PC Minutes 9-7-04
{)'-I-d~
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjornhom, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Kurt
Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Generous, Senior Planner and Josh Metzer, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE FROM THE CITY'S LIGHTING STANDARDS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41. APPLICANT:
LIFE TIME FITNESS CENTER, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-22.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jeff Melby, Life Time Fitness
Bill Doerr, Life Time Fitness
6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie
6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie
Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked about the
impact the .01 foot candle at the top of the building would have on the Landscape Arboretum.
Commissioner Tjornhom asked if there are any other buildings in the City that have uplighting.
Commissioner Papke asked about the light diffusion and the angle of the Z-light, and what the
motivation of the city code was for disallowing uplighting. Chairman Sacchet asked for a
deíìnition of "skyward", why uplighting was only prohibited in commercial/industrial and not
residential, and how consistent has the City been in applying the ordinance in the past. Bob
Generous responded to the Commissioners' questions. The applicant, Bill Doerr of Life Time
Fitness, addressed the Planning Commission and answered questions from the Commission.
After discussion, the following motion was made:
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
variance to permit the lighting as detailed by Life Time Fitness Development with the
following four conditions:
1. Less than or equal to 14 lights.
Planning Commission Summary - September 7,2004
2. Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam.
3. Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light.
4. Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON
PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL
(PUD-R), LOCATED AT 7200 LODGEPOLE POINT, JAMES & KRISTIN RUELLE-
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-28.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jim Ruelle
7200 Lodgepole Point
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked about the
elevation difference between the subject house and the neighboring house. Commissioner
Lillehaug asked if the City had a potential need for a full 9-foot side yard easement. Chairman
Sacehet asked about the patio door, the angle the house was constructed on the lot, and the
specifics of two previous variance requests in the neighborhood. Commissioner Keefe asked
about the design of the porch and deck, and comparison of a similar variance. The applicant, Jim
Ruelle, addressed the Planning Commission and answered questions from the Commission.
After discussion, the following motion was made:
Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-28
for a 6.75-foot setback as shown on the plans stamped "Received August 5, 2004" with the
following conditions:
1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or it
shall become void.
2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received August 05, 2004."
3. The proposed addition must not encroach into the existing 5 foot drainage and utility
easement.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD DESIGN STANDARDS
TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK4nl
ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD
2
o~- 1.2_
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: UIi Sacchet, Bethany Tjomhom, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Kurt
Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Craig Claybaugh
ST AFF PRESENT: Robert Generous, Senior Planner and Josh Metzer, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE FROM THE CITY'S LIGHTING STANDARDS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41. APPLICANT:
LIFE TIME FITNESS CENTER, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-22.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jeff Melby, Life Time Fitness
Bill Doerr, Life Time Fitness
6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie
6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie
Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Staff report please, Bob?
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chainnan, Commissioners. As you stated, this is a request for a
variance from our lighting ordinance which prohibits directing lighting for commercial and
industrial buildings to the sky. There is one difference between this and normal variances. This
actually came up as part of the site plan review for the Life Time Fitness building which was
recently approved by the City Council with the final plat for the development. By the way, they
did start site bTfading on this last week so it's under construction. However, as part of it, there are
architectural features on the building they wanted to provide some uplighting on the north
elevation of the building to enhance or bring out the architectural detailing on that.
Unfortunately, our ordinance prohibits that and when it came through the first time we hadn't
noticed it properly so we couldn't act on it so Council directed that we bring it back to you.
While it's possible to do uplighting and there are ways to control to limit the nighttime spillover,
our ordinance is very specific and it says no uplighting on industrial or commercial buildings.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
There are other ways to highlight this architecturally. They could have cone lights towards the
top directed down so we don't believe that they actually meet the requirements for granting of
the variance. They have provided this, and if you want to move in a little bit so people at home
can see it, that as the lighting gets up higher towards the top of the building, the amount of
illumination is greatly reduced. Towards the bottom of the building it's the highest intensity,
about 34 lumens and then it goes down quickly after that. However, from staff's standpoint, any
lighting directed skyward, especially in this area, would be detrimental to the solitude and
enjoyment of the night sky. Toward the west of this site is the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum,
to the east of this site is the 1 OO-acre woods that the City is preserving and will create a nature
trail in and anything that would contribute to lighting of the night sky we would be opposed to.
