Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 18,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 11. #04-3063 WJM PROPERTIES LLC,2605 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD— <br /> CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 8:48 p.m.—9:20 p.m. <br /> Peter Johnson,Monies Automotive,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant has had a number of discussions with Staff over the summer regarding <br /> drainage issues,with the option of redesigning the parking lot discussed. It was determined that a <br /> central drainage way was needed to accommodate site drainage, and Staff has approved this <br /> reconfiguration. <br /> Gaffron stated issues relating to lighting still remain. The applicant had originally proposed replacing <br /> the four existing 45' high light standards with 25' poles, and is now requesting the plan be modified to <br /> allow for 12 twin head poles, 25' in height, using 1000 watt bulbs. Gaffron stated the additional <br /> lighting is being requested from the applicant's insurance company,but no written information has <br /> been provided regarding the extent of the need or the insurance company's minimum requirements. <br /> Staff feels the lighting study is incomplete and additional information is needed before approval can <br /> be given. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicant has been working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District related to <br /> wetland buffer and easement requirements. Based on their discussions with the MCWD,the applicant <br /> was granted an extension of the prior approvals and was allowed to temporarily place a fence in place <br /> of the berms and plantings at the north end of the east parking lot. Staff does not have a problem with <br /> extending the approvals to December 31, 2005. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff would like, one, a detailed request from the applicant's insurance company <br /> specifying in detail what minimum level of lighting is required; two, detailed specifications on the <br /> type of lighting fixtures proposed,including style and shielding; three, an analysis by the applicant's <br /> lighting company of other options for lighting, including but not limited to varying the wattage of the <br /> fixtures,varying the height and/or number of fixtures, and varying the placement of fixtures; and four, <br /> information on whether any building mounted lighting is proposed. Gaffron noted a cross-section of <br /> the parking lot elevations as viewed from Highway 12 to the back of the parking lot has been <br /> provided. <br /> Johnson noted Staff was provided some detail on the light fixtures a couple of years ago,which has <br /> not changed. Johnson stated he was unable to locate that information in his files. Johnson indicated <br /> he was only able to locate information that states that the fixture is a downcast fixture, which to his <br /> understanding was approved for the north lot and for four lights on the east lot. Johnson stated they <br /> are not proposing to change that type of fixture at this time,but that the fixture would be mounted on <br /> 25' foot poles rather than 45' poles. <br /> Johnson stated at the time this project was commenced,they were not contemplating changing the <br /> eastern face of the building,but as the project progressed, the architect recommended refacing that <br /> entire side. As a result, instead of the outcast lighting being mounted on the building,the lighting has <br /> been changed to downcast lighting. Johnson stated some parking lot lighting has been lost as a result <br /> of that change. <br /> PAGE 30 <br />