BOA Minutes 03/27/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment March 27, 2008 Page 7 consideration for this particular parking area. He said it is the responsibility ofthe Planning Department to see the lighting is done correctly and the Board of Adjustment is to act on the requested variance. Mr. Senzee said the Code currently does not have a minimum lighting requirement; therefore, the staff cannot add language to require something that is not required by Code. Mr. Senzee said normally this project would be handled as a site plan modification and reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the lighting was discussed at the Development Review meeting. Based on the discussions, staff was not aware that the project required a site plan modification or variance. He said staff required the applicant submit an electrical and photometric plan that met Code and it was not required to be addressed under this site renovation plan or approval. Mr. Senzee said the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Commission have reviewed site plan modifications to increase the height of light poles for the Wal-Mart and the Cambridge Oaks projects because they had reviewed the original site plan. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission could not review the site plan modification because the site plan was approved at the Development Review Committee level; therefore a variance was required for the increase in numbers. He said had staff been aware of the lighting issue at the Development Review level, staff would have required the Planning and Zoning Commission review the project. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Senzee explained that a site plan modification is not required to meet the same criteria for granting a variance. A general discussion ensued regarding the current lighting code. Mr. Senzee explained that staff is reviewing the current City Code to provide an update and resolve areas of conflict. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Senzee said that the applicant could submit a site plan modification; however, it would cause a 2 month delay and cost an additional $800. The Board discussed the criteria necessary for approval of a variance. Mr. Bowman asked for a motion for BA 08-03. Mr. Armour made a motion to approve BA 08-03 stating for criteria no. 3 that granting the variance would not confer a special privilege to the applicant because the City has allowed other buildings in the same zoning district to exceed the height requirement of 20', criteria no. 4 stating that literal