Staff is recommending denial of the variance and with that I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Sacchet: Thanks, Bob. Questions for staff?
Keefe: In terms of~ it says one foot candle at the top of the building. I'm presuming we're
concerned about the light that goes above the building?
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: What impact would one foot candle above the building have on the Landscape
Arboretum in this location? It's a fair distance from there and/or potentially east of there.
Saeehet: To clarify that question, is it one foot candle or .(n foot candle?
Generous: .01.
Keefe: So it's one one-hundreths of a foot candle at the top?
Generous: It's not very intense light, its just there is that illumination that escapes into the sky
and you will get some glow effect.
Keefe: Is the glow more because of the light itself going up or from the reflection potentially off
of the signage? Presumably, it's the reflection of these lights that would go into the signage and
probably reflect up, given the angle.
Generous: .. .direction of the lighting. Specifically that was a concern about...
Keefe: Okay. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Bethany?
Tjornhom: I don't think I have any real questions. The only question that I do have, Bob, is are
there any other buildings in the City that do have uplighting? I don't want to put them aside or
anything but I've just been wondering. Are they more in the center of the City or do you have an
example of another place?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Generous: We have St. Hubert's, I know the old St. Hubert's was uplit. I'm trying to think. I
think the new one might have gotten backlit lighting in November. There are some other
buildings but I don't know all of them. I was told today that Eekankar has uplighting. I wasn't
aware of that so I have to check the plans.
Tjomhom: That's all I have for right now.
Sacehet: Do you have questions, Kurt?
Papke: Yes, I have a couple. The calculations that we have here for the intensity of the different
levels, do you know what assumptions were made here? For instance, what kind of diffusion of
light? These calculations carried out to several decimal places. Can I assume that you're using a
laser to light this up here?
Generous: I'm not aware. Maybe that would be more appropriate for the applicant?
Papke: The other question I would have surrounding that is it would seem that this Z-light is
adjustable angle and would also seem that this would be easily jarred or moved by someone
doing landscaping work, yes? The precise calculations here are very dependent on the angle that
the light makes with the ground. Is that the reason for your recommendation that it be aimed
more towards the middle if we do allow it at all. . .
Generous: If you approve it, yes.
Papke: ... because of the wobbly nature of angle light?
Generous: I think they can probably lock it in. I've seen them where they can tighten the screws
up, if you will, the bolts on it so that it doesn't move anymore.
Papke: But I imagine there is still a stake that goes in the ground and the stake could be
perturbed or something like that?
Generous: Yes, but that wasn't really figured into our review. We weren't concerned that
someone was going to bump.
Papke: You mentioned some ofthe other uses in the area, the Arboretum and so on. What's the
spirit of the City Code here for disallowing uplighting? What constituency are we attempting to
protect?
Generous: It started with actually Villages on the Ponds and they had decorative lighting that
didn't have the 90-degree cutoff, and that led to the discussion of lighting the sky. When that
was vacant over there, there was more spillover into the night sky.
Sacchet: If you don't mind, I will jump in here. What you are asking is, where did this start?
What's the motivation behind it?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Papke: Yes.
Sacchet: I can that very clearly because this was initiated by the Environmental Commission at
the time when I was on the Environmental Commission. There is an aspect of uplighting that
generally people are not aware of. We had one member of a society, was it called the Dark
Night Society or something like that?
Generous: Dark Sky.
Sacchet: Dark Sky Society. Jack Atkins was on the Environmental Commission at that time and
he came in gave us a very enthusiastic presentation educating us as the Environmental
Commission of the City of Chanhassen of the importance of avoiding any light that escapes off
into the sky. Personally, I didn't happen to notice that until I got that presentation that indeed
when you are in a town, and it doesn't have to be a big town, you cannot see the sky. You
cannot see all the stars. You cannot see the Milky Way from anywhere in even a little town.
