11/11/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a? ? r BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 11, 1987 PAGE 2 3. Webber Builders, Inc., property located between 6023 and 6051 Decker Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request 10 foot rear yard variance to construct dwelling. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Webber, and neighbors, C. Sasala and K. Walton, who Taould like to see the lot developed. Chairman Remmel stated that this house is much too large for this size lot and stated that other, conforming houses have been built in this area. Mr. Grace pointed out that there would be no room for a patio enclosure. C. Remmel moved to grant the 10 foot rear yard variance for Webber Builders to construct a dwelling between 6023 and 6051 Decker Ztoad, seconded by B. Grace. Roll call on motion: Remmel, Grace, Bugala, and Gomersall, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied, Mr. Webber and the neighboer were advised that this lot would accommodate a colonial or a raised ranch type house. 4. Hampton Inn, 25105 Country Club Blvd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 671 sq. ft. variance for Dole sign. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163..06(f)4. Request"41 foot height variance for pole sign. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06(g). Also request 916.76 sq. ft.-variance for total sign area. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06(d). Chairman Reminel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Garlisle, Biskind Development Company; Mrs. Brooks, repre- • senting Hampton Inn; Mr. Leech, Brilliant Electric Signs; Councilmen D. McKay and R. Tallon; Mrs. Beck,"a•resident of Dorothy Drive; and neighbors who live on Kennedy Ridge, Mr: Lang, Mro and Mrs..Conlan, Mr, and Mrs. Holly, Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard, C. Truchon, D. Tobias, T. Rosenbaum, and Mr. Frick. Mrs. Brooks explained that the Hampton Inn has only averaged 53% occupancy for the nast year and was budgeted at 72.4%; the red scrint building sign is not visible from 1480 and there have been many complaints that the motel cannot be seen from the freeway; other Hampton Inns have this sign. Councilman McKay objected to the variance becauses The sign will detract from the valne of the neighbor- hood; everysurrounding neighbor.will see a 60 foot high sing;.the city is trying to develop the area just south of 1480 into $200,000 to $300,000 homes;. the motel is-4 stories heigh and has a sign on top_ which can be seen from the freeway; the motel has no comDetition in this location; and if such a variance is granted-it will be contrary to the purpose-, intent, and provisions of the Zoning Code, pointing out that the City is trying to eliminate all pole signs. He suggested that they advertise furtlier away=fxom the' exit3 since the proposed sign would be right at the exit. Mr. Carlisle responded if there were more motels in the area, they would pull in more traffic from the freeway; sight line studies have show that-the sign would be seen before the exit; existing signs cannot be seen from Great Northern Boulevard either; and it was Biskind Developments Compnay°s idea to use the.scrip letters instead of the Hampton Inn logo, and th3.s has proved to be a mistake. Mr. Leech stated that the Citv had wanted the motel and it was to the City's advantage, tax wise, to have it do well and pointed out that this sign is lower than most freeway signs. He presented a sight plan on which they used an 8 foot by 4 foot sheet of plywood as a mock up and claimed that the sign would not be visible to the neighbors on Kennedy Ridge Road. Mr. Frick, who lives next door to the sign, objected to the proposal on the basis that: developers are exceeding all reason in commerical expansion and are causing more congestion in the city; such a sign