10/5/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant proposes to add three ground signs. The BZBA previously granted variances for number of wall signs, wall sign area and number of ground signs. The three new signs are directional signs that will serve the drive through facility. Mr. Ratliff said the project planning was done before and construction started during the pandemic. During that time, the drive through has been used much more than anticipated, especially since the dining room has not reopened yet. The operations team was concerned about the parking lot layout and the parking lot has been restriped to prevent stacking on to Mall Ring Road and in front of the shared driveway for the restaurant and Jared's. The additional signage is requested to direct vehicles where to go to access the drive through. The signs would not be illuminated. Ms. Lieber thought the signs will help customers navigate the site. The requested signs are small and did not create an excessive amount of signage for the lot. Mr. Mackey supported the request given the change to traffic flow to increase safety, Mr. Papotto agreed. Mr. Allain thought it was a reasonable request, especially after watching traffic on site. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance for 20- 17691; Raising Cane's; 25821 Brookpark Road: 1. A variance for 3 additional ground signs; code permits 4 ground signs, applicant shows 7 ground signs, Section 1163.27(A). Motion passed 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS 20-17699; Jamestown Apartments; 4809 Columbia Road Ms. Lieber said a new application was submitted for the Jamestown Apartment dumpsters. Leading up to the submittal, she was under the impression the changes to the variance requests would be made. The plans submitted show that the same setback variances are still requested. Based on the board's rules, she believed this would be a reconsideration rather than a new application. If the board agrees to reconsider the case, the case will be placed be on the next agenda. She thought the information recently submitted could have been presented at the previous meeting, but the applicants rushed to get the application in because construction started without a permit. Mr. Gareau reviewed the board rules requiring the applicant have new evidence or reasons for the board to rehear the case that were not available at the last meeting. Mr. Mackey thought if new facts are presented and a modification was submitted then the case should be reheard. Mr. Allain did not think the letter included new evidence and summarized the proposal already heard. Ms. Patton pointed out that the dumpster enclosures would have doors, different than the previous proposal. Mr. Rahm thought changes to the previous plan should have been outlined in the letter. Mr. Allain thought the plans are new since the dumpster enclosure was included and should be submitted as a separate application. Ms. Lieber pointed out that the letter is only to request a rehearing, not to fully discuss the case. If reconsidered, the plans will be reviewed at the next meeting, Mr. Gareau agreed. Ms. Lieber thought the information would be valuable for the board to hear but could have been presented at the previous meeting. Mr. Allain did not think the applicants laid out the reasons in the letter. Mr. Gareau pointed out that the decision at the last meeting was final and an appeal can be made to the courts since this is a quasi-judicial board. He thought it would be inappropriate if the same variances are requested again as a new application. The previous variances were voted on separately and Mr. Gareau