There is enough light that escapes skyward that you cannot see the Milky Way. In a biggcr city
where a lot of lights escape, you can see hardly any stars at all. So we pushed at the time and it
was accepted and went through. There was one Council member, Mason I believe was his name,
who was very supportive of that at the time and we ended up with this ordinance, the City
ordinance that basically prohibits upwards lighting, specifically for commcrcial/industrial.
That's where I'm going to have some questions about this. I think that's only what you're
asking. Where does it come from and what's the point?
Papke: What's the spirit of the code that we're trying to uphold?
Sacchet: Does that give you an idea?
Papke: Yes. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.
Sacchet: I do have definitely some questions, too. First of all, please define skyward?
Generous: I've been debating that myself. I was thinking anything above a 45-degree angle.
Sacchet: Above a 45-degree angle. Okay.
Generous: From my personal observation.
Sacchet: Because it makes a difference. Obviously, you could go at the building. That's not
skyward. If you go up, where exactly.. .maybe it's not 45. Maybe it's 90. Maybe it's 60.
Generous: But that's just from my interpretation. It's part of interpretation.
Sacchet: To be specific, at this point as a City we have not defined where it starts skyward?
Generous: Correct.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Sacchet: Obviously, this is skyward. We would have an issue with that. This is not skyward.
Generous: Somewhere in between in that 90-debTfee angle.
Sacchet: That's one of the problems we are facing. Now the other problem we are facing at this
point as it says here in your report on page 2, lighting skyward for commercial and industrial
building is prohibited. So it's not prohibited for residential?
Gencrous: No.
Sacchet: Now a church would be considered commercial/industrial?
Generous: Yes.
Saechet: But residential would not fall under this ordinance?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: So we have people having uplights into their trees and to their houses and all that.
There is nothing there?
Papke: Christmas lights.
Sacchet: Well, yes. I'm more concerned about the pennanent ones. I've already added some
meter on the board of why the City has this ordinance but you're basically taking the position
that it can be accomplished by downlighting?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Is there a reason why we don't ask that of the City as a whole? As in residential and
everything?
Generous: Well, generally we do get that from the residential but single-family homes we don't
issue permits to put up that lighting. It's really hard to enforce. This we get as part of the site
plan review or building permit process. Generally, they will create the most lighting. Now,
when we do that multi-family standards that you'll discuss next time and hopefully have the
public hearing in October, maybe at that point we look at adding that.
Sacchet: Now to come back to Bethany's point, in terms of how consistent have we applied that.
I remember we made somewhat of an exception with the cinema, with the concentration that's in
the middle of downtown, have we made any other. ..and you just mentioned the old St. Hubert's
church.
Generous: That was existing...
5
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Sacchet: It was grandfathered.
Generous: The one that came through and was denied was Family of Christ where they had their
cross with the spotlight on it.
Sacchet: There was a huge glare and, by the way, I think they came up with an excellent
solution having it backlit. It's actually much better than it was before.
Gencrous: Internally lit. We always try to propose other alternatives with people.
Sacchet: I guess I don't want to beat this to death. Final question: When I start from the report,
this is a prototype? This is not a standard feature? That's probably more of an applicant
question. That's all my questions. Thank you. With that I would like the applicant to come
forward and see where you can convince us or exactly what the framework is at. As you can tell,
we're in a quandary in tenns of where exactly starts skyward and I believe you heard me in terms
of why we are actually pushing this.
Doerr: Yes. My name is William Doerr. I'm an architect for Life Time Fitness, Plymouth,
Minnesota. We've pondered those same questions and what we feel is ifit isn't a 45 it might be,
say, a 60-degree. We don't feel that we're trying to get skyward. We are directing that beam
completely into the building. You see them shining up on trees, different things. I think it's
allowed to shine on a flag or flag pole. That doesn't do much to block light and there is a lot of
escaped light.
Sacchet: Yes, the flag is indeed the exception that we had in the ordinance. u.s. flag.
