Loading...
2 - Minutes, 4/3/03CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES April 3, 2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the April 3, 2003 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Elise Jones Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MIPiUTES March 6, 2003: M. Cowles suggested that on page 1, first paragraph for citizen participation, change to read "Although not related to this application, M. Cowles asked if he knew why the Planning Board did not get a plan for the vacation of a sidewalk easement along Lee Hill Road for the Holiday Neighborhood development that was approved by Council and had been approved by the Planning Board beforehand." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved the minutes of March 6, 2003 as amended (6-0; E. Jones did not vote because she was not a Board member when this meeting occurred). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He discussed the process that has occurred regarding bringing the lighting ordinance to the Board. This issue has been an important one for many years and now people are going to complain that they have to pay to make their nonconforming lights conform. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\030403 m in City of Boulder Planning Board Mirmtes April 3, 2003 Page 2 He said that he wished that planning staff would do something to address these issues at the time rather than waiting year after year as thousands more nonconforming lights go in. 4. DISCDSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS B. Cole explained that there were neighborhood concems about building height for the Culver Court mixed use development, so it is scheduled for a Planning Board hearing on May 22. T. Krueger said that since it has already been called up, there are only two dispositions tonight, the Park East Manor subdivision and the Norwood Arbours subdivision. M. Cowles asked about Culver Court and asked if it is a strip of lawn with trees in it. B. Cole answered that it is. B. Pommer asked how close the adjoining house is to the west in the Norwood Arbours subdivision. B. Cole said that the adjoining house exceeds the minimum setback on that side. T. Krueger asked if the Norwood Arbours subdivision is a flagpole subdivision and if it is in conformance with the North Boulder Subcoinmunity Plan (NBSP). B. Cole responded that the subdivision is in conformance with the NBSP. There are areas within north Boulder in which flagpole subdivisions were discouraged to the extent of being nearly prohibited, and other areas where they were not discouraged. This is one of those areas where they were permitted. It is based on the context of building in the area. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of approval as to substance for publication purposes of the administrative regulations for Title 9-6.5, "Inclusionary Zoning." C. Pieropan said that this item is before the Planning Board to officially get the regulations published and start a 30-day comment period. The amendments of note in the regulations include livability standards which involve staff approval of fixtures, features, finish cabinetry, eta (the regulations state that annually they will publish the guidelines that set forth the minimum standards for permanently affordable units regarding things like room dimensions and cabinetry), clarification of what permanently affordable means for condominiums (in some condominium developments, the homeowner's association dues for the permanently affordable units are the same as the market rate units, and it ends up making them quite unaffordable), and how prices and rents are calculated (the old pricing structure was a little too broad, so the ranges are narrowed and things are distributed better). The Housing Division is hosting a public meeting with developers to go over a variety of things, including the changes to the regulations. J. Spitzer asked how much the changes were publicized to the community at large and to the people who will be affected. C. Pieropan responded that although this was not published to the community at-large, staff worked with the developers who are developing projects, the Housing s:\p lan\pb-items\m inutes\03 0403 m in Ciry of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 3 Authority, and Thistle CommuniTy Housing to get comments. The feedback was incorporated into the regulations. M. Cowles asked if prospective qualified buyers bid up the price that is set for a permanently affordable house. C. Pieropan responded that the maximum price cannot be changed upward. M. Cowles asked how the city administers giving preference to a household that lives and works in the city of Boulder. C. Pieropan said that this provision is a strong preference. Approximately 98% of the affordable home buyers have lived or worked in tha city of Boulder. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: B. Pommer asked that staff consider revising the title of this item when it ratums to the Board because it is confusing. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the proposed administrative regulations for publication and will schedule a public hearing for final adoption of the regulations at a later date. D. Gehr said that the public notice for the next meeting will include the four proposed changes to the regulations. B. Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend section 9-6-2 Growth Management, deTinition of "Mixed Use Development," adding Residential Main Street (RMS-X) zones to the list of mixed use zones. B. Bean said that this item is in regard to adding the RMS-X zone to the exempt zones in the Residential Growth Management ordinances. This is the only residential mixed use zone, and it affects only one area of about eight acres in the community. The north Broadway project is in that area and was assumed to be eligible for exempt allocations. It will take the developer a minimum of three years to be able to develop the property without exempt allocations. Staff is asking that the Planning Board add the RMS-X zone to the categories of exempt zones that can apply for exempt allocations. Public Partieipation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: T. Krueger asked why the residential main street developing zone was not included B. Bean said that RMS-X is a residential zone; all of the other mixed zones have some kind of commercial aspect to them. This zone allows some limited commercial to occur, so it does s:\p lan\pb-items\minutes\03 0403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 , Page 4 encourage mixed use activities. When this section was discussed with the Planning Board, ~aff did not realize there were only eight acres of land zoned RMS-X. T. Krueger asked if there is a proposal for any commercial use on the eight-acre site. B. Bean said there may be some commercial use proposed for the south property which is all residential. A portion of one of the buildings, about 20 of the units, is split by BMS-X and RMS-X zonings and would be exempt, and the remaining 52 units would have to obtain quarterly allocations. The other restriction is that only 70 nonexempt allocations can be issued to a project each year. This project has approximately 240 units, so