01/25/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

but is determined that this is required lighting because it needs to light the parking lot for safety of entering and exiting and therefore, must meet our standards. Currently it does not meet those standards. Mr. Yager reviewed the variances that they relocate them to the same spot and due to the lights not being shielded; there is overflow onto adjoining properties. Ms. Wenger said the bases were retained, but new lights were added. Lighting standards have changed to require higher bases and now they are non-conforming. They will need a variance for the base not being 30" and the decorative fixture. The drawings currently say 24", and are 6" off and 12" offthe curb. Mr. Conway said a 30" base requirement was established for snowplowing and that nature. Mr. Yager asked if the lights have a 24" base and they sit 6" above the curb, would they be 30" in nature of what is being asked for. He asked how the Building Department looks at the overflow of light. Mr. Conway said we need to address the concerns and the effect on the residents. Mr. O'Malley asked how the decorative fixtures are capable of being full cut off. Mr. Conway said he is not aware that they make a decorative fixture of this kind. He said the only option is to put some baclc shielding on them. Mr. Joseph Little, President of Laketec Communications, stated he did not know he was doing anything wrong and is asking for permission after the fact. He is using the same basis, replacing four fixtures with a decorative type. He did not feel he was infringing on any adjoining property owners. One light that may be in question has a back shield to reflect light so that it is not shining in someone's window. Mr. Yager asked if the one in question is on the western end of property. Light fixtures #l, 2 and 3 are existing light fixtures that have not changed. Light fixtures #4 is the one that is closest to residents and has a back shield. Light fixtures 5, 6 and 7 are far back from residents and would have no effect. Ms. Hoff-Smith asked the applicant what are the hours of operations are. The applicant said it would be approximately 10:00-11:00 p.m. Mr. Yager said that the plan does not show where the first residential property comes into play. The applicant said there is a wooden privacy fence that comes up that aligns with the back of the building, about 4-5'. A foot candle range of .02 to .03 that would impact abutting residents. Mr. Koeth aslced residents if they are actually behind the fence, which is in the back of the property. Bonnie and Tom Schmitz said that the lights on the site do have a glare and they ask for a south side shield for each light. She stated they are attractive, but mentioned the lights could be frosted (similar to libraries), rather than clear. Mr. Schmitz inquired about the land in front is elevated above their property and said no matter what size the poles are the light would still shine though. He asked if the south side could be shielded. He said the applicant has been a good neighbor. Mr. Yager informed the applicant that they could get a panel on light pole #4. He said they have one and it could be rotated. It could project more light into the property. Mr. O'Malley said this would be presented before Board of Zoning Appeals for variance requests. M. Yager moved to approve the Laketec proposal with the recommendation that the applicant locate the fixture in such a way so it best shields the resident to the southeast of the property for light fixtures #4, 5, and 6. Also, the applicant should consider the frost glow light shield. J. Lasko seconded, which was unanimously approved.