Doerr: Yes. The movie theatre in question. I hcard the comment last time that lighting was
added bccause the building lacked architectural feature. We feel our building has an abundance
of architectural feature.
Sacchet: Then you don't need it.
Doerr: You wouldn't think so. What happens is you've got your parking lot lighting and it's
coming from all different angles and there is a certain ambient light on that building. Very
monolithic. Very monochromatic. It doesn't do much to detail the building. What we're doing
is using a 60-watt incandescent bulb, very low wattage in comparison to the level of light in the
parking lot and we are simply accenting it at an upward angle. We do have downward lighting
and that creates some interest, but like in movies and other ways, theatrical lighting at a
multitude of angles helps define the materials in the project. We are using a natural stone base
with a lot of variation and texture and so most important for us is that base of the building and
how it looks. I have somc photos taken from our Canton project and you'll see that these lights
are very directed to the lower portion ofthe building and you'll see that light dissipate as it
movcs up the wall. The light stops there but nearly nothing by the top of that.
Sacehet: Do you know what angle these are?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Doerr: These are... I wouldn't say they're much more than 45. They're about five fcct back
from the building in the center of the beam is where we aim it is around that 8-foot mark. That's
the transition between the stone and the brick above and there's a shadow line there and that's
where we're directing it.
Sacchet: So it will actually be less that 45'1
Doerr: I think it will be a little more thank 45. I think it will be about 60. We want the most
impact out of these lights so we're not going to aim them beyond the building to lose that. We're
trying to get the dramatic effect. It is something that often I'll do or someone else in the grand
opening night, if they're not right we'll adjust them on site. They do have a locking knuckle so
they're not going to be moved but, of course, with a wrench anybody could readjust these lights.
There's no safety against someone readjusting them, only that it would be wasting light and
hopefully they would get readjusted back. I would like to pass out some photographs...
Sacchet: Thank you.
Doerr: Being that it's 60-watt incandescent, that would be normal for what someone would use
residentially to light up a tree or anything else. As you can see in the photometries, there's .1
foot candles at the top. That is much less than the acceptable light levels still that would occur
over a property line from parking lot lighting and things. We really feel like it's an important
asset to the building. It's going to be our corporate headquarters site. We kind of want all the
whistles and bells on this one. It really does pull out the richness of the materials and I think it
will be an asset to really read the building. It is only on the north side. Another thing that may
help... this exhibit shows light pictures by the same manufacturer. The smallest of
them is the light that we're speaking of. It's a pretty small picture. It isn't these large box lights
that you may have seen used as uplights in other projects. It is pretty directed. There is also a
variance of beam sizes. What we're using is a narrow spot. A wide flood would give you a
much wider band and that's why you're seeing in that exhibit 34 foot candles at the center of that
and not more than a couple feet away you're seeing light levels drop significantly. There will be
next to no lights filled beyond the building. We would be comfortable with being allowed to
even install these and work with staff on site after installation to get the proper positioning of
them reviewed at any time ifthey felt like they were getting moved. There's no incentive for us
obviously to light the sky or beyond and I understand the ordinance. We've seen this ordinance
in the past and it's been in the southwest and Phoenix area. We've seen it a lot. There usually is
a limitation that anything below 100 watts or an incandescent fixture doesn't fall into that
category and a lot of times it's been used to protect from 500-watt mercury haloid lights shining
straight to the sky. We're not trying to do that. We're really just trying to accent the front of it.
We're back here one more time just to try to get it because we think it's an asset. I think we're
giving you something for the community. I think people will enjoy the building and see a little
more textural quality of the building at night and we'd really like to do it. We'd like to offer any
reassurances that it will be used as intended. We would work with staff to work with the
position of the lights once they are in place. It is allowing only the north of the building. It
occurs exactly between each window and they are very narrow so that we're not getting
reflection off the glass. The comment on the signage I don't see as an issue either. There
shouldn't be anything really lost there. By the time it gets up to the sign, you can see in that
7
Planning Commission Meeting -- September 7, 2004
exhibit that the foot candles have dropped off almost to nothing. Just right at the bottom of the
sign, a little above you'll see that light fàde out.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Kurt?
