Loading...
PC 1999 01 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1999 Chairman Paterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Paterson, Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Kavin Joyca and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton and Allyson Brooks STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aananson, Planning Director and Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN #96-4 FOR HI-WAY $ CENTER FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A WALL SIGN, LOCATED AT 463 WEST 79TIt STREET, GIANT PANDA RESTAURANT Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Paterson: Questions of stafl~ Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, my question is, there are some, there's a sign or actually a painting, window painted. What's the City's policy on having windows painted.., there now. I mean could that be left or what's the city's position on that? Kirchoflk Okay, the sign ordinance permits window signage that is, it can go up to 50% of the window area. So they can have a sign on the window. Blackowiak: Okay, so it could be painted and left as it is right now? That's kind of what I'm curious about because it is kind of painted in the window right now. Kirchoflk That may be that clinging sign. Those cling signs. Zong-ming Chang: Could I... ? Blackowiak: So they can be up to 50%? Kirchoflk Yes, they can have window signage and they don't require, we don't require a permit for that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Joyce: Kate, when we reviewed the site plan for this thing, what consideration was given for the south elevation? To be left barren like that? Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Aanenson: Actually we intended to put more landscaping along that back side. If you recall, we thought that would be a patio area and more intensively landscape that in the back side of the gas station so... Joyce: But I'm saying on the top, where we're putting it, where they're considering it or where they're requesting or asking rather for the sign. I'm relating it back to the Gold Medal where on the north side, the south side it just seems barren and that's how we felt that that we were going to leave it barren like that. Aanenson: Yes. Kirchofl) Yes. Peterson: Why don't we just wait. We'll do a presentation by you and then we'll have questions for you too. Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you very much. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? With that, would the applicant like to come forward and state your name and address please. Zong-ming Cheng: I'd like to give you this card because I don't come here very often and I come across here four hours from Fargo... present this case to you... I'd like to thank you very much the opportunity. My name is Zong-ming Cheng and however before I present this I'd like to tell you a little bit about ourselves so that you know our intentions and stufl~ We come here, I come to the United States about 13 years ago. I got my masters and Ph.D. degrees from Comell University in New York and I was offered a job at North Dakota State University to teach and do research there. And when we come to Fargo we found there was no good Chinese restaurant there so we inspired, because the people in North Dakota, in Fargo offered us opportunities so we want to off'er some back to the community. And so we established this restaurant in Fargo and we set new standards right now in Fargo and the business, the Chinese restaurant has dramatically increased the standard of service and the food and quality for the people in Fargo. And after that we want to expand opportunity and we invested this Twin City areas and we found it unbelievable information that none of the restaurants here is even close to ours in Fargo. And so we wanted to expand the business to this area and we searched quite a bit and we decided to come to Chanhassen and we find this a very good neighborhood. It's very dynamic and so we, you know we talked to the Chamber of Commerce and they said this is a city planning committee.., very nice. Very pro business with our kind of attitude and so we decide to find a space in this city and that's the location we founded. And so when we get into the building we find the previous tenant already had a two sets of signs made there. We took it for granted that there would be two sets of signs allowed in the wall and the one that face to the west and the one face to the south. If that's, and then we checked our realtor and he said that blueprint have already been approved by the city and so, but because our realtor is out of town so we could not get the official letter. If we check your archives we might be able to find that but we don't have the conclusive information right now regarding the approval of two wall signage for the previous tenant. But after we met.., and I 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 studied your signage criteria and also the letter we got from the committee and reviewed a studied by the staffofthis committee and I have a few, ifI call that discussion or argument or rebuttal to make. First of all, ifI look at these signage criteria and the number one is (a) is all business should share one monument sign. My understanding is that that's a pylon sign, if my understanding is correct. And the second one, wall signage are permitted on no more than two street frontage. Based on this standard or this criteria, we are actually entitled to have two signs on the two sides of the building or the walls. And so we are entitled, this right to have this, have the two signs on the two side of the wall. And also the landlord has already have the signage in two sides. One on the western side and one in the north side. So