CCP 07-14-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(it cit '. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 31, 2000 II Issues which were discussed by the Planning Commission included the lighting of the parking lot and the intersection at the entrance to the complex. The Planning Commission recommended that a revised lighting plan be submitted for the parking facility providing options for lower lighting, for final review by the City Council. The applicant has submitted to staff two alternative lighting plans. The original plan showed four poles with shoe box tixtures on each at 30 feet in height. All three plans meet the light ordnance. The first alternative is a 20-foot pole with a three foot footing. These poles would be in the same loeation as the original proposal. The seeond option is a 12 toot pole with a three foot footing. This requires 15 poles. The applicant prefers the 20 foot pole option. The lights would only be used to illuminate the parking lot during evening hours. The applicant has agreed to the Planning Commission's recommendation that the lights be controlled by timers to turn on after dusk and off an hour later. Mayor Probst asked what the ground elevation change was between the residential properties and the parking lot. Ms. Randall stated that the elevation change was five feet. With regard to the City lighting standards, Councilmember Larson confirmed that there was not a minimum requirement, only a maximum requirement. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Couneilmember Larson asked if there was a threshold that must be met with regard to lighting that must be provided. Ms. Randall stated that there was not. She indicated that the maximum lighting standards are based on the amount oflumens at the property line. The applicant's proposal included the lumen measurements at the City property line and this will meet the Ordinance. Couneilmember Grant asked what the elevation difference will be between the lO-foot pole lights and the residential properties. Mr. Jay Pomeroy, Project Design Engineer for Bethel College, stated that the elevation difference was 20 feet. Ms. Randall noted that the light poles would be a total of 23 feet tall. Councilmember Grant wanted to confirm that the tennis courts will screen the light fixtures along the drive. Mr. Pomeroy stated that this was correct. Ms. Randall stated that Bethel College, Ramsey County Public Works, and City staff met to discuses traffic issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Randall presented the design of the interseetion as proposed by Ramsey County. The proposed design did not include a southbound right turn lane into the complex. The original discussion regarding this intersection determined that by climinating this tum lane it would make a safer pedestrian crossing by reducing the number of lancs that must be crossed. Additionally, Ramsey County did not feel the turn lane was warranted with the traffic load that a 41 parking spaee facility would generate. Staff indicated that Ramsey County would be open to a southbound right turn lane into the athletic facility. There was also some discussion about signs and traffie signals. Pedestrian crossing signs would be required as part of the project. Signals or flashing lights could be added, however, they are not advised by Ramsey County at this time. Ms. Randall indicated that letters in support of this project were received from the North Suburban Soccer Association. Mr. Michael Coopet had provided the City with a copy of a letter