PC 2000 05 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
IlEGULAIl MEETING
MAY 3, 2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind and Matt Burton
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Lori Haak, Water
Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEAIIlNG:
IlEQUEST FOIl A FIIONT YAIlD VAIIlANCE FIIOM THE IIEQUIIIED 27' FOOT
SETBACK AND A SIDE YAIlD VAIIlANCE FIIOM THE IIEQUIIIED 10' SETBACK
FOIl THE CONSTIIUCTION OF A CAIIPOIIT LOCATED AT 1834 VALLEY IIlDGE
TRAIL, TOM EDSTROM.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Mary & Lyndell Frey
Tim Moore
1822 Valley Ridge Trail North
1812 Valley Ridge Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Kate? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee want to address
the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Tom Edstrom: Hi, my name is Tom Edstrom. Address is 1834 Valley Ridge Trail North,
Chanhassen. I guess I'll start with the request for a variance for a front porch. As indicated, the
variance is to protect the, two fold. To protect the front entryway as well as add, improve the
aesthetics of the home. The home from the front view as probably you can see. Well, I don't
have it on, all I have is a blueprint but it's a two story home that doesn't have any sort of
overhang. Any sort of interesting angles to it so I'm trying to also provide a little more of an
interesting look and actually I believe it would blend much better in the neighborhood because
several of the other homes do have similar porches. And the reason that I'm requesting 7 feet as
opposed to the allowed 6 is I intend to pave the area right outside in front of my, the windows. If
I could just show this. That's the front of the home.., put the porch out. Pave underneath the
porch so that I have a little front sitting area to invest the amount that I need to invest is to build
the structure. By the time you close it in, because I intend to enclose the front off with a little
fenced in area. 6 feet barely leaves enough room to put a chair in there. And that was actually
one of the questions that I did have is, does the variance relate to the roof line. Setback from the
roof line. Does the setback requirement measure from the roof line or where you set your posts?
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Aanenson: The roof line.
Tom Edstrom: The roof line. So that makes it even more difficult as far as the post placement. If
the roof line can only come out 6 feet, the post placement, I mean there wouldn't be any porch
there. There'd be no sense in investing that kind of money to make the structure so, and I don't
really understand what the issue is with regards to being a foot closer to the street. What harm
would that do to the neighborhood. To the neighbors if anything. So that's obviously your
decision, not mine. So that's the first one. The second one is the carport. With the carport I'll
start by discussing the options that I pursued outside of the carport. One being the garage of
course. My garage is not long enough, does not have the depth to be able to store the boat. I
don't want to store the boat out in front of the garage. I would rather it be removed from the
street and have some degree of being hid from the street. With the Minnesota winters I think to
leave it outside in an uncovered spot would be not a wise choice on my investment. It's a new
boat. And as I was saying, I was going to look into extending the garage out the back. The
properly in back drops off so the foundation structure, in order to handle that became really cost
prohibitive so that's why I wanted to put the carport on the side. At the time I submitted the
request I didn't know exactly where my properly line was so I have since invested in having it
professionally surveyed to determine exactly where it is. There is as a result an error in the report
that I'm not asking for to setback, or to encroach on the 5 foot setback. It says in there that I'm
requesting to encroach into the 5 foot. I am not. I'm only requesting into the 10 foot. The
documents that I read indicate that a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood is possible
grounds for approval. There is another structure exactly like the one I want to build on my street
in the same neighborhood that was granted a variance from the setback requirement as well. So
from my viewpoint it would, it's not going outside of the neighborhood's guidelines or aesthetics
of the neighborhood. The structure would have, it would be well done. Tastefully done. It
would have 8 posts, 4 on each side. It would have an enclosed front on it just to match the house,
you know siding across the front of it. From a front view. It would have the same roof angles of
the proposed porch so the two aesthetically I think would tie in with one another well. The
structure cannot be, is not viewed from the neighbor's properly. The garage sits on that side of
the properly. There are some homes to the back and over to the right quite a ways that would
have a view of the structure. And it's my understanding that there has been an objection. My
immediate neighbor to the right of me, but not any of the other neighbors in the neighborhood, or
at least not the ones back behind me that would have view of the carport. Let's see. So I guess
the stafl's report on the objections to the carport I don't understand because there is a pre-existing
condition in the neighborhood and then on the porch it's only a foot. And given the financial
hardship that it would create to not get that extra foot. It just doesn't make any sense to build it if
I can't at least come out 7 feet to have useable space under the structure.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Can you talk a little bit sir about the side setback.
