Loading...
08-28-06 Joint PC-EC Minutes . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley Environmental Commission August 28, 2006 A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 28, 2006. Planning Commission Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser and Environmental Commissioners Baker, Hill, Kaisershot, St. Clair and Sipala. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom, Planning Intern Aaron Hanauer, Planning Consultant Perry Thorvig and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Environmental Commissioners Anderson and Pawluk were absent. I. Lighting Ordinance Discussion Hanauer stated that this is the fourth meeting between the two commissions to discuss the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance. He explained that the main goal of this meeting is to receive feedback on the proposed ordinance from both Commissions. . Hanauer stated that in writing this ordinance staff has incorporated the Commissions' comments from the previous meetings, studied other cities ordinances, and worked with the Engineering Department, Public Safety Department, City Attorney and Planning Consultant, Perry Thorvig. . Baker stated that he thought the ordinance had a good mix of language regarding wattage and footcandles. Thorvig stated that the draft ordinance deals with the concerns that the Commissioners have expressed at their previous meetings such as, over-lighting, light trespass, certain fixture types, maximum wattage limits, height limits, curfew requirements, timers and dimmers and uniformity requirements. He said there are provisions in the ordinance for residential and non-residential properties. There is also a process to allow for administrative variances and to allow for flexibility such as uplighting for flags and landscaping. Kluchka asked Hanauer if he could highlight areas that could be contentious or potentially create a need for variances. . Baker referred to Subdivision 3(B)(4) and said that he thinks the word "minimize" is too soft of a word and he would like to use a better defined, more concrete word when talking about outdoor recreational facilities. Thorvig stated that one concern with softball fields is that the ball has to be lit in order to be seen. Hanauer added that if the lighting on a recreational field were to be re-done, City staff would review it. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission August 28, 2006 Page 2 Baker referred to Subdivision 4(A)(3) regarding prohibiting lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only toward a property line. He said he thinks any mounted light fixture would be aimed at the property line. Hanauer stated that the provision is intended for wall packs where the light shines sideways or straight out toward the property line. Baker said he thinks the current language is going to create problems if it's not clear. Schmidgall stated that lighting fixtures mounted to aim light only toward the property line concern is also covered in Subdivision 9(B) where it states that illumination shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles at the property line. Hanauer said he would review the language and make sure it is clear. Lundstrom noted in Subdivision 6 there is a "grandfather" clause and that this ordinance would pertain to new development. Hanauer added that the only time existing lighting would have to comply is when there is a property that has light trespass of 0.5 footcandles or greater, which will be considered a nuisance and shall be required to be reduced to 0.3 footcandles. Baker asked about the penalty for residents who are over the 0.3 footcandle requirement. Grimes said it would be considered a violation of the zoning code which is a misdemeanor. Sipala suggested that some language be put in the ordinance to encourage eliminating Mercury Vapor lamps. Hanauer said that Mercury Vapor lamps would be considered legally non-conforming and that the bulbs could continue to be used. Cera asked if existing Mercury Vapor lamps could be phased out. Thorvig stated that legislation has said that non-conforming uses can be allowed to continue therefore the City can't require property owners to replace these lamps. Cera asked if there is a way to encourage property owners to replace old fixtures. Hanauer said the energy savings would be the incentive for people to replace old fixtures. Grimes stated that the City could do a brochure and stories in the newsletter to help make residents and businesses aware of the new lighting standards. Keysser asked if Excel Energy offers any rebates to people who replace their fixtures with more energy efficient ones. Clancy said there is a program through Excel for municipalities to change fixtures such as LED traffic signals, but she is not aware of any programs for commercial property owners. McCarty referred to Subdivision 5 that described the method of measuring light and asked at what height the measurements are taken. Thorvig said all measurements are taken at ground level. Lundstrom asked if photometric applications will require a plan review. Hanauer said yes, and added that the applicant will responsible for providing all of the information listed in Subdivision 7. Lundstrom referred to Subdivision 7(B) and asked if it was referring to the type of bulb, or type of fixture. Hanauer said he would add language about bulb type. St. Clair referred to the sample photometric plans that were in the agenda packet and asked if the City has a computer program that creates the plan or if that is something the applicant submits. Thorvig said that the applicant would submit the photometric plan and the City has to trust that they've done it correctly. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission August 28,2006 Page 3 Kaisershot referred to Subdivision 8(C) regarding residential security lights and asked why it needs to be in the ordinance at all because it is ultimately tied back to Subdivision 8(B). Hanauer said he would review the wording in Subdivision 8(B) and (C). Kluchka asked why the light is measured at the ground level. Thorvig said that is the way light is measured in all communities. Kluchka said that as a resident, that doesn't make sense. Baker said he is surprised that light is not measured perpendicular to the source. Kluchka said he thought measuring the light a foot from the light post would be more appropriate. Hanauer said he would review how light is measured. Grimes added that the instructions he has seen with every light meter have said to lay the meter horizontal to the ground. Baker referred to Subdivision 9(C) regarding the mounting height of lighting fixtures. He said he thinks the definition of "vertical distance" is confusing. Eck asked about the uniformity ratio. Hanauer explained that the uniformity ratio spells out the minimum and maximum amount of light and the lower the ratio the more uniform the lighting design. McCarty asked why there is a basic lighting level and an enhanced lighting level. Thorvig stated they have different lighting levels to meet the needs of the property owners because some need an enhanced level of lighting. Grimes added that in no case can the footcandles go above 7.5. Grimes stated that the next step in the process is to incorporate the Commissioner's concerns from this meeting and bring the ordinance to the next Council/Manager meeting for discussion. Hanauer said he would review the comments from this meeting and incorporate them into the lighting ordinance and have it ready for the next Council/Manager meeting. II. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm.