Laserfiche WebLink
light poles to meet code requirements due to their proximity to residential property. Mr. Kerr <br />said they would lower the height of the light poles to 20 feet but an additional light pole may <br />need to be added. Mrs. Meredith questioned if the east detention basin would be installed now or <br />once the east area is developed. Mr. Kerr said it would be installed when needed, which may be <br />during initial development. Mr. Lasko questioned if a loading doclc area was required. Mr. <br />Conway said unless there are semi tniclcs making deliveries a loading dock is not necessary. <br />Councilman Orlowski aslced if the east mound could be moved closer to I-480 and presented <br />photos of other locations which had mounds and evergreens which appeared to be solid. He said <br />Columbia Road residents want as a minimum a 6 foot mound with a solid wall of evergreens. <br />Mr. Malone said the proposed mound and 8 foot staggered evergreens shown on the plans would <br />in fact do what he requested. Mr. Charboneau aslced if there were any lcnown wetlands on the <br />site and felt that a 6 foot mound and 8 foot trees would not bloclc the hotel from their view and <br />suggested a 12 foot mound. He voiced a concern that landscaping shown on the plans would not <br />be what ends up on the site. He asked if the future project would include a curb cut onto <br />ColumUia Road or if it would share an egress point along Country Club Blvd. He was concerned <br />about standing water in the basins which create a mosquito hazard. Mr. Lasko said that due to <br />deed restrictions there could never be a curb cut onto Columbia Road. Mrs. Meredith noted that <br />the east side of the building housed storage rooms and the stairwell therefore hotel guests nor <br />residents would have views to each other. Mr. Lasko said the Commission wanted the <br />dimensions of the dry detention basins and mound shown on the plans as well as Mr. Malone's <br />recommendations pertaining to the forester viewing the site for trees to be saved. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. Bohlmann, to recommend the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals grant Hampton Inn a variance for a second wall sign on the south elevation so that <br />the hotel may be seen from I-480 for business purposes and it does not create any detriment <br />or intrusion to the surrounding neighborhoods, which was unanimously approved 5-0. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mrs. Meredith, to recommend the Soard of Zoning <br />Appeals grant Hampton Inn an 8 inch variance for a wall sign higher than code allows <br />(type B north elevation). Roll call: Malone,lVIeredith - yes; Lasko, Williatnson, Bohlmann <br />- no. Motion failed 2-3. <br />Mr. Lasko said that he understood that the applicant wanted a prototype sign but he believes that <br />the sign should meet city codes. Mrs. Meredith said she understood that each building size, style <br />and location was unique and felt height variances were warranted. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. Bohlmann, to recommend the Soard of Zoning <br />Appeals grant Hampton Inn a 1 foot 6 inch variance for a wall sign higher than code allows <br />(type A south elevation). Roll call: Mea-edath, Malone, Williamson - yes; Bohlmann, Lasko <br />- no. 1Vlotion failed 3-2. Mrs. Meredith felt as the sign faced I-480 the size was warranted. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded lby Mr. Malone, to recomrnend the Board of Zoning Appeals <br />grant Hampton Inn a 70 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other, which was <br />unanimously approved 5-0. Mr. Lasko advised that the variance may not be required and <br />would be verified by the Building Department.