we should be able to, and we are entitled to have two wall signs on no more than two frontages and we are asking for that according to the signage criteria set up by this committee by the city of Chanhassen. When I studied this document sent by this committee, studied by the staffand one issue was raised regarding the fairness of the signage for other tenants in this, on this plaza and I would argue that, I would discuss this issue in the three areas. First of all the landlord had three signs including one pylon sign and he had two wall signs on the two frontages so it isn't fair to us to have signage on two side of the building. So we are asking the fairness of this committee to permit us to put signs on the two sides. And also, according to the staff' study, this committee speculates that other tenants may request the same variance request and I feel strongly that according to the city's signage criteria, we have that right, we are entitled that and actually those tenants are also entitled for that right and if they choose to request. So in terms of fairness and we should be treated fairly and equally as the landlord was treated in the past. And also this committee worried about that this allowance or this permit must set the precedent for the future for other tenants in the plaza to request two signs. And I don't think that's a valid reason to reject our request because according to the city criteria the two, the wall signs are allowed in the two streets and they are entitled our right and I don't think that this committee or the staff'reviews should worry that setting that precedent and this committee is paid and employees are paid by the business by the city's involved, these city and is working for the business and pro business and help the business so I don't think the worrying about setting the precedent for others is a valid reason for the future. And if the committee worries about that, and I don't think we should be in business to review any of those. And another reason argued by this staff'review is whether we causing the hardship and they asked us to demonstrate the hardship we may cause if we don't put the signage there. I would argue other way around. If we have to demonstrate the hardship that it was causing the business difficulty and that would be certainly, would be too late for us and we come here wanting to establish a successful business. We're not coming here to demonstrate hardship and we don't want us to fail. We don't want we set a precedent as a failing business in this community. Actually the coffee shop next to ours have already changed ownership twice and one of the reasons we called, talked to them was that they don't have a signage, good signage and to show the people. And also according to this review on the page number 4, number d, the staff' believes that this hardship was created by the applicant. And I feel that it's sort of unfair for us. We request this signage for the city and because it's entitled for this right and said the applicant created this hardship by proposing to install a wall sign that does not meet the requirements of the site plan review. And we are entitled this right and if we are considered, we are creating a hardship for this committee and I would have a little bit difficulty to accept that. Just like my students in the university complain that a teachers are not doing good job and we cannot complain the students causing our hardship to us as a faculty so I request that we should be allowed for this Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 information. So as a conclusion and we come here and we found this committee and we found this city was very nice and pro business and according to the city criteria for signage and we are entitled this right and we are just asking the fair treatment to give us permit for this signage. And we will design and put the signs according to the other criteria set by the signage criteria. And thank you very much for allowing me to make this case and I hope you will give us favorable consideration. Thank you. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Fellow commissioners. Ladd you came in late so you get to go first. Conrad: That's the penalty. That's fair, isn't it? Well I welcome you. I hope you do come here. Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you. Conrad: I think our ordinance is clear and I think the building owner had the right to do what he wanted in terms of selecting two elevations, two sides to put signage on. I think ifI were you I'd be here. I think you've got great highway visibility and it's a little bit of a shame not to have that. There is, yet the ordinance is there. I think the staff report is proper. I would have a hard time going against the staff report. Although I can empathize a great deal with wanting to put a restaurant in front of 20,000 people every day. I would do exactly the same as the applicant is requesting. I think, and I can't speak for anybody else. I think the southerly elevation, or the northerly elevation is rather insignificant for street, for building signage. I think your issue is really with the building owner and you know I think if Gold Medal Sports wants to give up their sign, I think they can talk to us about putting it on the south side of the building. May upset some folks. It wouldn't upset me but the ordinance says two sides and I think we're fairly clear in that so nothing else Craig. Peterson: Alison? Blackowiak: Yeah I agree pretty much with what Ladd has said. It does appear that the owner knowingly agreed to give up signage along the southern elevation in exchange for the west elevation signage so he has frontage on two sides. North and west. I must tell you though my husband saw those letters that said Chinese Buff'et and he's rather excited about it so I think that the window letters are really good and if there's no reason that you can't keep them, I would strongly suggest you leave that in your window. Zong-ming Cheng: Well we... so the sign in the window is not very professional.., signage on the wall was not causing any problems.., customer sits by the window, the windows are blocked. I personally don't feel it's very nice to... Blackowiak: No, I certainly understand what you're saying but I mean in terms of visibility, he noticed it right away and I think that's really what you're looking for right now is get the people knowing where you're going to be. