The URL can be used to link to this page

09-09-19 BZA Agenda - Special Meeting 7800 Golden Valley Road(Golden Vailey,MN 55427 " t' } {;� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goidenvalleymn.gov ��Q� �� ,� • V,�� 1e� Board of Zoning Appeals ..t� September 9,2019—6:30 pm Councii Chambers SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes August 27, 2019, Regular Meeting 4. Tabled Item -8805 and 8905 Wayzata Blvd Luther Auto, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-153, Outdoor Lighting Subd. (i)(2) Outdoor Lighting • 3.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4 footcandles along the north property line. • 3.4 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.9 footcandles along the east property line. • 4.1 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.6 footcandles along the south property line. • 2.7 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.2 footcandles along the west property line. Purpose:To allow for more than the maximum amount of illumination allowed at the property lines. 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc. 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 city d f 763-593-39921 TTY 763-593-3968 1763-593-8109 (fax) I www.goidenvalleymn.gov golden, Board of Zoning Appeals vall, August 27, 2019 — 7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Nelson. Roll Call Board Members present: Kade Arms-Regenold, Nancy Nelson, Richard Orenstein, David Perich, Andy Snope, and Planning Commissioner Lauren Pockl Board Members absent: None Staff present: Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Planning Intern Emily Anderson, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Perich to approve the agenda of August 27, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope to approve the minutes of July 23, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. 1915 Glenwood Pkwy Zachary Tamble, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-152, Screening and Outdoor Storage, Subd. (c)(1)(a) Height Requirements • To allow a fence along a portion of Zenith Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard. Anderson referred to a location map of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to install a new 6 ft. tall fence in a front yard rather than the allowed 4 ft. She referred to an aerial photo of the property and showed the Board where the fence is allowed to be 6 ft. in height. Anderson discussed the staff analysis and alternatives and said that the use of a 4 ft. tall, not a 6 ft. tall fence is reasonable and that a 6 ft. fence could be installed if it was shifted north to the side/rear yard. She explained that the fact that this is a corner lot is not a unique circumstance because corner lots are prevalent throughout the City. Also the placement of the house leaves space for side and rear yards, and a 6 ft. tall fence would alter the essential character of the locality because there are no other 6 ft. tall fences in front yards nearby. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. City af Galden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 2 August 27, 2019— 7 pm Anderson stated that staff is recommending denial of the variance request to allow for an additional 2 ft. of fence height for the portion of the fence in a front yard along Zenith Avenue North. Zachary Tamble, Applicant, handed out photos of his property which illustrated the location of the proposed fence along Zenith Avenue and other properties in the City that have 6 ft. tall fences in the front yard. He said for them it is a question of safety and that they have had issues in the past with their dog getting over a 4 ft. tall fence. He said they consider Glenwood Parkway to be their front yard and that they feel it is reasonable to enjoy their backyard. Nelson asked Tamble how he felt about moving the proposed 6ft. tall fence to the north where it wouldn't require a variance. Tamble said it would be unfortunate for them to lose 30 ft. off of the left (west) side of their yard and they find value in that yard. Nelson asked Tamble when he purchased the property. Tamble said they just recently bought the property. Snope asked Tamble how close the house is to Zenith Avenue North. Tamble said he didn't know but that there would be 20 ft. from the proposed fence to the street. Nelson noted that corner lots are challenging and that the Board has seen a number of fence variance requests. Tamble reiterated that the proposed fence is for safety and that they want to use that space for their backyard. Arms-Regenold referred to the photo of the property along Zenith Avenue North and asked if the fence would be behind the garden shown in the photo. Tamble said yes, and added that the trees along that garden would also help block the fence from view. Snope referred to taller fences that are allowed on higher volume roads and asked if that is an ordinance or if that is just the City's practice. Anderson said it is an ordinance and that the Zoning Code allows fences in front yards along minor arterial roads to be 6 ft. in height. