My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:26:30 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:21:05 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.
/
341
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
MnstTESOF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Moiday, October IS, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.in. <br />(404.3063 WJM Properties, Cootimed) <br />Johnson noted the lumen study shows that the amount of lumens on the ground with 1000-watt <br />fixtures drops to below .2 in almost es'cry case with the dovsneast lighting versus the outcast lighting. <br />Johnson mdicated in essence what that means is that the outer edges of the 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 that the <br />site should be better lit to protect the srhicles on the lot and the personnel that would be on site after <br />the sun has set, particularly in the w'lntertime. <br />Johnson slated the lighting that is being proposed is situated between the buildmg 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 instaiii.ig more fixtures at a lower elevation, but <br />concluded that there would be too many interruptions in traffic flow and more obstaclc.s for cars to <br />avoid as they drive around the parking lot. Johnson slated the 25’ poles in his opinion is a good <br />compromise to achiev*e the additional lighting as w ell as reduce the number of obstacles in the parking <br />lot Itself. Johnson pointed out the approved lightmg 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 w ith this <br />application is that it started out as a conditional use pemtit and that the lighting has increased from <br />four to 12. Rahn stated he docs not want this property to slow ly turn into a car dealership. Rahn <br />stated if the lighting is shielded, the lighting might be a non-issue. <br />Johnson stated the berm has been constructed, w ith the existing trees between the highway and the <br />parking lot being presers’cd. Johnson staled a five-foot high opaque fence has also been added <br />Rahn inquired whether the change in lighting is being driven by the insurance company. <br />Johnson stated it is driven by the concern for the property that will remain in the lot all night and the <br />personnel that will be on the site. <br />Bremer suggested the list of items outlined on page three be gone through by the applicant. <br />PAGE 31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.