You said that when it was surveyed, I was out there today and there are the stakes with the pink
flags on them and it did look like it was a little more than 15. I didn't measure. What have you
determined or what has the survey determined was the actual length from the garage to the
properly line?
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Tom Edstrom: Okay, let me. It's not much different but it's a little bit. This is the survey which
shows 15.6... So it's a little over 15. The other thing that I would do however would be to put
the carport, just leave it 3 foot back from the front of the garage to get it to have it set off more
from the street and it's also, the further you go back from the property, the wider it becomes.
Blackowiak: Right, yeah. That increases.
Aanenson: That's almost the same as the original survey.
Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you. A motion and a second for public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners prior to our
decision, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Mary Frey: Mary Frey. I reside at 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. We're the neighbors to the
right. And I'd like to speak on both issues. I guess the second one primarily. Wanted to respond
to Tom's comments and also note that there are other, two other neighbors that have submitted
letters. I think you have copies of them in front of you. And the other concern by us is that it is a
fight fit between the two houses. If you can see the picture illustrates that. And when we bought
our house 4 years ago we assumed that this was an existing structure and that was one of the
benefits or the attractions to the neighborhood was the aesthetics and the wildlife preserve in the
back area. And we feel that perhaps, and I'm not putting assumptions or words but Mr. Edstrom
did move in last fall and did know that that two car garage existed and has been in the house for 6
months so I do believe it's a self created hardship. And there are other options. There are other
storage options for the boat. And we feel that it would depreciate the value in our neighborhood
to have a carport like structure. You just don't see that from my experience in Minnesota, very
many carports. Especially in the Chanhassen area with the wetlands right behind it. So we are
real concerned that, as you can see it is a fight fit between the two home structures and a carport
would be bellied up right on the property line. So we respectfully request that you deny that and
we have a real concern about the view and how the neighbors would react to that, as well as
ourselves. On the first request, I guess we haven't really had an opportunity to fully explore that
because there was not a public notice on that so we just became aware of that in the last couple of
days. So thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Lyndell Frey: Lyndell Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. One comment that I would like to
make is in regards to an existing structure within the neighborhood. That structure is on Valley
Ridge Trail South and through talking with city staff} that structure was put up not according to
city permission. It was put up, and again this is just talking with a city staff member but it was
not, all the proper permits and applications and things like that were not approved to put that up.
So I just wanted to bring that. If that is correct, then that is something that if you say well, one is
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
up. If it was up because it was not approved by city planning to put up, then really you can't look
at that as a pre-existing carport.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Tim Moore: My name's Tim Moore. I live at 1812 Valley Ridge Trail South. I think that has to
do with some of the aesthetics of how close it's going to be placed to the existing house. There is
one currently up as they stated on Valley Ridge Trail South that is further set back from the other
houses next to it. I think that's a big consideration to take and then also what the value will do to
the other houses around. And like you say there are other options for storage of the boat.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close?
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Anybody have any thoughts on this one?
Sidney: Well Mr. Chair I'll make a comment. I agree with the staff's report. And I agree with
the comments made by the neighbors. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without variances. And it seems like staff has recommended or given some options for
construction of a porch as well as placement of a boat along side the garage. I do feel that the
carport might be too close to the adjacent neighbors and would not feel comfortable approving
these two variances.
Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments?
Conrad: Oh sure. Yeah, it's good that the neighbors are in and I appreciate that but the decision
is not because they're here. It's real clear that it's not something that is worthy of a variance. It's
just outside the guidelines and there's no hardship so staff interpreted the rules right and there
really wasn't a case that showed some kind of hardship so it's really not a neighbor, neighbor's
complaining. I'm glad they're in and it's part of how government works but it's really real clear
that this doesn't work.
Peterson: Okay.
Blackowiak: I agree. I have nothing to add.
Peterson: No, I concur also.
Tom Edstrom: Can I just ask about the porch?