Papke: I've got one. Are you sure it's an incandescent? The picture almost looks more like a
halogen?
Doerr: It's a digital picture so everything's kind of coming off the other. You'll see from inside
the building it's definitely incandescent and we avoid using like the high-pressure sodium or any
of the other ones because they are really not true to color. We are trying to bring out natural
colors of the building. That's more of a function of that photo, I think.
Papke: How may will there be?
Doerr: There are, this is really hard to see, but between each one there are lOon that side, and 4
on that side for a total of 14.
Papke: 14. How high are they off the ground.
Doerr: They are just on a short pole approximately 12 inches to the base of the fixture and the
fixture is another 4 inches. 14-16 inches.
Papke: And if there is snow during the wintertime?
Doerr: They would probably melt that snow. As is comes and piles up they may be, hopefully
our maintenance crew is clearing them away. Generally there is landscaping along that
perimeter of the building. In all cases there is. There is a landscaped grassy area between there
so hopefully they're not shoveling the sidewalk snow on there. They'll get some snow on there
and hopefully it will melt off and be cleared off
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Tjornhom: I have one. When I was reading the report I was trying to figure out why this is so
important because you could light your building with downward lights and have the same
building. Is it because this is like you're advertising your sign on your building?
Doerr: The sign is halo lit. It's a metallic sign with neon behind it. You can see the effect there.
It lights around it. You actually wouldn't want intense light on it to flood that our or wash that
out. It's not for us to light the signage. It may have some residual effect on getting some light
on that, but actually opposite of the lighting effect that we go for with the sign. It's a halo lit
sign. It's strictly for the materials. These may have even been aimed a little high. We like to
see the bright spot right at the 8-foot mark, or right at the transition between the stone and the
brick. There are a series of downlights and it's the combination of those two lights that really
bring out the architecture of the building. Simply having downlights washes it out and all the
shadowing is created below and you lose that material. Anything that sticks out you've lost
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004
what's behind it and it sometimes distorts the image, much like if you took a flashlight to your
fàce to make a creepy face look. It's not true to texture of your fàce. Having multiple lights are
going to give you better representation of what you're trying to look at.
Tjornhom: My next question is, if this was to pass, who would decide what angle the lights
would be placed?
Doerr: We have a detail in our drawing that's pretty similar to the exhibit you have. It shows a
mounting angle and it asks for them to mount them at, to aim the light at 8 feet above the ground
plain. Ultimately, it's the electrician. Sometimes they aim them straight up the building and
they need to be adjusted slightly ifthey don't take of care. Hopefully, it's the electrician and
then we would do a walk-through. Oftentimes I'm there on grand opening making some
adjustments like that and that's one thing that we always look for.
Sacchet: I have a few questions, too. It looks like you're actually very specific. You have 14 of
these lights, they're 60-watt incandescent. You showed us a fixture. How big is that fixture
roughly in reality?
Doerr: I would say it's about 6" x 12".
Sacchet: 6" x 12"'1 Awfully small shoe box size?
Doerr: Yes.
Saechet: And you say you would angle them at roughly a 60-degree angle?
Doerr: Yes. That's a guess.
Sacchet: At 8 feet above and how far away from the building?
Doerr: They're about 4 feet back and you're aiming up 8 feet so I think that gives you like a 60-
degree angle.
Sacchet: According to the drawing, it's 3 feet so that would have to angle higher at that point so
if you go with the center, that would be 8 feet. Now the building's how high again?
Doerr: 42 feet and that wall that it's actually shining on is 38.8 before it steps up and we're only
lighting the two ends of it.
Sacehet: So you would be focusing on that break of the material?
Doerr: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. It's actually very good that you're that specific. Thank you. I appreciate your
presentation. This is a public hearing so if somebody wants to comment about this, please come
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
forward. I don't see anybody getting up so I close the public hearing and bring it back to the
Commission. Steve?
Lillehaug: Can I ask Bob one more question here?
Sacchet: Absolutely.