under the 70 limit, it would take three and a half years to complete the project. T. Krueger asked if there is supposed to be a mix of commercial and residential in the RMS-X zone. B. Bean responded that the property must be zoned RMS-X, but the ordinance does not require the specific site to be mixed use but encourages it. Below are individual Board comments: On page two of the staff inemo, the most importa;tt item is last in the analysis. The main reason for doing this is that the RMS-X zone should have been included in the original ordinance and it was not. When this item goes to Council, the last item should be listed as the lead. Just because it is inconvenient to bank allocations does not mean the growth management plan should be changed. It is because it should have been done in the past. (T. Krueger) The history of the site led to RMS-X not being included, but since it ended up with more residential units, it should be changed. And, it should be changed because it should have been included the first time around. (B. Pommer) MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) that City Council amend section 9-6-2, definiYion of °Mixed Use Development," adding Residential Main Street (RMS-X). C. Public hearing and consideration of proposed 2002/2003 Phase I Land Use Regulation Amendments: 1. Modification of the definition of "Consanguinity", "single unit dwellings", and "multi unit dwellings" to accommodate joint heads of households as a form oF occupancy. (Consdderation of this item /eas been postponed.) 2. Amendments requiring xeriscape landscape practices, allowing owners accessory units (OAU'S) in the ER and RR zoning districts by s:\plan\pb-items\mi nutes\030403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 5 conditional use, deletion of outmoded language regarding development review expirations, allowances for larger administrative parking reductions, clarification of some parking design and parking access standards, allowing residential units in industrial zones, revisions to the definition of "floor area", revisions to residential open space requirements, and revisions to the non-conforming revicw regulations. 3. Revisions to the outdoor lighting regulations of Section 9-3.3-17, B.R.C. 1981, which were previously considered, and recommended for approval, by the Planning Board at its hearing of August 15, 2002. T. Krueger said that the first item has been withdrawn due to Council reconsideration of the occupancy issue. Occupancy will not be considered as part of the land use regulation changes tonight. The lighting ordinance and the other miscellaneous land use regulations will be considered. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved (6-1; B. Pommer opposed) the postponement of the hearing on the above item until April 17, 2003. Lighting Regulations G. Kretschmer said that the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance is replacing an existing ordinance--the scope of that ordinance was limited to just dealing with light trespass issues. In order to meet several environmental goals established by City Council and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the scope of that ordinance had to be modified and expanded to address things like limits on lighting, maximum uniformity ratios, light color and light distribution patterns. In August, the Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of proposed regulations. The Board commented about how technical the ordinance was and questioned whether staff would be able to effectively administer it. Prior to City Council action, the Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of the business community, requested additional time to evaluate the ordinance. During that time, staff took the opportunity to revisit the ordinance, simplify it and create flexibility for design freedom. A summary of the original ordinance and recommended changes is included in the staff inemorandum. 1VI. Cowles asked if there is a plan to do anything about the excess illumination in the public rights of way. G. Kretschmer stated his belief that there is not excess illumination in the rights of way. The Transportation Department is very careful about following the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommended standards for street right of ways. There are some streeC lights that are not shielded, but those are subject to contracts with Xcel Energy and should be replaced over time. s:\p lan\pb-items\minutes\030403 min Ciry af Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 6 M. Cowles said there is at least one instance where there is a very short period of time (three years) for people to get rid of inercury vapor lamps in residential areas. Since some types of lighting are so obnoxious, they should be eliminated immediately. G. Kretschmer said there is a significant difference in cost. Mercury vapor lamps, otherwise known as barn lamps, aze available at a local hardware store for about $29.95. The other types of lighting, such as wall packs, can be very expensive depending on the light source, installation and location. M. Cowles said there is part of this ordinance that sets forth the maximum amount of light in foot candles that you can have at the property line. One section under design standards that seemed very clear has been removed. He asked about the rationale for changing that and going with a measurement at the ground level. G. Kretschmer responded that it is related to difficulty of ineasurement and the computations lighting consultants would be required to include. M. Cowles asked about the rationale for exempting high pressure sodium lights from any amortization since that is the color of light that is the least effective for illuminating the darkness. G. Kretschmer said that high pressure sodium does have a color rendering issue associated with it, but existing systems that meet the maximum illumination levels will eventually be phased out over time as more and more people go to a white light source or a metal halide source. The sodium lights have a much longer life span than 15 years and are very expensive to replace. Low pressure sodium lights are not exempt. M. Cowles asked if there is a reason the city should not exclude architectural lighting of fenestrations. G. Kretschmer said that architectural lighting refers to internal lighting affecting the exterior environment. It is very difficult for the designers to factor in what that lighting is going to be. M. Cowles clarified that he is referring to lights on the outside of the building that also light up the windows on the building. B. Cole said that the approach is to discourage that particular type of lighting. Rather than the ground mounted flood lighting, staff is recommending a more subtle, lower level type of lighting like wall sconces and the like. G. Kretschmer said that the lumen levels that are proposed to allow the uplighting is significantly limited. E. Jones asked if staff had a sense of how the proposed changes would affect energy efficiency. G. Kretschmer said that the amounts of lighting proposed are significantly lower. For example, car dealerships will go from 100 foot candles down to 15 foot candles. Car dealerships use from 400 watt to 1,000 watt