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Zong-ming Cheng: ... why we should... Blackowiak: Well what I'm saying is that if it does not work out for the southern elevation, that the windows are an opportunity for you to have exposure on the southern side and that's, that alone with the pylon I think is what you were looking for. Zong-ming Cheng: I would prefer to have letters on the wall and... Blackowiak: Yeah I understand. I do think maybe you need to speak to the owner. I don't know that there's going to be anything there but. Zong-ming Cheng: The owner has no objection at all for the signage. Blackowiak: Well if he wants to give up the north side then you know I think that that's, because the building only can have two sides. That's what the ordinance reads so. Zong-ming Cheng: ... according to the sign ordinance... Peterson: I think let's get through with the rest of the comments. We may have more questions for you. Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: I'm afraid you made my, at this point your argument was kind of persuasive in the fact that in all fairness everyone should have a street sign.., that I've got a problem with is you having that but then the coffee shop asking for it. Blimpie's and everything else and I guess.., obligated to allow them to do that. And you do have a sign on the monument sign. You know that was the agreement, as I read it, the agreement with the owner.., street front sign. The monument sign and a west facing sign. In actuality you do have a sign there on the monument sign. Now I'm going to say this. I think Ladd brought up a real good point. I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever if they took that Gold Meadow sign down and put a sign up on the other side. I have no problem with that whatsoever because I think that's a point that you, I think that's something that you should work something out with... I will say Kate though, I don't like that blank wall. I guess maybe food for thought the next time we have something. That was a weird, I understand it was kind of a strange building to put there but after looking at that it's like ah man. I mean I can see a tenant, all those tenants having a problem with it. It doesn't look like it's being occupied at all. So I sure wish the owner would make a, you'd work with the owner and pull the Gold Medal thing off the north side and come back to us and see if we can't work something out. But I can't see us setting a precedent where we allow you to put a sign in and the coffee shop saying wait a second. We want to put a sign up there because they're going to want the same exposure you have and you can answer after but that's my feeling.., at this time. Peterson: LuAnn. Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Sidney: Yeah, I agree with other commissioners. I understand the applicant's desire for a sign on the south exposure. However the site plan and the sign plan has been approved for just two elevations so I agree with comments that have been made on that. Peterson: My comments are also not dissimilar. I think that a little bit additional background for you. I think our Highway 5 corridor, which is on both north and south side of Highway 5. We put a great deal of time and effort into the ordinances surrounding that, both the sign ordinances and building styles and the whole concept behind that corridor so we have pretty consistently, and I can't even remember a variance we've made to the sign ordinance in that corridor. So in trying to recommend something that we have consistently turned down, because we have put a great deal of time and effort into the ordinance. And I appreciate the fact that you may not agree with that and there is a certain rationale that would support that and I can see that. However, we're obligated to align ourselves with what the ordinances are and unless there's a compelling reason to change that, more information and/or pre-conditions that have changed, but none of that is really being presented tonight. So I think that although I can appreciate the frustration, we're obligated to follow what the ordinances are and that means that you have two fronts and right now they're on the north elevation and the west for the building so it really does go back to working with the landlord and convincing them to change the sign. Zong-ming Cheng: First of all, according to your sign criteria that you are allowed two wall signs on two frontages. And a pylon sign is a monument sign. Not the wall sign. So we are entitled Peterson: No. Let me clarify that. It really is not, it's not the tenant. It's the building owner that when they presented it to us, they had the option of where to put the sign and they chose two elevations for all of the tenants and that was the west elevation and north elevation, right Kate? Zong-ming Cheng: And we pay much higher rent than the others.., because we have the opportunity to put the sign on the south side. That's the reason why we requested this location. We pay the higher rent.., so we already pay a much higher rent... Peterson: Kate. Aanenson: IfI could just clarify a couple things. Mr. Roos, the owner or the lessee of the building did contact us. He made a decision. We're not privy to the discussions that went on between this applicant and Mr. Roos but obviously there's, it appears there's some miscommunication of what was permitted and what wasn't. Told Mr. Roos that we're going with what was approved with that building. The applicant certainly has a right to appeal that interpretation or decision, in which he's doing tonight, but he understands that we are going with what was original approved package so whatever agreement they've worked out, or whatever was told to him, we can't respond to that. But there was a sign package approved and he made that clear to the tenants. Zong-ming Cheng: When we... 