Laserfiche WebLink
whether alternative locations could avoid the need for a variance and expressed concern about <br />approving an unscreened generator in a front yard. Due to unresolved questions regarding <br />placement, screening, and compliance alternatives, the board opted to table the matter to a future <br />meeting for additional information. <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to table 354-2025 to the next meeting; seconded by Mr. Ammons. <br />All in favor, none opposed. <br />355-2025; Stephen Toth; 4455 Brendan Ln. <br />The board heard Case 355-2025 regarding a request for a rear yard setback variance to allow a <br />16 -by -1.6 attached roof patio cover at 4455 Brendan Lane. Staff explained the request involved a <br />12 -foot variance from the required 50 -foot rear setback. The applicant stated the structure would <br />be located behind the home facing a wooded area, would not impact neighboring properties, and <br />would align with neighborhood conditions while completing an ongoing backyard improvement <br />project. City staff confirmed the variance was necessary due to the shallow rear yard and noted <br />the applicant's intent to construct the improvement properly. No questions were raised by the <br />board. <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve case 355-2025; seconded by Mr. Ammons. <br />Motion Passed: 3-0 <br />COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />353-2025; Mahesh Pampati; 25070 Country Club Blvd. <br />The board heard a request from the owner of the hotel at 25070 Country Club Boulevard for <br />variances related to sign area on the primary and secondary facades. Staff explained that the <br />existing building configuration created'difficulty in applying standard sign calculations and that <br />the requested increases were not considered substantial given the property's unique layout and <br />typical hotel signage. The applicant described ongoing multimillion -dollar renovations and <br />investment in the property and noted similar successful redevelopment experience elsewhere. No <br />questions were raised by board members. <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve the variance in case 353-2025; seconded by Mr. <br />Ammons. <br />During discussion, board members noted the long -neglected condition of the property and <br />expressed support for the new ownership's reinvestment and ongoing renovations. It was <br />emphasized that the site serves as a gateway to the city and that the proposed sign increases were <br />proportional to the size and scale of the building. Members spoke favorably of the applicant's <br />prior redevelopment work and voiced confidence that similar improvements would enhance the <br />property and surrounding area. <br />Motion Passed: 3-0 <br />3 <br />