Lillehaug: On page 2 in the report, Bob, you indicated that the ordinance includes not directing
light skyward and do I have that date correct? Is it May 24,2004'1
Generous: Yes, we cleaned up that ordinance.
Lillehaug: So we just adopted and cleaned up an ordinance, period this May of2004? Okay.
Sacchet: There was an ordinance for that before but this was revised?
Generous: Yes, it was. It said what shouldn't be lit. It was more vague in its wording.
Sacchet: Even more vague?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: I wonder how that's possible?
Generous:
Lillehaug: Can I start with comments, then?
Sacchet: Yes, comments please, if you have any.
Lillehaug: I commend Life Time on wanting to make their building more architecturally
pleasing. Definitely I think that's great. But with light I don't agree with it. My definition of
skyward is upward. Anything above 90 degrees, that's upward in my mind. Anything above
this, which is 90 degrees, that's skyward, that's upward. I think that's a clear definition.
Obviously, it's not clear to everyone so Bob, we probably need to include a definition in our
ordinance. My recommendation would be skyward is upward, anything above 90 degrees. I
think the City is sending a clear message here. We just revised our ordinance indicating no
lighting directed skyward and I strongly support that. These pictures are good but they really
don't show the spillover. There's going to be spillover, period. In my mind, the intent of the
ordinance is to eliminate all spillover from any upward lighting. I simply don't think, I know it
might be a small amount but I think that small amount if relevant. I think we need to be
consistent throughout the City as of May 24,2004. It's clarified. Yes, there may be some that
do have lighting upward but from here on out I think we need to set the precedence as well as I
hope the City Council sets a precedence that skyward will not be tolerated. That's my opinion
that that's what I support.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
Sacchet: Thanks, Steve. Dan, do you have a comment?
Keefe: Yes. I somewhat agree with what Steve's comments were. The problem I'm having is
with consistency and the lack of definition that we tried to impose. I think we need to go further
in terms of defining what is skyward. I kind of look at this and I think of it as a 60-watt bulb
going 42 feet. I don't know that I would go out in my backyard with a 60-watt bulb 40 feet
across the backyard. I don't know that my neighbors would be too concerned if I had a bulb at
one end of it and this is an industrial area. I just don't see it's that big of a deal. I don't think
there's going to be much spillover at all and I have a concern that we haven't defined it well
enough yet to really give appropriate guidance in tenns of what skyward is. So I would kind of
go the opposite way. I would actually support the variance.
Sacchet: Thanks, Dan. Do you have a comment, Bethany?
Tjornhom: My comment is, I should say no comment, I guess, because I too agree that the
ordinance that was drafted and approved probably should have had some measure to it so it could
have been not 90 degrees but just 60 degrees. Then we have something to go by because my
definition of upward is upward where there's just a light and it's just shining upward. To me,
this is a light and it's bouncing off of a building and its just illuminating lightly the architectural
characteristics of the building. But there is the ordinance that does prohibit it so it's kind ofa
catch 22. I think because we are not very specific in our ordinance about the degree angle, I
think I would have to approve it.
The tape was changed at this point.
Papke: ... We've struggled with the On an Observatory out in Norwood Young America, very
big issue with light pollution out there. Right now the biggest issue is light pollution growth in
Waconia. I'm very sensitive to the issue oflight pollution but, on the other hand when I look at
the amount of spillover here, I think it's just microscopic in comparison to what's reflecting off
the parking lots, the streets from streetlights, Highway 5 lighting, and so on. I think this is just
inconsequential. I feel badly in that having been part of the review of the City Code we
approved this and now I think we're seeing some of the consequences ofthe code we put in
place, that we have this iron-clad, nothing higher than 90 degrees. I think it was a good first stab
at a very noble goal which is to prevent losing our dark skies. On the other hand, this is a
gateway fàcility into western Chanhassen. When you come in from Victoria, this is what you're
going to see. I think this is a beautiful building. They're making a huge investment and I think
the lighting that they're proposing here adds tremendous value to the aesthetics of the building
and I would hate to see the City lose that aesthetic appeal of the building just because we have
this City Code in place that is well-intentioned, but I think a little inflexible for this kind of
situation so I support it, even though I'm a strong believe in dark skies.