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Aanenson: How that was communicated to you, I mean that was a decision that was made by Mr. Roos. Peterson: That goes back to my other comment. It really is that the landlord made a decision prior to you, a year and a half ago when the building was being built, that he had two sides. It'd be the north side and the west side. And if he shared something different with you, that's really the issue between you and the landlord. Zong-ming Cheng: The signage on the north side.., if he has two signs, one on the north side and one of the west side, and we are... Peterson: No, the ordinance is written as such that the building has signage on two sides. Not an individual tenant but the building itself. Zong-ming Cheng: But according to the sign criteria... Peterson: ... policy, on numerous occasions these variances is that the building that has signage capability on two sides. It's unfortunate that that was interpreted like that or presented like that to you, but again I would off'er that the real, the need is to go back to the landlord and discuss that with them. Because we have to follow what the ordinance says. Zong-ming Cheng: ... back to the landlord. That will create a lot of hardship... Peterson: Two questions I'll respond to. I think that what you've heard tonight is one of the primary concerns we have is setting precedent. We've already turned down numerous people for this variance, having more than two sides of the building with signage. So that is, we're obligated to at least respond to adhere to that. Our past decision so again we haven't heard tonight a compelling reason to go away from the current sign ordinance so again I can appreciate your position but we don't want you to go to court with the landlord. I guess what we're going back to is offering that. Go back and discuss it with him and we'll certainly try to entertain, resolving the issues. If you come back to us with another.., if we can eliminate just the north and west side. Zong-ming Cheng: ... Peterson: Again it goes back to the ordinance specifically as this was approved by us and City Council. It was the pylon sign and two sides of the building. Zong-ming Cheng: How could the landlord has his own sign on one side, on the west side... Peterson: The landlord made that decision when he began leasing out the building is that the tenants would only have one side of the building to put their signs on. They knew that and they signed up for that and agreed to that so. Yes Kate. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Aanenson: I just want to clarify too, whatever decision you made here, it still goes on to the City Council. Peterson: It is important. Not that I want you to drive back again but we are an advisory council to City Council and they make the ultimate decision based upon our recommendation and obviously their thoughts so that is your next step is when it goes to the council on the 25th of January to make your thoughts there also. Zong-ming Cheng: ... to allow to have the wall signs on two different... Peterson: I think you've heard that where we differ from that perspective is how the policy is written. We believe it's the building that is the dominant criteria for the ordinance so. We don't want you to come back. We'd love to have you back in town again but. Zong-ming Cheng: ... Conrad: Mr. Chairman, could I say something? No. What you're asking us to do, to validate our signage ordinance. Does that make sense? It doesn't make sense. I don't want a response. It doesn't make sense. It does not make sense. And we review signage all the time so we're pretty solid in what we're looking at. I do signage for a living. I understand what our ordinance reads and I don't think you have a very good case. If you come back you have to get the building owner to do something. It's not us. It's the building owner. It's between you and the owner. It's not a government deal. Our ordinance is pretty clear. We're interpreting the ordinance and right now we're probably not going to change the ordinance. You could come back and have us change the ordinance, but before you respond, we spent a lot of time looking at our ordinance recently. It's not outdated so I'm trying to give you a few comments. It's not real solid for what you're asking for. We all appreciate what you want to do. It's real clear that ifI were the building owner and I wanted you in town, in my building and I would think because it's been vacant for a long time, he'd try to change the signage on that building. I would think he would try to do that. It's not taking down your name off the pylon sign. That doesn't count. It just doesn't count. The ordinance has been tested and I think that would be a waste of your time. Excuse me Mr. Chairman but I, you know, I just wanted to give him. I think you have some ways to solve your problem but it's not with city government right now. Zong-ming Cheng: ... Could I make a last comment before you make your recommendation? I thought.., how we were misled.., deal with the City Council... is that correct Mr. Chairman? Peterson: Essentially that's what, the landlord had a decision whether or not they wanted to place their sign on one of the two sides of the building. They made that decision when they moved into the building and began leasing it out. Zong-ming Cheng: S° c°uld Y°U give me'" acc°rding t° y°ur °rdinance'" h°w sh°uld we talk t° the landlord regarding this. That your committee can't.., amendment. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Peterson: I think if you call staff tomorrow or they can walk you through that more succinctly than we can tonight. Zong-ming Cheng: So the.., committee before we can. Peterson: No, the landlord followed our sign ordinance and said that they can have signage on two sides. The landlord in this case took one of those two sides for their own business. Zong-ming Cheng: Now if the landlord took away his sign on the north side... Peterson: Correct. Joyce: It's not guaranteed. Peterson: Yeah, it's not guaranteed but that would go a long way in providing a compelling reason for us to make a variance, yes. Zong-ming Cheng: Can I make a last comment before I go back to Fargo? Peterson: This is your fourth last comment now. Zong-ming Cheng: And when the ordinance.., if we are not able to put the sign on the wall, we are... Peterson: Correct. 50% of the glass. Zong-ming Cheng: ... thank you very much. Peterson: With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll move that the Planning Commission denies the amendment to SPR #96-4 for the construction of a 40 square foot illuminated wall sign and a 4.7 square foot logo based upon the findings presented in the staff report and condition number 1. Conrad: Second. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends to deny the amendment to SPR #96-4 for the construction of a 40 square foot illuminated wall sign and a 4.7 square foot logo based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has visibility on TH 5 with the existing pylon sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Peterson: You can call staff tomorrow, Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Call Kate directly and she can walk you through more specifically what we feel you need to do. And the other option is to go in front of the City Council on the 25th. You can either do it in person or present in writing as far as your issues you brought up tonight. So there's different options that Kate can walk through with you tomorrow. Zong-ming Cheng: ... we will do everything we can, make every effort we have to do... Peterson: We want you here too but we want to be fair to all the other businesses in the city also SO. Zong-ming Cheng: ...thank you very much. Good night. AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO SECTION 20-913 (C)~ LIGHTING~ TO REGULAR THE HEIGHT~ SPACING AND TYPE OF LIGHT FIXTURES. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Sidney: Just only one comment and I mentioned I guess my concern about the definition of photometrics. If you could add that in. Kirchofl) Sure. Peterson: That was one of my questions. What is the definition ofphotometrics? Aanenson: I can show you. Kirchofl) One moment please. Aanenson: When we get a lighting plan they show the photometrics that shows how much light actually can pinpoint a location. It might be 5 feet on center. 10 feet on center. What we review to see what, it's hard to read but how much light is at each position. So that's where we get to, we get to the edge to see it's a half foot candle at the edge. And you can see how bight the brightest point is on that so that's a photometric plan. Joyce: Your saying that light trespass is not in the ordinance right now... Kirchofl) That's correct. It's not specifically stated in the ordinance so the City Attorney suggested that I remove that term from the ordinance amendment. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Joyce: Why can't we add it to it? Aanenson: He thought it was a tough definition to defend. Joyce: I can understand that. I think this is important but I find a hard time trying to get my arms around it to make any sense out of it. Aanenson: He felt like trespass, he said light trespass is pretty ambiguous and it'd be difficult to try to defend that type of a term so he was, thought there was enough strength in the other parts of the ordinance that we could defend it that way. Joyce: The only other question I had was, as far as the park lighting. You said that this would not be part of the amendment to the ordinance but a policy statement. Are we going to have a policy statement on this? Kirchofl5 Well that was mentioned at the November 18th meeting that the Planning Commission had concerns about park lights that exist in the city and instead of putting in ordinance amendment saying regulating park lights, what we can have is all the park lights that come through can be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to them being installed. And like I said in the staff report, it usually takes place after the site plan has been approved. Joyce: Is that a ton of....for us or? Aanenson: I don't think so. I think it's important that you do look at it. It's been something that's probably been an oversight that we don't always see. For example Lake Ann has got additional lights going in now. That was just put in the capital improvements. You may not see that so we don't always see the implication and what the spillover is so I think that we would request that they do photometrics. You take a look at that and maybe give some recommendations as far as shielding or whatever. Joyce: ... park referendum and how many parks are going up. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I know you haven't asked for my comments but this seems like a staff deal. I think policy is that we should have a policy that park lights don't spill over by the, I don't need to review it. It's pretty mechanical. I don't want to do it. It's their deal. Peterson: Well as long as... Conrad: Well it seems simple to me and that's naive. But if you don't, if you shield the lights, I've got to say a couple things. If we've got a consultant that really feels that shielding the neighbors is important, the consultant should be fired because he's not doing it. Aanenson: Right, and the problem is. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Conrad: Very seriously. Aanenson: A lot of it's in the winter with the ice rinks. There's a lot of, that's when you're in the neighborhoods more and that is an issue for when they're on later and you don't review those but Ladd brings up a good point. That might be something that we should be saying that they're. Conrad: They're not doing it. And I got examples, a couple and I gave them before. I won't do it again, but they're not doing it and it seems simple to me that we shield lights to not spill over the boundaries. I don't care if it's a 200 feet tall lighting fixture in a park. I don't care. I do care that it's not shining into neighbors. And my example was two blocks away. It's at you. That's not acceptable. So again I don't think I want to see individual things coming through Mr. Chairman. This is my personal feeling that I think that's a staff deal. That's part of an ordinance that probably should be fled, you know it's lighting. I don't know why I need a separate ordinance. I don't know why I need a policy statement. I think we need the same ordinance saying park lights should, you know just another section in this ordinance says park lights will have shields so they don't do something. Whatever that is and I don't know what the magic words are. Peterson: I agree with you Ladd. I think my concern has been, will Park and Rec, if staff needs to use us to accomplish it, then I would be more amenable to putting it in there. Conrad: ... Mr. Chairman, if that's the way that works but then what do you want? Then we have to develop the criteria to manage it effectively. Because I don't know you manage, I don't know how you do that. I would think that the requirements should be in an ordinance and. Aanenson: We're fine with that. Conrad: This just seems like, Mr. Chairman, it seems like administrative. Like a staff deal and not a planning commission. Peterson: Part of the reason why I brought it up last time is it wasn't getting done and if it needs to be in the ordinance, if it needs to be a policy, I'm indifferent. If it takes a little bit of our time to get it, to accomplish it, then I would be amenable to doing that but if there's a better way to do it, you know so be it. But the problem is it hasn't been done to date so what's the best way to get it done. Kate, I'll return the question to you. We want to ensure as a group that it gets done. Whether we're involved in it is irrelevant. So I look to you to advise us as to what is the best way to you to get it done. Aanenson: Well I think if we leave it to say park lights are shielded, that's good. I think what is would be good is being back to say to the City Council we want it done and reiterate that fact to the park commission so they understand that that's part of their charge is to make sure that that's being dealt with when they're reviewing plans. Generally they do look at the plans too so I think just to send a strong message up to the council and have them send it back to the park commission would be good. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. Now do the park lights have to meet the same half foot candle at the properly line requirement? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, so where is your.., for the lights that you're talking about way before any of this was ever. Conrad: ... this is direct shining. Blackowiak: So what's wrong? Aanenson: They're not shielded. They're not down cast. They're not shielded. They're not down cast, right. Exactly. Blackowiak: So do we have to change that? Aanenson: Right. That's what I'm saying. Go back to the council and have the park commission and then they should go back and correct that. Kirchofl5 I was just going to comment. It does say in the ordinance that light fixtures should be shielded. That's something that yeah, it's in Section (c) and that's been in existence since. Joyce: Should it be changed to... Aanenson: Well part of it is... project and that's what I'm saying, these go up to the council. Kevin's right, as we're putting more parks in, it's going to be a bigger issue. Skating rinks. Parks. We're causing light to trespass and that's going to continue to grow. Peterson: Based upon what you just heard, what do we need to do tonight to most effectively... Aanenson: I think I'd just add a caveat to send up to the council. Motion or however you choose and then add that we would request.., ensures that the city projects also follow this policy. Peterson: I can deal with that. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? So you're comfortable in your recommendations or in your staff report that a separate policy statement or an amendment or something. But we don't need, what you're telling me is we don't need that. Aanenson: No we don't. No. Conrad: We're saying this rule can apply to everything. Aanenson: That's what we should be doing, correct. