1/24/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the mobile app could be considered a form of it. He stated the applicant responded to standards outlined in 1 118.06. which addressed compatibility, lack of detrimental impacts. on-site accommodation. traffic considerations, and adequate public facilities. His analysis concluded that Chipotle met all six requirements for conditional use. Regarding the development. a previous delay was explained due to the overuse of FFIS material. not meeting the code's requirement of 70% high-quality materials. The issue was rectified' ith over 75% of the building now using stucco. The recommendation was for the plan's favorable approya] by the city council, meeting all code requirement. Mr. Filarski offered the engineering report stating the Director Upton previously mentioned the presence of two drive aprons on the original plan -one leading to Lorain and the other to Clague. He stated the Lorain apron initially allowed a left turn through three lanes of eastbound traffic. After assessing access options, a decision was made to implement a restricted right -in. right -out on Lorain through one apron. which the developer incorporated into the revised plan. The Clague Road apron permits non -restricted left or right turns. The current plan aliens with what was deemed optimal for site access. Regarding other requirements for preliminary site design approval. all checklist items have been satisfied. The recommendation from engineering is to approve the preliminary development plan based on the fulfillment of all necessary criteria. Director Upton wanted to include an item that was overlooked on his staff report: the fence line as a buffer bet' een the property and the adjacent residential unit. The developer had discussions with city staff and committed to implementing a dual buffer. This involved a board -on -board fence facing the residential side of the buffer and the planting of arborvitae for additional greenery. This aspect .-as part of the previous reyie' and underwent further discussion'ith staff. Mr. O'Malley addressed the board members. acknowleduing the Director's adherence to advice on explaining codified standards. The focus was on reyicwing a conditional use permit and a development plan as distinct entities. Regarding building materials. a prior concern was raised by the architect on the commission. noting a potential violation of the code. 'which the applicant subsequently addressed. Mr. O'Malley emphasized that while the code sets a minimum standard. the commission has the authority to evaluate the architectural aspects beyond just compliance. The historical context of merging architectural review into the Planning and Design Commission was explained for efficiency and specialized talent incorporation. The commission'as encouraged to apply their customary development plan review to aspects like ingress. egress, traffic circulation. buffering, building materials. aesthetics. and assured that the applicant had collaborated with staff to meet requirements. Mr. Robert Abramoyich and Marc Lubline from Butterfli Holdings. 053 LLC. in Pepper Pike. OH were present to speak on the development plan. Mr. Abramovich provided an overvie'. mentioning they are the contract holder to purchase three properties for consolidation. Initial comments from the county on the lot consolidation were addressed and resubmitted. The redevelopment plan involved a single -tenant Chipotle, approximately ?.300 square feet, with a pickup window for online orders. Operating hours are 1 1 a.m. to 9 or 10 p.m. The landscape plan. particularly the buffer against a multifamily property was discussed. considerinLT alternatives like a board -on -board fence or a green buffer. The setback and easement on the south border were highlighted. proposing ornamental grasses to break up a potential board -on -board