metal halide lights. In this particular scenario, it will decrease to 100-250 watt lights, showing significant energy savings. E. Jones asked if that had been calculated into a total benefit. G. Kretschmer said it was a factor and that the lumen levels proposed by staff reflect a wattage range of 50 - 250 which is significantly less than existing situations. He said that he did not know if it would be possible to do an energy assessment on the entire community, but staff could come up with a very broad range. B. Cole said that it would be possible to look at an average site, like the North Boulder Recreation Center, that was designed around the standards that aze proposed. Out of that, it may be possible to develop cost savings. s:\plan\pb-i[ems\m inutes\03 0403 m i n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Public Participation: Page 7 Byron Mayes, 4780 Cheyenne Court: He said that he is concerned about the outlawing of high pressure sodium as a viable light source restricted only to areas not accessible to the publia The city's consultant believes that visual acuity is better under blue light than under the light source of high pressure sodium, but this viewpoint is not universally accepted in the lighting community. For example, the Meadows Safeway parking lot is a comfortable and safe environment. The horizontal foot candle measurements are from 2-5 under the light poles. The warmer light enhances the faqade of buildings. Poor exterior lighting design can be done by anybody, is very cheap, and nobody likes it; on the other end is lighting which has to be done by highly experienced lighting consultants with access to considerable amounts of photometric data. They are very expensive, they are wonderful, and almost anybody will think it is fabulous. Someplace in between there is a real world of exterior lighting design that is less draconian than the requirements in this ordinance. The ordinance mandates the expensive end of the spectrum. He gave an example of a project in Gunbarrel where the difference between the old ordinance and the proposed new ordinance was from 17 to 521ight poles. This is almost always going to be the case. If you walk into any parking lot and stand below the light source, the largest amount of light is directly below the lamp. The only way to achieve the numbers in the ordinance is with a lot of poles. Far the Board's consideration, there are a number of people who would be happy to serve on a very quick ad hoc, pro bono technical advisory committee just to review this and come back with some real world recommendations. David Keith, Fellow of the Illuminated Engineering Society, 1534 Marshall Road: He has been asked to look at the ordinance by people who feel this will significantly affect the community. It is extremely regrettable that this group did not have an advisory committee set up from the start, it has narrowed exposure, and the ordinance is significantly impaired because of it. All of the objectives and goals are good, yet the ordinance will be counterproductive in almost all cases as well as being extraordinarily expensive. There will be a large increase in initial cost, and extremely high maintenance costs. He suggested that the white light requirement be eliminated. It will significantiy increase the cost of operating lighting systems by 50-80% according to published technical documents of the IESNA. It will also increase sky glow because metal halide produces I.5 to 3 times the sky giow. Next, the uniformity requirements should be dropped; they should meet the existing IESNA requirements or at least double the ratio values in the document. The uniformity requirements will double the cost of the lighting system and are twice as restrictive as those in several IESNA documents - the standards for walkways and bikeways (DJ594), lighting for parking facilities (RP2098) and recommended practice for roadway lighting (RP800). S. Male asked if the IESNA produces standards for residential lighting and other types than what he has shown. ll. Keith responded that the roadway standard addresses residential roadways, s: \p I an\pb- item s\m i nute s\03 0403 m i n Ciry of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Apri13, 2003 Page 8 walkvrays and bikeways, and the parking facilities would apply to any parking facility or structure. S. Mole said that his memory of the first hearing on this topic was that the IESNA produces lots and lots of standards for all sorts of things. He asked if the standards at the extreme end of the range is suggested. D. Keith said that is possible. It is also possible that as a practicing lighting designer, he is responsible in court for meeting those standazds, which are the only existing standards for lighting and proper lighting procedure in North America. The Board is mandating through this ordinance that the city of Bouider does not meet these standards. The limits o£ the property levels should be doubled, at least, and there should be an exemption for driveways and walkways. At the moment, there is a mandate for .1 foot candles at the point of most likely collision between vehicles and pedestrians. This is unconscionable. The allowed maximum levels should be doubled. The examples on the Web aze not indicative of the targets the ordinance recommends overall. The light levels should be reduced; the recommendations are excessive, exorbitant and extremely expensive. The energy savings will be terrific, but they will be eaten up by all the energy losses in the other aspects of the ordinance. The Board should not be lookin~ at the net effect of going from a 100 foot candle car dealership to a 15 foot candle car dealershr.• under this ordinance, it should be looking at going from a good IS foot candle or 30 foot candle car dealership to what it could be if the ordinance was relaxed and did not restrict the designers to the extent this ordinance does. The Board is proposing mandates and not guidelines. The Board should increase the allowances or drop the requirement for the mounting heights and poles. iie property line boundary effects are more than adequate to cover it and this restricts the abilities of designers to do things in an energy efficient and lighting effective way. Next, the Boazd should drop the flat glass requirement. Flat glass luminary requirements will increase energy consumption from 20-30%. There is no need for the flat glass requirement to reduce glare. Restrictions at the property line and additional restrictions that could be imposed could allow proper restriction of glare without restricting equipment, but still restricting lighting systems. Finally, the government exemption should be dropped or at least exempt schools, nonprofits and other groups that do not have any money to spend. Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He said that there is a let of overlighting; the city could use a lot less glare and light trespass. He directed the Board to the paper he distributed with his basic concerns. The amortization schedule would be better on a seven-year basis of compliance rather than I S because we have been putting this off a long time. Energy considerations are a major consideration. There should be less energy use and less light in general. On the flag lighting section, it is not a good idea to point a 300 watt spotlight straight into the sky for a flag. Temporary permits should be limited to seven days rather than 30. Seasonal lighting should be limited in total lumens with a time limit, such as 11:00 p.m. He said that he does not like the high pressure sodium light that well. Building lighting does not say how many lights can be used, and there is probably a commercial operation that eventuaily would use hundreds of them. There should be so many lumens per foot or something like that. With regard to changing intensity, the language should say that "sudden changes in intensity should not be allowed." s:\plan\pb-i[ems\minutes\030403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Miwtes April 3, 2003 Page 9 Slow sunset dimming is very pleasant compared to sudden turn on/turn off kind of thing. Motion sensor lights should bring the light up slowly. It is good that the Board is getting around to trying to reduce and get lighting under control and he hopes the ordinance will manifest in a good useable way, save energy and save our eyes. J. Spitzer asked ab6ut the sheet provided to the Board. Premena said that his page numbers refer to Attachment C. Also, he said that he was in the original meeting for this ordinance back in September 2001 and everyone agreed it would be realiy good if they could see the Milky Way in 10 years in Boulder. This is a very reduced standard to talk about seeing stars against a dark sky. Vince Porrcca, PO Box 22: He said that he hopes he is not here in fifteen years saying, "Do you know how much this is going to cost tomorrow?" What will happen in fifteen years to all the things that are not in compliance? Fiscal impact had better be included when this goes to Council. Staff has made a marked improvement in the ordinance in terms of clarity and conciseness. He expressed general concern about a self-regulating ordinance; the neighbor to neighbor issue could put staff in an awkward position to mediate disputes. D. Gehr said that the original drafr Mr. Porreca is talking about provided neighbors veto power on light variances. That was substituted with a standard where the city manager would make the call as to whether the standard was met. The city will consider statements from the next-door neighbor, but delegation of the decision could not be left in the hands of the neighbor. V. Porreca said that many residential areas in the city do not have streetlights, especially those with covenants. The ordinance should be looked at with these covenants in mind. Security is important, and it does not have to be for just businesses. People who live alone or feel uncomfortable about where they live need to be considered. Section 9-3-3.17B1A refers to "any building" then further in the ordinance it says that single family detached homes are exempt. Then in the resolution of the ordinance under section 4, it again says "all buildings." If single family homes are exempt, the statement in the ordinance should read that way. G. Kretschmer said that section 4 does not appear in the codified version of the ordinance--it is direction on implementation. D. Gehr said that basically that provision provides that it would not be retroactively applied to a building permit that is in the process. V. Porreca asked that changes be made to make this clear. Steve Albers, 5116 Williams Fork Trail: He said that he would like this ordinance to serve as an example for the County to consider. He conducted a study on sky glow and developed a map of the country using census data as a simple scattering model. Nancy Clanton did some lighting design work at NOAA, and it was done excellently in terms of keeping uniformity, downward direction of lights, and reasonably low lumination levels. It is important to make areas safe for pedestrians, but that can be done with relatively low levels of lumination that prevents the glare problem. Please keep these things in mind. s: \plan\pb-items\m inutes\030403 m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 , Page 10 Doug Grinbergs, P.O. Box 17455: He said that he is a member of the International Dark Sky Association, is very interested in this ordinance and stated he ti~as very surprised to see how long the old ordinance was on the books. It is time to reclaim the night sky and our ability to see the stars. Throughout the community there are many examples of bad lighting, including grocery stores, gas stations, and car dealerships. Even without an improved ordinance, it seems that people involved in designing and constructing a facility bear some responsibility for not learning more about cutting edge lighting. The University of Colorado stadium lighting can be seen through the trees for a long ways. The ballfields on 30`h Street and Pollard Motors both have lights that cause a lot of glaze and create a safety issue. It is ridiculous to illuminate the sides of buildings and tops of trees. His main suggestions are to see accelerated correction for the worst offenders. It should also be considered for transportation conidors where flood lights are aimed at traffic and on bike lanes. The curfew seemed like a reasonable idea and it is unfortunate that it was eliminated. The ardinance should be revisited in a shorter time than 20 years to be sure that it is still in line with current standards. Also, daytime lighting should be eliminated. Darkness is naturai and lighting is not. The impact of lighting should be minimized. John Hudson, 2475 Juniper Avenue: He said that he is a member of the International Dark Sky Association. This proposal is in the right direction. The things that are not emphasized are the health benefits of good lighting such as being able to go to sleep and get a good night's sleep without light shining in. There is an opportunity to help with the cost of upgrades if there is a recommended list of luminaries so that businesses and residents do not have to start from scratch every time. The list could include a short list of lights that fit the bill and helpful hints on how to install them. Return to the Board: J. Spitzer said that this is a very complicated and technical area to deal in. He asked if other cities Boulder's size have done this and how it compares to the proposed ordinance. It would feel more comfortable if there was some precedent. G. Kretschmer said there are probabiy well over 1,000 communities in the United States that have a lighting ordinance, and he has reviewed at least two to three dozen ordinances that are equally or more compiex. J. Spitzer said it is not necessarily about the complexity of the ordinance, but that some speakers thought it was too restrictive, some not restrictive enough. How does this compare to other ordinances? G. Kretschmer said that the city of Aspen has a lighting ordinance that makes Boulder look like circus lighting with one foot candle maximum anywhere in the community and a one-year amortization period to comply. He gave an overview of the importance of white light in a crime situation versus high pressure sodium that has been color balanced. M. Cowles asked if it is true that under this ordinance you can have a 9001umen unshielded light fixture in residential