5/6/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS 63-2024; Chipotle; 23459 Lorain Road Representative: Marc Lubline The applicant requested a variance for a second ground sign due two two curb cuts, one on Lorain and one on Clague. The site's layout creates practical difficulty and two sign allow- for visibility from both roads. The proposed sign meets code requirements and ensures visibility without impeding traffic vision. Mr. Kovach motioned to approve 63-2024. seconded by Ms. Patton. The board members agreed that the second curb cut on Clague Road necessitated additional signage for accessibility. The clarification regarding traffic flow at the intersection ensures safety and addresses concerns about traffic passage. Motion Passed: 4-0 60-2024; PK -5 School; Lorain Road Representative: Murtaza Abbas, Andrew Steingass, Donald Johnson, David Rilev, Chris Caleris Residents: Carol Koziol, Stacy Stajcar, Neil Schultz, Donna Fuller The school project underwent a thorough review process, divided into three phases: schematic layout, building massing and materials, and ancillary detail. The variances sought relate to Section 1140 of the code, specifically regarding accessory uses such as driveways, parking areas. and lighting setbacks. The variances include driveway setbacks, building height, and lighting setback requirements. The Planning and Design Commission granted conditional approval, contingent upon the approval of these variances. Staff recommended approval of the variances. Residents were given an opportunity to speak about the varaince requests. One resident explained that the vaiance requested reduced the required 50 feet to 20.4 feet on one end, 20.3 feet on the other, and 42 feet in the middle. This led to a request for a board -on -board fence to protect from car volume near backyards, citing helath and safety concerns. Additionally, they asked for the greenery screening to filter lighting spillage from the light poles that will be closer to the property lines. Another resident argued that Coe Avenue residents deserved the same board -on -board fencing and shielding as those on the Birch side due to buses parked near their homes. They emphasized the need for equal treatment and additional setbacks for electrical access, citing past issues with downed wires. They objected to the constraints being used as justification, noting that these were known beforehand. The architect addressed the easement access issue for Coe Avenue. stating that curent access for utility maintenance would remain unchanged. They explained that a drive closer to the poles