City Council Minutes 1999 04 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayer questioned whether berming was required and asked Wood for clarification of the parking lot standards. He expressed concern for the wall pack lighting in addition to the large amount of light that appears to go over the property line. Haisfield replied that one wall pack unit is being used in an internal courtyard between the mixed-use and bank buildings. He explained that this was for safety, to insure that the courtyard area between the two buildings is illuminated. He stated that there are also four separate down lights on the eastern elevation by the rear doors. Mayer replied that he still has concerns for the light levels along the edge of the property and questioned whether the amounts exceed the standards. Wood read the following requirements regarding parking areas: 'parking lots require Iow, opaque walls and/or flowering plants combined with berming and/or raised planters to provide a dense, visual buffer of parking areas from peripheral streets or frontages.' He explained that there is a slight berming effect, given the topography, on the south portion of the building. He stated that the elevation of the parking lot at the northwest comer is slightly higher than the elevation of McCaslin Boulevard. He agreed that additional berming could be incorporated into the landscape plan. Mayer asked Wood if he felt that headlights would not shine off onto McCaslin Boulevard with the current plan. Wood replied that, in his best opinion, the landscape shrubs are dense enough to screen headlights. Mayer asked Wood for staff's opinion on the light level at the edge of the property line, specifically along McCaslin Boulevard. Wood replied that the photometric ends at the parking lot. The .45 levels at the edge of the parking lot will be directed towards the lot and not create glare on McCaslin Boulevard. Mayer questioned whether the plan actually met the City's standards and expressed disappointment that the Planning Commission did not require that the applicant increase the size of the landscape island buffering the shared access drive. Haisfield offered to extend the landscape buffer further to the west, in response to mayer's concerns. Mayer agreed to a compromise that the buffer be a minimum of eight feet wide, and that it extends as far as practical. Lathrop asked for the height of the two-story building on the plan. Wood replied that the building is thirty-two feet to the peek of the roof. 19