Peterson: I think, right now the public hearing is over so we'd have to re-open the public hearing
again. When we vote and we can talk about it when we get done. I'll entertain a motion.
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Sidney: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission denies the variance request (00-7) for a 1
foot variance from the 27 foot front yard setback for the construction of an open porch and a 6
foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a carport based on the
following two conditions.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Sidney moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request
#00-7 for a 1 foot variance from the 27 foot front yard setback for the construction of an
open porch and a 6 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of
a carport based upon the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the properly.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: That motion is carried. I'd like to read into the record however that appeals from this
board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person by
appealing this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator
within 4 days after the date of this board's decision. It will be placed on the next available City
Council agenda. You had a question?
Tom Edstrom: The reason for the porch, I can understand the carport. Can you explain that to
me I guess? What that is such an issue.
Peterson: Part of it is.
Tom Edstrom: ... objecting to that I guess...
Peterson: Well part of it is, if we grant a foot, and then do we stop at 1 i/2 feet? 2 feet, 3 feet or 4
feet? So we're somewhat obligated by code to say if you're not within the code, and there isn't a
hardship, then we're obligated to deny the request. So even though a foot sounds like a small
amount, where do you draw the line? And it's a tough decision. It really is. Okay? Thank you
all for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH LOCATED AT 8030 HIDDEN
CIRCLE~ SHANNON McCLARD.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Peterson: Questions of Kate on this one? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward.
Shannon McClard: Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. We should
have this meeting outside I think rather than in here. I guess when I started out applying for this
variance I didn't know it was so strict to the code. But here's my proposal I guess if you can put
it up here on the screen. And I don't know if you can see the darker shaded areas here. It
happens to be the area that I am asking for an encroachment past the, or into the 10 foot area
approximately 26 square feet. I know it's not a lot and after hearing what you previously told the
other gentleman. I felt even though I read the information you sent me that this was kind of a
dead issue but I felt I should at least show up and make my appearance and at least meet you fine
people. I guess a year and a half ago I went up and asked some questions to one of the people up
there and I asked them what they thought chances of getting a variance like this approved and they
really said they really didn't know. A 50/50 shot. I don't think this was a 50/50 shot but I went
through the motion and very interested to hear what you folks have to say I guess. I think it's
pretty self explanatory. There's not much I can show you so, thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion for a public hearing?
Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Motion to close?
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Any thoughts on this one folks?
Blackowiak: Well I guess I'll start on this one. I've got a couple of thoughts. I went out to the
site. Talked to your neighbors the Blakes and they had no problem with any kind of deck because
they have no windows really on that side. That's their garage side so they didn't have any real
concern that they wanted to have relayed. You saw the outcome of the last variance. I don't
know if you had considered possibly changing the shape of your porch. As I looked at your deck,
you've got the bay window area and then the door is kind of, would it be to the south sort ot~?
And I was just curious, you could almost enclose at that point of the comer of the bay window
and then just go straight. You know come at an angle or something and then enclose it south and
still achieve at least a partially screened porch and yet not have a variance need at all. I mean was
that.
Shannon McClard: That was kind of our next step.., this was the maximum that they could give
US...
Blackowiak: It's square. It's a little bit easier.
Shannon McClard: Yeah, so this was their plan to go through this process and then...
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Blackowiak: Yeah, because as I looked at it I thought you could get kind of an interesting porch.
You know not so square and still have your window there on the side because that's a nice
window. You're going to lose a lot of light in there if you enclose that so, those are my thoughts
and again I think you kind of know the direction I will be going but for what it's worth.
Shannon McClard: Thank you.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Blackowiak: No.
Sidney: Agree with staff's analysis again.
Peterson: As do I. I think one of the, and I should have articulated this more clearly, or more
clear in the previous variance but I think, I mean if there is a compelling reason and that's really
what we look for too. Not just a pure hardship. Hardship is also kind of a fluid definition but if
it's really a compelling reason that it's going to be better if we make the variance than it would if
we don't is a lot of the decision making that we have too so. Motion please.
Blackowiak: I will move that the Planning Commission denies the 5 foot variance from the 10
foot side yard setback for the construction of a screened porch based upon following conditions,
or items 1 and 2.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 5 foot
variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a screened porch based
upon the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the properly.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: As before, a City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal
this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four
days after the date of this board's decision so if you want to appeal it, you can contact the city
stafl~
Shannon McClard: Can I ask a question?