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Pockl asked Anderson why staff is recommending the location they are for the proposed fence. Anderson explained that if the fence is shifted to the north, along the same plane as the house, it would then be considered a side yard and would be allowed to be 6 ft. in height. Orenstein asked how many feet staff is recommending the fence be moved. Anderson said a 6 ft. tall fence would need to be 35 ft. away from the property line. Orenstein said he thinks it is reasonable to have a fence, but the need for a 6 ft. tall fence is due in this case to the landowner. City of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 3 August 27, 2019— 7 pm Nelson explained that the Board has to consider certain criteria when considering variances. She agreed with Orenstein that the use is reasonable but the circumstances are due to the homeowner. She said she is sympathetic, but doesn't think this case is unique and the Board needs to be consistent. Pockl said it's unfortunate the Code is written the way it is, but reiterated that the Board has certain criterial they have to follow. Perich agreed. Snope said he understands wanting a usable backyard and unfortunately the proposed fence might have to be smaller. He said it might be useful for the City to take a look at these types of properties. MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Orenstein to deny the variance request to allow a fence along a portion of Zenith Avenue North to be 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in height for fences in a front yard and the motion carried unanimously. 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Blvd e Luther Auto, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-153, Outdoor Lighting Subd. (i)(2) Outdoor Lighting • 11.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 12 footcandles along the north property line to allow for more than the maximum amount of illumination allowed. Anderson referred to a location map of the properties and explained the Code requirements regarding outdoor lighting. She stated that the Code has three key criteria that apply to lighting in auto sales lots. The maximum amount of light anywhere on the lot is 20 footcandles, the maximum to minimum light ratio must not exceed 30:1, and the light trespass at the property lines must be 0.5 footcandles or less. Anderson explained that the applicant has submitted an amended lighting plan that meets the 30:1 min/max ratio, and meets the 20 footcandle maximum, but exceeds the light trespass amount on all of the property lines rather than just the north property line as originally requested. She stated that the applicant is asking for additional and/or amended variances as follows: • 3.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.0 footcandles along the north property line. • 3.4 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.9 footcandles along the east property line. • 4.1 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.6 footcandles along the south property line. • 2.7 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.2 footcandles along the west property line. City of tao6den �talley B2A Regular Meeting q August 27, 2019—7 pm Anderson referred to an aerial photo of the properties and noted that i-394 is located to the north, a street and pond are located to the east, a street and St. Louis Park land is located to the south, and the Porsche/Audi dealership is located to the west. She stated that there will be little to no impact on any of the surrounding property owners. Anderson discussed the staff analysis and stated that adequate lighting is a reasonable use, and the circumstance that is unique to the properties is the fact that the PUD allowed the parking lot to directly abut the north property line. She added that there are no surrounding residential properties, and no effect on I-394 so the essential character of the locality will not be altered. Anderson stated that staff is recommending approval of a variance along the north property line and that the Board can approve all, some or none of the additional variance requests, or the Board can approve the original variance request for just the north property line if desired. Snope asked what the hearing notices sent to surrounding property owners said, and questioned why this request wasn't a PUD amendment instead. He questioned why the applicant is asking for these variances and said the Board hasn't been presented with a problem. Linda McGinty, Luther Auto, Applicant, explained that they are replacing their lights with LED lights and that they will be significantly lowering the level of lighting. She stated that when this dealership opened the lighting requirements were very different. She said these sites have been affected by crime and that the spill that would occur from their proposal would provide some