Lakewood Planning Commission & ABR Special Joint Meeting - July 23, 2024

The Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review (ABR) held a special joint meeting on July 23, 2024, at 6:00 PM to review the final development plan for a proposed mixed-use project at 14501-14519 Detroit Avenue (Docket No. 07-33-24). The applicant, CASTO, presented revised plans after the loss of a grocery tenant, leading to significant changes including a smaller Building One, an expanded public plaza, and reconfiguration of other buildings. The meeting included public comments, detailed discussion on site circulation, building designs, and parking, culminating in direction for further study and a tentative next meeting on August 6, 2024.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes of the May 23, 2024 special joint meeting unanimously by both bodies.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Peter Ketter (1425 Marlowe) expressed support for the revised plan, noting improvements to the Curtis Block and plaza. He asked about parking in Building One on the Marlowe side and whether on-street parking would be dedicated or metered.
• Cindy Streebig (Lakewood City Council Ward 3) expressed disappointment over the grocer backing out and requested consideration for fresh food retail. She asked about unit counts, parking spaces, and pet relief areas, voicing concern about dogs using neighbors' lawns on Marlowe.
• Linda Barbero (2249 Olive) commended the improved design, especially the Curtis Block treatment and material breaks on upper floors. She raised questions about dormer roof slopes on Building Four.
• Nicole Shedden (1488 Marlowe) expressed concern about the U-shaped building's southern exposure toward backyards and the townhome area's proximity to her property line.
• 2025 Clearan praised the project's stepped massing and openness around Curtis Block, asking about connections (walkway/tunnel), second-floor porch maintenance, and first-floor use of Curtis Block.

Discussion Items

• Site Circulation: Commissioners emphasized the need for strong pedestrian connections, particularly between Bell and Marlowe behind Building One. The applicant noted grade challenges but agreed to explore a connection. Vehicular circulation was debated, with concerns about conflict points at the Bell entrance, the loading zone layout, and the need for easy parking access. The board requested study of direct parking garage access from Bell versus the current service court.
• Building One: Commission members supported the loss of the top floor and expanded retail frontage, but questioned the 37 parking spaces within the building (potentially sacrificial for future uses). The applicant stated the retail mix will remain nimble to include local and regional tenants. Public restrooms were deemed necessary.
• Curtis Block: Feedback was positive on its renovation and proposed retail activation. Commissioners requested further detail on grade transitions and public restroom placement.
• Parking Garage: Discussion focused on the 75 spaces required for the Family Health Center (intermixed vs. segregated), parking management, resident parking charges, and the need for accessible spaces on-street near Detroit. The board noted the garage's top deck half-height and asked for renderings without trees to assess real experience.
• Building Three: Commissioners appreciated its transitional role but requested better definition of entries and porch functionality. ABR members asked for more material cohesion with neighboring buildings.
• Building Four (U-shaped): The design drew mixed reactions. Several ABR members felt the residential-scaled facade was too 'stickerish' and wanted better integration with the project's overall vocabulary. The applicant clarified that the street-facing elevations wrap around, but further refinement was requested, especially for the courtyard elevations.
• Public Plaza & Pocket Park: The expanded plaza was praised, but commissioners urged a more permeable edge to Detroit, movable furniture, and integration of bus stops. The pocket park was seen as needing simplicity and pet-friendly areas, with buffer planting to avoid window views.
• Townhomes: Commissioners requested that the southern units be pulled closer to the sidewalk for better visibility and that the esplanade be illuminated and screened. The townhome association and amenity access remain undetermined.

Key Outcomes

• The applicant will provide further study on parking garage access from Bell, balancing ease of use for retail with pedestrian safety.
• The design of Building Four will be refined to better relate to Buildings One and Three through materiality, while maintaining its residential character.
• Public restrooms will be included in the plaza design; a small maintenance/storage space is also needed nearby.
• The applicant committed to providing updated bedroom mix information and traffic impact study at a future meeting.
• The next joint meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 6, 2024, with a potential shift to August 22 if needed for more preparation. Staff will circulate a summary of action items.