Special Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review – Downtown Development

The joint meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission and Architectural Board of Review (ABR) was held on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium. The sole agenda item was the final review of Docket No. 07-33-24, a Planned Development (PD) application for a mixed‑use development at 14501‑14519 Detroit Avenue, submitted by CASTO (represented by Kolby Turnock). The project includes office, retail, commercial, and residential uses. The meeting opened with roll call, approval of the July 23, 2024 special joint meeting minutes, and opening remarks. The applicant presented updated plans addressing comments from the previous meeting. Public comment was received, followed by extensive discussion among commission and board members. No final approval was given; both bodies voted to defer action pending receipt of a traffic impact study, final setback plan, updated use map, and final plat.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Linda Barbero (2249 Olive Ave): Asked whether the Curtis Block could be constructed first to preserve its historic character, whether historic tax credits would be used, and whether the upper apartments would be restored. She suggested a welcoming entrance feature (e.g., an arch or pergola) for the plaza and recommended movable benches. She praised the parking garage brick bays and the reworked tree‑lawn park along Bell Avenue.
• Scott Williams (1531 Waker Ave): Expressed disappointment that the project includes extensive concrete and high‑cost apartments rather than significant open green space, an arboretum, or a nature‑focused park. He said the development does not address climate change and that Lakewood already has ample restaurants and stores.
• Caitlin Walsh (1435 Marlowe Ave): Expressed excitement for the project, especially the dense housing and retail that will continue Lakewood’s downtown bustle. She regretted the loss of the grocery store but thanked the team for adding trees along Marlowe and requested as many trees as possible.
• Dana Paul (1462 Bell Ave): Asked about the green wall shown on the parking garage rendering—whether it would be on the first three bays only and whether it could extend further south toward the residential area. He commented that plaza benches look too massive and cold and inquired about materials (aluminum/vinyl vs. substantial materials) for the garden apartments facing Bell and Marlowe.
• Nick Zingali (1435 Marlowe Ave): Noted the loss of two anchor tenants (Roundstone and the grocery) and stressed the need for lively tenants and programming to ensure the plaza is actively used year‑round. He supported dense residential housing as a positive for climate change.
• Councilwoman Cindy Marks (1587 Grace Ave): Pleased with design improvements but concerned about the reduced commercial space and lack of an anchor tenant like a grocery store. She urged careful thought to attract people to the plaza, emphasized public art, and supported a welcoming plaza entrance.

Discussion Items

The discussion was structured around site circulation (vehicular and pedestrian), public spaces, and each building. Commissioners and board members provided feedback.

Vehicular Circulation & Parking

• Commissioners praised the reorganization that moved the garage entrance off Bell Avenue and the residential lobby to the southeast corner of Building One, improving pedestrian safety.
• Concerns were raised about the tight turning radius for trucks exiting the Marlow access drive, especially with on‑street parking nearby. The applicant agreed to study truck turning radii.
• Discussion about the 75 dedicated parking spaces for the Cleveland Clinic Family Health Center: their exact location within the garage is unresolved and may be subject to renegotiation.
• Commissioner Reese suggested a clockwise one‑way circulation on the first floor of the garage to improve retail parking turnover and pedestrian safety. The applicant agreed to study it.
• On‑street parking along Bell Avenue was removed in front of the parking garage to create a linear park. Commissioners suggested that if the road width allows, on‑street parking could be retained with proper signage.

Pedestrian Circulation & Public Spaces

• Overall, commissioners appreciated the redesigned plaza at Detroit and Bell (steps pulled back, tree planters reduced) and the new linear park along Bell Avenue. The meandering path and green screen along the garage were praised.
• A mid‑block crosswalk across Bell Avenue near the parking garage entrance was recommended for safety, especially for clinic patients.
• The plaza at Building Four (pocket park) was discussed: concerns about a desire path cutting through the lawn were raised. The applicant considered adding a formal path or shifting the building entrance.
• Commissioner David suggested exploring a “DORA” (Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area) for the plaza to allow alcohol consumption.
• Public restrooms in the pedestrian connector between Building One and the parking garage were noted; questions about sufficient capacity were raised, but the building official clarified they are not required to meet covered‑mall standards.

Buildings

• Building One: The reconfiguration of the residential lobby to the southeast corner was supported. Flexibility for future expansion of commercial ground‑floor space (e.g., re‑introducing a grocer) was discussed but requires structural coordination.
• Parking Garage (Building Two): The brick‑bay facade and green screening were praised. Commissioners requested a winter rendering to evaluate landscape performance.
• Building Three: No significant changes from the previous meeting; the direct connection to the parking garage was noted positively.
• Building Four: The U‑shape massing and courtyard redesign were generally well‑received, but ABR members expressed concern about the “plastered‑on” single‑family facade language on a large apartment building. They urged better material integration (e.g., red brick, charcoal accents) from the northern buildings and a more genuine transitional design rather than imitating a Lakewood house. The applicant acknowledged the challenge of balancing council’s desire for a “Lakewood look” with architectural coherence.
• Townhouses: No renderings were presented. Commissioners supported the plan adjustments (shifting units closer to Bell, adding garages).

Key Outcomes

• No final approval granted. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Board of Review voted to defer action.
• Outstanding items to be completed before next meeting:
  • Traffic impact study (expected within one to two weeks)
  • Final setback plan (including townhouses)
  • Updated use map associated with the use table
  • Final plat
• Next steps:
  • A public topical meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 21, 2024 at Cove Community Center to gather further community input before the next joint meeting.
  • Planning Commission may schedule a special meeting in September for final PC approval.
  • ABR anticipates multiple meetings to review detailed materials and renderings, with a target for ABR approval in October so the project can proceed to City Council.
• The applicant confirmed continued coordination with the civil engineer and traffic consultant to refine the design based on the comments received.