areas. G. Kretschmer said that is true. M. Cowles said that he pulled out a 65 watt flood light and it was rated at 6401umens. So that kind of a flood light, and more, would s: \p lan\pb-items\m inutes\03 0403 m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 11 be permitted to be directed straight out into tha night, or to a neighbor's property or the street? G. Kretschmer said that is a potential situation. E. Jones said that the memo states that the city has used amortization in the past for billboards and wood shake roofs and asked what the timeframe was for amortization in those cases. G. Kretschmer said that for wood shake roofs it is a 20-year period, and the original billboard ordinance was for a 10-year period. S. Mole asked if it would be possible to shorten the amortization. D. Gehr responded that it could be a shorter period if an amortization study was completed. The proposed amortization schedule is based on the Internal Revenue Service amortization schedule for fixtures to real property. If the Board wanted to do an amortization study, it would consist of someone going out to figure out how much all of this work would cost and then determining what the reasonable life of the structure would be. Either the city would allow people to use up the life, or pay them compensation. A challenge to the proposed amortization schedule would be very defensible. T. Krueger asked about the concern that this ordinance creates more wsts. D. Gehr said that is more related to the policy matter than the amortization schedule. The amortization schedule does not address putting up the new structures, but allowing people to recuperate their investment in the old. J. Spitzer said that David Keith addressed seven points that he thought ought to be changed. Has staff heard some of these points before? G. Kretschmer said that it really is a philosophical discussion. There are lighting designers and consultants that agree with Mr. Keith and there are as many that agree with the white light philosophy recommended here. He suggested allowing the use of more high pressure sodium, dropping the uniformity requirement or increasing the ratio which is another subjective requirement. When it is dropped, sometimes it is necessary to raise the iilumination level. The IES is a recommended standard, and this ordinance exceeds the standards. T. Krueger said that the next point on Mr. Keith's list was concern about ]imits at property lines, especially where sidewalks and streets might intersect. G. Kretschmer responded that lighting in commercial zones is to a 2 to 4 foot candle standard and is within acceptable uniformity ratios between the street and driveway at a.2 foot candle standard at the property line. The .2 foot candle follows most illumination averages for right of ways. T. Krueger asked why the maximum levels are set where they are in the ordinance. G. Kretschmer said that the maximum foot candle standards were selected because they can be achieved by metal halide lights at relatively moderate lumen ratings that are the most efficient for those types of light. The most efficient metal halide sources fall between about 50 and 150 watts, comparable to high pressure sodium lights. The metal halide lights can create more sky glow beyond 150 watts. He said that Nancy Clanton talked wiYh an expert at IESNA abouY s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\030403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page l2 some of these issues, and the expert did no[ agree with Mr. Keith's comments and provided ample scientific data to support his views. T. Krueger asked about the height limits. G. Kretschmer said the height limits aze higher than what are allowed today. Currently, as an accessory structure, the highest pole can be 20 feet. The revised ordinance allows for 25-35 feet, depending on the size of the parking lot. T. Krueger asked whether flat lenses reduce glare. G. Kretschmer said there is strong opinion that they do. T. Krueger asked about exempting schools and nonprofits, as well as the city. G. Kretschmer said that the ordinance does not allow exemptions. It does indicate that regulations are not applicable to the right of way. School districts, the university and many of the federal properties are exempt from city regulations. B. Cole added that staff visited actual sites on the ground at night to look at varying light levels, uniformity ratios and so on, with the chief of police. Some minor modifications were incorporated as a result of the field trip and the police chiefls comments. M. Cowles asked if the amortization period could be shorter and permit any applicant who has not fully depreciated their fixtures over that period of time to get an administrative exception. There are some lights arotutd town that are a danger because of their glare. It seems that fifteen years is a long time if the fixture has been fully depreciated. D. Gehr said that there may be an administrative issue associated with doing that, but it could be done. B. Cole said that staff has made quite a few changes in amortization throughout this process. There may be a way to address amortization differently for different types of lighting situations. D. Gehr added that there are a variety of thresholds included in the amortization schedule. T. Krueger said that all new construction will be subject to the ordinance as soon as it is adopted, and significant portions of redevelopment will have to comply as well. A. O'Hashi said that it is important to know what the cost to the city is going to be and how enfo~ cement will work in fifteen years. D. Gehr said that staff will have to figure it out, just like the~. oad to figure out sign amortization and will have to figure out wood shake shingles in 2014. B. Cole said that the cost of upgrading city facilities is of great concern, and this data is being collected and analyzed. A. O'Hashi said that this ordinance gets us where we want to be and asked if there was a way to encourage people to comply. B. Cole said that staff has discussed compliance incentives such as a recommended list of luminaries and other educational materials. He said that staff hopes to help people deal with the less expensive things first and work on the more expensive items later. A. O'Hashi asked if there is a way to work with vendors to get them to carry the recommended hardware. G. Kretschmer said that what is recommended in the ordinance is readily available. There is flexibility for residential tites. s: \plan\pb-item s\minutes\030403min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 , Page 13 B. Pommer said that her biggest concern is the cost. We need to see if another approach would be less expensive. The mention of the ad hoc committee is amactive. There may need to be further philosophical discussion before the ordinance is adopted. B. Cole said that there were also people who did not have issues with the ordinance. While there was not a formal ad hoc committee, staff did seek as much input as possible. M. Cowles asked about single family exemptions. Lighting luminaries are not as available for residential customers as for commercial customers. The state of New Mexico adopted a dark sky ordinance and this seems to be the trend. Illumination