Commission Denies Request to Demolish Home for Parking Lot

m.z.1 February 10, 2013 at 01:09 pm

Lakewood doesn't have a parking problem???
Wake up! It's like the single biggest issue holding back growth, redevelopment, and commerce.

Lakewoodite February 10, 2013 at 01:10 pm

There goes the idiots in city hall doing everything to drive another successful growing businesses out of town! The doctors are good quiet neighbors and their high salaries and the taxes on them and their new offices would really help our community! What does city hall want? More bars with rowdy customers or all night drive thrus?
Call city hall and let them know they screwed on this again!

Lakewoodite February 10, 2013 at 01:16 pm

Good businesses should be allowed to expand on their own property! You can call city hall at (216) 529-6055 or Tom Bullock at (216) 337-1318

The original Bill February 10, 2013 at 02:04 pm

I'll bet all of you would be singing a different tune if you lived in the second house. Just ask the people who live on the west side of Warren behind the Fifth Third Bank. Drive by there at night sometimes and see how their home is flooded with light from the parking lot where a home once stood. See if you would like that.

m.z.1 February 10, 2013 at 05:38 pm

We live a car-centric society and Lakewood leaders have fail to address the lack of available parking city wide. This ruling further proves they lack the most simple understanding of the connection between thriving businesses and customer parking.
Maybe they will grant them a bike-rack permit instead.

The original Bill February 10, 2013 at 08:38 pm

"Dru Siley, the city’s director of planning and development, pointed out that the commission had denied similar requests in the past to prevent “continued encroachment” into a neighborhood."
But he didn't point out all the developments where they did allow for neighborhood encroachment. The fore mentioned 5th 3rd Bank, Sullivan's, Lucas Sunoco, Rite Aid on Detroit, the new Drug Mart. Not to mention the Marc's plaza and what that did to Victoria Ave. I'm sure there are others.

mary costanzo February 10, 2013 at 09:34 pm

I agree it should have been parking. It seems like every which way this ward is against private invesentment of thriving businesses. And is doing everything big and small to limit business that have been commited to Lakewood longer than the councilman has been around. Not a wise choice in my option .

Life Long Resident February 11, 2013 at 03:06 pm

Let me tell you what it is like to work in that building. As employees, we are not allowed to park in the TINY parking lot that is at the back of the building. We have to park on the street. If we are lucky, we can get a spot on Victoria. If not, we have to park at a meter. The doctors in our building have large medical practices, and we are all very busy. We are constantly getting parking tickets because we can't always get out to feed the meters. Not only is the current parking lot too small for our employees and patients, but customers going to Malley's also park in our lot. There is a sign on their building pointing to our lot. This was brought to the manager's attention several years ago, but they did nothing to change it. Premier Physicians Centers has a large, beautiful building on Center Ridge Rd. in Westlake, a city that, by the way, welcomed Premier with open arms; not a threat, just a fact. Is that what the planning commission is attempting to do--chase successful businesses out? What is going on that some certain businesses have no problem expanding (Lucas Sunoco, Rit Aid, Sullivan's, etc) ? This city needs frank dialog and a master plan so all businesses can thrive and grow. The myopic halfwits that turned this down do not have the best interests of the city as a whole at heart.

Annie Caswell February 12, 2013 at 07:57 am

My thanks and respect go to the Planning Commission members, Dru Siley, and the residents for opposing the demolition of a residential property for parking. We do need a plan for more parking for areas that need it, but it should not be at the neighborhood/ residents' expense. Conditional use and changes to the zoning map are long-lasting and should not be taken lightly.
The property managment group will likely appeal. I hope the Planning Commission stands firm and that some other alternative can be found. Maybe parking permits for employees instead of meters (that does sound miserable) or some kind of incentive to use public transportation or carpool??? Parking was discussed at length at the City Vision meetings- maybe there were some creative ideas generated.

Mark Buckley February 12, 2013 at 09:27 pm

Having spent most of last summer with my neighbors trying to stop the encroachment of Drug Mart up Grace Ave. ( an encroachment that included the demolition of a residentially zoned apartment building as well as the truncating of a residential property both on Grace) I find myself questioning Mr. Siley's sudden concern about " continued encroachment". This is the same Mr. Siley who openly advocated on behalf of Drug Mart in front of the Planning Commision. The same Mr. Siley who took every opportunity to subvert what should have been an open and fair process with regards to the Planning Commision. So why encroachment here and not there ? Perhaps it's the very deep pockets of Drug Mart as compared to Premier Physicians ; a difference in monetary clout that I'm sure is not lost on Mr. Siley as he decides which neighborhoods are degraded and which stay intact. Then there's the proactive role that councilman Bullock played in standing up for his constituents. I hope the residents of Victoria Ave. appreciate Mr. Bullocks efforts. His conduct stands in stark contrast to that of our own councilperson ML Madigan whose idea of leading was to follow wherever Mr. Siley and Drug Mart chose to go. Congratulations to Victoria Ave. Well done. Maybe you could lend us Mr. Bullock from time to time.