BOA Minutes 03/27/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment March 27, 2008 Page 4 2. A parking lot illumination of 9.5 foot-candles (maximum) in lieu of the allowed maximum 5 foot- candles. 3. A fixture height of 35 feet (maximum) In lieu of the allowed maximum 20 feet. The applicant preferred the City make the first presentation. Mr. Charles Senzee, Planner, reviewed the background information and the analysis of the request, provided in his memorandum to the Board of Adjustment, dated March 21, 2008 (a copy is on file in the Community Development Department). Mr. Senzee stated the variance application meets 3 of the 6 criteria for granting the variance; therefore, City staff cannot fully support the request. He said if the Board of Adjustment chooses to grant the variance requested for SA 08-03, for the property located at 906-952 State Road 436, to allow the implementation of Lighting Plan #1 or Lighting Plan #2, the motion should be based upon the Board of Adjustment's findings of fact and conclusions, the property site plan (Exhibit B attached to the staff report), and the conditions outlined in the staff report which were: 1. The variance shall only pertain to the proposed Lighting plan selected by the Board of Adjustment (Exhibit C or D). 2. The lighting plan must adhere to all other applicable codes and regulations. 3. A building permit for the lighting plan shall be obtained from the City's Building Safety Bureau within 60 days of the approval by the Board of Adjustment and the certificate of completion shall be obtained within 120 days of the issuance of the building permit. 4. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variance shall become null and void. A general discussion ensued regarding the site plan review process for the project. Mr. Senzee said based on the improvements to the site, the project was reviewed as a minor site plan; therefore, it did not require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Senzee said the applicant did not address the landscaping on the site. He said the property was developed in the 70's and it does not meet the current landscaping code. He said over the years the applicant has added significant landscaping to the site. The site does not meet the landscaping islands required in the parking lot and the addition of the islands would be expensive to install and would result in a significant reduction in parking. Mr. Senzee said staff has requested the applicant provide the City with an existing landscaping plan.