light on the sidewalks. She added that she doesn't think this is an unreasonable request. Perich asked if there is anything that can be done to minimize the light such as adding trees. Eric Haugaard, Cree Lighting, Representing the Applicant, said they have done a lot to get the footcandles from 12 down to 4 or 5 including shielding the fixtures. He said in his experience the things that annoy people are wall lights and not so much the light at the property line. He said most car lots have 40 footcandles or more and that safety is also an issue. He said he thinks what they are proposing is responsible and will be an improvement over what is there now. Orenstein asked if any fixtures will be replaced. McGinty said all of them. Haugaard added that they are reducing the number of fixtures. He stated that the property line and the edge of the parking lot are the same in some places so it is hard not to have light spill over. Snope referred to the proposed lighting plan and asked if the fixture head shown is what they would be using and if there would be 24 back shielded lights. Haugaard said yes,the fixture shown on the plan is the fixture they are proposing and that there would be 24 back shielded lights that shield the optic located around the perimeter of the property. Snope asked how the Kelvin temperatures compare. Haugaard said that they are trying to achieve daylight in order to show colors truly. C�ty of Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 5 August 27, 2q19—7 pm Nelson asked Haugaard how this proposed plan would compare to the lighting at the Audi dealership. Haugaard said it is hard to say because eyes are horrible measuring devices and that people know bright spots and dark spots. He reiterated that the things that typically annoy people have little to do with meter readings. McGinty added that they've switched several of their dealerships to LED lighting and overall it is just more crisp and vibrant. Perich asked Haugaard if they have measured how much overage there is at the property lines now. Haugaard said no, but there is more light spilling at the perimeter now than what will be. Arms-Regenold asked Haugaard if he could give them a sense of what 4 footcandles is. Haugaard . said no, but explained that parking structures are normally about 10 footcandles. He added that he doesn't ever see this low of a lighting plan for a dealership and that he usually recommends they start at 30 footcandles. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein questioned if this proposal is in the Board's purview because it is a PUD. Nevinski explained that the proposal was sent to the Board because the PUD ordinance says that the lighting plan must comply with City Code. Orenstein questioned what variances the Board is considering. Nevinski said he thinks it would be appropriate to table this item because it is really a new proposal. McGinty noted that a delay could cause issues with ordering and installation. Nelson asked what caused the changes to the original application submittal. McGinty said they were trying to meet the Code requirements. Haugaard said they were hoping to get information to staff sooner. Orenstein questioned if the Board could approve the variance request that is front of them and consider the rest later. Haugaard noted that the new plan meets the first two priorities of the Lighting Code. Orenstein asked Haugaard if they could get their project started on the north side of the property. Haugaard said no,they couldn't do their plans without knowing about the other variance requests. Nevinski said due process and proper notification are important and that his recommendation is that this proposal be tabled. Snope suggested scheduling a special meeting before the next regular meeting because this seems like a great plan and it would be a shame to have to delay them. City �f Golden Valley BZA Regular Meeting 6 August 27, 2019—7 pm Nelson said she thinks the Board members are all in favor of the proposal but due process has to be followed. Haugaard asked the Board if they could take a recess and contact the City Attorney to make sure this needs to be tabled. Perich said he would be against doing that. McGinty reiterated that there is a lead time and that they will be delayed if this proposal is tabled. Orenstein said he would be ok with having a special meeting. The Board agreed that they would like to schedule a special meeting. MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Orenstein to table the variance requests to a special BZA meeting (date to be determined) and the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 pm. „�, � , �� , �;, �� ,� �'� �� y� Nancy Nelson, Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant °�„ ��y� �� q u� �`�� , %, ;y� ,� � �� , �: �� ^�`�° i�"� �i //�y�, I t �ui. 3 ��ii� � �i i yi ��..