Laserfiche WebLink
•M.3MJ WJ.M Praprrttn LLC <br />Ortrtir IS, 2t04 <br />Pit*) <br />ParkiBg Lot Llgbling <br />The applicant has indicated in the August 16.2004 letter from attorney Peter Johnson that 'Tu-o new <br />li^t poles are proposed". This has since been verbally modified to arequest for nvelvc (12) tuin head <br />poles, 2S* in height, using 1000 watt bulbs, spaced throughout the site as shown in Exhibit E. This <br />partial lighting study was not accompanied by any detailed information about the fixtures proposed. <br />Staff is advised by Mr. Johnson that the need for additional lighting comes from the applicant's <br />insurance company, but no written information has been provided regarding the extent of the need or <br />die insurance company's minimum requirements. The lighting study is incomplete from the per^xxtiv e <br />of staff and the City Engineer, and the following information should be provided in order for staff to <br />make an informed recommendation to the Planning Commission and Council: <br />1. Detailedrequestfiomapplicam ’sinsiirancccon^iyspecifxingiiidetail what initiinuun lc\d <br />of lifting is required. <br />2. Detailed q)eci(ications on the txpc oflighting fixtures prqx>sed, including st> le, shielding, etc <br />3. Analysisby theapplicant ’slightingcompanyofotheroptions for lighting, including but not <br />limited to one or more of the following: <br />• varying the wattage of the fixtures <br />- varying the height and/or number of fixtures <br />- varying the placement of fixtures <br />4. Information on whether any building mounted lighting is proposed. <br />5. Elevation-view cross-section of parking lot from Highway 12 to back of parking lot, to show <br />the relative heights of fixtures in relation to their visibility from Highway \2. <br />Please note that it has been the City’s philosophy and policy that commercial and residential Ugliting <br />he limited to only the extent necessary, to reuin the da^ night skies characteristic of this rural area. <br />Extension of Approval Tlmcfransc <br />Due to ongoing discussions w ith MCWD regarding the w elland status of the ditches on the site, <br />applicant has ixM been able to make all the intended site improvements as quickly as anticipated. Staff <br />has no problem with extending the approvals to December 31,2005. <br />Staff Rccomnicndalion <br />Staff recommends approval of extension of the timeframe for applicant to meet the conditions of <br />approval ofResolution No. 4845 to December 31.2005; staff recommends Uiat the lighting request <br />be tabled until the above-noted infonnation has been received and reviewed.