10/22/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? --? have metal halide fixtures and the light has been reduced to keep it from spilling over the property line. The building will be about 27 feet from the bottom of the eaves, and approximately 4 feet to the peak. IVIr. Tallon noted that 33 foot light poles are shown on the photometric plan. Mr. Comet responded that all the poles, except the one in the rear, have been deleted and he clarified that it would be the LF4 with a 400 watt high pressure sodium bulb that is shown on the plan with one, round, KAR Lavonia light fixture on the pole which is the same fixture that is on the adjacent Tech Park 2. Mr. Tallon wanted that pole lowered so that it would be no higher than the building height of 27 feet. Mr. Brennan questioned why this was not a metal halide fixture. After checking the plan, Mr. Comet agreed that it should be metal halide to match what was on Tech Park and the shopping center. In response to Mr. Herbster's questions, he advised that all the fiatures are type 3, except the pole light which is type 4, and has a forward throw. He clarified that all the wall pak fxtures were mounted at 25 feet or right below the roof line and they will be directed down. Mr. Tallon is concerned that tlus could look like the headlight of a car and should be tilted iu toward the building, especially on the side adjacent to the apartment building and ou the rear adjacent to the residential property. There would be no problem leaving them as they are on the front. Mr. Johnson stated that the light closest to the neighbors would be lower would be below the door and would only be 175 watts, and the two others on the wiugs would be facing and tluusting out to the pool area. Mr. Comet advised that these lights have no more glare than the standard shoe box fixture since the bulb is mounted inside the housing. Mr. Manuing was concerned that there would uot be enough light arouud the pool and they advised liun that there will be a light on the pool house that will illuminate the pool area and should stay within the pool enclosure, and some light will be generated by the light on the side of the building, which is not included in the calculations. The members studied the two fence plans which show brick columns on either the wood board on board or the aluminum. The plans also showed the soldier courses of bricks the way the architectural review board wanted them so there would be some shadows. The developers would make the fence any heig]it that was required. If they use the aluminum fencing they will relocate some of the landscaping around it. The developers presented a sign package to the board. Mr. Sylvester, a neighbor who lives on Columbia, advised that his main concern was the signage, since he can see the signs on Country Club Boulevard, especially the Radisson sign on I-480. He noted that a person driving on I-480 cannot even see the sign uutil he is past it, but it can been seen very well from his ]iving room. That is his only concern. Mr. Johnson showed lum where the signs are located and that there would be no highway sign. Mr. Manuing explained that tlus hotel will not back up to the highway. Itegarding the sign package, Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk advised that the signs will have to go to board of zoning appeals for the number and square footage of signs and the directional signs would have to be 10 feet from right of way. The "entrance" sign will be on the Country Club Boulevard drive and the "enter" sign will be from the Tech Park drive. Mr. Tallon and Mr. Rymarczyk discussed the variances. Mr. Johnson clarified that there would only be two building signs, not three, one on the front and one on the Tech Park side. Originally they submitted three, but removed the one adjacent to the apartment. There was some discrepancy about whether both building signs were the same size. The developers believed that the sign on the side would be smaller, but they will have to determine that exactly. The entrance sign can be relocated so that it conforms. Mr. Tallon advised the developers that if the front sign is 78 square feet, they will need a 3 square foot variance on the area and a 9-3/4 inch height variance and they will need a variance for a second sign on the building. Mr. Johnson believed that the sign on side has been reduced. Mr. Tallon first thought that the signs could come back as a minor change in order for the commission to make a recommendation. After some discussion, it was decided that they could make a recommendation now on the sign facing the shopping center, but on the sigu facing Tech Park, they would only recommend the smaller sign. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Cornett agreed. Assistant City Engineer McDermott advised that they have not reviewed the drainage plan yet, but he did not believe that there would be a problem. 2