Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 24, 1999 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Gunderman asked if the City will receive revenue from the use of this space. Benke <br />confirmed that the property is owned by NSP and the City would not receive revenue. <br /> <br />Motion by Larson, seconded by Samuelson, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT <br />THE RESOLUTION APPROVING SP-217, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING <br />CONDITION: <br />1. INSTALLATION OF THREE SIX FOOT TALL PINE TREES ON THE <br />SOUTH AND WIDE SIDE OF THE SHED PER THE PLAN. <br /> <br />5 Ayes ~ 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Teague presented the zoning ordinance amendment for section 11 ~O 1 O.f. (lighting for off~ <br />street parking). While reviewing the Hollywood Video store on Silver Lk. Rd. , Council <br />asked staff and the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to lighting. <br /> <br />The current section reads: "All off~street parking areas of 12 or more spaces for <br />residential uses shall be illuminated to an average maintained horizontal level of 1 foot <br />candle at ground level over the entire surface of the parking area during all nighttime <br />hours. Off. street parking for commercial, industrial institutional, and public uses shall be <br />illuminated to the above standard during nighttime hours." <br /> <br />Past site plan reviews have traditionally required exterior lighting to be installed so as to <br />prevent direct light from being detected at the lot line. If the City enforced this ordinance, <br />concern has been raised by the Police that the requirements do not provide adequate <br />security lighting for commercial office uses. <br /> <br />A survey of area communities found that New Brighton requirements may be a bit <br />restrictive. The Planning Commission feels the City should legislate a one foot candle <br />requirement from a residential lot line, and not at the street or at another commercial or <br />industrial lot line. <br /> <br />The following changes are recommended: <br />1. Maximum site illumination shall be regulated as follows: <br />a. Site illumination shall not exceed .4 foot candles at ground level when <br />measured at an adjoining residential property. <br />B. Lighting on the site and building shall be directed downward, and <br />installed so to prevent direct light from being detectable at the lot line of <br />the site on which the light source is located. <br /> <br />Moore~Sykes asked if the .4 foot candle requirement would be enforced for all zoning <br />districts or just for businesses abutting residential districts. Teague confirmed it would be <br />only for businesses that abut residential districts, and no restrictions for commercial or <br />industrial districts would be applied. <br /> <br />Larson said many area communities currently enforce the .4 foot candle requirement. <br />Teague said the Police felt the 1 foot candle requirement for an entire site was inadequate <br />as it relates to safety. Benke added that a property owner may have a 3 or 4 foot candle <br />for security purposes, and the less critical areas could contain lower light levels. Teague <br />said the definition does not formally state "glare," but direct lighting is required to be <br />projected downward. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Nextel Special Use <br />Request <br />Report 99~257 <br />Resolution 99.116 <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance <br />amendment ~ Lighting <br />off~street parking lots <br />Report 99~258 <br />Ordinance 662 <br />