Peterson: Sure.
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Shannon McClard: What do you think our odds are...
Peterson: We don't even know. I wouldn't even...
Conrad: It's zero.
Shawn McClard: I have a question ifI may. Is that four business days or four any days?
Aanenson: Four business days.
Peterson: Okay, thanks.
OPEN DISCUSS: LIGHT POLLUTION~ JACK ATKINS.
Jack Atkins: Thanks for allowing me to talk this evening. This is a reprint from the New England
Light Pollution Advisory Group. I pulled it off the web site. I'm giving credit to the... It's kind
of a nice succinct coverage of the issues. The purpose of outdoor lighting is illumination. It's to
enhance visibility and to give a sense of security to people. And I've seen a lot of bad lighting
going into Chanhassen that started to concern me. I know that you guys have a lighting ordinance
here and I just presumed that everything was going to be okay but then I've seen some lights
going in were poorly thought out so I've been getting more involved in this. Incidentally I'm a
member of the Chanhassen Environmental Commission. I'm also a member of the Minnesota
Astronomical Society and of the International Dark Sky Association. So I do have a lot of interest
in this. We can kind of follow along with this good neighbor outdoor lighting to some degree.
... G is glare. Glare hampers vision and results from us seeing light correctly from the source.
When you can see the light source it creates a sensation produced by luminous within the visual
field is sufficiently greater than the luminous to which the eyes are adapted to cause annoyance,
discomfort, or loss of visual performance and visibility. And that's really the crux of most of the
poor lighting that I've seen. And after I go through this and we look at some examples of lighting
you'll be astounded how many examples of poor lighting you do see, although there are good
examples out there. The next thing in GLUT is L, light trespass and that's lighting where it's
unwanted and/or unneeded. My neighbor's lights in front of their garage, they leave them on all
night sometimes and they come shining through my windows. Street lights that should be lighting
the sidewalk and the street are streaming in through bedroom windows, things like that. That's
light trespass. The next issue is uplight. Also referred to as sky glow. In the truest sense of the
word this is wasted light. It's all light that never illuminates anything except the sky and it
detracts from our view of the stars. It blurs out the stars. If you've ever been up to Lake Superior
or North Dakota and seen the Milky Way, you certainly can't see it here. The fourth component,
T in the GLUT acronym is Too Much Light. This results when light levels exceed that needed for
the task. And essentially I could go out in the City Hall parking lot and perform brain surgery on
any given night because it's, I mean there's 100 foot candles of light there. Ten times more than
is needed. Okay, what is good lighting? It does its intended job with minimum adverse impact on
the environment. It has four characteristics. It gives us adequate light for the intended task. It
utilizes fully shielded fixtures to control output to the intended area. Results in fixtures that are
carefully installed to maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse impact, including infrared
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
and.., whenever possible. A lot of lighting does not have to be on all night. That includes
commercial lighting, security lighting. It's much more effective when the lights come on with the
motion detector than when they're on all night. It also uses high efficiency lamps wherever
possible while taking into consideration color and quality as an essential design criteria, which is a
big issue. The proper light source. I'm going to put up some examples of some good and bad
lighting fixtures. I'm also a volunteer fire department. We've got fire fighters up there. This is a
computer generated shot of just the United States with simulated uplight glow. You can very well
see the Eastern seaboard. You can see the big red spot here is Chicago. Detroit and we're doing
pretty good here. Right now we're just a little red spot right there but we'd like to start reducing
that instead of allowing it to continue to increase. The street lights, when they're properly
shielded make up three types that can be used to illuminate just the roadway or the curbs or also
along the sidewalks. It is not.., receptacles. And this is an example of a fully shielded and unfully
shielded street light here. As you can see, they give a... on an unshielded lighting you can see the
glass hanging down. That's called the refractor. Up in the housing you have a reflector that
reflects the light down and the refractor disperses the light. And you can see that all the light from
here to here is just wasted light. And if that were submerged into the fixture and just used as a
reflector, you can see there's much less wasted light. And you can get by with a smaller light
source because you're reflecting it down into the intended area so you can save money that way.
