My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
10/18/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 11:06:00 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 11:06:00 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 18,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3063 WJM Properties, Continued) <br /> Leslie inquired why the entire perimeter of the property would not be fenced in. <br /> Johnson stated the perimeter is 1,200 feet on the side and 900 feet on the backside. Johnson indicated <br /> MN DOT might be fencing in the backside of the property with a 25-foot high retaining wall. On the <br /> west side a seven-acre pond is being constructed, with an open drainage ditch on the east side. <br /> Kempf stated in his view lighting is essential when there is a substantial amount of property sitting out <br /> and is a good deterrent to crime. Kempf pointed out this property is not located in rural Orono. <br /> Jurgens stated the property might not be located in rural Orono but that the lighting could possibly be <br /> visible for a number of miles. Jurgens stated he resides in rural Orono but still has a clear view of the <br /> golf dome and all the lights that are currently there. Jurgens stated with the addition of more lights, <br /> that area will be even more lit up and will impact the rural character of Orono in other geographical <br /> locations. Jurgens stated he would also like to know what the impact would be on the other side of <br /> new Highway 12. Jurgens pointed out that in addition to the downcast lighting,there will also be <br /> reflective light coming from this property. Jurgens stated he would like to have more information than <br /> what has been submitted. <br /> Johnson stated a lumen study has been submitted, and to his knowledge the lighting near the perimeter <br /> would be .1 or .2. <br /> Jurgens stated that lighting could still impact areas further away. <br /> Gaffron commented Orono's lighting code specifies that a person should not be able to see the source <br /> of the light from outside the property lines. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether this plan meets that <br /> code,noting that the code does not address reflective lighting and does not include lumen limits or <br /> requirements. Gaffron stated he would prefer the City Engineers review the plan to allow them to <br /> make some recommendations. Gaffron stated the minimal amount of commercial development in <br /> Orono has not required Staff to review and revise the code,but that this is a situation that could <br /> potentially have a huge impact on the neighboring properties if not handled appropriately. <br /> Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Staff. <br /> Johnson noted their site plan only depicts the north side of the site because the south side of the site is <br /> 10 acres of grass and trees. Johnson pointed out Highway 394 and the railroad are in close proximity <br /> to this site and that the residents would probably be impacted greater by those two items than by the <br /> lighting on this property. Johnson stated he would like the Planning Commission to work with him <br /> and to move the application forward. Johnson noted they are delaying moving the inventory onto the <br /> property until the lighting has been installed. <br /> PAGE 33 <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.