Sacchet: I've been struggling with this one and I'm glad that you're so specific; the applicant
was so specific in terms of what they're doing. But I think it's important that we, on the one
hand, are consistent with ordinances, with the rules that apply, which at this point we are not. I
think that's something that I really would like staff to look at. That we have a consistent position
that goes across the whole City and not just a particular type of building, for one thing. There is
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
a lower end where it becomes trivial or even a farce. We're looking at a 60-watt bulb. Is that
going to light up the sky when you have thousands of cars driving a couple hundred feet away
from it. I think it becomes almost ridiculous to be insistent on it, but then at the same time are
we undermining the ordinance that we are trying to put in place. I was thinking, well maybe it is
appropriate for this to go to the City Council but it looks like we may, if we have three or four. I
guess that is the question if it goes to City Council, right? If we make this really specific and we
say 14 lights at 60-watt incandescent, at no more than 60 degrees angled off, focused at a height
of8 feet on a 42-foot building, I think that is specific enough to put into a category of trivial in
this context. I don't think we're impeding the validity of the ordinance as long as it's clearly
understood that we ask staff to put a better frame around this. I think if we can as specific as
that, I would be inclined to support it because, like any rule, if it gets carried to an extreme it
actually loses what it stands for. We have to pick our battles where they're worth something and
if somebody comes in here with a naked floodlight or something like that, it's a very different
story than if somebody comes in with a 60-watt incandescent bulb. The photo that you did bring
added a better understanding because it definitely warms up the feel of the place, the ambiance, I
would say. That's something, I don't think the City should need to get involved in that level
because it's down to the level of detail where I doubt it would have the City not be involved,
which is contradiction. On the other hand, I'm asking for these specifics to be in the condition
that since that was the applicant is asking for, if we hold them to that I think I can make peace
with that. Yes Steve, please.
Lillehaug: I respect all of your positions, but I do want to point out one thing that if we are
directing staff to re-Iook at this ordinance, I think anything above 90 degrees is going to be
projected skyward unless it's, in this example, directed directly at a building. I think upward is
skyward. If you're going to review it, please look at that more closely. I want to point out one
more thing. There was one spotlight, and we're looking at consistency throughout the City,
there's an adjacent church here a couple of blocks away that the City Council denied having a
spotlight, a single spotlight, not a floodlight but a spotlight on a cross, that was denied. Here we
have 14 lights and I don't know the wattage or the spillover, but we're talking 14 compared to 1.
Talking about consistency, I just want to point that out.
Papke?: That light was directed at a very sparse structure where as these are directed at walls.
Lillehaug: Right. And was there spillover on that cross?
Papke?: Yes.
Sacchet: Huge.
Lillehaug: Did I see it? Was it up there? I think it was actually up there.
Sacchet: I've been struggling with that, too because that light was actually not at a very steep
angle. That probably was at a 40-foot angle? It created a huge spillover because it was really
going into the sky, there was a cross and it was a huge light. In this case, and I don't know what
the wattage was of that thing, it was a halogen, it was a high-intensity. I have a hard time
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004
envisioning how a 60-watt incandescent aimed at a building from 3-4 feet away at a height where
the building is multiple, 5 times as high, could create a glare.
Lillehaug: More than what other surrounding lights may create.
Sacchet: Right.
Lillehaug: The other question that kind of comes to mind and I think Kurt brought it up, which
is, this is going to be an anchor for the west end of Chanhassen. It's going to be really nice to
have something great as people come into Chanhassen, particularly a development of this size, so
I'd like it to look as good as it possibly can.
