09-04-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Planning Case No. 452-96 New Apostolic Church; 3025 County Road H September 4, 1996 Page 17 backlight the signs and the cross so that lighting would be reflected off of the building wall. Staff's only concern is that this building is situation in a residential neighborhood so it is important to keep the lighting levels low. Staff recommends that the signs and crosses be reduced in size so that the total square footage is 100 square feet or less. We also recommend a contingency that, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant provide lighting levels and field examples of these lighting levels, if possible, and the level of illumination be subject to staff approval. Lighting The applicant has not shown any lighting on the plans.submitted with this application. Staff understands from conversations with the applicant that they are planning one light fixture on the north side of the building, and one on the east side of the building, as well as backlighting the proposed signs. The applicant expects to use a downcast fixture which is hooded. The light is intended for the parking lot, and is not expected to spill onto adjacent properties. Lighting is a concern to adjacent property owners. Staff is • recommending that a lighting plan be submitted, for review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. We are concerned about the height of the lighting and how it will be shielded and have no design information. We would recommend that lights be mounted on poles at the curb line along the north and east property lines, and that the lights be directed toward the parking lot and building, rather than putting the lights on the building and directing them outward toward the parking lot. The luminaires should have sharp cutoffs which confine any direct rays to the site, and should be limited to 250 watts. The light standards should be no higher than 18 feet. Staff Recommendation: Deny the development review. The applicant must either obtain approval for variances for setbacks, number and size of parking spaces, and number of compact parking spaces allowed, or revise the plan. It is questionable Staff is not willing to recommend approval with a contingency that the site layout be revised because it is questionable whether the requirements can be met due to the size of the site. A resolution recommending denial has been prepared and is included with this report. * * * * * Planning Commission Options: Recognizing that it may the Planning Commission's desire to approve the setback variance, the conditional use permit and the development review, staff has prepared a list of contingencies for each request which we would recommend that the Planning Commission include. This list appears at the end of this • report. The Planning Commission would also have to make affirmative findings for each of the criteria listed in this report.