, if this is how it's going to look then somebody here on UO owes me a beer or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMon everybody. Hold your horses. This is a street facing building with retail. It has some design to it. And it's a walkable grocery store. This is still a win. And the building pictured is clearly the smaller retail building not the grocery store. So let's withhold some judgement and see the good in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's got some positives, no doubt. But it's a letdown compared to the prior plan. I feel like I've shown up on a date to see a 25-year-old smokeshow based on her online picture and instead I meet a 55-year-old has-been. :)


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it certainly has its merits but I'm not going to forgive poor design just because it's bringing some much needed street-facing retail. At such a prominent intersection, we should be able to get both good design and retail.

 

My main concern is about the church arch for the Brickhaus proposal. One of the biggest draws of their proposal is that they would be preserving the arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMon everybody. Hold your horses. This is a street facing building with retail. It has some design to it. And it's a walkable grocery store. This is still a win. And the building pictured is clearly the smaller retail building not the grocery store. So let's withhold some judgement and see the good in this.

 

A win?  I wouldn't go that far.  Other than having more windows, it's no better than what they tore down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it certainly has its merits but I'm not going to forgive poor design just because it's bringing some much needed street-facing retail. At such a prominent intersection, we should be able to get both good design and retail.

 

My main concern is about the church arch for the Brickhaus proposal. One of the biggest draws of their proposal is that they would be preserving the arch.

 

Since it's a different developer on that corner perhaps they left out the Brickhaus details from their rendering.  I'm under the impression that is still happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, tough crowd. 

 

Tough crowd?  Read the room, and take a look outside your front door.  Heck, maybe talk to some people out there.  And when you speak of neighbors, please realize that there are thousands of us, most of whom have a view on this matter that is very different from yours.

 

This is a waterfront area, along a primary thoroughfare, which is scarcely 5 miles from a major city's downtown, and which is already among the most dense in the region.  To apply an anti-density mindset here is patently ludicrous.  But more importantly, that position is openly hostile to the interests of everyone else who lives nearby.  Lord only knows how much business, how many new neighborhood services, it has already chased away.

 

With all due respect, please stop.  Please stop now.  You are harming the quality of life for literally thousands of your neighbors who chose this core urban neighborhood precisely because of its density.  While we work to attract more population and more walkable retail, you pursue policies that are aggressive and destructive to those goals.  If you prefer quiet isolation, I can respect that... but our region offers you practically unlimited options for that manner of living, so why must you try to force it upon others, in a neighborhood that has its own skyline?

 

WEll Said 327

 

[golf clap]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people would spend 300k on townhomes that have that view out the back...yikes

 

You and me both. I hope they transplant a row of mature evergreens between the parking lot and townhouses.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who wants to bet that the cut stone-appearing portion of the top, center section turns about to be those plastic panels (whatever their name may be).  Those panels bug me -- they make every rendering look like granite and then we get a shiny plastic building instead.  E.g. Mariner's Watch apartments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brickhouse thing is still happening and Luckys is not going to be 2 stories because of the ADA thing.

 

 

 

How much is an elevator these days?  It sounds like an excuse to me--it can't be that much to be a deal-killer?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How much is an elevator these days?  It sounds like an excuse to me--it can't be that much to be a deal-killer?   

 

I think a two-story elevator is in the $100,000 to $300,000 range. The big issue is what the soil is like for digging the casing for the hydraulic cylinder.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A multi-story building with apartments is absolutely feasible for this site. The developer just doesn't have experience with those types of developments. I wish some people would leave their comfort zone every now and then. They would definitely get a return on investment with apartments above the retail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

URGENT: St. Thomas Rezoning Hearing, Friday, April 17, 9am, City Hall, Rm 514

 

    St. Thomas Church, 9509 Lake Ave., redevelopment proposal has been fast-tracked.  The developer, who currently does not hold title to the property, wants to rezone the property from its current single-family (A1) zoning, to demolish the church and to build 12 townhouses on the site.  This site, which is surrounded by individual homes, is not an appropriate place for a townhouse district.  We, as a community, have no obligation to change our zoning to maximize developer profits.  This type of preferential zoning goes against the purpose of zoning and destroys the fabric of a neighborhood.  We need as many concerned residents as possible at the Planning Commission hearing. 

    We are continuing to seek signatures on a petition to retain the current single-family zoning, or, at the very  least, have it designated as a low density townhouse district (RA-1), rather than the higher density that is proposed.  Please share this information with other concerned residents.

 

 

 

Any updates from that planning meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleburger[/member] the zoning change was approved. The commission also stressed that this wasn't final approval, that changes may need to be made (site plan, number of units, etc.) as the project moves through the development process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleburger[/member] the zoning change was approved. The commission also stressed that this wasn't final approval, that changes may need to be made (site plan, number of units, etc.) as the project moves through the development process.

 

OK that is reasonable, glad to hear it was approved, but also glad they are going to listen to the neighborhood input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Mexican restaurant coming soon to former Bottoms Up location on 117th @cletacos @Cleveland_Scene http://t.co/yhHWbBXLQ7


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky's Market, grocer new to Cleveland, lines up for Shoppes on Clifton project (photos)

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – A grocer new to Northeast Ohio expects to put down roots on the city's west side, where an empty church has lingered for more than two decades for lack of solid prospects to remake or replace it.