��'' ��° � �j ��"�lii � � �u �%% � �... � ,,. i�l� �� €� ;i�//i,�,�.s''�.. �� 8, �. I�'��-�i��.l �+�v��.r��rn+��at �}epar�m+ent ��_��-sc��I��-��-s�as�t€�x� Date: September 9, 2019 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern Subject: 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard Luther Auto, Property Owner Introduction Luther Auto, owner of the properties at 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard, is seeking variances from the City Code in order to update the lighting within their auto sales lot with LED lighting. These variance requests were tabled by the Board of Zoning Appeals on August 27, 2019, as the lighting plan that was submitted to Golden Valley staff the Friday before the meeting was very different than what had been requested on the variance application. Because the change was so significant, the Board of Zoning Appeals decided to table the request in order to send out updated public notices to adequately inform neighboring properties and ensure proper review of the modified variance request. ' Variance Request E City Code Requirement . _ _ _.__.._ __ .__ �._._ .,,.v.____ ._� _�...__. _,,.www____.. _ _,_.,._,..._. �. The applicant is requesting a variance of ; § 113-153, Outdoor Lighting, Subd. (i)(2) Light 3.5 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 ' Trespass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and ; footcandles for a total of 4.0 footcandles located such that the maximum illumination shall ' at the north property line. not exceed 0.5 footcandle at the lot line. The a Iicant is ...._ w_� � � _ �___ � � �. q_.__� ... � � �_._---._._._� pp requesting a variance of ; § 113-153, Outdoor Lighting, Subd. (i)(2) Light , ' 3.4 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 Trespass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and footcandles for a total of 3.9 footcandles located such that the maximum illumination shall at the east property line. � not exceed 0.5 footcandle at the lot line. _ _ __ _ _ _.. __ ; _ _ _ ____. ___ _. _ ' The applicant is requesting a variance of ; § 113-153, Outdoor Lighting, Subd. (i)(2) Light 4.1 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 Trespass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and ' footcandles for a total of 4.6 footcandles located such that the maximum illumination shall ' at the south property line. not exceed 0.5 footcandle at the lot line. ' _ _ . ._..._� _ _�_.. ... __ � _.___ ��_._.. ..... —_ . ___�.. w__� ' The applicant is requesting a variance of ; § 113-153, Outdoor Lighting, Subd. (i)(2) Light ' 2.7 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 I Trespass. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and _ _. ___ _ _ __ 1 , footcandles for a total of 3.2 footcandles located such that the maximum illumination shall ' at the west property line. ' not exceed 0.5 footcandle at the lot line. _ __ _ __ - Background Both 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard are zoned Commercial. They are both part of PUD 91, which was approved by the City Council in 2001. There are four amendments to the PUD from 2001, 2007, 2015, and 2018 allowing for a redesign of the layout of the parking lot, an additional car wash, the acquisition of additional property for the second dealership, and a building expansion. At the time of the initial PUD approval, the City allowed the parking lot for automobile inventory storage to extend all the way to the north property line, adjacent to the right-of-way for I-394. This was a deviation from the typical setback for parking which would be 35 feet in a front yard. Although both properties are part of a PUD, language included in the PUD approval required compliance with all aspect of the City Code, including the lighting requirements, unless otherwise noted and approved. City Code Requirement The Zoning Code has three key regulating criteria that apply to lighting in auto sales lots. The maximum amount of light allowed within an auto sales lot is 20 footcandles. The maximum to minimum light ratio in an auto sales lot must not exceed 30:1. Finally, the light trespass at the property line must be 0.5 footcandle or less. Summary of Variance Request The applicant is requesting variances along all four property lines to allow approximately 4 footcandles of light trespass at each property line. For the north property line variance, the applicant has stated that because of the colocation of the parking lot edge along the north property line, it is impossible to meet all three of the lighting criteria in the Zoning Code. The applicant points out that the issue was created through the City's actions when the PUD was created (allowing the parking to extend to the property line). It is noted that given the higher elevation of I-394 compared to the properties in question, the additional light at the north property line will not affect motorists. As for the additional three variance requests, the applicant noted that there are no nearby residential properties that would be affected. The commercial property to the west would not be negatively impacted as it is also an auto dealership and has high light levels. The applicant also notes that the current lighting on the properties has light trespass higher than what the applicant is requesting with this proposal. Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has maintained the points of examination to the considerations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, requiring that a property exhibit "practical difficulties" in order for a variance to be granted. In order to constitute practical difficulties: 2 1. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. Providing adequate lighting in an auto sales lot is a reasonable use of property. 2. The landowners' problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property that is not caused by the landowner. The circumstances of the layout of the lot have contributed to the problem faced by the property owner in conforming to the City's requirements. The lot abutting the north property line as allowed in PUD 91 makes it impossible for the lots to conform to all aspects of the lighting standards in the Zoning Code. Separation between the property lines and the parking areas to the east, south, and west are less than is typical, resulting in additional challenges in providing adequate lighting that meets all Code requirements. 3. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances do not alter the essential character of the locality. The only other adjacent property is also a car dealership to the west—the other three sides of the property are adjacent to right-of-way—so changes in the lighting will not affect that property nor affect the essential character of the locality. Staff places the highest priority on keeping the maximum lighting levels in compliance with the City Code and second highest priority on maintaining an even lighting level across the site (the maximum/minimum ratio). Because of the highway use north of the subject properties, the lack of residential properties surrounding 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Boulevard, the reduced lighting amount from current lighting, and the improved energy efficiency from the use of LED lighting, staff is comfortable supporting the variance requests in this situation. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a variance of 3.5 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.0 footcandles at the north property line. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 3.4 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.9 footcandles at the east property line. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 4.1 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.6 footcandles at the south property line. Staff recommends approval of a variance of 2.7 footcandles off the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.2 footcandles at the west property line. 3 � ~=-�. �;�,_ ' �" `r� . , � ✓.�"�,"' _ .� Subject Properties � � m �.��,� 8805 �+ F'!"^attct 6905 g ' � m 9191 c ro ti �� : t� 9393 �, � � � ,��iir d ` .. R 9595 �� .. r.� � 93 93 ....,...�.. . - . . . ._. -�1 a � � a�;.,Y.�,. .,, �. � .�... � x Y... � f-.. ��y�f G�!€�� tJ�l��y �Z� ��r ��i�� 3 �l.��lAS� ��y ��}�.�'°'� �� elson explained that the Board has to co ider certain criteria when considering variances. She a d with Orenstein that the use is reas able but the circumstances are due to the home er. She said she is sympathetic, t doesn't think this case is unique and Board needs to nsistent. Pockl said it's unfort the Code is writ n the wa ' , ut reiterated that the Board has certain criterial they have w. Perich r . Snope said he understands want' us ackyard and unfortunately the proposed fence might have to be smaller. id it might u for the City to take a look at these types of properties. MOTION e by Pockl, seconded by Ore tein to deny the variance to allow a fence alon ortion of Zenith Avenue North to 2 ft. taller than the allowed 4 ft. in �for fences i ront yard and the motion carried una ously. 8805 and 8905 Wayzata Blvd ��;; Luther Auto, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 113-153,Outdoor Lighting Subd. (i)(2) Outdoor Lighting • 11.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 12 footcandles along the north property line to allow for more than the maximum amount of illumination allowed. Anderson referred to a location map of the properties and explained the Code requirements regarding outdoor lighting. She stated that the Code has three key criteria that apply to lighting in auto sales lots. The maximum amount of light anywhere on the lot is 20 footcandles, the maximum to minimum light ratio must not exceed 30:1, and the light trespass at the property lines must be 0.5 footcandles or less. Anderson explained that the app,licant has submitted an amended lighting plan that meets the 30:1 min/max ratio, and meets'the 20 footcandle maximum, but exceeds the light trespass amount on all of the property lines rather than just the north property line as originally requested. She stated that the applicant is asking for additional and/or amended variances as follows: • 3.5 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.0 footcandles along the north property line. • 3.4 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.9 footcandles along the east property line. • 4.1 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 4.6 footcandles along the south property line. • 2.7 footcandles more than the allowed 0.5 footcandles for a total of 3.2 footcandles along the west property line. �i�y c�f��Id�� 1/��1�� BZ� �i�gul�r �i�etin� �4 ��t�t�st 2``�, �4�.