Sacchet: Now we have to put this into the context of the framework that we are supposed to look
at. One aspect is, is it an undue hardship? Well, it's certainly not a hardship, but its lights there
or not. But I keep bringing up the point, well is it a reasonable request? I think with the
magnitude of what it is, what it does, how its put in front of us, I would consider it a reasonable
request. It's definitely absent of the hardship. There's no question about that. Then the other
aspect, does it apply to other areas? Yes, we are setting a precedent and so that's why I really
want to emphasize that we have to have a lower-end minimum consideration. I mean, somebody
aiming a flashlight against the sky, is that illegal? There comes a point where it just doesn't
make sense. I think we pretty much at that point, this is 60-watt incandescent aimed at a building
with the angle that is specified. Is it self-created? Of course it's self-created, because they want
to make it as nice as possible. Is it detrimental? Well, that's the big question because dark sky
destruction can be considered detrimental. Is it detrimental in this context? I think we agreed
that it's not. At least, most of us. Actually, the only one that would be hard to argue away is, is
it self-created, but that is if it's a hardship. It's not really a hardship. How are we doing with
these conditions? Those are the rules we have to work by, Bob?
Generous: You could always make an argument.
Sacchet: You could always make an argument.
Lillehaug: I don't think this is a forum to set precedents. I think it's already set. It's in the
ordinance.
Sacchet: You have a good point.
Lillehaug: To me we're changing the ordinance and this isn't the forum to change it. I think...
Sacchet: It should go to Council on that basis.
Lillehaug: In my opinion, it should. Again, I'm one of five. That's my opinion.
Sacchet: Any other discussion?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004
Papke or Keefe?: It feels like we need to revisit the ordinance. So the question is, when do we
do that and how do you do that? It seems like we need more definition on the ordinance. This is
the first time that this has really even come up since we put this in place in May.
Sacchet: How urgent is approval of this?
Lillehaug: I would think that Life Time is not going to get to the point of installing lighting for
some time now.
Generous: Yes.
Doerr: We've already bid out the documents so we pay more for a change then we will to bid
this thing competitively. The wiring will be put in the ground with other utilities which we're
pretty close to. It's pretty important to us. We would like to have the answer just to keep
moving forward and keep it cost-effective for us to provide this for the City.
Sacchet: So, in other words we will create a hardship...
Doerr: By holding it up.
Sacchet: I think that's a fair thing to say.
Doerr: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other aspects? Thank you. Are we changing an ordinance? I think
we're not changing it, we're trying to implement it in a way that is reasonable and makes sense.
This is the variance for a reasonable request. Alright, somebody make a motion.
Papke: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance
to permit the lighting as detailed by Life Time Fitness Development with the following four
conditions:
I. Less than or equal to 14 lights.
2. Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam.
3. Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light.
4. Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Sacchet: Everybody in fàvor say aye. Opposed?
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
variance to permit the lighting as detailed by Life Time Fitness Development with the
following four conditions:
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004
1. Less than or equal to 14 lights.
2. Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam.
3. Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light.
4. Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Sacchet: We have 4 to 1 which is 80% so it actually carries. I do want to emphasize the
importance of bringing this up with Council. Frankly, what made me go for this is that we do
have a Council work session scheduled in, how much, a week or two?
Generous: Monday the 13th.
Sacchet: The 13th. One week. I think we have to bring it up there and make it clear because
with that in the picture I don't think it was necessary to send it to Council to catch their attention
and create potentially an order of difficulty for the applicant. So that's my comment here. Did
you want to state, I guess you stated your opposition, its clear enough, Steve.
Lillehaug: It passes; it doesn't have to go to Council, correct?
Sacchet: It does not; we would have to have needed two oppositions for it to go to Council.
Alright, thank you very much. Good luck. With that, we get to our second item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON
PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL
(PUD-R), LOCATED AT 7200 LODGEPOLE POINT, JAMES & KRISTIN RUELLE-
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-28.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jim Ruelle
7200 Lodgepole Point
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Metzer: Chairman Sacchet, members ofthe Planning Commission. I am Josh Metzer. I'm an
intern with the Planning Department. The next item before you is a request for a variance from
the side yard setback for the construction of a three-season porch. As you can see, this site is
corner lot located southwest of the intersection of Lodgepole Point and Longacres Drive. The
property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential. The applicant is proposing the
construction of a three-season porch. This porch will be located 6.75 feet from the southern
property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 2.25-foot side yard setback variance from
15