levels are not just because of growth, but because we can light the nighttime. Several citizens have commented that this light disconnects people from the natural night. A better approach for singie family houses might be for the city to maintain a list of approved fixtures and lighting arrangements for people to choose from. If people want to deviate, they have to show a lighting plan that shows that they have complied. The goal is for people to have a safe environment in their neighborhoods at night. He asked if there were something that would not exempt residential, but would help people with their redesign. G. Kretschmer said that the original ordinance was very restrictive. This was relaxed based on the amount of comment received and thinking about enfarcement issues. M. Cowles said that it has been suggested that there be a provision where citizens can go to municipa] court and leave the staff out of it. D. Gehr said there is a private right of enforcement in the code. MOTION: J. Spitzer made a motion to recommend that City Council approve the revisions to the outdoor lighting regulations of Section 9-33-17, B.R.C. 1981, as proposed in Attachment C of the staff inemorandum dated April 3, 2003 (preparation date March 27, 2003). S. Mole seconded the motion. T. Krueger asked if the ordinance applies to all exterior lighting, but a lighting plan is only required if submitting for a building permit. Single family dwellings would be exempted from submitting a lighting plan. He asked that this language be made clearer. D. Gehr said that the only purpose for section 4 on page 14, attachment C is to provide some direction to staff as to when to start to check building permits for compliance with the new code standards. T. Krueger clarified that the exemption is in the ordinance, T. Krueger also mentioned concern of the 300 watt bulb on a flag pole pointed straight up into the sky. G. Kretschmer said the limitation is 35001umens which equates to approximately a 50 watt metal halide bulb or about a 42 watt compact florescent with an electric base. T. Krueger also asked about the change in wording about being able to see the stars against a dark sky as opposed to something more specific. Why have we backed off of the Milky Way visibility standard? M. Cowles offered the following friendly amendments to change the wording on page 3, paragraph 4 to read: "Provide an environmentally sensitive nighttime environment that includes s:\plan\pb-item s~mi nutes\03 0403 m i n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Apri13, 2003 Page 14 the ability to view the stars against a dark sky, so that people can see the Milky Way within residential and other appropriate areas of the city." J. Spitzer and S. Mole accepted the friendly amendment. G. Kretschmer provided clarification to general questions as the Board identified the following issues for further discussion. Curfew B. Cole said that this was an issue raised by the police chief from a safety standpoint. E. Jones expressed her desire to have a curfew exemption for certain areas, if there is a curfew at all. M. Cowles said that with a long amortization period, motion sensors could be installed to accommodate the curfew. B. Cole said that this might be reasonable and cost efficient in some cases, but often it would not be easy to adapt motion sensors into an existing lighting system. G. Kretschmer said that most high pressure sodium systems and metal halide systems do not work on a motion sensor because of how long it takes them to come on. S. Mole stated that he is very sensitive to the security issue and that his experience from the lighting tour is that when people are not experiencing glaze, they have a much better view of what is immediately around them. Once the correct fixtures are in place, low light levels should not be an issue. This ordinance allows far more light than the Aspen ordinance. M. Cowles recommended returning to the original curfew proposal and that the Board should think carefully about whether any unprotected light bulbs should be allowed. B. Pommer said that the Board needs to determine what it is trying to do and not get too detailed in this discussion. The discussion is going toward addressing porch lights, and there is more to this issue. T. Krueger asked whether there is support for the curfew as was proposed in the last iteration of the ordinance. J. Spitzer said that he would like to hear more about what Police Chief Beckner says about the language. B. Cole responded that he had significant concern about the way the curfew was drafted in the original ordinance. During a field trip, it was obvious that the police would not have been able to see in certain areas where they typically do observation. E. Jones asked if Chief Beckner did not like the curfew as drafted or if he would not support any curfew at all. B. Cole said that the city was uncomfortable with a curfew. M. Cowles said that the curfew makes sense to get to the dark skies, but he is persuaded that it is best to leave the curfew out based on Chief Beckner's recommendations. s:\plan\pb-item s\minutes\03 0403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page I S T. Krueger recommended taking the curfew issue off the table tonight and returning to the Board at a later date. S. Mole asked if there would be support for a dimming rather than a curfew. G. Kretschmer said that if it was originally engineered into the system, dimming is possible; however, dimming is very difficult to do with existing light systems. He stated that he did not know what the potential cost increase would be. M. Cowles said that he would like to be cautious about going in the direction of dimmers without looking at tlie economic implications. T. Krueger said that this item will be tabled and if the Board wants to address it again, it wi(1 come back as part of the work program for Phase II Land Use Regulations. Flagp,ole T. Krueger said that the issue is whether 3500 lumens, which is the equivalent of a 50 watt metal halide bulb or a 500 watt incandescent bulb, is appropriate. M. Cowtes said that in the military, flags come down after dark. Lighting them at night is not the direction the Board wants Yo go with the lighting ordinance. J. Spitzer asked how many illuminated flag poles there are in the city and of those illuminated poles, how important are they to the business community. G. Kretschmer said that the city has one at every public facility, and they are all illuminated. D. Gehr said that illumination is out of respect for the flag. If you fly the flag at night, you light it. A. O'Hashi said that there must be a way to light a flag without 3500 lumens. G. Kretschmer said that Bill Boyes from Facilities and Asset Management did a lot of research on this and found a limited variety of pole mounted lights--they were very expensive and did not have retrofit kits. The recommendation is based on the minimum recommended lighting for the poles. S. Mole said that shortly after World War II Congress passed a voluntary, non-binding set of standards about how to treat the flag. He suggested that the Board leave this alone. The Board decided to leave the flag pole section as is. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved (6- 1, with B. Pommer opposed) a motion to continue Item C2 to April 17, 2003. Architectural Li ng tina M. Cowles proposed that the Board strike A from page 7 and leave the rest of the section as is, which still allows the building to be illuminated, but eliminates uplighting. Uplighting is directly contrary to what the Board is trying to do in this ordinance. B. Cole said that originally staff had proposed eliminating architectural uplighting, but in further conversation with property managers and others, it was discussed that there are sometimes very broad overhangs and subtle uplighting. s:\plan\pb-items\m inutes\030403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 , Page 16 Shielding wuuld really be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. 'i'he kind of architectural uplighting that is simply flood lights washing up over the side of the building with no shielding would not be allowed in this ordinance. S. Mole suggested changing the wording to say that the fixtures must be contained fully within the overhang. D. Gehr responded that he thinks the language address the issue because one of the requirements is that it is confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs or overhangs. T. Krueger said that one basic issue is whether uplighting is necessary in any situation, even if it is blocked off. M. Cowles said that his reading is that it would permit a SOs style cone shaped fixture on the ground twelve feet out from the building pointing back at it. G. Kretschmer responded that it cannot be put on the ground; uplighting must be mounted on the wall. E. Jones asked if no light would make it to the night sky because the overhang would prevent it. B. Cole said that the light source cannot be seen from the sky. G. Kretschmer explained that all of the restrictions must be met. S. Mole said that he is not concerned with only looking directly down on the building and suggested striking item A completely. J. Spitzer said that he would like to leave A because staff has given this code as much flexibility to property owners and the business community as possible. In terms of upward versus downward lighting, there may be a maintenance issue. Because of the different windows and things on buildings, there will be a different effect from uplighting than from downlightin~. Property flexibility is very important here. E. Jones said that she would be okay with this if it is clear that no light is going to the night sky, but staff interpretation is hard to understand. If it is the intent that any upward lighting has to be flush with the building, it should be added to A. B. Cole responded that A states that "all upward aimed light shall be fully confined from projecting from within to the sky by eaves, roofs and overhangs. E. Jones said that her question is in response to the spotlight idea. If the intention is to require the spotlight to be flush with the wall, this is not drafted quite right. A. O'Hashi stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation. B. 'Pommer said that she agreed with J. Spitzer's recommendation. S. Mole asked the Board members their interpretation of the word "lighting" in this issue. T. Krueger said that because of the section it is in, this refers to the lighting that is on the fapade of the building. B. Pommer asked if the section addresses something different because it says "all lighting." D. Gehr confirmed that it was an inconsistency in the language and will be changed to read "all building faqade lighting." A. O'Hashi said that he thinks this meets the intent of what they are trying to do. Any kind of tr: - ardly aimed light is going to have some light projecting into the sky, but this meets the if~,: ±rt. s:\p I an\pb-items\m inutes\030403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 17 T. Krueger asked if there is a restriction on the number of fixtures. G. Kretschmer responded that staff has not proposed a restriction on the number and said that he does not have a proposai for what might be a minimum spacing requirement. The Board discussed various language options for this item and various meanings such as "direct beam illumination." Maximum Allowable Lieht Levels - Car Lots at 15 foot candles M. Cowles said that we understood staff's point about other parking areas. The darkest areas the Board found under the canopy of the station at Elder and Broadway were eight foot candles. That seemed to be adequate illumination without intruding too much off site. He suggested going back to ten foot candles where 15 is proposed. S. Mole agreed. G. Kretschmer clarified that the 15 foot candle number is for car dealerships. M. Cowles proposed 10 under service station canopies as well. G. Kretschmer said that current IESNA standards are 10 foot candles average. J. Spitzer said that he is very sympathetic to lower lighting, but bringing the levels down too much would create a situation where between the canopies, levels would be below IESNA standards. The recommended levels are to get an average lighting level that is closer to the requirement. Unshielded Fixtures M, Cowles said that he raised this issue because staff removed the design standard that set a maximum line of sight illumination at 1/10°i of a foot candle at the property line. He stated his concern that this will permit bright single light bulbs or light bulbs that are just behind a sheet of glass and a fixture on a front porch or in a side yard to be used. G. Kretschmer said that any light on the property will be subject to the maximum light trespass requirement. Any light fixture, regardless of the lumen rating, is subject to light trespass. If it is measurable at the property line, you are in violation of light trespass requirement. There is not going to be any appreciable measurement if a 60 watt light bulb is used 50 feet away. M. Cowles said that he has experienced that a 75 watt light bulb at about 100 or I50 yards throws a distinct shadow against a white wall. This is a problem that needs to be taken care of. S. Mole reminded the Board of the tour. This ordinance is trying to do two things, deal with light into the night sky and the glaze issue. A. O'Hashi expressed his concern about the prevention of glare and light trespass. It is nearly impossible to keep glare down and prevent light trespass when the goal is to light your yard or sidewalk. B. Colc responded that staff tried to come up with a set of standards that are not so finely crafted that in residential areas, it drives everybody crazy trying to comply with them. M. Cowles said that he feels 900 lumens for unshielded light is too much. S. Mole asked if the definition of shielded can be changed to have fixtures tucked up under the eave or roof of the s:\plan\pb-items\m inutes\03 0403 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 18 porch so that it could not be seen from the street or from above. J. Spitzer said that a lot of home owners want two fixtures, one on either side of the door. Customer demand is too great. B. Pommer reminded the Board that the issue is not new residential construction--it is existing situations. A. O'Hashi asked if there is different wording - such as minimize glare and light trespass, rather than eliminate. E. Jones