��7 p�vt Anderson referred to an aerial photo of the properties and noted that I-394 is located to the north, a street and pond are located to the east, a street and St. Louis Park land is located to the south, and the Porsche/Audi dealership is located to the west. She stated that there will be little to no impact on any of the surrounding property owners. Anderson discussed the staff analysis and stated that adequate lighting is a reasonab'le use, and the circumstance that is unique to the properties is the fact that the PUD allowed the parking lot to directly abut the north property line. She added that there are no surrounding residential properties, and no effect on I-394 so the essential character of the locality will not be altered`. Anderson stated that staff is recommending approval of a variance along the north property line and that the Board can approve all, some or none of the additional variance requests, or the Board can approve the original variance request for just the north property line if desired. Snope asked what the hearing notices sent to surrounding property owners said, and questioned why this request wasn't a PUD amendment instead. He questioned why the applicant is asking for these variances and said the Board hasn't been presented with a problem. Linda McGinty, Luther Auto, Applicant, explained that they,are replacing their lights with LED lights and that they will be significantly lowering the level of lighting. She stated that when this dealership opened the lighting requirements were very different. She said these sites have been affected by crime and that the spill that would occur from their proposal would provide some light on the sidewalks. She added that she doesn't think this is an unreasonable request. Perich asked if there is anything that can be done to minimize the light such as adding trees. Eric Haugaard, Cree Lighting, Representing the Applicant, said they have done a lot to get the footcandles from 12 down to 4 or 5 including shielding the fixtures. He said in his experience the things that annoy people are wall lights and not so much the light at the property line. He said most car lots have 40 footcandles or more and that safety is also an issue. He said he thinks what they are proposing is responsible and will be an improvement over what is there now. Orenstein asked if any fixtures will be replaced. McGinty said all of them. Haugaard added that they are reducing the number of fixtures. He stated that the property line and the edge of the parking lot are the same in some places so it is hard not to have light spill over. Snope referred to the proposed lighting plan and asked if the fixture head shown is what they would be using and if there would be 24 back shielded lights. Haugaard said yes, the fixture shown on the plan is the fixture they are proposing and that there would be 24 back shielded lights that shield the optic located around the perimeter of the property. Snope asked how the Kelvin temperatures compare. Haugaard said that they are trying to achieve daylight in order to show colors truly. Cit�r�f��c�� I��y �Z�1 }��I��° ��tin� 5 �ug�ast 27, ��—7 �a� Nelson asked Haugaard how this proposed plan would compare to the lighting at the Audi dealership. Haugaard said it is hard to say because eyes are horrible measuring devices and that people know bright spots and dark spots. He reiterated that the things that typically annoy people have little to do with meter readings. McGinty added that they've switched several of their dealerships to LED lighting and overall it is just more crisp and vibrant. Perich asked Haugaard if they have measured how much overage there is at the property fines now. Haugaard said no, but there is more light spilling at the perimeter now than what will be. Arms-Regenold asked Haugaard if he could give them a sense of what 4 footcandles is. Haugaard said no, but explained that parking structures are normally about`'10 footcandles. He added that he doesn't ever see this low of a lighting plan for a dealership and that Me usually recommends they start at 30 footcandles. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Orenstein questioned if this proposal is in tfie Board's purview because it is a PUD. Nevinski explained that the proposal was sent to the Board because the PUD ordinance says that the lighting plan must comply with City Code. Orenstein questioned what variances the Board is considering. Nevinski said he thinks it would be appropriate to table this item because it is really a new proposal. McGinty noted that a delay could cause issues with ordering and installation. Nelson asked what caused the changes to the original application submittal. McGinty said they were trying to meet the Code requirements. Haugaard said they were hoping to get information to staff sooner. Orenstein questioned if the"Board could approve the variance request that is front of them and consider the rest later. Haugaard noted that the new plan meets the first two priorities of the Lighting Code. Orenstein asked Haugaard if they could get their project started on the north side of the property. Haugaard said no, they couldn't do their plans without knowing about the other variance requests. Nevinski said due process and proper notification are important and that his recommendation is that this proposal be tabled. Snope suggested scheduling a special meeting before the next regular meeting because this seems like a great plan and it would be a shame to have to delay them. C�t�r c�f�ralc�� /��+� BZA ��al�r i�€�� 6 ��tst 2�, ��.�--7 prt� Nelson said she thinks the Board members are all in favor of the proposal but due process has to be followed. Haugaard asked the Board if they could take a recess and contact the City Attorney to make sure this needs to be tabled. Perich said he would be against doing that. McGinty reiterated that there is a lead time and that they will be delayed if this proposal is tabled. Orenstein said he would be ok with having a special meeting. The Board<agreed that they would like to schedule a special meeting. MOTION made by Snope, seconded by Orenstein to table the variance requests to a special BZA meeting (date to be determined) and the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment MOTION made by Orenstein, seconded by Snope and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:14 pm. �\.° � ,�� Nancy Nelson, Chair � y ��, Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant ��l, z� ��... �� N N m �� O m Nn rp� �^'� O YJ � 4 v r O M p Z .y.1 N P V y .yON A.�I N W.mi v1n N Y q nl .i N � •+A '�..J � C M II M K C 7C O�r-I.-1 e�1 M J+ . H U O B W �7 fY 01 N O� 7 � �(��) O � M ./.1�� RF+ � IO�67 06•.1�.1 P��i 4 M q p PG PG T, � � .. .. H M 4 S S 4 E � � m X C a� � 6 %R E$Fi � � H4L�7�R� . . ,pN � o�qK e o�xq \, p , 1 O .._ . .. .. .. . _.F w48��RE... �Iv r �.. o a �, W W W - - m N � �, � � � � � �g � _ _ � � � �{; _u Zi ¢ OO N N �.O t�0 a m'a'.M�IM N N��G�D . ~� ~ow � G,u d dio ,�..... � 0 m J w .� / � Z GD N � �i N � � (V.(V�.� � � �'fl y ry s� / �n b z .r, I p� �y, �� . . . . . . . . . ��_ i . O� .+O T O .�O, P a~ n O N c�tr � - F u) o � , �Y ._ � in - . ..� , . � � � Q m v co � o m �n o�n�.n�o v�ro �n , , � � , �� , � rv, . . . , "' . � � u� � n �.� u� v � � .- � � � N �. s W Q Z�t7 N N y . �. " ' ��,N ' d e - � ~ �. . . . . . . . . ''x�r �H 5 ry i., mA,�ry d � _ _ . �• .,I o i� , , . •��'..Y ��'� . '"Y'�.Ga,$ -� o � � J 1 � Q � `rT il � � o�.ain v��.n o w�cv,m o n co rn m H - . m �.�j � I � '.�� ; � ' � I• I •'� �%� � � •' ' � �'� Z O � � o 0 0 0 0 � N � �n �n � � � m u� -}— �N r � � � b� . �� ` � � _rt�-- � ' . . `�. ¢ a q�. a . . . � � g � mQ N � . . " _ � — , -� . _ � � � d � �� - � 1- � ��`� � :h I ��'I o�� I ° �. � ` ,J'"_.1 � ., _< � y �.�,�^ , �- � •.7.r �,,,, 7� CO O O�,N �fI � t0�co I� V'N.I� O tl� � }a•� + �-4� �� •J �.Z ro � �_ � N O'� O O Oi OC m t7 m,Oi,1� N O I' i . . .., . , I ,. I i �.✓ - �� o cn c��v a � � � � � � � � � a� __. .I .I .i�� P- �. .��"�.�I . �e - .a �`° J-J p �.� -. . . . _ . . . , . . . . . . . . � .y�n L ' � m .y.� � T _ -� � � .- � � y .. �� .�. 4 ��. � . 1-1 fl aD M II �� a-a � C d -_ .a warr O " '�, 01.$ � � � � N m (mD N'V Omi � � � ^ �. ' .�"---�`_ _ _ '�� r��l . �' ..� . ,�'``� . �y�:'1n'C! � O d.N-1 e�i N OG C � Q O � Oi (V OI G � tD (7�� LO � � � � ,�. .I N � ��_�� ,( 7 _H b C � _ (� _ �I '� �; m ry � q�Y N M � . ,,. . . . . . . . . . ��_"' ' .�igi C O .�C G � � w -Y-"_„ ' �_.. ..�..�� _..� . ... ..... . ... .�� `. � _ :1; O �,i y8 �i� � .�cy �� F H.RSi4i � � �c o 0 0. o 0 0 0 0�� o i o�� o 0 0 0 0 �� . �l m�� O ,� . '�� LL LL ��.LL.�,LL � � LL�LL'�.� � � LL�� W �J ....� � �T � ^ � . �. � f i ��-} > z ��+--�-' i .7 ,��7 O t'Y-`1� �r �o m > �j _-�.}--' .. N OD � .- . �. �� .i .i uf O b F .� N p1 W� � ' � N N f � w w w w w�v� rn -j--- �� n :� � ' � �1 v n n � p.w Q p�� Z Z Z Q Q .�-t--- .; a-a_a_.. ._... .. _._ _ p _ _ '. , ��_- _ T�� °:e��n o o p�j .� _ �--- ---- $S ----I y� � ¢ H 2 � J Q F- I- F' !n fA i. X k% � � � ' J �m C i� V O�.�i CO IK 15 � � � W � rc � N O O O�z Z t- H � _ . -.P'-�- - o e u n u z � � w w � � Q r� Q a a �J . fi fi .� � d fn H Z Z J J LL LL LL � � �<� W w C T? y�� .� 5 � �I Q.Q H H � J J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q � � �- - �- �•� O � M,� B.S�S L � � N J F- H (n U) H H H H H ,. ,� .. .._ 7 � d � � � � Y 2 Z Z Z � � � � � ':< „'� � . '. .. O .•i-I > i t C ;X � R � Z Z 'o o a � ¢ a a o 0 0 '0 0 _ �, ; _� F ��c s�i�R a� � a_�i .N . ., �.