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Conrad: Okay. Joyce: Without reading through this again, do we have a consultant go to each of these lighting consultants is it? What I read in here that they hire somebody to go to the park in setting up lights and looks at the photometrics and all that. Kirchofl5 The consultant looks at the use, if it's a soccer field, a baseball field and determines the light intensity as well as the lamp light. Aanenson: Which is the same thing that's done on a parking lot or whatever, right. Joyce: ... they have this thing on the exterior light.., was more than most auto dealerships .... 50% more than auto dealership. So I think definitely that... Peterson: One other question going back to parks. If we limit the fixture height to 30 feet, isn't that going to be a killer? Aanenson: You would have to exempt that. I mean it's, it's not going to work for adult softball league or yeah. Yeah. Conrad: That seems logical. So what do you want us to do tonight? Because the rules really don't totally apply to parks. Peterson: Is that the only one that wouldn't? Kirchofl~ Parks? Yeah, I would think so. Yeah. Peterson: So put that into the policy. Excluding parkland lights or something that is more... Well it's a matter, let's put it in there so we acknowledge the fact that it's there. Blackowiak: Okay or else just make it, instead of making an exclusion, say all fixtures are 35 feet. Park fixtures can go up to 65 or whatever the magic number is .... Lake Ann and there were some, some of the examples that go up to 80. I don't know if they necessarily need to or not. I don't know. Maybe we say that park fixtures can go up to x number of feet so that kind of makes it, not an exclusionary thing right away but addresses two separate issues and puts it more positive light so to speak. Peterson: I agree. Other comments? Questions? Hearing none, is there a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'd make a motion Mr. Chairman that Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment in staff report dated January 6 to Section 20-913 on lighting with the comments of the staff report (a) through well, slash that. With all the comments in the staff report with the two changes. One that is recommended by the city attorney in the staff report are again 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 in the memorandum on January 6th and also to Section 20-913, (c)(1) where it says fixture heights shall not exceed 30 feet. With a clause that said, except in parks where the maximum could be up to 65 feet. And then with a note to City Council that we, the Planning Commission strongly recommends that this ordinance applies to parks. Joyce: I'll second. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Section 20-913. Lighting to regulate the height, spacing and type of fixtures and the amendment to Section 20-1 to include def'mitions of glare, light trespass and shielded light fixture as follows: Section 20-913. Lighting. (a) Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. (b) No light which is flashing, revolving or otherwise resembles a traffic-control signal shall be allowed in any area where it could create a hazard for passing vehicular traffic. (c) Lighting fixtures should be of a design consistent with fixtures used in surrounding developments and municipal street lighting. Shielded high pressure sodium fixtures are required. (1) Fixture height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, except in parks where it shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet. (2) All fixtures must be shielded and have a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. (3) Photometrics shall incorporate existing light fixtures, public or private, that may impact the site. (4) All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to (ordinance adoption date) are exempt from the requirements of this article, unless work is proposed in any one (1) year period so as to replace fifty (50) percent or more of the existing outdoor light fixtures, or to increase to the extent of fifty (50) percent or more the number of outdoor light fixtures on the premises. Section 20-1. Definitions. Glare: Light emitting from a luminare with an intensity great enough to reduce viewers' ability to see and, in extreme cases, causing momentary blindness. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999 Shielded Light Fixture: A light fixture with cutoff optics that allows no direct light emissions above a vertical cutoff angle of 90 degrees. Note: The Planning Commission strongly reconunends that this ordinance apply to city parks. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I was just going to bring up that on the January 20th meeting you do have a subdivision, or site plan for a Quick Trip gas... Right now I'm planning on just doing some general training planning on issues that you'd like us to talk about. Otherwise we'll probably be... That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 2, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: We do have our comp plan up to the Met Council. We got back a couple comments of things that are missing but we're pretty close to getting it back... It will go back to City Council for final approval. That is contingent upon the Met Council approving it so hopefully... end of the month, first part of February. Peterson: Do you want to talk about the vice chair and chair? Aanenson: Oh, yeah. We do have two planning commissioners that are up too. Craig being one of them and Allyson Brooks too so we will be discussing it at a work session with the City Council... but then also it's this time of year. Selecting a new chairman. I don't know if you want to do it this meeting. We can put it on the next agenda if you'd like. Peterson: I'd like to put it in the record that if anybody would like to volunteer for either of them. Contact either Kate or I and we'll put it on next. Aanenson: And I'll put the by-laws back in too. The schedule. Peterson: Anything else? Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 16