Blackowiak: Jack, could I just ask you a question? How do our lights around Chanhassen
compare like if you, back to that street light example?
Jack Atkins: Okay, well there's a mixture on this.
Blackowiak: I mean are we getting better? Are the older ones worse than the newer ones? I
would hope.
Jack Atkins: Well I was thinking that but that's kind of what motivated me is I saw some very
poor examples, and I'll actually show those at the end.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well no, I didn't mean to jump ahead I just, it made me think so just
continue.
Jack Atkins: Billboard lighting should never be lit from below because you're just throwing all
that light up into the sky. If you shoot it down and any light that reflects off hits the ground, is
absorbed for the most part. This is an example of, this is very similar here to, this one here to the
street lights in the Pontiac Lane area around, I call it the Chaparral neighborhood. Pontiac Lane.
And it looks like it's an unshielded light because it's got all this glass below, but the light source
is actually up here in a reflector in this black housed area so the light does a very good job of
reflecting down. Especially if this glass is not frosted or doesn't have ripples in it. It's clear glass.
Does a very good job of, and you actually do not see the light source unless you're very close to
the light. This light here, they've got the source right there in the glass where you can see that
light source. And I'll show you some instances of that later but particularly in the new St.
Hubert's Church area. Those lights are completely unshielded and I've had people comment to
me about that you can't see anything. All you can see are the lights. Similar to those square...
along Main Street. Unshielded. You're looking directly at the source. Those are older. But here
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
we have this type of lighting, Pontiac where they've got to be 10, 15, 20 years old and then brand
new lights at St. Hubert's that are not meeting proper design criteria. The same thing with the
claw lights. For some reason people feel more secure with the big, bright light on the back of
their warehouse where actually it enhances their ability to see intruders if they're not looking at
the light source and they're reflecting all of that light down. This is an unshielded.., security light
you might see out on a farm. They're usually the bright light mercury vapor and you need to
shield those. It improves them very much, although it's a more detail about that. But basically
you can see in all these cases, shielding them does a lot to improve the light. Here's some more
of the same. And I want to do one more handout quickly, ifI can find it. I didn't cover
incandescent lighting which would be your halogens or your typical tungsten type fixtures in this
but they're very similar to mercury vapor. If you want to look at this. We have about, there's
four types of outdoor lighting that are typically used. There is low pressure sodium, high pressure
sodium, metal halite and mercury vapor. Now the best light is low pressure sodium, and you can
see that an 18 watt fixture, well let me explain this. These are all lumens which is how much light
the fixture creates. Okay. It's not the same as wattage because of the inefficiencies of the
different types of bulbs but I've organized these to some degree. These are three examples of
roughly comparable lumens for different types of light sources. So basically you're getting the
same amount of light from an 18 watt low pressure sodium light as you're getting from a 100 watt
mercury vapor light. In fact you're getting a little bit more. And you can see that the low
pressure sodium costs $9.84 a year to operate from dusk to dawn. Where the mercury vapor
costs $32.80. Those typical yard lights that you see, the security lights on barns are 170 watt...
mercury vapor. They cost $29.95. They cost twice as much as that to operate for a year. You
get the same light value at 35 watts with a low pressure sodium for $19.00. So there are a lot of
other benefits to choosing the lighting besides improving lighting. You reduce the luscion. You
reduce sky glow and you save money. Now there's some problems with low pressure sodium is
it's, let's see where's that graph. I'll just show this briefly. This is low pressure sodium.
Essentially it generates all of it's light in a single frequency. Your eye needs.., graph down here,
your eye absorbs light in blue, yellow and red. And then somewhere in this area, these are your 3
rods. Collecting the light and this is the cones. You have 3 cones and this is the rod that allows
you to see black and white. So this is all you need to see light. Full color light okay. But all
these light sources, they're made up of chemicals and they can't, it's like the spectrum coming
from the sun. Each element creates a different spectrum but the low pressure sodium creates all
of it's light here so it's all yellow light. So if it reflects offofa blue car, there's no light that
comes ofl~ We call it color rendition. It's very poor for color rendition so if you use, or a car lot
wouldn't want to use low pressure sodium because all his cars would look the same color.
