My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-08-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
11-08-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 3:38:50 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 2:05:59 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
395
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i . <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 18,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Johnson noted the Uimcn study shows that the amount of lumens on the ground with 1000-watt <br />fixtures drops to below .2 in almost every case with the downcast lighting versus the outcast lighting. <br />Johnson indicated in essence what that means is that the outer edges of tlie parking lot now have a lot <br />of shadows and very little light. Johnson stated their conditional use permit allows for 250 new <br />vehicles to be stored in the parking lot and their insurance company has expressed a concern tliat the <br />site should be better lit to protect the vehicles on the lot and the personnel that would be on site after <br />the sun has set, particularly in the wintertime. <br />Jolmson stated the lighting that is being proposed is situated between the building and a seven-acre <br />drainage pond and the golf dome on the other side. Johnson stated in his opinion the additional <br />lighting would not affect other property owners in the area. Johnson indicated he is willing to provide <br />a letter from the insurance company concerning the lighting. <br />Johnson stated they also explored the possibility of installing more fixtures at a lower elevation, but <br />concluded that there would be too many interruptions in traffic flow and more obstacles for cars to <br />avoid as they drive around the parking lot. .Johnson stated the 25’ poles in his opinion is a good <br />compromise to achieve the additional lighting as well as reduce the number of obstacles in the parking <br />lot itself Johnson pointed out the approved lighting is located along the second row of parking away <br />from the building and that the new lighting is situated between that lighting and the building and not <br />along the perimeter of the lot. <br />Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Rahn noted car dealerships arc not allowed in Orono, and that his greatest concern with this <br />application is tliat it started out as a conditional use permit and that the lighting has increased from <br />four to 12. Rahn stated he docs not want this property to slowly turn into a car dealership. Ralin <br />stated tf the lighting is shielded, the lighting might be a non-issue. <br />PAGE 39 <br />J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.