09-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning consideration of constructing the parking lot for Ken’s Market/office building with a 15-foot setback from a side street right-of-way. Schiferl stated that, if the requirements in Section 8-130 are met, the City cannot deny the request. Teague answered affirmatively. Livingston asked the applicant to explain the change. Keith McDonald, the applicant, responded the site would gain four more parking stalls and access to the lot would be easier. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Baker stated the request would improve the entire property. Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, TO SP-216,. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Council Action Council member Larson’s report was deferred from the beginning of the meeting due to a plumbing problem in City Hall. Council member Larson and staff worked together to “stem the tide.” Larson reported that filings are closed for the City offices; the election will be November 2. Two candidates filed for the two-year Council position, created by the death of George Gregori. Ann Hoffman filled the seat after Gregori’s death. According to the Statute, the person elected to that seat will take office November 3. Dan Dahms and Kim Moore-Sykes have filed for this Council seat. Three people have filed for the two four- year Council terms–Arly Gunderman, Ann Hoffman, and Walt Witzke. Three candidates have filed for Dennis Guldan, Steve Larson and Buck Tereau. Mayor-- General Business Zoning Ordinance Amendments City of New Brighton Teague stated the item was for general discussion. The goal is to consider the definition of “family” and to amend the section concerning lighting of off-street parking lots. Teague reviewed the planning report on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Baker asked about the City’s concern about too much light in the street from a parking lot. Have there been complaints about this? Teague responded the item comes from the Hollywood Video discussion. Baker stated he could not understand why the City would want to restrict lighting onto a public street. Teague responded Baker’s point is correct; the City could only regulate lighting onto adjacent residential property. As noted in the survey of other cities, some cities only regulate lighting adjacent to residential property. Baker commented that this amendment required that lights be left on in a parking lot all the time. Zisla stated that documenting the reasons for adopting a standard is appropriate. However, adopting a standard to be like other cities is not a good idea. Getting the opinions of the Police Department, architects, and other concerned people, would be appropriate. Baker said that security lighting does not need to be as bright as lighting for a retail store. Concerning parking lots, Baker said he was concerned about the light going onto residential property. O’Brien stated staff should consult the State Energy Code about the maximum lighting allowed. Zisla said there are compelling arguments for changing the definition of “family.” Teague stated he would come back next month with information on the energy code and on the definition of “family.” I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\09-21-99.WPD 5