My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-2009 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
01-26-2009 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2012 9:35:45 AM
Creation date
6/1/2012 9:35:45 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 26, 2009 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(6. #08 -3381 BARRY TANNER, 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) <br />should be illuminated. This will require submission of a plan as it would be impossible to measure light <br />levels from the parking lot lighting separate from the lighting on adjacent properties. <br />White noted the plan that should be submitted would depict that no light would be emitted on to the <br />adjoining properties. <br />Turner stated the plan is that the parking lot lighting would not spill over onto the adjoining properties <br />and recommended that the applicant indicate how many foot candles each light would be. Turner noted <br />there are lights on the building. In talking with the representative from Xcel, he indicated that the lighting <br />would also seem brighter during the wintertime. <br />Bremer asked why the City is not specifying the type of lighting on this lot. Bremer asked how tall the <br />poles are. <br />Turner stated the lighting plan would need to be reviewed and approved by Staff and that they are looking <br />for zero candles along the property line. <br />Bremer asked why the City decided not to specify the type of lights and bulbs on this application. <br />Turner indicated City Code does not require that parking lots be illuminated and that.the language merely <br />states that the lights should not shine onto adjacent properties. <br />Bremer stated there is a law that requires a safe environment for people and employees going to a <br />particular business, and that she would like to know exactly what the lighting in the parking lot is going to <br />look like. <br />Tanner indicated he would be working with Xcel on the lighting for the parking lot. Tanner noted the <br />parking lot has been lighted for a number of years and that they are attempting to improve the situation <br />for the neighbors as it relates to the lighting. <br />White noted there would also be lighting on the building. White stated the council could require a review <br />of the lighting prior to the resolution becoming formal. White asked who owns the poles and who pays <br />the bill for the lighting. <br />Tanner stated Xcel owns the poles and that the property owner pays for the lighting. <br />White recommended the Council review the lighting prior to the resolution going into effect. <br />Bremer stated it appears that the rest of the provisions in the resolution are consistent with what has been <br />discussed. Bremer noted the applicant has agreed to extend the fence. <br />Mattick noted Item 7c in the resolution requires that the parking area shall be illuminated during <br />nighttime hours when the bowling center is open and that the lighting shall be according to a plan that <br />demonstrates it will create no more than 0 foot candles at the south property line. <br />Turner stated because the garage does not have fire sprinklers, they are not able to locate a trash container <br />larger than 1.5 cubic yards in the garage without requiring it to be sprinkled. <br />PAGE 3 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.