 

Lucky's Market, a small but growing company based in Colorado, has signed a letter of intent to anchor the Shoppes at Clifton, a retail development planned along Clifton Boulevard between West 116th and West 117th streets. The grocer would fill a void left by Giant Eagle, which considered building a small-format, high-end store on the site but walked away late last year.

 

A grocery store is the linchpin for the project, a gateway development at the Cleveland-Lakewood border. Lucky's and a second, multi-tenant retail building would rise along Clifton, where an old shopping strip was razed in 2012. A developer is planning townhouses along Lake Avenue to the north, where the vacant Fifth Church of Christ Scientist still stands. The octagonal church, owned by the city, will be demolished.

 

More: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/05/luckys_market_grocer_new_to_cl.html#incart_river

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The design is pretty much what I expected - meh. But this is still an exciting project that will really help to bring positive change to this part of Clifton. I hope they find good tenants for the remaining two retails spots. Great Clips and Dollar Bank are fine (neighborhoods need banks and hair salons), but they aren't particularly exciting. I vaguely recall previous site plans with a frozen yogurt place in one of those retails spots. I think that could be a good fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The design is pretty much what I expected - meh. But this is still an exciting project that will really help to bring positive change to this part of Clifton. I hope they find good tenants for the remaining two retails spots. Great Clips and Dollar Bank are fine (neighborhoods need banks and hair salons), but they aren't particularly exciting. I vaguely recall previous site plans with a frozen yogurt place in one of those retails spots. I think that could be a good fit.

 

Too bad they couldn't just steal the Giant Eagle proposed design. I think that was much better, but hey, it will be good to finally see this thing get going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would be far more enticing if this were a 10-12 story bldg with condos or apts above the store (which would also create customers for the store).... Especially being an important corner such as 117 & Clifton. Even 5 stories would have a dramatic impact over the store as planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carnegie Companies has no experience with such high density projects. They are primarily a developer of strip shopping centers and big box stores/commercial structures. They build single-use stuff horizontally not vertically. In other words, the same crap we've been building in most of America for 60 years.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carnegie Companies has no experience with such high density projects. They are primarily a developer of strip shopping centers and big box stores/commercial structures. They build single-use stuff horizontally not vertically. In other words, the same crap we've been building in most of America for 60 years.

 

So why did our leadership cozy up with them?  Grrrrrr.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carnegie Companies has no experience with such high density projects. They are primarily a developer of strip shopping centers and big box stores/commercial structures. They build single-use stuff horizontally not vertically. In other words, the same crap we've been building in most of America for 60 years.

 

So why did our leadership cozy up with them?  Grrrrrr.....

 

Because our leadership is decades behind, and answers to its most vocal anti-urban constituents.  See upthread for one example.  There are others around town.  Mixed use and density are not viewed as priorities in this city.  At times they are openly frowned upon.  That needs to change, on a fundamental philosophical level.  I don't see that happening without significant turnover at city hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did our leadership cozy up with them?  Grrrrrr.....

 

I don't know about the term cozy up, but the private property owner is willing to make an investment in its property. And as long as that investment doesn't violate any laws, why would the city oppose it? Furthermore, elected officials don't get into the detail of design issues. That's why we have planning and landmark commissions. Even so, this is a private property owner making a private investment without public funds. So there's little that the city could do to cause major changes to the design of the development.

 

This is on the private owner who is unwilling to embrace or simply unfamiliar with more pedestrian-friendly designs and the benefits of embracing them. But you can't force someone to like an architectural concept, even though I wish a developer would recognize the special geographic circumstances of this site which differentiates it from most of the suburban locations where Carnegie develops projects. But my wishes nor any Cleveland public officials matter little to a private developer who has site control.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carnegie Companies has no experience with such high density projects. They are primarily a developer of strip shopping centers and big box stores/commercial structures. They build single-use stuff horizontally not vertically. In other words, the same crap we've been building in most of America for 60 years.

So why did our leadership cozy up with them?  Grrrrrr.....

 

Because our leadership is decades behind, and answers to its most vocal anti-urban constituents.  See upthread for one example.  There are others around town.  Mixed use and density are not viewed as priorities in this city.  At times they are openly frowned upon.  That needs to change, on a fundamental philosophical level.  I don't see that happening without significant turnover at city hall.

 

This is pretty much a wrong statement on every level. City Hall has nothing to do with this. "Leadership" is not decades behind. This is private property being developed by a private developer with private funds. Please, before you go on unsubstantiated rants, at least make an effort to know the facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I fully agree with 327, but I think you guys are overstating the opposing case.  Through zoning, the city is constantly dictating how private developers can develop private lots.  We eagerly applaud the city's adoption of form-based zoning on certain corridors to prevent auto-centric stuff, and requirements for multistory development are already in place in some districts.  I think the real question is how hard a bargain should the city be pushing if the downside risk is losing high quality retail/commercial development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...