They'd want that white, you know this stark color so it's not very good for car lots and things like
that, or for lighting billboards. But as just a security light where color rendition isn't critical, it's
the best choice. This is high pressure sodium which costs about 50% more than low pressure
sodium and it's got a little better. Still doesn't have much in the red and blue, and these are the
lights that you see on almost all of the street lights in Chanhassen. High pressure sodium. This is
a mercury vapor here that you see a lot of blue and a little bit of red. So you take that over here,
the low pressure sodium has the worse color rendition. You get a little better with high pressure
sodium and then metal halite which gives you the best color rendition. But there's no reason ever
to put a mercury vapor in because you can do the same thing with metal halite at less energy cost.
Alright. I'll go back to my notes here. Okay. Good and bad lighting in Chanhassen. We're
going to start off with some residential shots. Can you zoom in on that? Now this is a house.
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
They've got halogen lights. This is a tungsten light over the porch, unshielded. And these are
halogen lights to light the driveway for play. And I bring this up as an example because it's my
house and it's very poor lighting, and I just didn't know any better. I just stuck the cheapest
Menard's light on there that would do the job. Okay. Now this is another house up the street
from me on Frontier Trail. You can see all those lights are built into the soffit so you can't see
any of the light sources. It's a much better job of lighting aesthetically. And they can be
improved even further if it were on a timer so like after midnight when people aren't admiring the
house anymore, it would trip off of motion detectors instead of just always being on. Parking lot.
This is Rosemount's parking lot. Again, you could do brain surgery or read a fine printed book in
the parking lot. It's just lit up like daytime there. And there are security issues but it's definitely
over lit. This is the parking lot. You can see these are unshielded lights here. This is the parking
lot by Byerly's. I'm not picking on anybody here. This is probably one of the most over lit places
in Chanhassen. And you can see this is an unshielded light here. This light is almost shielded but
it's got a light hanging down about this far and it's a dead give away that they're using that as a
refractor. But ifI can see that light source, that means it's trying to light the area where I am.
This light shouldn't be lighting where I'm standing at the end of the parking lot. There's no
reason for that light to be visible there. And this is more of the effect you get with good shielding
because you don't see those sources so you can get by with a lot less light and actually see better.
This is a building off of Highway 5 and here they actually did a pretty good job. It's all directed
down. It's over lit somewhat. And it's mercury vapor with metal halite probably. I'm not sure.
Which isn't necessary because there's no color rendition being involved there and it's pretty good
lighting.
Sidney: Now is that Minnesota Storage?
Jack Atkins: I think it is the Minnesota Storage building, yes. And the place I should be at right
now. Now these are actually shielded cut off lights here because I'm so close to them that I can
see up into the source. But these are those wall fixtures that you can see from Lake Ann. And
there' s no good reason for it. It' s just, you could cut the wattage in half if you're reflecting all
that light down onto the ground and across the back of the building. This is the elementary
school. You see a lot of these shots I'm within 100 yards of here. Completely unshielded lights
here and this is an artifact of the film but this is a mercury vapor unshielded farm security light
type fixture on the side of the building there. And it just comes out that color because of the
chemistry of the film. Now this, when I first saw this building I approached from this side and it's
an excellent job of lighting. They've got all high pressure sodium, fully shielded, aimed into the
ground. A remarkable looking building at night. But you drive halfway around the building and
all the way across the back where they have the garage doors, they stopped shielding. They just
put the same lights as, like on the back of the fire department. There's no reason for it. It just
impedes vision. Here's a pretty good example of some good lighting on the Americlnn. You see
that, you can't see the sources on the lights but here you can see a halfa mile away there's an
unshielded light. And then unfortunately behind Americlnn are these new lights which are
completely unshielded sources. This is down on Park Road. These are intended as security
lights. They work much better, you can see the source. I'm getting a little redundant here. That's
a service station. Most service stations they found are lit... 80 foot candles where the American
Society of Illumination Engineers recommends 8 to 10. So they're over lighting by a factor of 10,
and it's all color rendition lighting. A lot of states have banned those. This is over by St.