�.. . 0 - - � c� ggF- � mLLu. � � r- r- rr- r � • � �« - . . . .d� � . . �» . �,! . ��4� � � _ _ Icz� f . � "o� �... _ .,, : _ - o' � i . � ,_ ��. _ _� - ,�_ � � c� �'� c� �? c�,� c�,� c�.,� c? ; :� I : ry�:: � � . �� . � _ a : � Y {' � O O O O O O O O O� ' - i . � Iyl' . I I�� . I '', � O� Q � (ry 7 � � � � 7 � � � .— . p ' � N N Cf c�l t�l lA t� �. . . . . . : i (�1 m m m m m m m m m m �� " � �'� `" �"` � ` � M � b„ �- � � �, � i�i r I � �i � �: ' � � �� -�� ..�'" � � � n _� � . �'' : � a. � ~ — N -4�--- �I I �� i: - �se o� � �- • �`' `rt��"�`�-__r„ , ��I 1 �r. e o ,- � -a aM � , � ,i �; � a r. , � �� o (!� cv � � r�-� :., . . �� . . . . C � ;��` �, D1 . i M i M w +' � o � ' a .�--� � �� c�C 0� W u�i a n n ,;� i i 1 ^ :.7 � i '!' f r , "P � �..� . 0.� .°� .°� m �;, "1� �� I I lof q: �i o �� ¢ :�'o � 'd ��. y C p p N OG 15 ` .7'- ,°R'}'p' p__•��°`��-� d �� ... �-.- � ,y,y J Q� � � F U - �s : �. � I r I I I �I I"I y� "r _ �' -- a�� i�d � N N M �C ' I I I � a �p -r' n . Q � � �m I ~� V �r' ��.n =} �` ." . W�+1 N N W � C �/ Q B�� S' � • h o�N•.1..�I (� EL M../.A\\ �y ; � � � '� }A. d O ei ei'I PG P4 � .''i��s��s � .r ' f I•^I •`1 N � {"I � I I n , .r .��i� _`i b�" ��•" � z c N M M � cC � , . 7 s . D t �V � I 1 a�' n� .~i � s aa (� V � �, w .i-" il • ,� r-j-T� I�fv �' ��■-� � "' �e e z i� N � , , i , , � , I � � � ,� , , n � I i� I � _,� �° - �. ..e�� - ,�.�. .� : : . . : � .� i � � � , �+ rn � , � _�.�. C Q � w W - �,, c� o � � ., � � , � � � . , . r—� : , � , .� � , br� �� ,.� � ° xo �k i �i Y�� i�� i �3 � ° `" � o o �, d d � � a„ ` , :.� '. .-. . . :-. n - o N = -+ r V � �&�; � � ��I p�� (5 �-�- - - — b - �-�� N � � ' LL LL O > > `--1--- • � i i i. r , �.. �_�., � � � � 'J ,e �n m -�-�-` _. o ;_:_�' �� /�/� � m LL�Q Q 4".�-�-.�- ' rv . �, . . K/ , m O � � � F_.�+-,� _ -�"' � " ��' - L o = m d b �..�-t . :��; � � �d„ ._ .; ��' � '' � • - ' �� (�S 0 0 o ci c5 �-j-- � ,-.�-.w��,°+ � �� . . . . ' �' � — �. o � a o o ;'-� m � ' p� , " .�g � -- q •�� _ 3 � � . ��€r � �,,.. , n - � > � 3 v�i � }_�_. . . . : «o� . . . . . . � (/) (/J�(/1.(/7 � J J J J � �i � � e ` " a' ' _ - _ .r� ID m ,"_ �^ � �^• • n .. - s/..._•_n—i ' �. ,.. -m`, • .N. J � � � � J J J J � Y Y Y Y F._-r--- w m � .. .... .��' . �.. L/11 > > 7 � Y o 0 0 0' . ;� q'in � ,._`" '� W p p p �n in u� in .�a� `/ 1!1 � Ln Ln�N O O O O a' 4�, � N N I I�� .`�V'" ~ " N aJ0 aJ0 a0 V W W W W � �I A U�I III Y [ �- '� � � W W W W LL � � � � +; a "u W N V� O _-..a e I� � � � � ¢ c� M u> u� . .ci�y� c, o �n� �•N �` ,�-- � � ch a a c� � � � � � F o.+ u �+ _ I� � g g � z z z z z . � � � �' b w u w � � 3 3 3 3 c a a a a -" � tr � � P � E m cn m m.O O O O O �' " " N �' � a e 6� 7� I - � (� � ' x 2 2 2 2 � � = a a a a � C�J o C l o �� `�� 4 � s '"�s 7� i� �ir 1— _ � J Cn � � � � � � � � � � . '• � i N �-�_, a X X X X O O�O O O r�' •" - � s a � _. - . .- L a y �, x � � �l� � I� �� .��. ."-.; __ . � � -- -� - +�,--�-_�---- ��'�-=, _ . . . . . _� . �`� , , �� . z�-.- $�, � 3 = �� ' ��€ o€� o€� � f J � �, . � � o 0 0 0 _ .�� u, : : ,� � N v n.��M v v�v v . .--``t'-r+"-- � �� t5'4 .,F-. -�... &„ W , .- , � ' _},_ . . .-�.._ �$� N� � +�'•�-r-,r � ; ' � � :--+- � =-��'- ' . �.. _ a .... � __,_- �, .,-�, ,� �_ � "---� � °� � u u 8��g� 5 E �M � � J O I� f0 W W �._.. I � m : .M .� .` �F- '� �� . � . ' _ lV �V v1 N O O � 2 ��d E"�y� ' O O N N lf1 ' � N N . ... ,� r - n � � � .. 1 � � O.�i.i.-1 Y Y �� iA �l E � O N N �p �p T` � 7 y+ J N t0 c�0 c�0 N M M c�tl � �_� ,�� .�. -r. , ,�-,m � � �`-� . � p V 11 Iw 15 5�g��L�� . . . . �� " ma IZ-I k N M frb �� $ op Op op S o O o O O � �•_�ti �-� ... e. o �__°b ___ A q . Fl C. P C. C g .0 � �.j [{" LL O C O O Oni � �� O�i . � __��..� .., --$�e -6k __ ^dr o _�1�� 1/ fi @�� $�� 8 _ � �� o 0 0 0 0 ,_ .: - � s ,�'^ � - e� $-�, �T'�� °a � � �� ' :� .� . .� g� i _ .. .. � � _ W M�C � _ � a �� « . , p . p � e w 'g¢ . c Y . ." ,., ,rn o� ,., ,�. ,�, ., :. °� : s • • -�$�8�� , 3 � Q p .... �, . w .. . � ,. � _._.. � _ �� - ,� � . . , .� .. � , ' Ol W.W W W�.W W W W�.[11 a � ;i. i ,r �„. �,: �.W �. : � y' '� �� •I'. � i � a v � � � � � Y ' _�sii_i..i � ��. �' . �: 2�Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z��.Q �" _ .�..� .�_, . � .: � ,. , i : .,i.; ..�..,.�.� �. ..� ..�..,. - ..�'�J� ^ � Q fA !n fn fn lA fn N (n'Q] Q w -- . � � U�. �¢ _ I � o o � m ~ �(.7 � � �+ E � �o zz T � � E a LL tL O w (9 Q � •.� e a +'^ ,� � LL J J �_ ?J �`� � "i N V E O� u� � �a J J J J m W W W�.W �H IL� Y4 U N 11 � ? � N v aD co Q 2 O H .7 4�s n � � . LL W W W W Q N c7 1�l1�1(�1 �� tV O�+1�./�r1 � :. � M � a � aadda �� oo ma..�,..0 —� ; o � 3 3 3 3 x x x x x Q v LL a m b M M x a�a� LL 9 � a a a d d c7 O O CJ p a a�¢ � a s e a o� � � � � � � � N � m w H a� � I I 3 X X X�.X �� 0 � � ">` >W � q 6 8�� • T y. . . . . . C fn LL m Z d M+1.A\\ Z .6 m Q fn O� i,rt .i O N C.1 O�q% ,� . � y. n�m ¢z Z N 4 S�76 4 8 � d m� .� d.in.ao in.co..� co.a.�_u� wxd� �� W � € .. � I� . � � m�� O� � U �' •� $ � 4 000 �Q � E a 3 3 �n _.. �.._ � �^� U� � ♦ � rr