11-08-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c #04.3063 WJM Properties LLC November 1,2004 Page 3 Lighting on this site should be limited to an amount sufficient to provide safety and security to the site. The lighting should not be bright enough to attract the attention of passing motorists to the property." The Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the lighting in the east parking lot be limited to poles 25' in height, and on the north side of the building, 20’ maximum height. This was accepted by the Council and became a condition of the approval resolution. Impact on neipliborine properties. The submitted lighting studies (or light distribution plans) are based on twelve (12) twin head poles, 25' in height, using 1000 watt bulbs or 400 watt bulbs, spaced throughout the site as shown in Exhibits C. Tlie submitted materials show that the lighting will be doum- cast shoe-box style, such that views ofthe light sources (bulbs) will be minimized or eliminated from outside the properly for both the building mounted ligliting and the pole-standard lighting. The 25' pole height is approximately 2/3 the heiglit ofthe pre-existing poles, and with shoe-box fixtures tlie resulting lighting will be less visible from outside the site. Otlicr cities have ligliting codes that limit tlie light spillover to certain maximum levels for adjacent riglits- of-way or to residential property. For example, Minnetonka limits spillover and reflected glare onto adjacent residential property to 0.5 footcandles, and 1.0 footcandles into adjacent commercial or industrial property. The proposed plan using a total of twenty-four 1000-watt bulbs in shoc-box-style fixtures 25’ high, results in from 0.0 to 1.0 footcandles at the perimeter of the parking lot (with a few hot-spots up to 1.4 FC), and generally less than 0.5 FC just outside the lot. This plan would appear to meet the Minnetonka standard. The 400-watt proposal leaves significant areas of the parking lot at 0.0 FC, which would be unacceptable from a safety and security standpoint, similar to the City Hall parking lot... The ligliting study was received on Friday October 29 and has been submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment. We hope to have at least a verbal report in time for the Work Session. Staff Recommendation Assuming we receive no negative comments from the City Engineer, staff recommends approval of the proposed lighting plan. As an aside. Planning Commission should review the variety of lighting codes (see attached, and/or do your own internet search on “lighting ordinances", etc.) to determine whether and to what extent Orono should upgrade its lighting standards.