suggested requiring new shielded fixtures on new development or redevelopment. She asked what kind of inconvenience and cost this change would create for most people. M. Cowles said people are not necessarily being asked to change their fixtures. The Board decided to keep the staff recommendation for this item. Amortization T. Krueger said that there are two proposals; one is to reduce the amortization schedule to something less than 15 years as proposed and allow an exemption to that if someone has not fully amortized their fixture. The other is to try,to get rid of the worst forms of light pollution even faster than that. M. Cowles said that people would have until May 1, 2005 to replace. unshielded mercury vapor fixtures and asked if unshielded wall packs could be included. D. Gehr responded that staff would need to define the lighting source and study what a reasonable amortization period would be for the specific fixtures. G. Kretschmer said that if wall packs are included, it is a huge enforcement issue; hundreds of fixtures versus dozens of fixtures. M. Cowles suggested that mercury vapor lamps applies in residential and all other zoning districts and suggested adding wall packs and requiring that they be shielded within this same period of time. A. O'Hashi said that he is sympathetic to the issue, but is looking at the practical enforcement issues. He asked if there is a way to do this incrementally. D. Gehr said that shielding is not a solution for wall packs. The Board decided to move the issue of wall packs to the list for Phase II Land Use Regulation changes. A. O'Hashi said that he agrees with shortening the amortization period and including market approach with incentives to help with voluntary compliance. He also agrees with illumination standards and would like to talk more about the flag issue. M. Cowles suggested that the amortization period be reduced to eight years with the city manager being able to grant an exception where an applicant has not fully depreciated the fixtures within the eight-year period. B. Pommer asked if there would be any other criteria for variation and whether there is evidence to show that the fixture has not been used up. s: \p lan\pb-items\m inutes\030403 min ~ CityofBoulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 , Page 19 D. Gehr said he thought it would be possible to have M. Cowles' proposal apply generally, except for poles. B. Cole said that if there are different standards the pole can remain, but the fixture has to be changed. The Board discussed how someone could show that their fixture has not fully depreciated. Cost Studv A. O'Hashi said that he would like to know if there is a way to encourage people to comply earlier. It may even be an implementation strategy that would be beyond this ordinance. He suggested a partnership or collaboration with local suppliers. M. Cowles agreed and said that there should be a Board recommendation to City Council that that this happen. E. Jones said this makes perfect sense. She suggested a hardship exemption. B. Pommer had concerns about the cost impacts to people, especially if the amortization schedule is changed. There were indications from experts that there is not a clear idea what the costs will be. She asked that staff look further into this issue. Davtime Li~hting T. Krueger said that several people spoke about concerns related to daytime lighting. B. Cole said that staff has not seen this as an issue. The Board determined that daytime lighting is not an issue for this ordinance. Sinale Familv Residence M. Cowles said that this was represented at Iris Hollow on the Board tour. There were some lights in cans that worked great and then some direct light bulbs. He asked why new single family homes should be exempt from showing that they comply with the ordinance. B. Cole said new residential developments go through the site review process rather than individual building permits. He suggested that compliance with these standards become a condition of approval in site review. The Board agreed that new residential construction should be required to comply with the lighting ordinance. B. Pommer suggested that the Board pass this direction on to staff and ask that staff draft language to include this requirement, but that the Board needs to be able to looK at it objectively because this could stop the ordinance in its tracks. E. Jones said that the Board believes in the concept and is looking to staff to let the Board know if this is not workable. B. Cole said that there would need to be new requirements for new and redeveloping residential properties. It is conceptually simple to draft that regulation, but for additional information about what is on the market and talk with residential home builders, that is a significant additional work effort that is not in the work program at the moment. B. Cole recommended putting this s:\plan\pb-items\m inutes\030403 m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes April 3, 2003 Page 20 tooic on the Phase II list. B. Pommer reminded the Board that while the intent is simple, the public process part has to take place. M. Cowles offered the following friendly amendments to change the wording in 9-33-17: (a)(4) to read "Provide an environmentally sensitive nighttime environment that includes the ability to view the Milky Way." (b)(3) to read "Replacement of Unshielded Mercury Vapor Light Fixtares. Existing unshielded mercury vapor light fixtures shall be removed or replaced with a light fixture that meets the requirements of this section by May l, 2005." (b)(5) first sentence to read "Amortization: All exterior lighting fixtures which do not conform to the following standards shall be brought into conformance no la,.,~ than eight years frorim the date of adoption of this ordinance with the City Manager being able to grant an exception for an applicant who has not fully depreciated the fixtures within the eight year period." (d)(4)(A) to read °Upward aimed building faqade lighting shall not exceed 900 lumens. All upward aimed light shall be fully mounted as flush to the wall as possible and be fully confined from projecting into the sky by eaves, roofs or overhangs." (d)(4)(C) to read "The source of the light shall not be visible anywhere except on the surface of the wall being illuminated." J. Spitzer and S. Mole accepted the friendly amendments. However, the Board did not vote on this motion. They continued this item to May 15, 2003 and asked staff to present a revised ordinance that incorporates the above amendments. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) a morion to continue this item until May 15, 20~3. ~ 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY M. Cowles asked about the supplemental information for the residential and industrial overlay zone. G. Kretschmer said there were some optional sites that were considered, and this will be c~~:plained at another meeting. The overview map is a recommendation of sites staff believes would be appropriate for residential uses in industrial zones by only addressing the proposed conditional use criteria. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 1120 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\m inutes\030403 m in