Laserfiche WebLink
<br />over the last 10 years at least the City has tried to encourage straight down lighting. The City <br />was in court over the Halleen truck dealership between 10 to 15 years ago regarding straight <br />down lighting. The particular lighting was not dissimilar from the lighting across the street at the <br />main dealership, which caused a lot of problems for the residents. In that case it was residents to <br />the south as well as problems for the residents across the street. He understands that Halleen <br />likes to shine their lights towards residential areas, but he feels it is a bad idea. Mr. Brennan <br />suggested Mr. Dubelko made a good point, and he remembered there was a lot of discussion and <br />;rief over the positioning of the iights. Mr. Kula questioned if the positioning of the lights still <br />had something to do with the foot-candles that are actually reaching off the property that Halleen <br />owns. Mr. Dubelko suggested it had more to do with the subject of glare, that was the trouble <br />with the truck dealership. The City hired a lighting expert who came in and said to avoid the <br />glare the lights should shine straight down. Mr. Kula suggested with a 20-degree tilt your not <br />talking a lot of glare. Mr. Dubelko indicated he could not debate that, as he was not a lighting <br />expert. He was just recounting for the planning commission his experience in litigation involving <br />Halleen, which took place 10 to 15 years ago. He could not remember what degree the lights <br />were tilted at then; but it was quite a problem for the residents. Mr. Koeth asked if a couple of <br />the pole lights could be moved in to make a second row, considering there is a 75-foot setback. <br />Instead of tilting them out have them straight down to light the cars. Mr. Kula suggested on the <br />west side of the parking lot the depth of the glare that would hit the residential line would not be <br />that significant, if the lights were moved in it would move the lights closer to the residents. NLr. <br />Brennan suggested the proposal was desianed to match what the Chevy dealership had, as far as <br />lighting fixtures and the angle of the tilt. What should be taken into consideration is that there is a <br />big, enough building on that lot which blocks the glare, and this site has nothing to block the glare. <br />Mr. Dubelko suggested he understood that they were trying to match the Chevy dealership, but <br />directly across the street form them is part of our historical district which will be developed in the <br />near future. There should be some consideration to the lighting whether or not it will match the <br />lighting across the street in regards to being historical in nature. He believes there has been <br />discussion with Halleen regarding, when he redevelops the lot on the north side of the street. It <br />needs to be consistent with what might be anticipated on the south side of the street which is the <br />historic district and lighting was brought up. Mr. Kula suggested that is the future. Mr. Dubelko <br />indicated it would be the near future. NIr. Kula :asked if there was an exact timetable. Mr. <br />Dubelko commented of course not. He further commented that he heard there was discussion <br />between Halleen and the City with respect to developing the lots in the near future. On Halleen's <br />part to redevelop the lot to match the historical building across the street, and talk of historical <br />type lighting that would match across the street. The point he is tryina to make is if the Planning <br />Commission is giving consideration to tilted lighting because it would match the dealership to the <br />west, he is recommending that they should also take into consideration the potential of near future <br />development across the street in the historical district. NIr. Kula suggested he was not aware of <br />what was going on across the street. He was only aware of what he has been trying to do for the <br />past two years on the north side of the street. He questioned if it would be another two years <br />before anything is started. When the package is presented for our side it will be addressed again. <br />N1r. ]Dubelko suggested it sounded like terrible planning on the part of the owners to pui up pole <br />lights and then have to tear them down again. IVIr. Dubelko indicated if that was Halleen's <br />proposal he wanted it on record that, if Halleen comes back in a year or two and proposes to <br />develop the site and objects to putting in some type of carriage type lighting to be compatible with <br />3