11
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Hubert's. It's hard to get the effect but when you're driving there, especially after a rain with the
light reflecting off of. Yeah, especially after it's rained or something and that light is reflecting
off of there, it is blinding. And I understand that they're going to put an expansion in there and
get standardized on these lights so I hope they change their mind on that. Here's another street
that, I mean there's not a car or pedestrian within a mile of me when I take the picture. Here's a
round, unshielded mercury vapor lights that are not.., to do any color rendition and you can just
see how well lit the thing is. It's beyond necessary. There's another well lit street in Chanhassen.
And I never did like these lights. These are the ones along Main Street unshielded. These are
good lights here. In fact I was driving down Main Street this winter and I said you know it's
remarkably pleasant driving down Main Street tonight. What's different? And of course all of
those unshielded lights were off because they had the Christmas lights on, and I could actually see
better with the Christmas lights than you can with these. And here is our city from Lake Ann.
And that's all sky glow. I went out to see a comet. I can't remember even which one it was out
in Waconia at Baylor Park, and the tail was visible for a full 10 degrees more than the hand width
and here, it just was a fuzzy snowball. I mean the sky glow completely obliterated it out so. Well
that's the end of my presentation. Good lighting improves night time vision. It enhances security.
It saves money and energy and reduces pollution and darkens the night sky, thereby enhancing our
view of the heavens and I'll take questions now. If anybody has any, yes.
Sidney: Yeah, I certainly agree with everything that you've said and I'm wondering what you'd
like us to do.
Jack Atkins: I guess it's a group learning experience here. There's a lighting ordinance and I
know that there is some, I read it about 2 years ago. There was something about full cutoff
lighting and I guess, initially getting started I just would hope that you ask the question, what are
you doing about lighting? You ask about trees. You ask about all that stufl~ What are they doing
about lighting? I mean those questions come up.
Sidney: And then you're saying that some vendors may be better than others in terms of fixtures
and stuff like that or something.
Jack Atkins: ... there's a good fixture inside of a store or something, is a lousy fixture outside.
So I mean my wish would be that they'd have some type of UL accreditation type thing, that this
is a proper light that's still in... So that's the first thing I'd like you to do is just start looking at
that as an issue. Did you ask, are those full cutoff lights? And are you, especially on these
warehouses. They should be fully shielded on the back too.
Sidney: Okay. And then wondering if it would make sense to retrofit any fixtures? Is that
possible? Because I noticed in the back here it talked about some retrofits. Maybe not on
everything but.
Jack Atkins: There's a shield that can be purchased for $10.00 I think from Hubble. It's meant to
retrofit on the mercury vapor ones which are the worse offenders but I've got lights in my
neighborhood like on the comer of Chan View and Erie, the glass hanging down. It's a high
pressure sodium which isn't as bad but it should be shielded, yes. It's a $10.00 fix.
12
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Sidney: Well I'm wondering how City Council or staff could be approached in that way.
Jack Atkins: Well I talked to the old City Engineer and the street lights are under contract with
Northern States Power and so I approached Northern States Power. I e-mailed them and asked
why they're using high pressure sodium instead of low pressure sodium. Just I mean, I'm sure
they have a good reason besides maybe they have excess of... I don't know, but they e-mailed me
back and said that my question is being forwarded to the proper people and so I've sent it two
more times and I never heard another word from them but Chanhassen apparently contracts with
NSP to do the maintenance on the lights so they probably come by and replace the bulbs on like a
4 year basis or whatever the life span is. And send us a bill for whatever the electrical usage is,
but certainly on some of those streets like Audubon and things, I mean you've got 55 watt high
pressure sodium or something and they can be 30 watt. You can cut your electrical bill in half
just like that. And then just some of the older fixtures, I don't know. I really don't know. I mean
my hope is to approach this on a state level where there's State guidelines. And I hate regulation
you know but it just, that's my hope. I'm trying to organize some of the other International Dark
Sky people. There's some others in Minnesota and try to get something going for Minnesota to
make it easier for everybody so you can't even buy a mercury vapor unshielded light at Menard's
anymore. And I guess this is an educational process. I'm not chastising you or anything like that.
I mean you saw my house. I have the worst lighting in my neighborhood.
Sidney: Are you going to change it?
Jack Atkins: I e-mailed This Old House to see if they'd be interested in doing a program on
installing quality outdoor lighting on a house and I haven't heard back from them.
Sidney: I'm thinking actually, you know we're one line of defense in favor of good lighting, but
then I think educating staff is important too and I would hope staff knows the difference between
the types of lights you were pointing out. I can't even remember the terms but you know where
the glass and some of the reflectors. The details like that are maybe something staff should
discuss with developers as they come in too.
Jack Atkins: Right. Who would be applicable staff'?
Aanenson: I'd like to comment on a couple things. One, I think we do get caught up with all the
wetlands, trees and things like that. We do ask for lighting plans. While you don't always see
them at the level that you probably should. We should have more detail on that. The other thing
is it requires inspection of each light. We get complaints on those. We try to wait, if someone's
available at night to check on it. We're here late at night, if we're meeting, we check on them.
The problem is, we've had instances where they said it's going to go in one way and then on the
back side of them they're not so it's a process of getting.., do something different on the back.
And we've got a couple situations right now where we're trying to rectify that so that's part of
just the process of following it through. Checking before the building permit gets issued because
they have to show that detail on the building permit. So we have changed our ordinance for down
casting. It's a process of making sure you ask the questions and we follow through to make sure
it meets the ordinance. And as far as the street light, that is an engineering issue and I think we
need to work with them.
13
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Sidney: And the idea of retrofitting fixtures?
Aanenson: Right, there's a franchise agreement with NSP and we can communicate that back up
to the City Council and back over to engineering because we do have duplication of lights and
that's something we've talked about. We need to look at that city wide, and that's something that
we've talked about too. We brought that up. We've got that right in Market Square where we've
got the street lighting and then additional parking lot lighting. The same with Byerly's. And
we've talked about duplication with landscaping. Same sort of issues so we have to look, just like
we do with site plans, what's the transitional use. What else is in that area and we look at lighting
too and do we need to have that much?
Jack Atkins: Yeah, there are a lot of cities that have done a very good job of improving their
lighting, like Tucson where they have.., there is a purpose for the lighting. We're not trying to
band lighting. If it was all just good lighting, and done well, it would be a lot better.
Aanenson: It's interesting you took a picture of Lake Ann looking back but we also get
complaints on looking at Lake Ann when the softball lights are on.
Jack Atkins: Yeah, unshielded, mercury vapor lights.
Aanenson: The same with the hockey lights. It's another issue too but those do go ofl~
Jack Atkins: Yeah, intermittent is a lot better than the dusk to dawn.
Aanenson: But they are bright. They're pretty tall.
Peterson: Good. Appreciate your time Jack.
Jack Atkins: Am I the last item on the agenda? So you guys can get out of here before 8:00?
Peterson: We're going to try, if Kate talks fast.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: I was just going to update you on May 17th we'll have the Igel subdivision is coming
back. The interpretation was 90 foot at the OHW when we adopted new shoreland regs so they're
coming back requesting a variance. They can split it into two lots. Without a variance they could
get two lakeshore lots so they're going to show you that. Marsh Glen, as I let you know, was
pulled off by the applicant. They want to have an opportunity to make the changes to the plat to
get it in the best shape possible for you to see it. One of the conditions was a trail. They want to
show the trail on the plat .... we might have one thing on for June but we may not have that first
meeting in June.
Peterson: Anything else?
14
Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 2000
Aanenson: One more thing. The City Council will be making the appointments for the Planning
Commission at their meeting next Monday.
Peterson: Speaking of meeting times. That'd be my agenda item. I e-mailed and got feedback
from everybody. Why don't we adjourn the meeting and we can talk about that.
Aanenson: Okay. While we're on, Lori did meet some of you. This is Lori Haak and she's our
new Water Resource Coordinator. Been here a week. I wanted her to come and meet you and if
you have questions. Do you want to tell them where you worked before?
Haak: Prior to obtaining the Water Resource Coordinator position I worked for the Coon Creek
Watershed District up in Blaine. And I was hired on as the District Secretary and took on
additional responsibilities after being there for a while so I was there for about 2 1/2 years. Prior to
that I was with Department ofFish and Wildlife in Oregon for a summer and I graduated from
Concordia College in Moorhead.
Peterson: Okay, great. Welcome aboard.
Haak: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated April 19, 2000 as presented.
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
15